Slashdot Mirror
Why Phone Stores Should Stockpile Replacements
My phone got wet. It wasn't a warranty issue, since it was my fault. (Well, it would be more accurate to say that it wasn't the manufacturer's fault. I was going through the Ballard Locks with some friends in a river raft that we were paddling. But taking my phone on the raft wasn't the stupid part; I had it sealed in a zippable plastic bag. But on the way back through the locks, some jerks in a rental yacht pulled up to the raft, started chatting, and then suddenly urged us to get on board and get our raft into the yacht very urgently, making me think it was an emergency and causing me to lose track of my phone. As I dug the soaked phone out of my pocket once we were all on board the yacht, we later determined that the "emergency" was that the jerks were trying to get the three women in bikinis on board their boat.)
So I gave the T-Mobile store rep an abbreviated version of this story the next day, and he said that after I paid the $90 deductible under the phone insurance policy, I could get a new phone mailed out to me by overnight mail. As much as the phone itself sucked, I really wanted a working one again, so since I could see the same model in boxes on the wall, I asked why I couldn't just take one of those, since the insurance policy entitled me to a replacement. He said it was because to save costs, their insurance provider sometimes sent out refurbished phones as replacements under the insurance policy, which are worth less because they can't be sold new.
Well, that's fair. Presumably it really does keep costs down to use refurbished phones as replacements, and while not every cost savings gets passed on to the consumer, it doesn't hurt. Then I asked if I could "borrow" one of the in-store models by buying it and using it until the replacement phone arrived the next day, then returning the borrowed phone to the store under their 14-day return policy? No, he said, at least not without paying the $50 re-stocking fee. (In hindsight I probably should have paid that for the ability to start using my phone again, but it's one of those fees that grates on you not because you can't afford it, but because you're disgusted at having to pay it.)
But, that's still fair. Restocking a phone costs money too. But -- but -- why don't they just keep a stockpile of phones in a cardboard box in the back -- the crummy "refurbished" ones that can't be sold new -- and use those to satisfy customers' insurance claims? Then customers who file a claim could walk out of the store with a replacement phone, the same model they'd always been used to, and the insurance company could mail the replacement phone to the store, to replace the one that was handed out to the customer.
They would only have to have one replacement model of each phone that had been sold recently enough to consumers to still be covered under a replacement insurance plan. That still probably wouldn't take up more space than what you could fit into a medium cardboard box. Perhaps more popular models of phones could have multiple stand-by replacement models in the store, since it would be more likely for two people to walk in on the same day looking for replacements for that phone model -- and once the replacement phones get mailed out by the insurance company, the store's supply of replacements gets replenished anyway. If the store is really unlucky, and four people walk in on the same day making warranty claims on a phone model, when the store's policy was to only carry three of that model in stock, there would be no reason to penalize the store, as long as they made a reasonable effort to have enough replacement phones in stock to handle the normal rate of insurance claims.
For that matter, you wouldn't even have to have the replacement phones all in stock at the same store. One store could serve as the "replacement supplier" for all of that carrier's retail stores in, say, a 20-minute driving radius. So when I make my warranty claim at the initial store, they can tell me to drive 20 minutes and pick up a new phone. That would have been much preferable to waiting another day.
Also, if the customer's replacement phone gets given to me instantly and then the replacement from the insurance provider gets mailed to the store to replenish the one they just gave out, there's no particular reason it would have to be sent out by overnight mail. That would bring down the cost of handling the claim, which might be passed on to the consumer in the form of a lower insurance deductible or lower overall fees (again with the optimism, but lowering costs means the savings will be passed on to somebody, even if only to the shareholders of the cell phone carrier). The more of that phone model they have in stock at the store, the more slowly and cheaply the replacement phone can be mailed out, since you only need to make sure that the store's supply of that model never hits zero. So the optimal solution would involve weighing the cost of storing two or three of a particular phone (versus just one) versus the cost savings of the slower mailing method.
This is a simple (and very first-world) problem and a modest fix, but the larger point is that there's no reason to think that the free market necessarily arrives at the most cost-effective solution in situations like this. Companies compete on cost-effectiveness in arenas that are highly visible to the consumer and likely to factor into their purchasing decisions -- the highest-megapixel camera for the lowest price, for example -- but few customers at purchase time are likely to ask about the insurance claim process (and probably very few people ask how quickly a phone gets replaced when a user files a claim). As such, we're lucky that the insurance provider sends out the replacement phone by overnight mail at all, when they could presumably mail it out by 3- or 4-day mail instead, and no free market forces or government truth-in-labeling enforcers would probably penalize them for that. But an in-store-replacement rule (or a replacement-from-some-store-within-a-20-minute-drive rule) would benefit customers more and, with the savings on the mailing speed for the replacements, possibly cost the carrier less. (Even if it did cost the carrier more to carry a small box of in-store replacements in the back room, and even if that cost did get passed on to customers, I'd consider myself ahead on the deal if it meant I'd never be without a replacement phone for more than a day.)
