iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[matticus008]

You have still not defined "normal use". What constitutes normal use for an iPod nano that does NOT ship with any protective sleeve and no handling information from its manufacturer?
Normal use includes carrying it around, listening to music, connecting it to a computer or home stereo, and storing it in a clean, dry, and reasonable environment. But there is no express or implied guarantee that it will remain free from scratches in normal use...only that it will remain functional, which it does perfectly well. Everything scratches in the course of normal use and everything becomes dirty as well. Normal use includes the responsibility for general cleaning and care, including polishing of scratches.


Don't you think the plaintiff's attorney is going to do this? He, she, or they are going to build a case. I hope the judge throws out all punitive damages and recompenses the plaintiff only for the actual cost of the product, but that is not under my control.
The attorney had the reasonable onus to include that evidence in the original filing. You simply cannot wait until something goes to trial to procure evidence. He has brought none to the table.


Attract as much publicity? This is merely supposition.
Granted. But how many lawsuits are covered by media sources with prominent placement? An extremely small minority. How many of Apple's lawsuits are covered by the media? Certainly more than many other companies, and this isn't necessarily proportional to the number of suits. Microsoft and Apple are two big technology companies that the media knows can stir up trouble just by mentioning. Case in point: did you know about the V710, or even what the suit requested? Probably not, because it didn't get that much coverage. But it exposed a major problem in the industry: locking down of phones by service providers in order to prevent customers from using their devices as they are meant to and without extra charge. That's a much more important issue than any light cosmetic scratching.


Completely argumentative. Mobile phones today are fantastic. They have evolved from car phones to bulky portable phones to true handheld mobile phones. In every respect the mobile phone has seen tremendous advances in technology, reduction in size, increase in talk and standby times, and it is now the center of gravity for the convergence of several consumer technologies such as the digital camera, PDA, MP3 player, 3G video player, etc. Some mobile phones even include short-range walkie-talkie functions.
Yet coverage is sporadic, and there are numerous complaints on relevant forums about reception, audio quality, and reliability of network connections. HowardForums would be a good source to explore the many thousands of complaints against cell phones, all equally valid to any nano complaints currently filed. Do phones work in elevators or in many of California's seismically-retrofitted buildings? Not a chance. Should they? I think they should, since the quality of the reception is prohibiting me from normal use in my own home to the point where I have to step outside. But I'm not suing anybody, because I know the limitation of the technology means that the radio waves are inherently limited by not being able to pass through some kinds of materials, and some cash isn't going to change that.

But the point remains that the suit should have been filed WITH evidence (there's not even so much as an IOU slipped in, not that that would be acceptable), and if the problem is as widespread as claimed, there should be at least one picture on the internet worse than Ars Technica's showing a loss of functionality. That distinct lack of evidence and factual support is my problem. Until then, it's just endless and unsubstantiated whining.

[ksz]

Normal use includes carrying it around, listening to music, connecting it to a computer or home stereo, and storing it in a clean, dry, and reasonable environment.
Does "carrying it around" include putting it into your pocket? Front pocket? Rear pocket? Denim pocket? Non-denim only? Can you carry currency in the same pocket? Or credit cards?

But there is no express or implied guarantee that it will remain free from scratches in normal use...only that it will remain functional, which it does perfectly well. Everything scratches in the course of normal use and everything becomes dirty as well. Normal use includes the responsibility for general cleaning and care, including polishing of scratches.
Not everything is as intolerant to scratches. The degree of impact or degree of abrasion needed to forge a scratch on the nano is, in my view, greatly disproportionate to most other portable consumer items.

Case in point: did you know about the V710, or even what the suit requested? Probably not, because it didn't get that much coverage. But it exposed a major problem in the industry: locking down of phones by service providers in order to prevent customers from using their devices as they are meant to and without extra charge. That's a much more important issue than any light cosmetic scratching.
This may be true, but it's not really relevant. The amount of media coverage is beyond our control. The media is not, in my view, providing excess coverage to the iPod scratch case. They are providing coverage, but it is not beyond a reasonable level. We are tending to exaggerate media coverage in this thread.

Do phones work in elevators or in many of California's seismically-retrofitted buildings? Not a chance. Should they? I think they should, since the quality of the reception is prohibiting me from normal use in my own home to the point where I have to step outside.
Most mobile carriers inform you of the conditions under which reception will be poor or non-existent. They also provide coverage maps for cities and highways. And they provide you with Analog Roam as a backup.

