Apple Voiding Smokers' Warranties? 1078
Mr2001 writes "Consumerist reports that Apple is refusing to work on computers that have been used in smoking households. 'The Apple store called and informed me that due to the computer having been used in a house where there was smoking, [the warranty has been voided] and they refuse to work on the machine "due to health risks of second hand smoke,"' wrote one customer. Another said, 'When I asked for an explanation, she said [the owner of the iMac is] a smoker and it's contaminated with cigarette smoke, which they consider a bio-hazard! I checked my Applecare warranty and it says nothing about not honoring warranties if the owner is a smoker.' Apple claims that honoring the warranty would be an OSHA violation. (Remember when they claimed enabling 802.11n for free would be a Sarbanes-Oxley violation?)"
Wash it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wash it (Score:5, Funny)
Only if there's ashtrays in the dishwasher.
Re:Wash it (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe not, but it doesn't excuse not honoring the warranty.
I don't think anyone is demanding they work on it. They're just as welcome to replace the device.
Re:Wash it (Score:4, Informative)
Having done computer repairs for heavy smokers, I would void the warranty just for the damage it does to the electronics. There is nothing as disgusting as the inside of a smoker's computer. After a few months, the tar will have completely enveloped the heatsink, power supply, and every fan in the system. Sometimes it's so thick that the air cans can't blow it out. I've replaced a lot of fried motherboards because of this.
Re:Wash it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wash it (Score:5, Informative)
As a reformed heavy-smoker who also smoked in a room full of computers, I'll call your bull... er, bluff on this one. I generally take apart my computers once a year or so to blow out the dust and remove the cat fur that inevitably clogs the intakes. I've never had an issue with tar on heatsinks, nor premature failure of components. Some of my machines were in constant use for up to a decade before finally being retired.
Non-smokers whining about the smell of old tobacco is one thing, but when we resort to lies to "prove" a point, there is no argument.
Re:Wash it (Score:4, Insightful)
I call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
This is A-Grade bullshit. I have been a chain smoker for five years. You could probably tarmac a small freeway from all the crap that has fallen into my keyboard. But there is no tar whatsoever on my heatsinks or fans. I just cleaned them last week ( after five years ) and there is dust, yes, but no tar.
The most disgusting computer I ever saw was one kept in a screen-printing factory with a concrete floor. Grey dust 2mm thick over the whole motherboard. Can people refuse warranty service on computers because they don't like your carpet?
Take your anti-smoking FUD and stick it somewhere else.
Re:I call bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I fix PCs for a living, and you know when the owner is a smoker because you get this stuff inside it:
http://www.thecomputerwizard.biz/photos/smoke2a.jpg [thecomputerwizard.biz]
Brown tobacco residue everywhere. It's thick and sticky and difficult to brush away, unlike normal house dust. It also smells like an ashtray.
What worries me most is that the owner's lungs are probably like that too.
Even if in the agreement. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can this actually be legal? Smoking is ( currently at least ) legal, so how can they penalize a smoker?
Re:Even if in the agreement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Screwdrivers are legal too, but use one on your Apple and bang goes that warranty
Re:Even if in the agreement. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, if it's not in the agreement, you could argue breach of contract (or whatever the particular legal term would in this case) because they're trying to impose additional conditions on the warranty after it's already been purchased.
Not discriminatory against smokers (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say whether this new policy is in line with their warranty, but I don't see how anyone would make a case that it's discriminatory even where smokers are a protected class. They are targeting the smoke itself, not the smokers. If you're a smoker but you don't do it around your computer, or it just happens to be reasonably clean, you're going to be fine. If you don't smoke, but you like to store your computer in your chimney flue, they're still going to refuse to work on it.
On the other hand, smoke residue is hardly the most dangerous or disgusting thing anyone has had to deal with on the job, and using OSHA as an excuse seems pretty weak. If they just acknowledged that they're going to treat excessive smoke exposure the same way they would excessive heat or humidity, that would seem entirely reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's a choice, and you can legally penalize someone for doing something detrimental which they chose to do...
In many places, if you are interviewing someone for a job your not allowed to consider their ethnicity or gender (over which they obviously have no control), but if they smoke you can use that as your reason for choosing someone else.
I could use a computer in an environment where it gets no ventilation, and that would void the warranty if they could see evidence of how it was used... I can sm
Re:Legal vs... (Score:5, Insightful)
its because second-hand smoke is bad for the Apple workers
But there isn't any "second-hand smoke" actually in the computer. There's the residue that you get from smoke, but that's not actually smoke. It's not particularly harmful unless you breath in a big cloud of it, but that's true of any kind of dust. If you're poking about inside dusty equipment, you should be wearing appropriate PPE anyway.