... legislate away my every inconvenience.
Did someone just break their phone???
You're in favor of the federal government enacting legislation that would determine how a company runs? We need less government oversight, not more... especially for something as ridiculous as this. If you can't be without your phone overnight, you have some issues. If it's that important.. YOU keep a spare on hand using YOUR money.
This article is foolish. I could write the same diatribe for any object under warranty.
Car dealerships should be required to keep an inventory for every model on-hand in case my car needs to go in for warranty service for an extended period.
Home Depot should be required to keep a loaner inventory for every power tool in case I need to ship mine away for warranty service
Best Buy should be required to keep a a loaner inventory for every refrigerator model...
etc etc...
You should count yourself lucky that most cell shops offer you a free loaner phone AT ALL, because they are under no obligation to, and some do not without a fee.
Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts
This is pretty much always bad advice.
What's wrong with you people? Can't you take care of your own fucking problems without crying to dad..., er, I mean, government for help???
Get something through your thick skulls: regulation is ALWAYS bad!! But you'll only get once some regulation affects you in a negative way.
It troubles me that you were without your phone for a few days. Really... well... NOT. What kind of tripe is this on Slashdot? This is perhaps one of the most whinging pathetic things I've heard in a while. It reminds me of a two-year-old crying over spilt milk.
I'm pretty sure Apple stores have replacement stock on hand. Anytime I've had to get my phone replaced under AppleCare+, I've been able to make my appointment, walk in, and walk out with a (presumably refurbed) new phone from a box in the back. Heck, if the replacement didn't work in the store, they had even more replacements ready to go.
This is probably the result of Apple being able to afford to keep that kind of inventory on hand in their stores. Plus, Apple doesn't exactly have a lot of models of phones. A carrier like T-Mobile or Verizon would have to keep a frankly excessive number of phones on hand for any immediate warranty replacements. (How many Samsung phones are on the market at any given time?)
On the gripping hand, it's not like smartphones are exactly *large* and would take up a lot of space in the backroom so...
I think it'd be a nice customer service perk (and part of the reason I stick with Apple) but not something that needs to be legislated. Do carriers not keep cheap loaners in stock that you can borrow (with a credit card deposit) until your actual replacement shows up?
This is like the worst article I have seen on /. in a while.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Why, slashdot, why, do you let this guy post this nonsense? It almost makes me miss John Katz.
Ok, time for an off-topic side story. Feel free to mod me off-topic, but I can't resist.
My kids (6 years old) came home with a book list of books they were supposed to get from the library and read. One of them was about some Dogs from some farm. So my wife comes home with the book from the library. As I start reading it, I notice the author's name: John Katz. That can't be the same John Katz can it? Turns out, yes. John Katz, after moving on from posting drivel on slashdot, is now writing children's books. And my school district was making my children read them. There's no escape!
So I'm pretty sure, once slashdot finally gets the message that nobody here cares a lick about what Bennett Hassleton thinks, he'll turn up somewhere else equally miserable.
Really, overnight is fine for most people. However, for the price of an additional phone and some surcharge, I am sure your phone shop will be willing to stockpile one phone just for you. Requiring them to have all insured phones in stock would just drive up insurance prices, even for people that do not need this.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't even read this guy's posts anymore. I come here for the (mostly deserved) snide comments.
Again, someone remind me why this guy keeps popping on ./
No, it's never going to happen. It costs money to carry inventory. Stores are not warehouses.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Geez. What a pussy.
Proverbs 21:19
... you are not in the retail phone store business with a ton of inventory in the back room stocking every conceivable device that's not supposed to need replacement.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Have a spare!
Personally I can bear the cost of not having a phone for a day. Forcing shops to keep dozens of phones in stock on the offchance that someone absolutely needs one the same day seems a highly inefficient way of doing things.
Perhaps instead the submitter should have seen if there was a way to pay the difference in order to get a brand new phone
this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those familiar with either financial accounting or microeconomics, and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.
