Actually can you explain how this is unethical/immoral/etc? I took advantage of all of my legal and valid avenues of reimbursement.

I certainly didn't lie or do anything dubious. I called my credit card company and complained after a price drop, as many others did, and received credit. American Express probably did this as a PR coup, as it really didn't qualify for the protection. In addition, Apple set up a $100 in store credit after an unexpected day of complaints and bad press, which I took advantage of. Why don't you quantify what exactly is unethical here?

digduggler said:Tanner said:lray said:So YOU are the ones responsible for the AMEX Price Protection phone hold time.
Read the fine print, $300 maximum. Stop hogging the phone lines.

Tanner said:applied for my HHonors AMEX "return protection" guarantee. We'll see where it leads. Apple can have it back, that's fine by me. Maybe I'll buy an unopened one on fleabay and save teh tax this time heh.

yep it's me

actually, I've heard NOTHING so far on this. Beginning to wonder if AMEX decided to wait it out based on apple's rep? WEIRD, but possible I suppose...

got my $218.00 credited back to my account Tuesday.

Did you get your back from AMEX or who?

Tanner said:digduggler said:Tanner said:lray said:So YOU are the ones responsible for the AMEX Price Protection phone hold time.
Read the fine print, $300 maximum. Stop hogging the phone lines.

Tanner said:applied for my HHonors AMEX "return protection" guarantee. We'll see where it leads. Apple can have it back, that's fine by me. Maybe I'll buy an unopened one on fleabay and save teh tax this time heh.

yep it's me

actually, I've heard NOTHING so far on this. Beginning to wonder if AMEX decided to wait it out based on apple's rep? WEIRD, but possible I suppose...

got my $218.00 credited back to my account Tuesday.

Did you get your back from AMEX or who?

Yes, AMEX.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:You 2 are ridiculous. The point of price protection is to make you whole. You are trying to come out ahead. You are trying to manipulate a system. People who do this are scum IMO. It is the same reason Costco has started to change their unlimited return policy. Too many people took advantage of the system and would return 5 year old TVs to get new ones. You 2 can spin it any way you want to. You end up getting $300 back in reimbursement you are unethical. Period. End of discussion.

Also if you can't see why this is unethical you may have the mental capacity of a 12 year old. Any 12 year old would understand why this is unethical.If we must resort to name-calling and I am "ridiculous" and a mental child, then you are an idiot. A coupon does not make one "whole", only cash can make one whole. The coupon is an apology made after being scorned by the public for doing what Apple did. I own over $30,000 in Apple Stock. Therefore, I can be the arbiter of this issue unless you own more of that company than I do.

And an even dumber comment. Let us walk the simpletons through it. The reason Apple gave a coupon is to make the pain of those that paid $599 a little less or as you called it an apology. When you get $200 back from AMEX you did not pay $599. You paid $399. You can spin it any way you want. The amount it cost you in the end is what matters. Just like the whole UFF thread. You can't be a complex thinker over there and then a simple minded individual here because it helps your cause. Once you get the $200 back from AMEX you now paid $399. If I am an idiot then you are dumber than an idiot to not be able to see this. Get a clue. What are you a lawyer with your ethics? Oh yeah you are. I, having ethics, would pick one or the other to get. Your ownership in any Apple stock matters NONE as far as ethics go. Go take an ethics class if you can't understand this.

Dpid on the bottom of page 2 seemed to get it "effectively giving you $300 off", but the supposed smart lawyer doesn't get it. And people wonder where people's negative opinions on lawyers come from.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:You 2 are ridiculous. The point of price protection is to make you whole. You are trying to come out ahead. You are trying to manipulate a system. People who do this are scum IMO. It is the same reason Costco has started to change their unlimited return policy. Too many people took advantage of the system and would return 5 year old TVs to get new ones. You 2 can spin it any way you want to. You end up getting $300 back in reimbursement you are unethical. Period. End of discussion.

Also if you can't see why this is unethical you may have the mental capacity of a 12 year old. Any 12 year old would understand why this is unethical.If we must resort to name-calling and I am "ridiculous" and a mental child, then you are an idiot. A coupon does not make one "whole", only cash can make one whole. The coupon is an apology made after being scorned by the public for doing what Apple did. I own over $30,000 in Apple Stock. Therefore, I can be the arbiter of this issue unless you own more of that company than I do.

And an even dumber comment. Let us walk the simpletons through it. The reason Apple gave a coupon is to make the pain of those that paid $599 a little less or as you called it an apology. When you get $200 back from AMEX you did not pay $599. You paid $399. You can spin it any way you want. The amount it cost you in the end is what matters. Just like the whole UFF thread. You can't be a complex thinker over there and then a simple minded individual here because it helps your cause. Once you get the $200 back from AMEX you now paid $399. If I am an idiot then you are dumber than an idiot to not be able to see this. Get a clue. What are you a lawyer with your ethics? Oh yeah you are. I, having ethics, would pick one or the other to get. Your ownership in any Apple stock matters NONE as far as ethics go. Go take an ethics class if you can't understand this.


