14 days is a reasonable... ... "NO fault" warranty period.
certainly enough time to try every function.*
What should be extended is
1}payback/damages for promised updates that never happen/aren't possible due to hardware/design defects/shortcommings and unsupportable marketing hype
2} less then advertized battery or product life under "normal" real world usage**
3} other "business model changes" functionallity blocking, credits toward ANY other device (even a competitors, of the same era)
* too many use the Warranty as a never ending series of test drives, which costs EVERYONE else.
** if they claim 14 hours of usage for 1000+ charges that is minimum. doesn't count not being able to jumpstart your car from it.
But you stand a much better chance of using the phone in all of the signal areas with 30 days vs. 14 days. 30 days is far more consumer friendly and I've had significant differences in dropped calls from one phone model to another. I've even had significant difference with the SAME phone. (I had to return my first iPhone 4 because it would constantly drop calls. The Apple store replaced it and the one I have now has been fine for over two years.)
There's always a reason for these things and what I'd like to see is their numbers. In other words, what problem is the dynamic duo trying to accomplish with the reduced window? Is there a huge difference between what they can do with a phone that's been used for 14 days vs. 30 days? Is there a huge drop in returns if they cut the window by 50%?
Regarding your claim that too many use the warranty period for a never ending series of test drives? Where did you get that information?
said by rradina:That's a warranty issue, not a "I don't like this device and/or my service" issue. Nobody is suggesting your warranty should only be 14 days. Indeed, I recently received a new (to me) Droid X, after the screen died on my two and a half year old one. Thank you extended warranty...
I had to return my first iPhone 4 because it would constantly drop calls. The Apple store replaced it and the one I have now has been fine for over two years.
said by rradina:They can't sell a returned phone as a new product, I'd imagine that they all go into the inventory of refurbished phones that are used to replace warranty returns. They'll get used eventually but it's obviously not as good as signing up a new customer or locking an existing one into a new contract. They lose money on a return, particularly if you bought the device from a human being who is paid a salary.
In other words, what problem is the dynamic duo trying to accomplish with the reduced window? Is there a huge difference between what they can do with a phone that's been used for 14 days vs. 30 days? Is there a huge drop in returns if they cut the window by 50%?
I'd tend to agree that 14 days should be enough to test drive all of the features on a new device. It may not be enough time to hit all of the areas you'd like signal in, but it ought to be enough time to hit the ones you care about the most, e.g., your drive to work and areas you frequent most often.
I know my iPhone issue was a warranty issue. At first I though it was just AT&T's network or because I had not received my free case (i.e. the iPhone 4 antenna issue). After I got my case and it still sucked, I returned it somewhere around the 60-90 day mark (it took a while to get the free case.) I should have removed the iPhone example because it apparently serves to confuse the point. I was simply providing an example of how call quality can even be different between phones of the same model.
I know a used phone, regardless of how used, should not be sold as new. I'm looking for FACTs regarding the difference between 14days and 30days. If there's no difference, there's no difference. If there's no difference then this isn't the reason they changed the policy.
said by rradina:Fact: A used phone is not worth nearly as much to the carrier as a new phone.
I'm looking for FACTs regarding the difference between 14days and 30days. If there's no difference, there's no difference. If there's no difference then this isn't the reason they changed the policy.
Fact: Returns cost them a new customer, or an extended contract for an existing customer, as well as the employee time (e.g., salary) that's required to process the return.
Conclusion: Anything they can do to reduce the rate of returns is beneficial, from their vantage point.
reply to tshirt
There is likely little difference value wise in the phone residual, other than you carried and scratched it for an extra 16 days.
However giving ONLY 14 days is less time for buyers remorse (an epidemic in the US) to set in, less time for you to see what other phones are released next month, less time to credit the salesmans comission (only to dock it next month).
You think 30 days is better, but why not 90, or 180?
legally you are entitled to NONE, at 14, it's a generous trial with some downside for them.
as far as knowing about people constantly "borrowing" and returning items just read all the posts here about people buying and returning modems and routers over and over trying to find the prefect combo, or look at the volume of "refurb'd" and open box specials at any phone/electronics or even hardware store including carriers own sites with an unlimited supply of slightly used phones, few of which recieved any repair.
either phones have an incredible high factory defect rate (they do, but not this high) or due to the high price per pound an extreme trial return rate.
reply to Crookshanks
*sigh* Those facts are both the same regardless of 14 days or 30 days.
My original post asked two questions:
Is there a huge difference between what they can do with a phone that's been used for 14 days vs. 30 days? Is there a huge drop in returns if they cut the window by 50%?
Do you know for a FACT that reducing the window reduces returns? Everyone who posted that 14 days is plenty to evaluate whether or not you like the phone infers that it won't reduce returns.
So, my original questions are still unanswered. Rather than conjecture, I was hoping someone close to AT&T or the industry might provide insight as to the underlying reasons. Just assuming that AT&T doing this because it might cause something else isn't what I want.
For all we know they might be doing this to more easily associate monthly sales results with returns thereby making it easier to compensate performance-based associates in a more timely manner. Oh so long ago I worked in IT for the insurance industry and the run out on medical claims was crazy. Doctors complained, hospitals complained and insurers complained. However, this is just more speculation so please don't reply to this or with more speculation. That's not what I want.