To house that inventory (inventory being an element of working capital, along with accounts receivable and payables etc) of phones costs money, and do so means that you have to take into account the cost of that money. If you need to borrow it, then you have to pay interest on the balance. If you have the extra cash, then you need to take into account the opportunity cost of using your cash for inventory instead of, say, marketing or hiring another salesperson.
to use a numbers example, lets say you are the store owner, and you determine you need 50 phones on hand at any given time. you need to pay $50 upfront to house each phone, or cough up 50 x 50 = $2500 upfront. When a customer comes in for a replacement, you give them one out of your inventory, and then need to order a replacement to top-you-off back to a standing inventory of 50 phones. The give-out/re-topping off is a net money neutral transaction (at least theoretically), but as you will always have to top off your inventory, you will never see your $2500 again unless you liquidate, which as long as you're a going concern, you won't do. Add onto that the fact that holding that inventory exposes you to obscolesence risks, and so your inventory, even in a liquidation scenario, might only be worth, say $1000 to you. So you have capital risk in addition to the costs of funding the inventory. Now multiply that $2500 by the however many thousands of retail shops you care to (and/or increase the number of phones needed in inventory) and you start talking real money.
Now if the manufacturer wants to finance the whole shebang instead of the retail store owner, then great. but SOMEONE has to finance it. and it's much easier (and cheaper) to make the customer wait and only order them as-needed.
How about legislation to make it illegal for companies to sell insurance on phone for $10-$12 a month and then charge a $90 deductible on a phone that is now several months old and could be bought on the internet for $50?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
... Then customers who have insurance protection on their phones could get the damaged phones replaced instantly...
Not instantly, first you have to get to the phone store.
.
But nit-picking aside, this is an incredibly stupid idea.
... But taking my phone on the raft wasn't the stupid part;
That's debatable. If the phone is as critical to your life as you say it is, taking the only phone you have on a raft is stupid, ziplock or not. As you found out, stuff happens, even to things in ziplock bags.
My thought: why didn't he keep his phone in the waterproof bag as long as he was on the water? He got out of the frippin' raft, to go to another boat, and his phone wasn't sealed up?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
... is that he could have got a replacement immediately, subject to a $50 restocking fee, which he agrees is reasonable.
But what he wants is regulation which allows him to do the same thing, more or less, but not subject to the restocking fee. So he wants RETAILERS to take some responsibility of INSURERS, but without being paid to do it.
Why was this even posted? Who gives a shit about this guy's shit? This is the kind of crap you want to see (or ideally don't even want to see) on Facebook. Maybe his friends care. But on Slashdot? Really?
Really? They should be forced to incur the cost of excess inventory because you can't live with out your phone.
He can't do that, he would lose money. Which is why nobody does it.
The first thing I though of was that there is no way for one particular store to know that you are that person's store and therefore have to stock the phone that they have insured. So you will have to have at least one of every phone in existence that is currently under an insurance plan. Secondly, you have no way of knowing how many people are going to experience an insurance issue on a given day and come in to get a replacement phone. There are actuarials which could give averages, but the store would need to cover for the worst case, not the average.
Far cheaper for the consumer would be, instead of paying the monthly insurance and ridiculous deductible, just buy a second phone and leave it in the box.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You can't legislate good customer service. Besides, the inventory overhead would be unreasonable.
But, this is T-Mobile he's talking about. They use SIM cards. The store could just program a SIM card, slip it in a random unit someone traded in last month, and let him walk out of the store at least being able to make phone calls. Heck, they might not even care about getting the loaner unit back, depending on its resale value. It's the sort of courtesy that encourages repeat patronage.
This is clearly an opinion piece. A quick scan makes it look even more anecdotal and presumptuous than I had expected. It's not April 1st, and this is terrible.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
Can we pass a regulation requiring them to give me a pony, too? I've always wanted a pony, too. Perhaps the government can help!
Seriously dude?
1) You're lucky enough to go on a rafting trip with 3 chicks hot enough to induce a passing boat to try and pick them up
2) You're clueless enough to fall for their "emergency" shtick, and careless enough to misplace your phone in the process
3) You're lucky enough to have insurance on your phone, allowing you to replace it VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL for $90
And you're complaining about having to wait the 1-2 days for the replacement?
Seriously. Journey back in time with me to the not so distant past. Say, 1993, when I was probably about the same age you are now.
Here's your phone.
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8097/nokia1011.jpg
No insurance. No overnight replacement. Enjoy.
This is a horrible article.
First, you shouldn't have brought your phone on the raft in the first place. Leave it at home or in your car or whatever. Second, Are you that addicted to your device that you need to have a replacement instantly? It's a phone, not your life. Third, if it is that important to you, maybe you should purchase a second phone, for the next time you decide to take your phone for a swim and stop blaming companies for not backing up your stupidity.
