Apple Voiding Smokers' Warranties?

[evwhore]

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/147253/Apple-Voiding-Smokers-Warranties

Mr2001 writes: "Consumerist reports that Apple is refusing to work on computers that have been used in smoking households. 'The Apple store called and

Comments

[evwhore]

As usual for supposedly aggrieved smokers, they are claiming an issue of discrimination when the actual issue is behavior. (The canonical example being "they kicked us out because we are smokers" vs "we kicked them out because they were smoking in here".)

Wow. Substitute "homosexual" and "homosexual behavior" into that paragraph and see how it sounds. I mean, yeah, it's not perfectly parallel to smoking in line, say (i.e. kicking a gay couple out for a PDA *is* discrimination unless they also kick out straight couples for PDA) but it still sounds ugly, and the homosexual/homosexual behavior argument *is* used by phobes.

I guarantee you that Apple is not as a matter of policy refusing to work on machines that have been used in smoking households.

It seems to me if it were that simple, then their PR/media people could easily just say "We don't as a matter of policy yada yada yada."

However, it would not surprise me if in individual cases of computers coated in especially thick layers of toxic gunk as a result of constant exposure to smoke, it were considered a case of environmental damage and techs refused to work on it and highers-up refused to make them do so.

Sorry, that's weak. Everyone knows people smoke. It can hardly be surprising that some significant fraction of Apple owners are smokers, and that they smoke in locations such as their homes wherein their computers happen to be located. Apple can therefore reasonably be expected to anticipate that second-hand smoke will enter their computers. It's not like people are putting their iMacs inside BBQ smokers and expecting them to work afterwards.

Wouldn't this be like car companies saying *after the fact* that if you live near a beach then that voids your car warranty because sand and salt water vapor are corrosive environmental hazards to the paint/body?

Nor would it bother me.

If it were layers of toxic gunk, then sure, I agree. And they could say that. Until they do, I don't see why you're so fanatically defending Apple though. I hate smoking too, but I find your comments kinda troubling.

[jnala]

Substitute "homosexual" and "homosexual behavior" into that paragraph and see how it sounds. I mean, yeah, it's not perfectly parallel to smoking in line, say

It's not parallel in the least, and the comparison is offensive. "You can be addicted to nicotine, as long as you don't consume it while you're here in a manner that releases noxious fumes into the air around you." "You can be gay, as long as you don't demonstrate any attraction to members of the same sex while you're here." You really think there's any valid similarity between these two arguments?

It seems to me if it were that simple, then their PR/media people could easily just say "We don't as a matter of policy yada yada yada."

If it weren't that simple, we'd be hearing about a lot more than two incidents. We'd be hearing about hundreds.

Inferring anything from the behavior of Apple's PR department is dubious, they're not the quickest bunch.

I don't see why you're so fanatically defending Apple though.

I'm not fanatically defending Apple. I'm fanatically attacking smokers. Get it right.

(Apple service is notoriously inconsistent, with many examples of sterling service, and more than a few examples of absurdly awful service. There are reasons why I've never bought AppleCare.)

[evwhore]

- I specifically stated up front that it was not parallel in the smoking in line case.

- Yes, I do think there's a valid similarity. You haven't offered a reason why you think it isn't, you've merely asserted that it isn't and called it offensive, which isn't a reason. I think saying "X does not discriminate against smokers, it merely discriminates against people who display smoking behaviors in certain circumstances" is exactly paralle if you substitute gay for smoker. It's lame -- such situations *do* discriminate against smokers, just like in parallel cases they discriminate against gays. *** NOTE *** I think it is ok to discriminate against smokers in cases where I don't think it would be ok to discriminate against gays. Not all discrimination is invidious.

- Sorry, if it's so simple, it's still simple enough for Apple PR to say "these are exceptional cases." If it's as simple as *you* think, their failure to explain it thus is incredibly tone deaf.

- I can't help but notice you skipped over the car/beach analogy.

- "I'm not fanatically defending Apple. I'm fanatically attacking smokers. Get it right." Well, ok then :-) But as you are so sure it's the behavior, and not the people who are being discriminated against, perhaps you should make clear whether you are attacking smoking BEHAVIOR or the actual human beings who engage in that behavior, yes, to the detriment of themselves and those around them.

[jnala]

Suppose I run a restaurant and I have a rule that no one is allowed to puke on the carpet or punch other patrons. Am I discriminating against drinkers?

[evwhore]

No. Not all drinkers behave that way. All smokers do smoke though.

[jnala]

Not all smokers smoke in public enclosed spaces.

[evwhore]

I have not, at any point during this conversation, objected to restricting smoking in public places, so could you please get off that fixation? I am making a different point.

[jnala]

You said there was a similarity between

a) "we don't discriminate against smokers, we just don't let them smoke in here"
b) "we don't discriminate against gay people, we just don't let them act gay in here"

where (b) is clearly fallacious/objectionable and the status of (a) is one of the things we're arguing over. I don't think the two are similar. I then offered up

c) "we don't discriminate against drinkers, we just don't let them puke on the carpet"

which is clearly unobjectionable, and which I'd argue is similar to (a).