Re:Legal vs... (Score:4, Insightful)
its because second-hand smoke is bad for the Apple workers
But there isn't any "second-hand smoke" actually in the computer. There's the residue that you get from smoke, but that's not actually smoke. It's not particularly harmful unless you breath in a big cloud of it, but that's true of any kind of dust. If you're poking about inside dusty equipment, you should be wearing appropriate PPE anyway.
Exactly. Tobacco smoke residue is less of a bio-hazard than the keyboard of any computer, which contain all kinds of pathogens from people touching it.
MOD parent down, uninformed (Score:5, Informative)
It may be more of a danger to children, but to dismiss an environment that is coated with poison dust as harmless without further study is absurd.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke [scientificamerican.com]
Re:MOD parent down, uninformed (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be more of a danger to children, but to dismiss an environment that is coated with poison dust as harmless without further study is absurd.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke [scientificamerican.com]
First, let's change the rhetoric to "chemicals" instead of the FUD "poison." Virtually the same chemicals exist in wood smoke that exist in cigarette smoke--unsurprising since they're both combustion byproducts of plant matter. If you want some pretty reliable numbers on amounts resulting from combustion, I refer you to the EPA's AP-42 for wood combustion (scroll down to Ch. 1.6). Pretty much every scary-sounding chemical in cigarette smoke is also in your friendly campfire. Dioxins, arsenic, mercury, lead, etc. [epa.gov] The difference is people actively breathe in the smoke from a cigarette, which leads me to...
Second, how a chemical enters your body and in what quantities is equally important. Just as you haven't died from your first exposure to a campfire, so too will you not die from incidental exposure to cigarette residue. Inhalation and injection are efficient ways to get chemicals into your body, but absorption through undamaged skin is pretty damn inefficient for most.
All this to say that "third hand smoke" is a FUD buzzword. It's nothing more than the microscopic particulate traces (i.e. ash) containing the same compounds you'd find from standing near a campfire. Back to the topic at hand--that incidental exposure to a surface stained by cigarette smoke is unlikely to cause anything other than personal discomfort as long as you wash your hand afterwards.
Re:MOD parent down, uninformed (Score:5, Insightful)
If smoking is as dangerous as they claim it is, people 50+ would be dying from lung problems and other smoking related problems in droves - but they're not.
In 100 smokers, 17 will die from lung cancer. In 100 non-smokers, 1 will die from lung cancer, often a second-hand smoke victim. About 87% of lung cancer in USA are caused directly by smoking.
Out of population 300 million in USA, about 11 million will die from lung cancer caused directly by smoking. That's with historically low percentage of smokers in USA, which is now about 22% on average. That's for lung cancer only, where smoking also is a major contributor to other illnesses among which heart attacks and strokes, the numbers of which probably make lung cancer deaths pale in comparison.
Do the media exaggerate? Compared to what? Swine flu has caused about 4000 deaths in USA and still we see panic-inducing coverage every day. That is exaggerating. Millions of people quietly dying from smoking caused problems is a hard number. The reason you believe people don't die "in droves" from smoking seems to be more a case of wilful ignorance on the subject.
Re:Even if in the agreement. (Score:5, Informative)
Then you end up with this gross yellow residue running all over the place.
Seriously - go up to a smokers' computer and wipe it down, and see what comes off. Or open one up on a humid day and feel how all the parts inside are sticky with tar residue.
Your insurance policy calls it "smoke damage" for a reason - smoke is not beneficial.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
They have an obligation to the customer under the terms of the warranty. They also have an obligation to their employees. They need to honor both, not pick and choose. If they really believe that opening the computer represents a health threat then they need to issue protective clothing and breathing apparatus to their employees. Simple as that. OSHA does not prohibit working with dangerous materials (manufacturing and maintaining computers DOES involve doing so), it just requires proper safety procedures be observed when doing so. The possibility of working with computers that have been exposed to cigarette smoke was not unknown or plausibly considered to be remote at the time when these warranties were issued.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Customers also have an obligation to themselves to not buy from companies with a history of fucking over customers for the stupidest of reasons.
No consumer is surprised when they buy a computer running Microsoft Windows, and two weeks later it's infested with malware. They make the purchase knowing that they're getting a sub-par operating system with poor security.
The same should go for anyone buying Apple products. When you buy an iPod, you should realize that you have no power to change the battery, for instance. When you buy one of their computers, you should realize that you'll probably get screwed on some stupid policy like this smoking-household one.
If you don't want to get fucked by Apple's policies, deal with a more responsible company.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a PC... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm a PC... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a Linux and I smoke weed in my own house, while insulting noobs on the Internet.