The *real* problem goes far deeper, my friend. If the cellular companies in America didn't standardize on selling the handsets instead of the service, none of this would even matter anymore!
In a more sane scenario, you'd simply buy a used cellphone off Amazon or eBay, or off a buddy, or a classified ad in the local newspaper ... whatever. It wouldn't matter what make or model you selected. You'd bring it in and say, "I'd like to put THIS phone on my plan, please?" and they'd do it. (Heck, maybe they'd even charge you $10 or $15 for their time to have to go in the computer and update the information. Fair enough.) Phones wouldn't be "carrier subsidized" and marketed to death as a reason you should go with Verizon, AT&T or whoever.... and "carrier locking" phones to only work on their network wouldn't exist either.
Sure, you *might* still opt to buy insurance for your particular cellphone? But chances are, if things worked like I described above -- it wouldn't make a lot of sense except for the most expensive of handsets. (Despite the millions of cellphones produced every year, the current system makes almost half of them unusable with your current phone carrier and contract, right off the bat, because you need GSM or CDMA depending on who you're using. Then you've got all the carrier locked phones out there that you can't use, thanks to an artificial restriction placed on them. And with some of the "second tier" carriers like Cricket Wireless - they opted to use at least one special frequency band that isn't supported on many phones at all, other than the ones they provide you with.)
the larger point is that there's no reason to think that the free market necessarily arrives at the most cost-effective solution in situations like this. Companies compete on cost-effectiveness in arenas that are highly visible to the consumer and likely to factor into their purchasing decisions
That is an important point; one that is worthwhile to highlight regularly. There are many who believe that the theoretical ideal free market can be closely approximated by a laissez-faire real world market. It cannot, and until we deeply internalize that reality as a society, it is good to continue repeating the lesson.
As such, we're lucky that the insurance provider sends out the replacement phone by overnight mail at all, when they could presumably mail it out by 3- or 4-day mail instead, and no free market forces or government truth-in-labeling enforcers would probably penalize them for that.
While I tend to agree with your previous point that lack of perfect information about insurance coverage implementation at time of purchase leads to a distortion favoring poor insurance service, I think your 3- or 4-day hypothesis proves that the free market is, in fact, having a regulatory effect on cell phone coverage. And it doesn't really surprise me, either -- every time I've had a bad cell phone replacement experience, I have told everyone I know that boned me. That kind of negative publicity does have an effect, as evidenced by the overnight service.
But an in-store-replacement rule (or a replacement-from-some-store-within-a-20-minute-drive rule) would benefit customers more and, with the savings on the mailing speed for the replacements, possibly cost the carrier less. (Even if it did cost the carrier more to carry a small box of in-store replacements in the back room
You may be right, but you may be underestimating the inventory size involved and the cost of keeping so many phones in stock. If it is common for phones to remain under coverage for two years (probably an underestimate), then each store or region would have to stock every phone that is currently for sale and all those that have been out of distribution for up to two years. I live in Phoenix, figure it takes 15 regions to cover the Valley of The Sun, four providers, 20 current models and another 20 out-of-distribution. That's 2400 cell phones, or something like a quarter million dollars. Multiply that by something like 100 to cover the US (rough population multiplier), and we're up to $25m, or an annual cost of $2.5m at 10% cost of capital.
Now, how about the other side of the equation: What we'd be saving is 24 hours of cell-phone-lessness, maybe once every couple years per cell-reliant person. Call that 50m people (140m taxpayers, 3/4ths have little cost to being without a phone for a day, and some non-taxpayers have a significant cost). At once every two years, that's 25m days of high-value cell-phone-lessness per year. $2.5m annual cost over 25m saved high-value days equals $0.10 per saved day of high value cell-phone-lessness.
(obviously the math is more complicated, but there are additional factors in both directions)
Hmm, not what I was expecting. The back-of-the-envelope numbers actually make your proposal look like it is within the limits of credibility, and worthy of further investigation.
I was expecting to find your idea to be impractically expensive, but that's the great thing about science; casting doubt on my preconception is just as good as confirming it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
And I mean the crowd, not the admins.
For voicing all the thoughts that immediately jumped into my mind as soon as I saw this on the front page.
Bleh.
This really made it to the main page of /.
But that aside, thinking a ziplock bag would protect your phone is ridculous (even if you had double wrapped it). That's why they make very nice (and not that exensive) drylok bags that are meant for that sort of thing.
And what it comes down to is that it's absurd for them to keep that much inventory on-hand. And lets be honest, getting a replacement electronic device from warranty/insurance issue would take far longer. The phone industry is far ahead of the rest of the tech world.