[matticus008]

Does "carrying it around" include putting it into your pocket? Front pocket? Rear pocket? Denim pocket? Non-denim only? Can you carry currency in the same pocket? Or credit cards?
Sure. But like I said, no express or implied warranty asserting it will remain free of scratches has been presented to you.

Not everything is as intolerant to scratches. The degree of impact or degree of abrasion needed to forge a scratch on the nano is, in my view, greatly disproportionate to most other portable consumer items.
But your view still lacks photographic support. Yes, there are scratched nanos. These things happen, and no one's scratches can't be remedied by an inexpensive and commonly available cleaning and polishing agent designed for the care of plastic items.

This may be true, but it's not really relevant. The amount of media coverage is beyond our control. The media is not, in my view, providing excess coverage to the iPod scratch case. They are providing coverage, but it is not beyond a reasonable level. We are tending to exaggerate media coverage in this thread.
I'll agree with you here, but I think they need to do a better job of covering important suits, such as the V710, and not giving high billing to lawsuits with no technical merit and whose reporting journalists are just as guilty of hopping on the internet meme bandwagon as the others. Apple is overrepresented in media coverage, for good and for bad. In this case, no investigative journalism at work...just posting the story because they know it will draw hits.


Most mobile carriers inform you of the conditions under which reception will be poor or non-existent. They also provide coverage maps for cities and highways. And they provide you with Analog Roam as a backup.
I don't think so. If I'm in a defined coverage area, I should get service in my own home, but I do not. I don't recall reading a notice that says "cell phones may not work in your home or in your two-floor office building." Nevermind the dropped calls that happen when I walk under a bridge or between two tall buildings. Cellular service leaves a lot to be desired in quality and range of service, in my opinion. And none of the GSM networks I've used have any sort of analog support, nor have my past two cell phones had analog tranceivers. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to have cellular service inside my own home within plain sight of the city skyline. But nonetheless, that's the way it is and I'm not the only one. The number of people screaming into their phones in public is a fair enough indication for me. But I'm not collecting evidence for a lawsuit.

[ksz]

Sure. But like I said, no express or implied warranty asserting it will remain free of scratches has been presented to you.
Yes I know. Apple's standard disclaimer as far back as I can remember offers no warranties whether express or implied unless required by local laws. But if placing the unprotected nano in the front pocket, back pocket, in denim pants, with paper currency, and with credit cards is all considered *normal* then the nano should offer even a modicum of scratch protection from this, but it does not. If I subject my mobile phone to the same rigors, it comes away totally unscathed, but the appearance of the nano is tarnished in as little as 2 days.

But your view still lacks photographic support.
This is merely your opinion. My nano has developed more than 100 scratches from "normal use" and in very short time. This is greatly disproportionate to all other portable devices I own or that I have owned in the past.

Yes, there are scratched nanos. These things happen, and no one's scratches can't be remedied by an inexpensive and commonly available cleaning and polishing agent designed for the care of plastic items.
I have tried polishing agents on my 30GB iPod...many times. These agents do *NOT* clear away all scratches. They can improve the look, but they cannot restore it. The best you can do is treat the device more delicately than a wilting flower to prevent any further outbreaks, but where's the fun in the iPod when you become so obsessed with keeping it scratch-free? You should be able to use it more freely, to expose it to the air, to show it off. Instead, we are put into a state of constant fear over the outbreak of unwanted scratches.

[Kid Red]

Do you work for Apple ? If you don't, i suggest you start looking in the perspective of us fellow non-shareholder, regular-money making people. We expect Apple, as well as any other business, whose sole existence on this planet is to satisfy its consumers (including indoctrination to lower people's expectations and to move products, every corp does it). And as such, it's obvious that if there is a bundle of people who PURCHASED the Nano has a problem with it, you can be assured that they are not all stupid, and there is a problem with the product. Your generalistic arguements also apply for just about any other defective product out there, let me give you an exaggerated example that your arguements also cover - the Ford Pinto, it was designed with two 12 inch bolts that mount the back bumper onto the frame, the bolts are within centimeters away from the gas tank, and if you are involved in a rear-ending collision, you'll die from explosive gasoline combustion. By the way of your logic, people are not expected to get involved into accidents, and thus Ford is not responsible. They were responsible and were sued, they didn't take it public by acknowledging the problem and doing a recall, their lawyers estimated it was cheaper just to let everyone to suffered to sue and settle outof court. For the Nano, putting it in your pocket or leaving it in your binder, or on your car dash, or whatever without a included skin is fair and normal use, not even accidental, not covering excessive and premature wear is not acceptable if Apple forseen the "normal" usages of the device, which, judging from their commercials and launch event, would be the situations I said.


