Seattle Rex vs. Apple: The Verdict Is In
[Via Seattle Rex]
A few years ago, Apple sold me a $4,000 computer with a defective graphics chip/logic board. The defective part was the Nvidia 8600M GT GPU, and when it was discovered that the machine was defective, Apple refused to take it back and issue me a refund. Instead, they promised to replace the 8600M GT boards when they failed, up to 4 years from the date of purchase. Three years later, the board failed, and predictably, Apple refused to replace it. Instead, they used the fact that the machine wouldn’t boot (due to the failed logic board) to deny the repair. Not only that, but in addition, they tried to charge me a hefty sum of money to have it replaced, knowing full well that Nvidia pays for the full repair cost.
Interesting case. A defective graphics card causes a Mac laptop to completely fail. Instead of replacing the graphics card, Apple lets it go to court. Then supplies TWO lawyers along with legal help via cell phone and text.
The plaintiff actually tries arbitration but Apple doe snot accept any of his offers.
Then the two lawyers look like idiots in court and seem surprised that the plaintiff actually knows what he is talking about. They try to argue by press release and the plaintiff shuts them down.
Then there is this:
At one point, the judge asked Apple how much it would have cost them to have simply replaced my logic board when I had taken it in, and one of the Apple guys said “Oh, it wouldn’t have cost us anything, Nvidia foots the bill for each board we replace.”
The judge’s face almost hit the floor as he shot me a quizzical look, to which I just shrugged. I knew that he, and everyone else in the courtroom was thinking the same thing:
If Apple could have replaced my logic board at no cost to themselves, then why in the hell did they drag this out for so long, and why did they send two people to court to try and make sure that I got absolutely nothing? Friends, this is a question I have been asking myself for three months, and it is a question that I do not have the answer to.
The costs to Apple to prevent fixing the computer seem so way out of proportion to the cost of the fix – a fix that would have cost them little or nothing.
Is it simply a case of a large company following some procedure without any real insight into balancing the costs? Is there something even deeper going on here?
All I can think of is that they had a problem that should have resulted in the recall of all such laptops but did not want to pay the expense as it was Nvidia’s fault.
Their number crunchers said it would be cheaper to lose a few penny ante cases like this than to pay for a full recall.
It certainly seems strange, especially given Apple’s reputation for high-powered lawyers.
And losing cases like this does not do Apple’s brand any good at all.