Because everything needs an automotive analogy.... "Car dealers should keep one of every part in stock for every car that's currently under warranty"
This would be completely unrealistic for a car dealership to do, so instead they stock only the parts used most frequently, and then just rely on the manufacturer to have an appropriate stock at regional/national warehouses. It's been this way for years, and yes it's an inconvenience for the day or two (or ten) that it takes the parts to come in, but it is what it is.
Perhaps the better plan, again taking a lesson from dealerships, would be to have "loaner" phones on hand to let you borrow while you wait for a "new" phone to come in. Of course, dealers seem to never have enough loaner cars, and I'm sure the phones would be the same thing - they'd also need to address the concern of getting the phones back (perhaps have warranty phones shipped to local store, and only given out upon receipt of the loaner?).
I have stopped buying insurance with my cell phone plan, because it's effectively useless. Sure, it covers most of the kind of damage that normally leaves me phoneless, but to file a claim I have to send in my phone and be without it for up to two weeks. Regardless how much the store clerk agrees with me, they still have to send it in to procure a replacement for me, so the result is the same: No phone. As i am always on the move because of my job, and said job needs me to be available via phone, this is a no-go for me. I have been using a phone with a cracked screen for ages, since it still works fairly well and the lead-time on a replacement is simply too big, despite the model (Samsung galaxy Note 2) is relatively common among local consumers.
Tip for scandinavian customers: Elkjøp does in fact keep replacement for all consumer-electronics to replace waranty failures as well as insurance covered damage. I buy most of my damage-prone electronics from them, as the insurance is dirt cheap, and it covers ALL damage short of the phone disintegrating out of existence (My 2 year old kid had a tantrum once and threw a laptop into the floor on purpose. Covered!)
I think it's stupid to insure a phone. You insure stuff whose loss or destruction will bring you financial ruin. Not every other stuff.
Dry bag baby... learn it, use it!
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Don't insure things you can afford to replace. The house always wins. Insurance is for car crashes, cancer, house fires... stuff I can't afford to cover.
You're in favor of the federal government enacting legislation that would determine how a company runs? We need less government oversight, not more... especially for something as ridiculous as this. If you can't be without your phone overnight, you have some issues. If it's that important.. YOU keep a spare on hand using YOUR money.
It's as simple as getting a $20 Jenny basic phone from Amazon, and possibly a $5 SIM adapter so your micro/nano sim can fit. I think it's a great insurance policy, and you can take the basic phone with you overseas to use with random sims (of course, with T-Mobile, you can still use your phone data-free,sms-free, and calls without usurious charges overseas too, but having a backup there is useful too).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Also, where did he get the idea that a ziploc bag is watertight? That's just stupid.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
First and foremost... a bunch of strangers on a yacht are yelling at you to get on board for no explicable reason and you just do it??? Your ass just got kidnapped!
Second: Your story is unclear... are you suggesting that there were three women in bikinis on your river raft? If you speak the way you write I find that claim dubious.
Third: Some guys in a rental yacht start yelling something about getting aboard their boat and your situational awareness tells you it's an emergency and you should get in the water???? IN A LOCK OF ALL PLACES??? Depending on the direction the lock was operating, you could have been pulled under and drown. Your fucking lucky to be alive! Remind me to never let you captain anything that floats ever!
Fourth: Suggesting that every cell phone store keep an equivalent unit on hand would have a cumulative cost in the millions, and 90% of those devices would be wasted... they would sit on the shelf until such time as the user (rarely) needs a replacement, or until the user decides to upgrade... at which point the store now has an obsolete phone on the shelf that can't be sold for profit, and is now required to buy a brand new phone to stick on the shelf to act as "back up" for the new phone just purchased. Your logic is incomprehensible. It is apparent that you have no business sense whatsoever and that you make a living only because you are surrounded by exceedingly tolerant and generous people.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Seriously. You've got complaints, and Apple has solutions. If you think that this sort of service is essential enough to legislate, you should just buy from the company that does this thing you want. Does it outweigh the advantages of your Android phone? You've got an LG Optimus that you've complained about before, so the thing you seem to be concerned about is how much this phone costs.
I don't understand why you don't seem to get that your user experience is correlated with what you're willing to pay. You can get a NICE Android phone that avoids the problems you talked about in your other article, or you could get an iPhone. If having a quick turnover on a replacement phone is ALSO important to you, you're pretty much looking at Apple to fulfil your needs.
You can get the things you want by putting a little more money on the table. You don't seem to object to the notion that some of these things are costs to the store and you even say that you may have been willing to pay the $50 restocking fee in retrospect. Just gather up your pennies, pay the fees up front, and stop complaining about service that's lacking when a viable alternative exists.
