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

[adbjupe]

I have doubts about Steve Jobs ethics for quite a while now.

[jnala]

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".)

I guarantee you that Apple is not as a matter of policy refusing to work on machines that have been used in smoking households. 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. Nor would it bother me.

See the comments on Consumerist for some examples of just how badly smoke can fuck up a computer.

[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

[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

[evwhore]

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