...and it's gone again
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Kit on 27 Sep 2006 06:12 In article <4nuv19Fc0ddiU2(a)individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > That's right - my Powerbook 12" was stolen, and the MacBook Pro was an > insurance-provided replacement for it. Presumably the insurance company didn't give you cash but paid for the MBP themselves? If the insurance company paid for the MBP then you will almost certainly have to go through your insurers to get cash back instead of just a replacement. There are a few reasons for this - e.g. the insurers would be VAT registered and you as a private customer would not be, so the VAT bookkeeping would get messed up. Also, because of the possibility of money-laundering companies would now not usually refund to one person money paid to them by another person. Kit
From: Chris Ridd on 27 Sep 2006 08:48 On 2006-09-27 11:04:14 +0100, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) said: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> No, Ian is evidence. Not statistically significant evidence, >> certainly. > > I think you just don't quite understand how the word "evidence" works. Ian (well, his MBP) is circumstantial evidence that <insert failure mode here>? > This is what this is all about: chat-room speculation, and the sound of > a thousand weblogs all linking at once; and the next thing you know is > that "everybody knows". Still, I guess it's more harmless than deciding > that the strange woman at the edge of the village is practising > witchcraft or that a few dozen parents are into satanic ritual abuse of > children. Instead of burning them at the stake, perhaps we could just strap them to a couple of laptops. Cheers, Chris
From: Tim Auton on 27 Sep 2006 08:59 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: [Failing laptops] > I'd also like to point out that to a manufacturer of laptops it is > economically far more sensible to send out eg ten replacement hard > drives over the lifetime of an over-warm laptop, than it is to recall > the laptop and replace it with a model that is designed better. If you only factor in the cost of replacements, couriers, technicians and customer service staff you might come in under the cost (to Apple) of a MacBook Pro, though I doubt you'd come in under the cost of a MacBook. Fortunately most companies are more capable at economics than you seem to be, so they also factor in things like lost future sales and the fact that they would be forced (by lawsuits or consumer protection laws) to refund the entire purchase price of a significant proportion of those machines - after they've spent a few hundred quid failing to fix them. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong and show me any similarly priced piece of consumer electronics where a manufacturer has chosen to make ten repairs to each unit rather than make a recall. To make it a fair comparison to Apple, make it a company which has a history of offering free repairs for design defects long after the normal warranty has expired. Tim
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 27 Sep 2006 09:17 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:59:51 +0100, Tim Auton <tim.auton(a)uton.borg.invalid> wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >[Failing laptops] >> I'd also like to point out that to a manufacturer of laptops it is >> economically far more sensible to send out eg ten replacement hard >> drives over the lifetime of an over-warm laptop, than it is to recall >> the laptop and replace it with a model that is designed better. > >If you only factor in the cost of replacements, couriers, technicians >and customer service staff you might come in under the cost (to Apple) >of a MacBook Pro, though I doubt you'd come in under the cost of a >MacBook. That would be pretty close, yes. My "ten" was carefully chosen to be an upper limit on viable replacement rather than the average that you may have taken it to be. Apologies if that interrupts the flow of the rest of your post. Cheers - Jaimie -- WWRD? RWRTFM.
From: D.M. Procida on 27 Sep 2006 09:20
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> No, Ian is evidence. Not statistically significant evidence, > >> certainly. > > > > I think you just don't quite understand how the word "evidence" works. > > Ian (well, his MBP) is circumstantial evidence that <insert failure mode > here>? Argh. You're doing this on purpose to torment me, aren't you? Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is not direct, which is to say it is most evidence. There is no reason why it should not be as strong as direct evidence. Ian's experiences are data. They might form part of a body of evidence about failure modes, if a lot more similar data can be collected. Until then, they are not evidence of anything except that Ian hasn't had much luck so far. Daniele |