But if price really is your main consideration, just buy a Moto E or G, phones that don't cost much that review really well (if I recall, you can get a G for less than your insurance claim + restocking fee that you were talking about--off contract) and be done with it. Honestly.
Could we please get a tag to filter out this narcissistic drivel from the ever-obnoxious Bennet?
"sometimes sent out refurbished phones"
not sometimes ALWAYS...
I was one of the first to get an HTC M8 and the first to suffer the failures of the device. 5 days after I first got the phone I had to send it in for replacement (lens cracking and scratching on camera that is still rampant) and I got back a refurb.
They will never ever send you a brand new phone unless they have no other choice. They will send you someone elses borked item first.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hi, I'm an idiot and broke my computer but the store sold me insurance but why don't they stock replacement computers right at the store for me to take home the same day so I'm not inconvenienced by missing even one single episode of my favorite show, Bennett Being Boring?
Here is a list of additional, serious problems legislators should address ASAP:
http://first-world-problems.co...
I'm old. I remember the times before cell phones. Sometimes, when you moved, you were without phone service for a whole week or more. And you had to tell everyone who mattered what your new phone number was.
And still society managed to survive.
Somehow, without constant phone reception, the country put men on the moon.
But let's make a law now so companies will be forced to stock replacement phones because OVERNIGHT is too slow.
Worse. It's that child whinging because he cannot have the toy he really really wants RIGHT NOW! Tomorrow is too late!
Is a customer service issue. Not a legislative one. This issue does not have any governmental or societal benefit and certainly not enough to offset the costs of passing or enforcing such legislation. Please, please, please go get a clue about who's responsible for this kind of thing (hint: The COMPANY SELLING YOU A PRODUCT OR SERVICE). Even the cost of reading that customer service fever dream wasn't worth it.
Like everybody else says, this article is stupid. BUT THERE'S MORE!
T-Mobile sells a number of Android phones for less than the deductible of $90. $50 Alcatels, for instance, or the Nokia Windowphone. The LG L90 is a half-decent phone, better than the LG F3 he broke, for $100. Or he could even use the money to get a better phone. People use their cell phones a lot, presumably Bennett Hasselton is gainfully employed, it would have been worth the $1/day.
Why would a person who is pinching pennies by getting a crappy phone also spend money on a high-deductible insurance policy, on a phone that probably cost him $200 new in the first place?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I can't even believe this stupid rant made it onto /. You can't wait ONE WHOLE DAY for your replacement phone? That, and he didn't even think through the logistics of his 'plan':
They would only have to have one replacement model of each phone that had been sold recently enough to consumers to still be covered under a replacement insurance plan. That still probably wouldn't take up more space than what you could fit into a medium cardboard box
I don't think you realize how many stores there are. Instead of keeping a single large box of replacement phones at one distribution center, you would need to ship out at least one phone to every single area that you cover. The number of phones you have to have stocked at locations could easily exceed what you have at the single location. And to top it all off, you now have to keep track of all these phones, and keep shipping out newer models to hundreds of locations all the time.
And your story is made up, since you contradicted yourself within the same paragraph:
I had it sealed in a zippable plastic bag. .... As I dug the soaked phone out of my pocket once we were all on board the yacht,..
So, was your phone in a sealed bag or in your pocket unsealed? You can't seem to make up your mind.
... the jerks were trying to get the three women in bikinis on board their boat.
You post to /. and expect us to believe you were hanging out with three hot women in bikinis? Nice try ;-)
From TFA:
There needs to be a law to make those plastic bags really, REALLY watertight so people who are NOT being stupid by putting their phone in one and then going on a raft ...
Were you really going to answer the phone while you were on the raft? No that's not stupid. (sarcasm)
And you did not ask "why" because ... ?
Is there some reason /. keeps posting bullshit like this?
He made a series of stupid decisions about his 1st-world-toy and now he wants the government to make it better for him.
While I prefer new to refurb, and was once infuriated where my brand new (35 day old phone) which broke was replaced by a refurb, the refurbs are actually really good. These phones have been re-serviced and look new. When you get your refurb, other than knowing it's a refurb, there is no difference. They replace the body, and any broken components. It's like a new phone, except they can't claim it as new. Yes it's frustrating to wait a day to get the phone (possibly more if over weekend and holiday), but without increasing costs (dramatically) they will not keep in stock every single phone they keep. First off, it could be a 2 year old phone that is no longer produced. Do you think they will keep 100 of those laying around? Multiply that by every phone the store has sold and you can see where it would become a logistics nightmare, and really expensive. Meaning, your costs would go up. The phone companies are not stupid - if they could keep the phones stocked and not overnight you a phone (which definitely costs money) they would do so.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
1) Phone warranties must be equivalent to celluar contract. In other words, 2 year phone contract. Phone must have a 2 year warranty. 80% of the problems just got solved.