Dpid on the bottom of page 2 seemed to get it "effectively giving you $300 off", but the supposed smart lawyer doesn't get it. And people wonder where people's negative opinions on lawyers come from.What don't you understand? APPLE is APOLOGIZING and GIVING AWAY a COUPON. A COUPON Does not REDUCE the PRICE ONE PENNY. I say, THANK YOU for the COUPON (APOLOGY accepted), but, as I am ENTITLED to PRICE PROTECTION, I will take the cash, THANKS. Name calling aside, you are dumb.

Ok DavidNoEthicsDiver. I got it. you have no ethics. period. I can be dumb, stupid, a moron, and an idiot, but at least I have ethics. Apple is giving away a coupon to thoe who paid $599. You did not, effectively. I understand you can't see this. Those with no ethics wouldn't.

Hey smart guy, an ethical person would say "no thanks Apple" I will get price protection from AMEX thus giving me that $399 price point. Talking about restictions again is irrelevant.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:Ok DavidNoEthicsDiver. I got it. you have no ethics. period. I can be dumb, stupid, a moron, and an idiot, but at least I have ethics. Apple is giving away a coupon to thoe who paid $599. You did not, effectively. I understand you can't see this. Those with no ethics wouldn't.First, Apple is giving a way a coupon with limited use, for having sold a $600 item to its most devoted fans only to drop the price $200 shortly thereafter, and making those devoted fans feel like chumps for being the first to buy. Getting money back through American Express's program does not "make one whole" and the coupon is to make people feel less of a chump and more trusting of APPLE so that people are not afraid to buy Apple products in the future. It has NOTHING to do with what you are saying.

Second, I did not buy an i-phone. I own no apple products.

It absolutely makes one whole. Are you clueless? When you get back $200 you paid $399. You, ethically, speaking are not entitled to a coupon. Do you even know what the term whole means? Second how many people will pay taxes on that $200 from AMEX? None. Why? Because they were made whole, just like life insurance. This is why people are not taxed on life insurance. There is no profit involved in life insurance. You are made whole for your loss.

Learn to think a little deeper and see what things truly are.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:Ok DavidNoEthicsDiver. I got it. you have no ethics. period. I can be dumb, stupid, a moron, and an idiot, but at least I have ethics. Apple is giving away a coupon to thoe who paid $599. You did not, effectively. I understand you can't see this. Those with no ethics wouldn't.First, Apple is giving a way a coupon with limited use, for having sold a $600 item to its most devoted fans only to drop the price $200 shortly thereafter, and making those devoted fans feel like chumps for being the first to buy. Getting money back through American Express's program does not "make one whole" and the coupon is to make people feel less of a chump and more trusting of APPLE so that people are not afraid to buy Apple products in the future. It has NOTHING to do with what you are saying.

Second, I did not buy an i-phone. I own no apple products.

It absolutely makes one whole. Are you clueless? When you get back $200 you paid $399. You, ethically, speaking are not entitled to a coupon. Do you even know what the term whole means? Second how many people will pay taxes on that $200 from AMEX? None. Why? Because they were made whole, just like life insurance. This is why people are not taxed on life insurance. There is no profit involved in life insurance. You are made whole for your loss.

Learn to think a little deeper and see what things truly are.Emotional distress dude. Merely breaking even financially, after having to jump throu AMEX hoops, does not make one whole. A coupon does.

Now you just look like a joke with your emotional distress comment. No wonder our law system is so screwed up and there are all of these temporary insanity defenses. That is what I think these Apple people should claim: Temporary insanity so they are entitled to AMEX price protection, a store credit, and a full refund. Ridiculous.

The AMEX loops matter 0 once again. It is the final outcome that does. Going through collecting life insurance can be a pain, but once you recieve it you are made whole and you don't get more if it is harder to collect.

Emotional Distress? Have you ever even done a price protection claim of any kind?

Wow, this took an unexpected turn.

Talks of just 'knowing' and namecalling are always the sign of a well made argument.

The two offers are mutually exclusive and have impacts on different companies. Absolutely no inter-relational caveats came with either offer. Both are legal and you would be unwise not to take advantage of both.

This is absolutely nothing like the Costco return policy that you mentioned. That impacted one company after abuse. American Express modified their policy to reimburse cardholders, going above and beyond for good customer relations. I spoke with an AMEX rep after Apple had announced their plans to offer $100 and no conditions were applied to the $218 refund. They wanted to do this (I am imagining for good PR - can you come up with another reason for a business who's goal it is to make money to modify an existing plan to include things it does not on a wide scale?) and they certainly didn't have to, and it certainly didn't come with any conditions. Apple's refund has absolutely no stipulations about price protection from companies. This is also not like the Costco return policy in the slightest either. It is a one time PR distaster they were trying to recoup from, not by giving $100 back , but by letting you buy at least $100 worth or merchandise from them for some in store credit (so their loss is total profit margin - ($100 - (%profit on $100 * $100)). They may even come out ahead on this depending on what you purchase.

