iPhone 11 Pro How Damaged Does My Screen Need to be for Applecare?

[nickkrumors]

I'm upgrading from a iPhone 11 Pro to a 12 Pro this week, and I plan on selling it on Swappa (things are going between $700 and $800, which feels nuts).

Anyway, I have some light scratches on the screen, which I want to use my $29 "deductible" on for the AppleCare+ that I pay monthly for. My question is: do I need to damage this thing a little more than it is to get Apple to replace the screen? I don't mind doing that...but it feels wrong to hurt it haha

And yes, these scratches are minor, but I do want the most money I can get for it and if $29 and a trip to the apple store can get me an additional $100 or so, that a good deal.

 

[Bstephens]

Just sell it as good condition. Not worth the hassel.

 

[jaybar]

To purposely damage a phone to get a screen replaced is markedly less than honorable. I hope Apple denies the request. We end up all paying more for Apple care because of your greed. It would be different if you had a had a legitimate accident and needed a screen replaced. That is what AC+ is for.

 

[TechLord]

This is a question I would never ask in public honestly. What you suggest is technically fraud, but I am sure there is countless of people who do it. Those scratches are incredibly minor.

 

[Infinitewisdom]

I have to agree. Don’t need anyone on their high horse in here. Just share your experience.

 

[Paco II]

Despite @keithprater 's inaccurate statement, it's not worth the hassle. Beyond it being fraud, you could easily cause other damage that may then cost you more money to fix. And to your other question, from the photo, I would say that Apple would not replace the screen for those small scratches.

 

[TechLord]

I have to agree. Don’t need anyone on their high horse in here. Just share your experience.

OP is talking about committing fraud. I am sure there are thousands, maybe millions of people who have "accidentally" smashed their phones to get a brand new one under AC +. But it isn't something you speak about publically.

 

[Mlrollin91]

OP is talking about committing fraud. I am sure there are thousands, maybe millions of people who have "accidentally" smashed their phones to get a brand new one under AC +. But it isn't something you speak about publically.

While it is definitely true that it is insurance fraud, it is Apple's own fault. They limit screen replacements to things that impede the usage of the device, like a crack. However, if I have deep scratches on my device, that may impede my personal use of the device and I should be allowed to exercise one of my deductibles to have it replaced.

AC+ should be a exercisable right when there is physical damage the device. It should not be held to Apple's objective value of what impedes usage of the device, but the subjective value of the consumer using that particular device. If I am paying for AC+ and the deductible, I should be able to have it swapped when there is damage to the device, whether a crack or a significant scratch.

 

[Paco II]

It's their program that you are choosing to pay for. They have every right to decide if a repair is eligible or not, within reason. The program is to save you money if there is damage, like an insurance program. It's not to give you cheap screen replacements whenever you want.
?

While it is definitely true that it is insurance fraud, it is Apple's own fault. They limit screen replacements to things that impede the usage of the device, like a crack. However, if I have deep scratches on my device, that may impede my personal use of the device and I should be allowed to exercise one of my deductibles to have it replaced.

AC+ should be a exercisable right when there is physical damage the device. It should not be held to Apple's objective value of what impedes usage of the device, but the subjective value of the consumer using that particular device. If I am paying for AC+ and the deductible, I should be able to have it swapped when there is damage to the device, whether a crack or a significant scratch.

 

[TechLord]

While it is definitely true that it is insurance fraud, it is Apple's own fault. They limit screen replacements to things that impede the usage of the device, like a crack. However, if I have deep scratches on my device, that may impede my personal use of the device and I should be allowed to exercise one of my deductibles to have it replaced.

AC+ should be a exercisable right when there is physical damage the device. It should not be held to Apple's objective value of what impedes usage of the device, but the subjective value of the consumer using that particular device. If I am paying for AC+ and the deductible, I should be able to have it swapped when there is damage to the device, whether a crack or a significant scratch.

While I agree that AC+ should be that, it isn't that, and the OP, myself, and everyone else who purchased AC+ knew the terms and conditions when we paid for it.

 

[Sam in SoCal]

Why do I have the feeling that the OP is about to take a hammer to his phone.....

 

[Mlrollin91]

It's their program that you are choosing to pay for. They have every right to decide if a repair is eligible or not, within reason. The program is to save you money if there is damage, like an insurance program. It's not to give you cheap screen replacements whenever you want.
?

I'm not disagreeing with that. But what I am saying is that Apple has, by their own fault, created incentive for people to commit insurance fraud. Obviously, being that the case is $29 that they are not going to report or prosecute the cases, but it's their own design that has caused this.

I'm not condoning the behavior, because it is insurance fraud. But people should not be surprised when there are ridiculous standards (that even many geniuses don't follow).

 

[Paco II]

So you're saying that by having a program to save money when you damage your phone, that it is encouraging people to damage their phone, and it's Apple's fault?! ? Puh-lease.

And what exactly is the 'ridiculous standard' you are referring to?

I'm not disagreeing with that. But what I am saying is that Apple has, by their own fault, created incentive for people to commit insurance fraud. Obviously, being that the case is $29 that they are not going to report or prosecute the cases, but it's their own design that has caused this.

I'm not condoning the behavior, because it is insurance fraud. But people should not be surprised when there are ridiculous standards (that even many geniuses don't follow).

 

[AppleB]

People crack me up looking for people in a forum to co-sign on fraud.
Do what you want and live with the outcome. Put a screen protector on the new phone to help mitigate cracks and scratches.

 

[Mlrollin91]

So you're saying that by having a program to save money when you damage your phone, that it is encouraging people to damage their phone, and it's Apple's fault?! ? Puh-lease.

