[Galaxy Note 10.1 General] jonstrong:
@makanimike -

Whether or not Apple chooses to engage in practices that other companies find appropriate is largely irrelevant to the argument, and doesn't invalidate the model that companies like Best Buy and Costco employ. I'm disappointed that you choose to label those of us who appreciate the "guaranteed satisfaction" model as manifesting a worldview that is harmful to the use of resources and the environment, and frankly I'm insulted. You make assumptions about our character with insufficient information, and your analysis is unfortunately shallow.

In fact, companies like Best Buy and Costco that embrace such programs have well defined processes to receive and resell, or redistribute, open box products. Just as car dealers that accept used cars in trade, they may also sell off used equipment to other retailers in bulk for subsequent resale on a discount basis. Much of the used equipment in the market lands as vendors such as Tiger Direct, that run thriving businesses selling open box and refurbished equipment.

If anything, knowing that I can bring virtually any unsatisfactory purchase back to Best Buy (or Costco) means that it will, indeed, find a new home, and not wind up sitting unused for years and eventually getting thrown out when it's obsolete. The combined and interlocking processes between companies like Best Buy, Costco and Tiger collaborate to be more efficient at getting products into the hands of suitable consumers than I could ever hope to be as a lone consumer without the ability to return an unsuitable product. The ability to move products from consumer to consumer, effectively, until they land in the hands of people who really appreciate and will keep the products, adds pretty dramatically to economic efficiency and reduces the likelihood of unwanted products winding up in landfills prematurely.

An admonition to consider next time you are tempted to jump to conclusions about others acting in ways that appear more or less "green" and responsible: superficial knee-jerk condemnation might let you feel like the higher-minded party, but could be completely inaccurate and naive. Valid analysis of environmental responsibility only works if you really think through, and understand all steps and implications in the process. Another example: paper cups might seem more responsible than foam plastic - but that depends on the way each is manufactured, the chemicals employed, the way they're recycled, the energy sources used at the factories, etc., and another consideration is whether or not the used cups ever wind up being recycled, or if they all wind up in a landfill.

Glad to see that you (occasionally?) embrace the concept of reuse (refurbished products), but that simply provides an example of precisely the model that I'm describing. You're not the only one who appreciates a good deal, and is occasionally willing to take a "used" product to get one.

BTW: Apple's approach regarding return polices may simply stem from the fact their products are unique within the market segments with consumers that buy the products, and Apple simply doesn't see the need to add this level of value to the transaction. However you slice it, their practice of NOT offering no-fault returns certainly proves nothing about the economic viability of the model, pro or con.

...and at this point, if you're done condemning us, I'm happy to drop the argument, and allow the thread to return to a comparison of tablets currently on the market... :)