Where is this bundle of people? I mean 1 million nanos were sold in what, the first month? And other then yourself and maybe 2-3 people here and the idiot that filed the law suit, that's 4 people out of 1 million? I'm a shareholder AND I have a 4g photo and my wife has a Nano. Her Nano is in EXCELLENT shape, know why? She has the arm band sleeve. Mine has some scratches. Know why? I keep mine in my pocket. Her Nano is flawless, mine has scratches. If I wanted mine pristine, I would keep it in a sleeve. But I don't and I understand by me not protecting it, it will develop scratches because it's a soft plastic. The 'tiny' 'surface' 'scratches' mine has are 'only' 'visible' when holding the unit at an angle and looking for the light to refract off the valley. That's normal use and I don't see why a few people feel the need to whine about some scratches AND NONE HAVE USED A SLEEVE.

There is no argument. If you want something to remain in perfect condition, then you treat it as such. Normal use will result in normal ware, in this case, minor scuffs and surface scratches.

In no such example have I seen a SCREEN UNUSABLE as noted in the lawsuit. He's a bitter PC user looking to take it to Apple and isn't smart enough to buy a sleeve. Or maybe he's too cheap and now he's just whining.

[Maxx Power]

Where is this bundle of people? I mean 1 million nanos were sold in what, the first month? And other then yourself and maybe 2-3 people here and the idiot that filed the law suit, that's 4 people out of 1 million? I'm a shareholder AND I have a 4g photo and my wife has a Nano. Her Nano is in EXCELLENT shape, know why? She has the arm band sleeve. Mine has some scratches. Know why? I keep mine in my pocket. Her Nano is flawless, mine has scratches. If I wanted mine pristine, I would keep it in a sleeve. But I don't and I understand by me not protecting it, it will develop scratches because it's a soft plastic. The 'tiny' 'surface' 'scratches' mine has are 'only' 'visible' when holding the unit at an angle and looking for the light to refract off the valley. That's normal use and I don't see why a few people feel the need to whine about some scratches AND NONE HAVE USED A SLEEVE.

There is no argument. If you want something to remain in perfect condition, then you treat it as such. Normal use will result in normal ware, in this case, minor scuffs and surface scratches.

In no such example have I seen a SCREEN UNUSABLE as noted in the lawsuit. He's a bitter PC user looking to take it to Apple and isn't smart enough to buy a sleeve. Or maybe he's too cheap and now he's just whining.

And what does your testimony offer ? Just on this thread there are plenty of people claiming that they have seen or owned a nano that was excessively scratched by normal use. So your gadget is not scratched, and you belong to the pile of people whose Nano is still fairly pristine, other than that, there is nothing more your evidence offers. The small scratches you mentino of, will overtime develop more and more, and along with bigger scratches over time, if you really baby your Nano, you'll delay this perhaps indefinitely, but the whole point was that this was a product that was designed and marketed to people who wanted its durability and compactness to use in any pocket or put into a purse, or whatever.

[Maxx Power]

1. If it's so expensive, and its aesthetics are what make it valuable to you, why in the world would you toss it around in pockets and backpacks unprotected? Nowhere does Apple say it won't scratch if you use it.
2. iPods ARE strong. They are practically indestructible. Scratches do not reflect a lack of strength. iPods have both the functionality and durability of other players. So no, it's not an unrealistic expectation, but it's also one that's been met by the player.


It's actually really simple, yet you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying. The fact that the nano is scratchable is not in dispute. The iPod is not any more or less prone to scratching than anything made of similar plastics, but others are claiming that it is somehow a special case of shoddy workmanship or poor quality. That is not the case. Anyone who makes anything out of shiny plastic has to deal with the reality that it scratches.

That doesn't mean it can't improve or that it's not worth improving. All it means is that it's ridiculous to single out the nano, or even iPods in general, since it is an industry-wide phenomenon.