Re:I'm a PC... (Score:5, Funny)
If you're a PC and you're smoking, you need NOSMOKE.EXE [netfunny.com].
(never thought I'd willingly post that old joke, but it's topical, so...)
yes and no (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I can always tell when a computer I'm working on has a smoker for an owner. The smoke leaves a yellowish to brownish residue. Dust sticks to it. In the worst case I can recall seeing, cooling slots were blocked by congealed fuzzy crap.
It's nasty, and I can see it contributing to component failure in bad cases.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's nasty, and I can see it contributing to component failure in bad cases.
Straight off the obvious cause of failure is by blocking vents and jamming fans. I recently repaired a radio base station that had been used in a smoking environment (tucked away in the corner of a security control room). Despite the ban on smoking in the workplace coming into force several years ago, the sticky residue was still attracting huge amounts of dust, which was causing the radios (in particular the transmitter) to over
Re:yes and no (Score:5, Informative)
Well, third-hand smoke [nytimes.com] is considered by at least some docs to be a direct cancer risk.
The "biohazard" stuff is crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, third-hand smoke [nytimes.com] is considered by at least some docs to be a direct cancer risk.
The NYT doesn't say anything about peer reviews of the study though. Now it does list some of the substances that so called third-hand smoke contains but it doesn't mention what vehicle exhaust contains or the poisons that food is sprayed with. Nor does it say anything about the emissions [doe.gov] from the paper industry [edf.org].
Falcon
The solution is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The solution is... (Score:4, Funny)
Have you ever looked inside a smoker's computer? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh man up. I've repaired worse. That kind of damage can happen to any computer near the front door of your house.
Re:Have you ever looked inside a smoker's computer (Score:5, Funny)
You just don't want to see what happens to the computer near the back door.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Who the hell smokes indoors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the hell smokes indoors? That's fucked up.
Surgeon General's Warning (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work as a computer technician to pay my tuition.
Computers that had either failed or seized up due to nicotine/tar build up were impossible to clean, and nearly impossible to repair. The nasty build-up got literally everywhere, clogging heatsinks, coating voltage regulators, caps, expansion slots, and other devices that depend on air convection to stay cool. The only way to get these machines running stably again was usually massive part replacement.
If smoking doesn't constitute improper operation, it should. For all the people bitching out there, smoking has been demonstrated to cause premature failure to humans, particularly second-hand smoke which contains a Noah's Ark of nasty bacteria and pathogens. WHy is it such a surprise that it also kills sensitive electronic equipment?
I'm not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
They've also refused service on devices where their litmus indicator shows signs of turning pink (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9214797 [apple.com], http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/14/smart.phones.buggy/index.html [cnn.com], http://techgeist.net/2009/09/apple-iphone-abuse-detection-sensors-abusing-2/ [techgeist.net]). It sounds like they're still looking for more excuses not to honor their "warranty."
I won't be buying any more Apple products.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
This came about as a direct result of people falsely claiming against the warranty when there was known water exposure. All modern cell phones and their batteries have this feature as well, and there are absolutely times when the sensors (really just a system by which a striped ink pattern bleeds to stain the material when wet enough) have been triggered by humid weather, or condensation.
As for you not "buying any more Apple products", likely you weren't a customer before this. I have heard this same tired old statement again and again. Yet Apple sells more and more every year, and maintains their reputation as the most customer friendly consumer electronics company. That's not to say they are perfect, and there are plenty of things they do that annoy me. Comparing them with the competition, though, they are the best to work with, and give the most discretion to their employees to override policy of any of the major firms.
Regarding cigarette smoke and OSHA, I would say they definitely took the wrong angle and are likely technically incorrect. At the same time, while I approve of people being able to smoke if they want, smoking near computers shortens their life significantly, due to the gummy deposits that form on the components, heatsinks and fans, and vents. I have cleaned off many computers in this condition, replaced fans if needed, etc. I charge for the time. I also stink like a couple of thousand stale old cigarettes until I shower. When you have an employee working an 8 hour shift, it would be abusive to force them to clean a computer in this condition and suffer for the rest of the day.
The submitter to Consumerist is an ass who knows exactly how nasty his computer is, can see the gummy deposits, etc. which occurred due to very close proximity smoking at the computer's location. His screen is probably nasty, too. And it's not like this is new information. Smoking near computers has long been known as a really bad idea.
Two Thumbs UP! (Score:5, Interesting)
For once I am pleased with Apple's quirky business policies.