You objected that the two are not comparable because not all drinkers puke on the carpet, whereas all smokers smoke. I don't think that objection is valid, because while it's true that not all drinkers puke on the carpet, it's also true that not all smokers smoke in public indoor areas.

You seem to want to argue that any prohibition of a behavior which is engaged in by some people but not others is discrimination against the people who engage in that behavior (but that's sometimes OK). I think that renders the concept of discrimination against a group practically meaningless. Hence my increasingly silly examples of "prohibiting puking on the carpet is discrimination against drinkers" and "prohibiting shooting out my lobby TV with a shotgun is discrimination against people who enjoy destroying electronics with longguns".

If, as a business owner, I see someone in line and tell him to get out, you dirty smoker, I saw you with a cigarette last week and I don't want your kind in here... that would be discrimination against smokers. If I see someone in line with a lit cigarette and tell them to stop spewing toxic fumes all over the place... that's self-defense. I don't think it's useful to conflate the two.

[evwhore]

As for your (a) and (b), *you* said "As usual for supposedly aggrieved smokers, they are claiming an issue of discrimination when the actual issue is behavior." This seems to imply that (a) and (b) are *never* similar.

I claim (a) can be partitioned into (a1) and (a2) where there are some (a1) in which the formulation is equally fallacious and objectionable towards smokers and (a2) where it isn't and smokers should just grow a pair and deal with it.

Can we agree on at least that? :-) Maybe not. Oh well.

[jnala]

Can we agree on at least that?

OK, I'll give you that. :)

[evwhore]

BTW, the difference between people destroying *other* people's electronics with long guns and smoking in your home is that smoking in your home doesn't generally affect other people or their possessions. A policy in which Apple said "we don't generally honor warranties of people who smoke near their computers even in their own homes" (and I concede it's far from clear that's what's going on) would be tantamount to Apple saying "you can't smoke in your home [if you want to own an Apple computer]." Which they're perfectly entitled to say, but it should be info known to both parties at the time of purchase. (If a computer's really contaminated, where even wearing a basic mask and gloves is insufficient, ok, I can see the argument there, but again, in that case I think they should say so up front in the warranty.)

[jnala]

I skipped over the car/beach analogy because it's attacking a warranty policy that I don't believe exists. Given the two possibilities, a) Apple systematically voids the warranties of any computer in a smoking household yet we've only heard from two aggrieved customers, and b) Apple has no such policy yet their PR department failed to respond to emails from Consumerist over a period of months, I know which I think is more likely. Far, far more likely.

[evwhore]

How about, Apple arbitrarily decides on a case by case basis whether they will accept a smoker's computer for service, so that people will have no idea?

[jnala]

How about, Apple arbitrarily decides on a case by case basis whether they will accept a smoker's computer for service, so that people will have no idea?

That also sounds a lot more likely than the "Apple's policy is to not honor warranties for smokers" hypothesis. And it's entirely consistent with my experience with Apple service.

[jnala]

The reason I called the comparison offensive is because of the implied extension:

"we kicked them out because they were smoking in here, endangering our patrons and employees"
"we kicked them out because they were acting all gay in here, ..."

The claim that homosexual behavior has harmful effects on others that people need to be protected from is offensive. Without that claim, the comparison between the two scenarios is nonsensical. Take your pick.

That said, it seems like pointless semantics to argue over whether, say, prohibiting shooting out the lobby TV with a shotgun is a form of acceptable discrimination (against the class of people who like to shoot electronics with longguns) or not a form of discrimination at all.

[evwhore]

The claim that homosexual behavior has harmful effects on others that people need to be protected from is offensive.

OK, I see why you found it offensive then, but I did not make that claim. Which leads to your next sentence...

Without that claim, the comparison between the two scenarios is nonsensical.

No it's not. All I'm establishing is whether these things discriminate against smokers. They do. I ALSO said not all discrimination is bad. Some of it is good. We force you to meet a minimum standard of vision before we give people a drivers license.

That said, it seems like pointless semantics to argue over whether

I don't think so at all. You said that smokers whining about discrimination aren't being discriminated against, it's their behavior. I don't think it's valid to say that. You may think that's a small thing, but as that same argument gets used by bigots to justify discrimination against gays as being non-discrimination, I think it important to realize that if it's specious there it's specious here.

You seem to have a need to frame this in a way that lets you say it isn't discrimination against smokers. All I'm saying is, get over that -- I am totally comfortable saying it IS discrimination against smokers, but that that discrimination is justified in some cases (e.g. public places where it may have detrimental effects on others), just like I think it is totally ok that we discriminate against blind people and don't let them drive, even though I don't think it would be ok to discriminate against blind people and not let them vote.

Now, to bring this back to the original point, is refusing to honor smokers' warranties, even if they generally service smokers' computers and only refuse to honor the warranties of ridiculously prolific smokers who have gunked up the insides of their computers, a justifiable form of discrimination? We presume the smoking is going on in their homes etc.

I still think it isn't [heh, got the sense of that wrong the first time]. If they want to say "excessive smoking is detrimental to computers and will void your warranty" then I have no problem if they say that up front. If they don't, then I think the beach/car analogy comes into play.