Its asthestics is not what makes it valuable to, what I hope, most people, however, the reason why people choose apple products in a seeminly free market is inarguably biased toward its asthetism either in its design, physical shape, or ease of use. If you compromise that by a flawed design, yet you continue to claim to offer any of the asthetism people associate your products and choose your products by, then you are misleading people and commiting fraud.
This statement "practically indestructable" is overstated everytime. Who's to define practical use ? Should I have to take Apple's definition of practical use and understand it fully before I'm about to buy an item ? If so was required, a lot less products will be sold. If i'm using it for my purposes that I think are practical, why shouldn't they be ? Besides, if apple execs use this player in their jeans pockets as they have, why shouldn't I ? And it this causes premature wear and accelerated marring of the surface until it is ridden with scratches, then maybe people have a case to fight for.
Perhaps this is an industry-wide phenomenon, but where else do you see polycarbonate covering half of the music player, namely the side that will come into contact with your pants ? And who else makes a small and stylish product to compete with Apple ? That's why apple is reaping in loads of profit, they jumped to the market early with a form factor that, from the perspective of corporate media, they created.

[Maxx Power]

Yet coverage is sporadic, and there are numerous complaints on relevant forums about reception, audio quality, and reliability of network connections. HowardForums would be a good source to explore the many thousands of complaints against cell phones, all equally valid to any nano complaints currently filed. Do phones work in elevators or in many of California's seismically-retrofitted buildings? Not a chance. Should they? I think they should, since the quality of the reception is prohibiting me from normal use in my own home to the point where I have to step outside. But I'm not suing anybody, because I know the limitation of the technology means that the radio waves are inherently limited by not being able to pass through some kinds of materials, and some cash isn't going to change that.

Cellphone technology uses Electromagnetic waves to communicate, to which, metallic materials are inherently opaque in frequency. That is not a design flaw of the cellphone, or cellphones as you said. There is no way to get around this, its just standard physics. But if i designed a cellphone with intentionally poor reception since designing the antenna properly would take more time because I have to rush it to the market before anyone else can, then that's something that deserves a class action lawsuit.

[Kid Red]

And what does your testimony offer ? Just on this thread there are plenty of people claiming that they have seen or owned a nano that was excessively scratched by normal use. So your gadget is not scratched, and you belong to the pile of people whose Nano is still fairly pristine, other than that, there is nothing more your evidence offers. The small scratches you mentino of, will overtime develop more and more, and along with bigger scratches over time, if you really baby your Nano, you'll delay this perhaps indefinitely, but the whole point was that this was a product that was designed and marketed to people who wanted its durability and compactness to use in any pocket or put into a purse, or whatever.


Wow, my point flew over your head? I'll try to dumb it down some.

You have scratches. You are complaining. Yet, you didn't put your Nano in a sleeve to protect it. During normal use it developed scratches. You complain. Normal use will result in normal scratches. Those scratches DO NOT impair the device ability to function. Those scratches DO NOT result in a lack of functionality. Those scratches do not render the screen unusable. Those scratches are well, normal. You are complaining.

Just to recap my conclusions-

-The lawsuit is crap because such scratches do not impair function.
-Scratches are normal and have happened since the iBook/pBook plastics
-Such scratches do NOT impair functionality
-Scratches are in no way related to or lead to non functional screens
-Scratches are only cosmetic
-Normal use may result in cosmetic imperfections
-To avoid such imperfection, buy a $20 sleeve

I hope that delivered a bit more to this topic for you. I'm not sure what more evidence you could want because there isn't any to support the lawsuit's claim and therefore burden of proof does not lie with Apple or myself.

[Maxx Power]

Wow, my point flew over your head? I'll try to dumb it down some.

You have scratches. You are complaining. Yet, you didn't put your Nano in a sleeve to protect it. During normal use it developed scratches. You complain. Normal use will result in normal scratches. Those scratches DO NOT impair the device ability to function. Those scratches DO NOT result in a lack of functionality. Those scratches do not render the screen unusable. Those scratches are well, normal. You are complaining.

Just to recap my conclusions-

-The lawsuit is crap because such scratches do not impair function.
-Scratches are normal and have happened since the iBook/pBook plastics
-Such scratches do NOT impair functionality
-Scratches are in no way related to or lead to non functional screens
-Scratches are only cosmetic
-Normal use may result in cosmetic imperfections
-To avoid such imperfection, buy a $20 sleeve

I hope that delivered a bit more to this topic for you. I'm not sure what more evidence you could want because there isn't any to support the lawsuit's claim and therefore burden of proof does not lie with Apple or myself.