It is good personal business to take advantage of both of these legal and valid avenues of reimbursement if you qualify.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:
The AMEX loops matter 0 once again. It is the final outcome that does. Going through collecting life insurance can be a pain, but once you recieve it you are made whole and you don't get more if it is harder to collect.

Emotional Distress? Have you ever even done a price protection claim of any kind?Okay, I guess I need to go through your example so you understand things better. When I run you over with my car, and you are very much dead, the "life insurance" does not "make you whole." You keep saying that, but ipse dixit is poor logic. I do not tell your children or your parents, Gee, Mike is dead and I am sorry, but you are made whole by the life insurance proceeds, so please do not sue me. I know, I was at fault for running him down, but you are made whole and it would be unethical for you to collect more for your son's/father's life. He'd have wanted it this way...."

Do you even comprehend life insurance. The reason it is not taxable is because it is not income. Why is it not income? Because you are being made whole. My life is being replaced by a predetermined set amount that was agreed upon before my death. My life is worth a set amount as far as life insurance companies are concerned. I was made whole as far as my life insurance company goes. The reason I would be awarded an amount of money for a lawsuit ifmy family had to sue would be to make them whole as well. That is why there are formulas they use to figure out how much is awarded for non punitive amounts. Punitive awards are punishment. Non punitive awards are not punishment. How does a lawyer not know these things?

Why is life insurance not taxable then? Wow, I hope you are never my lawyer. Interesting that a lawyer can't even come up with a decent argument. Any insurance being paid to you does not get charged income tax as long as you are being made whole, meaning that you are being paid an equal amount of the loss from a financial standpoint to break even.

I take it you have done the price protection claim before. I also take it that you have not paid taxes on the amount you recieved. Since you don't consider it "being made whole" then it is income. This means you cheated on your taxes. This makes you unethical. So you are either unethical or too dumb to know what being made whole is. Your choice.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:
The AMEX loops matter 0 once again. It is the final outcome that does. Going through collecting life insurance can be a pain, but once you recieve it you are made whole and you don't get more if it is harder to collect.

Emotional Distress? Have you ever even done a price protection claim of any kind?Okay, I guess I need to go through your example so you understand things better. When I run you over with my car, and you are very much dead, the "life insurance" does not "make you whole." You keep saying that, but ipse dixit is poor logic. I do not tell your children or your parents, Gee, Mike is dead and I am sorry, but you are made whole by the life insurance proceeds, so please do not sue me. I know, I was at fault for running him down, but you are made whole and it would be unethical for you to collect more for your son's/father's life. He'd have wanted it this way...."

Do you even comprehend life insurance. The reason it is not taxable is because it is not income. Why is it not income? Because you are being made whole. My life is being replaced by a predetermined set amount that was agreed upon before my death. My life is worth a set amount as far as life insurance companies are concerned. I was made whole as far as my life insurance company goes. The reason I would be awarded an amount of money for a lawsuit ifmy family had to sue would be to make them whole as well. That is why there are formulas they use to figure out how much is awarded for non punitive amounts. Punitive awards are punishment. Non punitive awards are not punishment. How does a lawyer not know these things?

Why is life insurance not taxable then? Wow, I hope you are never my lawyer. Interesting that a lawyer can't even come up with a decent argument. Any insurance being paid to you does not get charged income tax as long as you are being made whole, meaning that you are being paid an equal amount of the loss from a financial standpoint to break even.

I take it you have done the price protection claim before. I also take it that you have not paid taxes on the amount you recieved. Since you don't consider it "being made whole" then it is income. This means you cheated on your taxes. This makes you unethical. So you are either unethical or too dumb to know what being made whole is. Your choice.Oh, now I understand. Based on your obsessive discussions on life insurance, it all makes sense to me now. One does not paytaxes on price protection guarantees anymore than one pays taxes when they buy an item on sale, use a coupon, or get cash-back from their credit card. But I can see now that because life insurance is not income, therefore it is unethical to use both "Cash Back" in the form of a store credit, and a credit on one's credit card because of the price protection plan. It all makes perfect sense.....

You're a nut job.

Yeah I'm the nutjob. You basically got owned. I pretty much shot your whole argument down and you can't admit it. Either you are made whole from price protection and profit none or you received income. Which is it? If you are made whole then you don't deserve the coupon if you have any sort of ethics. If you were not amde whole (as you claim) then you recieved income and should pay taxes on it or you are not ethical. Either way we have provedyou have no ethics. Got that DavidNoEthicsDiver. I woul suggest that you don't run out of air next time you dive. It makes you look foolish .