In addition to being a biohazard, enough smoking over time by many people seems to actually deposit a greassy residue on the inside of the computer parts, like the heat sinks, integrated circuits, fan blades. I used to be the IT administrator for an office of a dozen people, back when it was somehow allowed to smoke indoors in the office while you work. And the style was for everyone to smoke. As a non smoker I was a minority, and had to put up with working in that mess.
But for the computer parts, after about six months the parts looked as though someone had sprayed them with PAM cooking oil, and then dusted with ashes. All chunder stuck on fuzzy layer of dust bunnies, and "that" smell of 1000 cigarettes. We went through a lot of computers because of the lack of ability for the parts to cool themselves with the ambient air circulation inside the cases.
So my fendangled point was, it is not fair for Apple, or any computer company to have to honor warranty claims for computers that were subjected to the abuse of a smoker, as the hardware was subjected to environmental conditions that was not in any of the designed intended use. For example, if I put my computer through a dish washer, they would have the equal right to not honor my warranty claim, as I 'intentionally damaged' it in much the same way. I would like to see other companies start doing this too.. Buy a car? Did you smoke in it ? Oh, now it has no resale value, sorry.
Then it's fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
About 15-20% of adults smoke. The number for Apple users may be somewhat lower due to the younger and more "chic" demographic.
In any case, at the time Apple was designing its warranty coverage, it knew smoking by its customer or others in the household or business was not so rare or so offbeat that it would be reasonable to exclude it, nor is it obvious to consumers that smoking is bad for the equipment.
At the time of the sale, Apple had 3 choices:
*specifically and prominently state that the warranty is void if the computer is exposed to tobacco smoke
*plan on honoring the warranty
*set the stage for a fraud lawsuit
Since they didn't due the first one, they get to pick from the next two.
Re:Two Thumbs UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
You might actually have a point ... if they also voided warranties for people who owned pets.
Or lived in dusty climates. Or where computers were used in places like ... motorcycle shops. Or, any of the myriad of conditions that would have the exact same effect on the computer.
See, this is yet another example of where the logic of singling out one stupid little thing while ignoring 10 million others somehow makes sense.
I own dogs and live in a high desert climate ... it requires regular cleaning of the PCs with an air compressor. The fans suck in dog hair like you wouldn't believe, and there's *always* dust here in the summer no matter what you do. I can gauge the "cleaning cycle" by how much the variable speed fans are running in the box (which right now is at "You should really clean me" by the amount of noise coming from the machine)
I also used to run a motorcycle shop. You should see what those PCs look like after a while, especially the one that's used to run the dynamometer. (Badly running vehicles spit out a lot of soot, not to mention all the other residues from various vapors from cleaning chemicals)
So ... exclude everything else that could possibly harm the PC, and you have a point. Otherwise, you're picking one little thing out of many simply because the cause has become a socially unacceptable behaviour.
What about cat owners? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen more computers clogged with cat hair than I've seen clogged with cigarette ash.
Re:What about cat owners? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about cat owners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but as you say, bullshit.
Unless you're chain smoking 3 packs a day in a small, closed room while exhaling directly into the thing ... not happening.
I smoked for 20 years, and owned who knows how many computers during that time ... none of them have ever resembled what you describe.
I now live in a high desert climate and we own two dogs. That requires regular, thorough cleaning or the things will overheat. It also can really reduce the life of the fans. (Same goes for my stereo receiver, and a couple other consumer boxes)
And as I also posted in another thread, I used to run a motorcycle shop. You should see what those PCs go through, especially the one used to run the dynamometer.
So ... unless you want to exclude the 10 million other environments that can have a detrimental effect on the PC, you're simply picking one because the cause has become socially unacceptable by a large group of people.
What about candle burners and perfumes? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've worked on computers from time to time and the worst are those from people who burn candles or that seem to have way too much perfume in their home. The candles leave residue just like smoking. Oh and don't forget the fur-balls when the computer sits on the floor with a cat in the house.
I suppose Apple will void the warranties on those folks too?
I'm glad I have a honest vendor (Score:3, Interesting)
Mine complains about my brownish-yellow stained computer cables every time I have my servers in for service (yes, I smoke in the server room, sue me). But mostly because they care about my health and don't want to lose a good customer to the coughing death.
Oh, maybe my service fee is higher than what you pay at Apple. But it includes face masks to protect their techs, it seems. I'm fairly sure you get them cheaply from a lot of governments that bought tons of masks during the last flu craze but nobody wanted to wear them in public because they make you look like a paranoid loonie.
Just say that it's not normal use. (Score:3, Informative)
The issue is not whether smoking is legal or illegal; there are plenty of legal things you can do a computer that would void the warranty. If they're going to make this argument, they simply need to support the claim that the damage to the computer goes beyond normal wear and tear.