And what exactly is the 'ridiculous standard' you are referring to?

I didn't say such a thing.

As to a "ridiculous standard": An objective standard that require the usage of the device to be impeded is ridiculous. Everyone is going to use their device differently and a deep scratch on one's device may or may not impede their usage of the device. That is why one buys accidental protection, so when the device use is impeded they can get it fixed. Requiring it to be cracked to meet this standard is why these threads pop up.

 

[tothemoonsands]

Surprised that the more obvious point hasn't been mentioned yet: Apple needs to increase its scratch resistance once again. I've had nearly every iPhone ever made, and there was a time when each model became increasingly resistant to such surface scratches. I am aware about the trade-off between shatter resistance and scratch resistance, and certainly we used to see many more shattered iPhone displays than we do today. But the point remains: the oleophobic/surface scratches we see today are simply not optimal - horrible in direct light situations in fact.

It's a real shame, but we are at a point where screen protectors are essentially necessary, otherwise there are two choices:
1) live with the scratches
2) intentional break your phone with AC+.

Both are difficult, and while I would be firmly in the camp of #1 (many reasons why #2 is not good), I still am opting to use a replaceable screen protector for this very reason.

Hey OP - consider adding a screen protector now. It's not going to magically reverse those, BUT, it does actually help to hide them - almost to the point where you won't be able to see them whatsoever!

 

[jaybar]

Shut up. Really, just shut up. This man has been paying for AppleCare and al he wants is a screen replacement. He’s paid for that right. So shut your mouth.

Watch your language.

 

[AppleB]

Put a screen protector on it to protect the screen from scratches instead of using AC to replace the screen for scratches. That’s what makes the AC cost go up. Dumb **** like that.

 

[Stormclouds]

My 11 Pro screen got scraped pretty badly. I made an appointment for the replacement. When I got there, they told me that it had to impair the use of the phone to be replaced under warranty, not just be a cosmetic issue. The lady was nice though and said that since she could catch her fingernail in the scratch, she'd consider it to negatively affect the use and go ahead and replace it for me.

 

[Paco II]

Your words: "Apple has, by their own fault, created incentive for people to commit insurance fraud."

What word am I putting in your mouth?

Apple's site very clearly refers to a cracked screen. Not a scratched screen. Yes, the genius bar people have leeway in making a decision, but Apple is clear in their wording. I am still not clear on why you find this 'ridiculous'.

I didn't say such a thing. You're putting words in my mouth.

As to a "ridiculous standard": An objective standard that require the usage of the device to be impeded is ridiculous. Everyone is going to use their device differently and a deep scratch on one's device may or may not impede their usage of the device. That is why one buys accidental protection, so when the device use is impeded they can get it fixed. Requiring it to be cracked to meet this standard is why these threads pop up.

 

[snyp1193]

I'm upgrading from a iPhone 11 Pro to a 12 Pro this week, and I plan on selling it on Swappa (things are going between $700 and $800, which feels nuts).

Anyway, I have some light scratches on the screen, which I want to use my $29 "deductible" on for the AppleCare+ that I pay monthly for. My question is: do I need to damage this thing a little more than it is to get Apple to replace the screen? I don't mind doing that...but it feels wrong to hurt it haha

And yes, these scratches are minor, but I do want the most money I can get for it and if $29 and a trip to the apple store can get me an additional $100 or so, that a good deal.


View attachment 970048

Honestly don’t deliberately smash your phone. You can just set up an express replacement and claim your touch screen isn’t responding properly (I’m sure everyone has had the problem where your phone sometimes doesn’t swipe when answering phone calls). They’ll send you a new phone and you send yours back. WORST case, they may use your deductible and charge you the $99 instead of $29 screen fee if they see the scratch. But you now have a new phone, new battery (which covers the cost) and screen.

 

[Mlrollin91]

Your words: "Apple has, by their own fault, created incentive for people to commit insurance fraud."

What word am I putting in your mouth?

Apple's site very clearly refers to a cracked screen. Not a scratched screen. Yes, the genius bar people have leeway in making a decision, but Apple is clear in their wording. I am still not clear on why you find this 'ridiculous'.

I should have said twisting my words. Encouraging =/= Incentive.

As to the standard, if you don't think that the objective standard is ridiculous, that is your own opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion. If I have learned anything in my profession, it is that objective standards create more problems than they solve.

 

[Paco II]

I should have said twisting my words. Encouraging =/= Incentive.

As to the standard, if you don't think that the objective standard is ridiculous, that is your own opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion. If I have learned anything in my profession, it is that objective standards create more problems than they solve.

I don't think that 'incentivizing' and 'encouraging' are really that different.

Keep in mind that this is an insurance program. It is one more way for Apple to make money. It's not for our benefit. No insurance company (that wants to stay in business) is going to make it easy for you to make them pay for a repair.

 

[ZipZap]

Why is any of this discussion relevant? You have 2 accidental damage claims. Use one to have the screen replaced. Just be mindful of the deductible and if the increased sales price will make sense. Or leave it to the new buyer since the phone is still covered. Just be sure to transfer AC+ as it does not convey to the new owner automatically.

 

[jaybar]

Why is any of this discussion relevant? You have 2 accidental damage claims. Use one to have the screen replaced. Just be mindful of the deductible and if the increased sales price will make sense. Or leave it to the new buyer since the phone is still covered. Just be sure to transfer AC+ as it does not convey to the new owner automatically.

@ZipZap

I could be wrong, but I don’t think AC+ on a monthly basis, which I think is what the OP has, transfers. I only think the “ two year” option transfers.