Settle down there, I never said I owned a Nano, i just saw some nanos and their scratches and saw how everyone was using a Nano around me, believe me, I'd never shell out 300 dollars for something that just plays music, and mostly distracting corporate music.
I'm just supporting the lawsuit, which as someone else posted before, and I hope this is clear to you, is the only way to receive Apple's attention in designing better products since you directly appeal to the shareholders this way.
I don't agree with your "just cosmetic" claim, for I have said that many people who bought this product over competitive products in this or other sectors of the market is based on the "cosmetic" and "ease of use" factor. If Apple misleads people on the cosmetics because it doesn't hold up to normal use the way they intended it to be used, then a lawsuit will remind apple to pick up the slack, the lawsuit is intended for those who have been inconvenienced by, or felt they were cheated by apple's easily scratchable screens on the Nano, if you are not part of that group, then please do not prejudice against that group because you can not comprehend their perceived loss.

[ack_mac]

To all the people in this forum who have scratched Nano's what have you done to date to resolve this? Specifically:
- After you noticed the first few scratches did you attempt to buy a sleeve or maybe change the way that you are handling the device?
- Call Apple to discuss the issue and whether or not you could refund the product for either a new one, or a refund?

KSV, the pictures you posted obviously show some serious scratching and I am curious what you have attempted to do to help prevent or mitigate future scratching.

Finally, if cosmetic scratches are such a major issue that individuals feel the need to sue Apple, did they ever think to simply return the product (Apple has a pretty good return policy) and buy either a different iPod, or perhaps another product altogether?

If it were me, and I was that upset about it, I would talk to Apple. If they could not make me happy then Iwould return it and buy something else. I would not even think to sue them over some cosmetic scratches.

Not this is even close to being an accurate analogy, but I bought a brand new, and fairly expenseive, car a few years ago. Within about 48 houts I had a big scratch on the passenger side right front panel (the joys of living near DC). Was I pissed. You bet. Did I go back to the Nissan/Infiniti dealer demanding a new car or new paint job because the car was scratched? No. Did I sue. No. I understood that living in the area that I live in, these things happen. It is no fault of the paint, nor the manufacturer. This is what happens when you park your car in a crowded parking lot..

Anyway, life is too short to get yourselves so built up over this that you feel the need to sue.. At some point, just take the friggin thing back to Apple and buy a crappy Creative MP3 player...

[gunnz]

Settle down there, I never said I owned a Nano, i just saw some nanos and their scratches and saw how everyone was using a Nano around me, believe me, I'd never shell out 300 dollars for something that just plays music, and mostly distracting corporate music.
I'm just supporting the lawsuit, which as someone else posted before, and I hope this is clear to you, is the only way to receive Apple's attention in designing better products since you directly appeal to the shareholders this way.
I don't agree with your "just cosmetic" claim, for I have said that many people who bought this product over competitive products in this or other sectors of the market is based on the "cosmetic" and "ease of use" factor. If Apple misleads people on the cosmetics because it doesn't hold up to normal use the way they intended it to be used, then a lawsuit will remind apple to pick up the slack, the lawsuit is intended for those who have been inconvenienced by, or felt they were cheated by apple's easily scratchable screens on the Nano, if you are not part of that group, then please do not prejudice against that group because you can not comprehend their perceived loss.

No offense, but it's funny how so many people don't own a nano, yet talk about them all the time. I think if you owned one, you'd understand. You can return the thing and get a brand new one. On the other hand, we have to admit that they are fragile in comparison to other iPods. It's mainly because:
A) The normal scratch will look bigger on the nano.
B) The nano comes in black.
C) Instead of the rounded edges and corners of the ipod, it has a squared-off edge. Somehow, I think it makes the scratches easier to see in the light.
By the way, I throw my nano in with my keys ALL the time. Not a scratch.

[Sdashiki]

LOUD NOISES

sheesh get a chat room and go at it.

500+ posts and no one has ever gotten anywhere, I can see this going on forever.

[matticus008]

Yes I know. Apple's standard disclaimer as far back as I can remember offers no warranties whether express or implied unless required by local laws. But if placing the unprotected nano in the front pocket, back pocket, in denim pants, with paper currency, and with credit cards is all considered *normal* then the nano should offer even a modicum of scratch protection from this, but it does not. If I subject my mobile phone to the same rigors, it comes away totally unscathed, but the appearance of the nano is tarnished in as little as 2 days.
That's your opinion. All polycarbonate sheeting is coated for scratch resistance. It's not like Apple strips this off, and it's not as high quality a coating as expensive eyeglass lenses for a number of reasons. However, "normal use" does NOT mean that a product should be invulnerable to normal wear and tear, which is exactly what you are asking for. Unless your nano doesn't work, you've got no cause for compensation. You can be unhappy about it, fine, but it's not Apple's job to give you money for it. Otherwise, why even have a concept of "wear and tear?" Why have a polish and cleaning market for plastics that existed long before the nano and will exist long after it's gone?