For example, computers in chemical labs often fail because small amounts of airborne chemicals attack the PC boards and chassis. I've worked on boxes that look like they'd been strapped to the bottom of a battleship for a few years.
Having seen the office accommodations of some chain smokers, I can't say I blame Apple. I've seen environments where every surface is coated with brown, sticky residue and a multi-millimeter thick layer of dust and ash.
experiences with 3 packk/day computers (Score:3, Interesting)
I fix computers for a living, and I will vouch for the pain that is working on a "three pack a day" computer. It's not terribly bad as long as they keep a clean house, but when there's a lot of dust in the machine, AND they're a very heavy smoker, the entire inside of the computer is filled with a matte of dustbunny solidified by tar. It's a dark mustard looking soft foam and reeks to high heaven, and when you touch it, it wipes off on your hands like ash AND sends a fine dark yellow cloud up into the air. Takes 5 minutes of hand scrubbing to get most of it off after you're done working on it.
I don't think I'd call it a "biohazard", as there's not a lot of chance of my inhaling any nicotine, but it's certainly unpleasant to work on. It also tints the entire machine a dingy yellow, especially the white plastics and the front of LCD panels. It also kills optical drives. (clouds the laser lens) Occasionally we get in a machine that looks ok, but reeks of tar when you pick it up. When we open it up, it's obviously a heavy smoker's computer, that they took the time to clean the outside case before bringing it in. "surprise!"
Most computers have active air cooling, and function like air filters. If you're filling the air with nasty, you should expect a lot of it to collect inside your computer, and nobody likes dealing with that.
Twice we've had to refuse warranty repair for a killed optical drive, and once a smoker wanted us to replace (under warranty) an LCD panel that had "become discolored". No, really? Like the WALLS and CURTAINS in your house? ick ick ick.
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Why did you choose it if you you did not like it?
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Why did you choose it if you you did not like it?
House, barn, stable and several hectares of land for (relatively) peanuts.
We have these things, called detergents, also water which can be used to "clean" things. I know that's a novel concept for many smokers. Then we have this other stuff called "paint" which can be put on top of pre-existing walls with a "brush" or "roller" to cover what cannot be "cleaned".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ammonia based cleaners (particularly Formula 409) are extremely effective at removing cigarette tar buildup. At my previous tech job we actually had a wash station similar to a automotive parts washer that we built because of the handful of chain-smokers we provided service to. Our warranty also explicitly excluded fans damaged by tar buildup and the resulting heat damage. We structured our fees in such a way that it encouraged our addict customers to bring in their computers regularly for cleaning inste
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Killz white primer paint works wonders on smoke impregnated walls. Not a shill... just used it on the walls in my house. Sometimes the house is worth it, even if there's smoker's residue. Like someone else said, clean it first, then Killz the rest. :)
Re:I don't blame them (Score:4, Informative)
I've used it too, and it's great, but it's called Kilz, not Killz. One is a brand name, the other is leet speak.
Re:parent != troll (Score:5, Informative)
Re:parent != troll (Score:5, Insightful)
I find cigarette smoking to be pretty repulsive myself, though I do enjoy a good cigar from time to time. I think we've gone too war with the war on smoking though. There are actually municipalities now that are considering banning smoking outdoors. WTF is wrong with that picture?
Re:parent != troll (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully support banning smoking in bars and restaurants
I'm not even sure I support those. I really enjoy going out to bars without smoking. It was absolutely disgusting previously. Had take a shower and wash my hair twice when I got home. It also irritated the hell out of my eyes and nose too.
Despite that, the Libertarian in me has a problem with a private business being told that it can't allow smoking on it's property. Nobody forced me to visit that bar. Nobody forced the employees to work there. If a bar wants to ban smoking on it's own then all the power to them -- I'd vote for them with my wallet -- I just don't see it as something to get Uncle Sam all worked up about though.
but sidewalk bans are going too far.
Well, at least we can agree on that :) When is some sanity going to break out over this issue? I can't wait for the nanny-staters to switch targets and start going after the fast food industry. McDonalds made me eat these big macs and now I'm overweight. Why'd the Government allow them to do that? Woe is me.....
Re:parent != troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me turn that around on you. Nobody forced those people to work in coal mines without proper lung protection. Nobody forced those people to work in asbestos mines without protection. We have laws to protect workers because they are generally not in a position to protect themselves. When you need money, you can't afford to refuse to work in a place that allows smoking. If you think otherwise, that probably means you have never been poor enough to understand.