2) Accidental Damage policies, if phone is insured against accidental damage, then device is replaced OR xxx amount is applied toward a replacement or refurb model.
I agree with others. I cannot recall reading any story on Slashdot that made less sense.
Additionally I have never understood the point of cell phone insurance. The phones do not cost that much. Just insure it yourself. If you lose it or damage it, buy another one. In the end, you'll come out ahead. Insurance companies understand this, so should you. Only stupid people pay for phone insurance.
Also, if you cannot live without a phone for a day or so, then keep an old phone around for emergencies. If you do not have one, get one off of Craiglist or eBay. Plenty of really decent options for $50, for a backup phone. With T-Mobile and AT&T, you can swap out the SIM and you're ready to go. With Verizon and Sprint, you have to go a web page to register your new phone. Done.
Lastly, I know other people have said it, but it is worth repeating. Don't be so damn stupid!
> Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts
Don't! It's a trap! A long, drawn out, whiny, 6,959-word-long trap!
Guys, wake up: Soulskill and timothy are sitting on a mountain of Dice money and they have nothing better to do than troll Slashdot's millions of loyal readers, day in, day out. It's the only explanation that I can think of.
Well, it's either that, or they're a combination of retarded enough to think drivel like this is newsworthy and they don't give enough of a shit about their audience to bother to read the comments -- or if they do, they absolutely REFUSE to take them into account *cough*BETA*cough* -- but that thought is just way too depressing. I'd rather think they're malicious douchebags, than retards with keys to the kingdom. *sigh*
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Regardless of B.H.'s whinging there is, however, a point he comes really close to but misses: Companies offering warranties should be forced by regulation to explain in clear, easy-to-understand language what (exactly) their replacement policy covers, and how it's covered. Consider it truth in advertising.
For example, require more language like "A replacement refurbished unit will be shipped from our warehouse to your home via UPS ground within 3 business days, with your total cost being $90." and less language like "EXPERIENCE the CONVENIENCE of NEVER HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR PHONE AGAIN. Any conceivable situation* (except those covered on page 19) in which you experience loss of phone functionality * (see qualifying conditions, page 99), we will IMMEDIATELY * (see page 99) send you a new* (to you) phone ABSOLUTELY FREE* (see page 105, deductibles for qualifying models and markets)"
Regardless of whether people are entitled goobers or not, most extended-service-warranties these days seem to try to hide all the actual explanations in vague words or small print, and the people at the counters at phone stores are usually only barely more informed than the people asking the questions.
Rather than shelling out whatever you paid for the insurance policy, put the same amount in a bank account. Put whatever monthly premium you would have paid into a bank account. Do this for every phone you upgrade. Given the depreciation rate of consumer electronics, you will likely hit the point where the amount you will need to pay for a replacement of the same model (if it exists at all) is less than the amount of money in your bank account. Furthermore, since you likely don't kill every phone you own, money should accumulate in this account over time to the point you could buy an entirely new phone for full price, drop it down the sewer when you walk out of the store, and not blink an eye because you already have the money to cover a replacement.
FWIW this entire story reads like one first world problem after another. While boating for fun with girls in bikinis, you get picked up by a yacht and your phone gets wet. Puhleeze.
By myself, it'd make little sense to insure a phone, but I have kids. And kids drop things. I've taken advantage of AppleCare's $69 replacement fee several times.
For most people, it's an inconvenience, not a problem. If it's an essential life-or-death thing or loss of your phone will cost you hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, you should take appropriate steps to ensure continuation of service.
Let's force phone stores to stock billions of dollars worth of phones they're not allowed to sell so people don't have to go a day without their phone.
I'm sure that's not going to cost a shitload.
Despite the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the retailers, it's the insurance companies.
Typically the phone is in a warehouse within 50 miles of your location.
While I oppose forcing companies to offer onsite replacements. I would say that there might be some point to encouraging companies to offer that as a feature. Now, that will likely only be viable on popular models. Then probably only in given areas. After all, a remote store in the middle of nowhere isn't going to be economical if it has to keep every replacement. However, in major cities there shouldn't be a problem and again... it would be voluntary.
Call it something besides insurance and give it a precise legal term. Something that can only mean that. So if a company advertises something with that term, they are obligated to offer the meaning of that term indifferent to the fine print.
