(California has defined environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air pollutant (“contaminant”), which is reasonable, but this does not imply it should support bogus or politically flippant warranty claim rejections by Apple and other firms that may follow Apple's example.)

Who knows why they're doing this. Are they merely contriving a bogus excuse to avoid paying warranty claims, which is bad enough, or are they actually stooping to play PC games, as many before Thanksgiving promptly wondered.

heh, reminds me of a book I read over the summer, “The Design of Everyday Things” that managed to point out many of the flaws made in designing some of the simplest things, from doors to telephones.

But it's worth pointing out that according to the stories the reason Apple refused was due to second hand smoke exposure for their employees., not because of specific damage to the units.

And again, if you want to exempt something from a warranty you should say so. I've got Complete Care with Dell which means they fix everything but if I didn't there would be many things not covered.

And, even if the legal system didn't get them, the PR would be devastating as smokers and those with smokers in their household would think twice about buying their product(s).

The story is that Apple did not refuse service to smokers. It is that warranty was voided in Applecare which is not even done by Apple, but by another org…. because of users exposing cpu to corrosive elements.

“Smoke” damage is misleading. It's the stench and glop of tar that's the issue. If you've ever seen the innards of a cpu used by a smoker, the damage to the delicate components is great. Not to mention damage to the smoker's poor lungs.