Regarding the city streets, that smoke turns into dirty-looking sidewalks from the tar, cigarette butts floating up on the beach and in our streams, and other environmental harm that goes way beyond the immediate harm to people nearby. As far as I'm concerned, if people want to smoke in their own homes, that's okay. As soon as they inflict it on other people, they're crossing a line. People don't choose to be asthmatic, and they don't wear big signs that say "stay away from me if you smoke". I would argue that nobody forced the smokers to smoke around other people, but they do, and often without caring who it offends or even makes sick. And *that* is why people fight back and pass laws about smoking in public places. It's because smokers egregiously abused their rights and harmed others.
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
I have not seen ANY studies that suggest that OCCASIONAL exposure to second hand smoke is a hazard. Yep
Find one that suggests how often somebody has to walk through a cloud of smoke or work on a computer and I'll accept this. Until then
Smokers are repulsive (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot ate my [shudder] tag.
Dealing with anything which a smoker has owned (or used) is just completely disgusting. House, covered in yellow nicotine stains, thin film of brown smoke residue on fucking *everything*. I have a photo somewhere of a lightbulb which has a yellow/brown vapour deposition coating on one side, the other being less exposed. Then there's the smell on their clothes, in their cars, the yellowed teeth, yellowed fingers. I'd put money on it that the macbook in question was just as disgusting inside.
Re:Smokers are repulsive (Score:5, Insightful)
Disgusting is not a legal reason to void a legal contract.
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a reason to exercise the 'replace' option in the 'repair or replace at our discretion' portion of your warranty agreement.
Re:Smokers are repulsive (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Smokers are repulsive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Interesting)
Bottom line: I seriously doubt this thing just smelled a bit like cigarettes. It was probably revolting, yellowed, and filled with ash.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Informative)
(1) When did Microsoft buy-out Apple? They must have taken-down the "Don't be evil" mission statements.
You seem to be confusing Apple and Google.
(2) Is there any proof that SMELL can cause lung problems?
No one said smell can cause lung problems anymore than people claim sight can cause your chest cavity to be punctured because you can see a guy aiming a gun at you. Smell is a sense which can be used to detect things that are potentially damaging, like carcinogens.
Re:I don't blame them (Score:4, Informative)
A smell is caused by particulate matter hitting your olfactory senses.
smelling smoke = breathing some trace of smoke.
Re:I don't blame them (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that had changed in my life compared to the past was the smoke absorbed in the walls and furniture.
Really? That's the only thing that changed? Did the thought that there might be any number of other invisible toxins in that apartment ever enter your mind or did you just stop at the first one you could pull out of your ass? You also don't think it could be a physical reaction to the stress of moving and having to adjust to an entirely new environment either? It couldn't be anything else? You've managed to discount every other possibility and the most plausible one is "smoking residue"?
But why should we believe you? (Score:5, Insightful)
The outgassing from those computers is worse for your health than cigarette smoke residue, I assure you.
Ecplain to me why an unsupported argument gets a mod-up to +5, Insightful.
Re:But why should we believe you? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Funny)
But the reefer madness and junk science used by the tobacco prohibitionists has convinced people of the lies that second hand smoke is worse than plutonium. And lawyers and juries and OSHA will enforce these lies that will have employees opening computers in biohazard suits while they will sit quietly on a bench while a diesel bus idles next to them.
Apple users don't take the bus, you insensitive clod.
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Second hand smoke is certainly a health hazard.
But the computers in question aren't emitting smoke (if they were, I don't really think they're fixable), they have a gunky residue.
Computers are made of all kinds of toxic substances. Just don't lick them, and wear surgical gloves, and you should be okay.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well if your Iphone was used as a dildo, it might be considered hazardous bio waste.
Hey, there are some weird fetishes and the cultish Mac adherents out there scare me anyway.
It's not hard to see some lonely outcast out there peggin his bunghole cause the Iphone rubs his prostate "just right"
It's a strange damn world and nothing Apple does ever surprises me anymore.
Nokia, not Apple. You know these scandinavians... (Score:4, Funny)
http://store.ovi.com/content/744FD2C886D77218E040050A87327F92?clickSource=search [ovi.com]
Re:Good for apple (Score:4, Insightful)
I was in the hospital not too long ago, cost $70K to fix a broken foot because a car hit my motorcycle.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
People die from one or the other, but how much is a life worth?
Passive smoke and roadkill isn't that different really. Where the real hipocracy is, is when life-time smokers expect expensive treatment to keep them alive for another 5 years.
As a rake (and smoker) myself, i am already aware of the years (of boring life) I won't get, I need no treatment, i may live 5-10 years shorter, but i enjoyed every single day of what i had. As for the 135 passive smoke deaths, it could be avoided with considerate smokers, just as considerate drivers rarely kill anyone.