Again... voluntary. No need to put a gun against people's heads over every little thing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Bennett Haselton to leave us /.ers alone, so we don't have to see his useless crap.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Why do progressives feel that more regulation solves every problem or inconvenience? As if the attitudes of businesses towards their customers can be mandated from the omnipotent government.
The real solution to this problem is heavy competition. Phone stores that treat their customers better win out.
Who says Bennett Haselton is a progressive? From what I've seen, he's a semi-literate, narcissistic, moron who couldn't formulate reasonable argument to save his life. The real solution is that there is no problem. Bennett Haselton is just whining about how he doesn't like the terms of the insurance contract he signed. End of story. Anything else is just you trying to shoehorn his moronic drivel into your ideological pigeonhole. Get a grip.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I have insurance, USD 2.50 (two dollars 50cents) per month and then a deductible of USD50 for the replacement phone (for a Galaxy S5) . While they are getting the replacement ready I have a loaner of the same model for a week or so (I get the loaner the same day), all data transferred / backed up between changes if I want.
Pre-conditions for the price-demand curve??? There are only two: Monopoly and Duopoly. Internet providers almost always fall under these conditions... that's why they are regulated. Pre-conditions of the price-demand curve for cell phone insurance is a straw-man argument.
You cite Comcast's underhanded deception of their customers as evidence? I fail to see any parallel between Comcast and your situation with your handset.
There are DOZENS of carriers, and in most cases, you don't NEED a carrier to get a replacement handset. My local online classified system has hundreds of devices available, and I could have one in my hot little hand in 30 minutes if I wanted. You have stacked so many fallacies on top of each other that it's difficult for you to see the plainness of the situation: It is not a huge financial burden to self-insure your device... just buy a second one and you can switch devices in a matter of minutes. If you don't want to do that, then buy one on the open market. This solution is probably cheaper than perpetually paying the insurance premium to your carrier. If you buy the insurance package from the phone provider, you are bound by those terms. I currently don't buy insurance on my phone, but I have in the past... and when I did, the provider gave me a pamphlet that stated all the terms of the insurance policy. If you bought an insurance policy for your phone without understanding the terms of coverage and remediation, who's fault is that? If their terms weren't sufficient (can't deliver a replacement fast enough) then go somewhere else.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for a citation, but I'm pretty sure you could find SOME company that would give you a premium insurance plan that would replace your phone as fast as you want, but I imagine the cost of such a policy would be greater than just buying two devices up front.
The best I can do is distill your argument down to this: You are unhappy with the terms of service on your phone replacement plan. You project your own ignorance of the terms of your insurance contract onto others by making this unfounded statement: "most users have no idea when walk out of the store with a new phone, whether the store would give them a loaner phone(sic)." You possibly STILL don't understand that the cellular carrier who sold you the insurance policy, did so as a proxy, and that the company who insures your phone is most likely a 3rd party (citation: every insurance policy I have purchased for a mobile phone was through a 3rd party insurer, even though the transaction took place at the cellular carrier's sales floor). You hold the cellular carrier responsible for your dissatisfaction with an insurance contract to which the cellular carrier is not a party.
Have I summed that up correctly?
My advice to you is this: Be a better consumer. Understand the terms of a contract you enter into before signing or paying, and live by those terms. Understand that mitigating risk does happen at the societal level, but it does so FOR the society, not the individual. I you want to mitigate your individual risk, take action yourself, don't rely on others to mitigate your personal risk. And finally, my most fervent advice to you is this: Improve your situational awareness. When guys in a rental yacht pull up next to your inflatable dinghy and start chatting you up in an attempt to commandeer your bikini clad women... do not be fooled. Keep calm and row on.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Never give up a working phone when you get a new one.
Read above and now you know why.
A visit to the phone store can activate the old device perhaps
with the old SIM card...
I use my old phones to WiFi stream music and stuff into
my home. Bluetooth to the audio world for music.
Chromecast for other stuff...
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
...you could just enjoy life for a day and do without a phone. I never owned a smartphone and the 20$ prepaid feature phone (although, it does have FM and games!) is sitting in the kitchen junk drawer most of the time. Honestly, you can go 24 hours without your damn phone. Further, you can also go rafting without your phone. Which call are you going to take while paddling like a mad man? Yes, I know, there is the way to and from and the mandatory visit to a local bar after returning...but even there you can do things like, well, talk to people 1:1 without playing around with your phone or checking messages every five minutes. Believe me, you are not that important to anyone that you have to be reachable 24x7, nobody is.