Liberty isn't just about money, guns and cars, it's just as much about what kind of life you wanna lead urself.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the 135 passive smoke deaths, it could be avoided with considerate smokers...
I haven't met any. Ever.
I don't know if you guys realize this, but to those of us who don't smoke, we can really smell it. I mean, really smell it. It's headache inducing if you're just wearing the same clothes that you smoked in yesterday.
I don't know if it causes physical harm or not that much later, but the smell is overpowering and disgusting, and if you really were considerate, you would go out of your way not to subject us to it. Your coworkers, because they can't avoid you without potentially losing income. And your friends, because you like them, and even though they're willing to put up with it, it's kind of a scumbag move to actually make them put up with it.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Informative)
a) using anything from a smoker's house
b) being near a smoker, whether they are smoking or not.
c) driving behind a smoking driver
d) someone is smoking nearby.
Zippthorne is in no way unique in this regard, even if your own olfactory sense is not processing the stench in the same way.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? If he enjoys killing himself with cigarettes, it's his business. He's not hurting anybody but himself.
Why are some people so obsessed with controlling other people's lives?
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? If he enjoys killing himself with cigarettes, it's his business. He's not hurting anybody but himself.
That's an oversimplification.
Smokers have more sick days off of work. When they get sick they often get sicker than non-smokers and take longer to recover. More visits to the doctor and more hospital stays meaning more load on the health system meaning less room for others (although that argument is questionable - the health system will always be underfunded).
I'd argue that he is hurting others, but I still agree that a smoker has the right to smoke, as long as the rest of us retain the right to complain bitterly about it.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Smokers pay far more taxes than non-smokers. They are well within their rights to tie up whatever medical resource that they want.
2) A car pollutes the air far more than a cigarette does. While a smoker might be the cause of secondhand smoke, a driver is the cause of air pollution, low visibility haze, global warming and the eventual death of the planet.
3) Mind your own business. Is your life so miserable that you have to impose yourself upon someone else's?
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost to society because so many morons drive cars and DON'T PAY ATTENTION is far more disproportionate than their contribution to society, regardless of whether or not motorcycles are involved. The majority of motorcycle crashes are caused by either alcohol (mostly single vehicle crashes that result in the application of Darwin's theory of evolution) or idiots in cars. Motorcycles, and their handicapped twin the scooter, cause far less congestion and road wear due to their smaller size and could reduce the amount spent on road costs every year. They use far less gas (my bike gets 45-50mpg, about what a Prius gets), require fewer resources to make, and are much cheaper. If Congress mandated catalytic converters on bikes, they would generate far less pollution also. But converters get up to around 800F degrees, and it's tough to find a place to put them so that legs don't get burned.
In other words, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Re:Good for apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Smokers die quicker than non-smokers, saving us money that would be spent on long term care.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not to be picky, by Obesity is now the #1 leading cause of death (health problems related to) in the US.
And 3/4 of the country is now Obese.
So ... as long as you're skinny and smoke, chances are the fat ones are going to die first.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, hear you. Everytime I go to the States my skin gets all sticky from second hand fat.
We should have law against fat people, They should pay more taxes , because the occupy more volume, add more wear to the roads when driving, put more shit througth the sewers, have bigger impact on the environement, etc...
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious. Marijuana is way less addictive and toxic than cigarettes or alcohol [msn.com], and I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to smoke it at home, in most of the US at least. And last time I checked yes, penalties could be quite harsh, all the way to jail time.
Now, either you are for legalisation of hash and light drugs, OR you are for a smoking ban (at least to the level of light drugs), OR you have a serious case of doublethink.
And, just to remind you: no, you are not allowed to do as you please just because it's your home. You cannot beat your wife, raise your army, print money or shoot people, and you cannot do bunches of other things. Actually the only thing that I can think of that would be OK inside your home and illegal outside is walking around naked.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever opened up a computer that a really heavy smoker has been sitting in front of for years? It's disgusting. Everything has a coating of tar on it, it stinks even before you power it up, and when you try to work on it, it's all gummy.
I'm just amazed that more hard drives and more fans don't fail because of smokers.
It's pretty bad when you wipe the screen and the paper towel turns ORANGE!
Is Apple being dumb? Now that smokers are the minority, I don't think so. Let them pay for supplemental coverage, same as health insurance. Besides, if you want to quit smoking, there's an app for that [softpedia.com]
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Informative)
When I worked TV repair, we'd jack up the estimate on smoker's TVs to compensate for the nastiness factor. The electrical charge attracts the particles from the ambient air and the build-up in some environments can be dramatic -and fast. Failure was very often scum related, either by blocking cooling air, or providing an arc path for the High Voltage.
Re:Good for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
So I take it that you don't live in a city then? Because in most cities I can't seem to smell the smoke from peoples' cigarettes unless they're almost rubbing up against me due to all the "healthy" pollution from cars, trucks and other combustion engine-powered vehicles.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the kind of nasty tar buildup that you can see in a smokers house or car, this sort of concern should not be all that surprising really.
You really can't blame an underpaid geek for not wanting to get near that stuff.
got balls? (Score:4, Insightful)
They need to grow some balls. An underpaid janitor gets to clean rotten piss off the bathroom floor everyday.
Re:Smokers (Score:5, Informative)
Having done PC support in offices back when smoking in offices was common I can attest to the putridity of a machine that gets smoked around. I would equate it with working on a grimy car engine. It's even worse with pet owners that smoke. You take the machine outside and "hose down" the system with a spray circuit board cleaner and replace the PSU. It's messy work but you bill the customer for your time. If you think the customer may balk at the expense you talk to them, maybe show them what smoking around computers does. It wasn't that big a deal when most of the system's chips didn't need heatsinks. You could get away with cleaning just the CPU's HSF, and maybe replace the PSU if the customer was on a budget.
Of course I only worked on steel cased, pentium-era desktop machines. Modern systems and notebooks in particular would be more involved as they really depend on staying clean and cool to avoid heat related instability. I would expect a cleaning could include a surcharge for abusive and unusual treatment of the hardware. I mean, if someone brought me a machine that they had doused in maple syrup, I would probably refuse them service or just name a price that I figured was a little north of what I thought they would be willing to spend.
As for the health concerns, well I smoke anyways, but I do it outside. I'd still wear gloves, just like I almost always did.
But Apple has other concerns. I doubt a mall store tech could contain the mess with the resources they have available. They might not actually be allowed to use the cleaner I would use. Or it might attack plastic requiring full dissasembly of a notebook. I don't know, I'm out of the loop on that.
Re:Hard to deny (Score:4, Informative)
"As a smoker I find it hard to deny Apple's case here. Tobacco smoke is not a good thing for electronics. "
But that isn't Apple's case. They're claiming that working on a gadget that was exposed to cigarette smoke constitutes exposing their employees to a biohazard.
Not that cigarette smoke predisposes the gadget to breakdown (which it may or may not do).
Re:Hard to deny (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap, what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their life? Smoking is a legal pleasure that some people choose to indulge in in their own home. Apple's products should be designed to cope with functioning in a normal home environment, and when they don't that's what the warranty is for. Just because it doesn't happen to affect you or I doesn't make it ok.
No, but it is often a part of the home.
Apple didn't claim that their products couldn't run in smokey environments, they claimed it couldn't be repaired because of some health and safety rule, which sounds unlikely to be true given there are simple ways of protecting yourself like gloves and a mask...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you used the machine for a litterbox, or used it outdoors in the rain and the damp weather - both of which may lead to environmentally caused points of failure - I think that is abusing the warranty.
Please explain which of those is equivalent to smoking while using the computer, and how. The computer is not a litterbox, so there's no reason why it should be covered under warranty if used as such. In addition, the computer's specifications include the allowable humidity range in most cases; if you don't exceed it, there is no grounds for denying you warranty coverage on that basis. Computers do not include specifications for dust, smoke, &c, so there is no grounds for denying warranty coverage on th
Re:Maybe get some facts straight? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there's nothing legitimate about it at all. You just account it as good will or customer service. SOX doesn't care in the slightest about that so long as you're not cooking the books.
It's amazing how many corporate apologists write off all their crappy behavior as mandated by (fictional interpretation of) law.
Re:Maybe get some facts straight? (Score:5, Informative)
ok, I'll bite with my ignorance of why this then only applied to Apple, not other US IT companies?
When SOX was passed, there was a lot of discussion about what it meant for the company I was working for at the time. SOX made the CEO and CFO personally liable for the company's compliance with accounting rules. As an engineer, a lot of the discussion in my area centered on software upgrades. How did we have to account for upgrades and bug fixes?
As I recall, selling a product with the expectation of future free upgrades could be interpreted as booking revenue in advance of sales. If the customer's decision to buy was based on the expectation of the upgrade, and the seller books the revenue at the time of the sale, then the seller has booked revenue for a non-existent sale -- the future upgrade. By giving away free upgrades, the company could be establishing the expectation of future free upgrades, making the CEO and CFO potentially liable for accounting malpractice.
In the end, we decided what a lot of tech companies, including Apple, seem to have decided -- bug fixes would continue to be free, since they are addressing a product defect and not enabling new functionality. Upgrades, even if it was just to enable a latent feature of the hardware, would not be free.