This is merely your opinion. My nano has developed more than 100 scratches from "normal use" and in very short time. This is greatly disproportionate to all other portable devices I own or that I have owned in the past.
No, it's not just opinion. No scratch has yet to interfere with the function of the music player, and therefore there has yet to be a warranted claim against the functionality or durability of the device. You say the scratching is disproportionate to everything in YOUR experience, which is YOUR opinion and may be true in your experience, but no nano has yet been demonstrated to have an outrageous number of scratches for being made of plastic. I'm sorry, but your scratches, highly exaggerated by your images, are still not severe enough that you can claim to have a problem. Use one of the available polishing products, and your nano will look great again.


I have tried polishing agents on my 30GB iPod...many times. These agents do *NOT* clear away all scratches. They can improve the look, but they cannot restore it.
Nothing's perfect. As you said, they can improve the look. For a cost per application of a few cents, expecting more is unrealistic.

The best you can do is treat the device more delicately than a wilting flower to prevent any further outbreaks, but where's the fun in the iPod when you become so obsessed with keeping it scratch-free? You should be able to use it more freely, to expose it to the air, to show it off. Instead, we are put into a state of constant fear over the outbreak of unwanted scratches.
You can stop worrying about minor cosmetic problems and actually enjoy the device at any point. Polish it every few months, and it will continue to work perfectly well for a long time to come. If you're obsessive about scratches, you should use a case, period. You can't expect it to remain free of scratches if you actually use it. That like expecting the soles of your shoes not to wear down if you walk in them. It happens, it's manageable, there is a longstanding line of products to remedy it, and it has zero affect on the durability or usability of the product.

Cellphone technology uses Electromagnetic waves to communicate, to which, metallic materials are inherently opaque in frequency. That is not a design flaw of the cellphone, or cellphones as you said. There is no way to get around this, its just standard physics.
And there you have it! That's exactly right at the consumer level. Now replace "cellphone" with "iPod", "electromagnetic waves to communicate" with "polycarbonate," "metallic" with "harder," and "opaque in frequency" with "capable of scratching."

I'll do it for you. iPod technology uses polycarbonate, to/against which harder materials are inherently capable of scratching. There is no way to get around this, it's just standard physics.

Cell phones could use stronger signals, but they don't. They could use a lower frequency for better range, but they don't. But you're willing to accept that as a technical limitation. My radio works inside my house, so should my cell phone. You can't take opposite sides.

[Azbola]

I have been reading this thread as my girlfriends nano has the same problem as everyone elses:

1) It is kept in a cotton shirt breast pocket or sealed pocket in a handbag with nothing else.
2) 4 weeks old now
3) It is scratched to bits
5) No other device I or she have ever had does this - mobile, watch, mini disk, walkman, glasses etc etc.

It really is that simple - this product is not made well enough.

People say if you don't like it, don't buy one
- Too late it's already been bought

People say if you don't like it, take it back
- Apple store says "Tough luck not our problem"

[gugy]

Ok, Here is what I think are the good and bad about the lawsuit.

THE BAD:

• Lawsuit is frivolous
• Lawyers will make big money
• Responsibility and ethics: people will take advantage of it. Consumers who did not take care of their Nanos will take advantage of it
• Consumers/lawyers asking for share of Apple profits should be shot in the head.
• More than a small percentage of Nanos were defective or were manufactured with bad materials/products. Making very prone to scratches. Even when consumers were careful.
• Bad press for Apple
• Some people will not buy the Nano because of it.

THE GOOD

• Apple might drop the refund/exchange fees for defective Nanos.
• Apple might take action and fixed/change the materials used on the Nanos, making more durable
• Case manufactures will make more money
• Apple might refund fees for consumers who return/exchange their Nanos. (please remember: responsibility / ethics above)
• Apple might come with a better explanation of the Nano problem.
• Hopefully consumers will be more careful handling their Nanos.
• Consumers will feel more confident in buying Nanos if Apple take the steps above.

[ack_mac]

I have been reading this thread as my girlfriends nano has the same problem as everyone elses:

1) It is kept in a cotton shirt breast pocket or sealed pocket in a handbag with nothing else.
2) 4 weeks old now
3) It is scratched to bits
5) No other device I or she have ever had does this - mobile, watch, mini disk, walkman, glasses etc etc.

It really is that simple - this product is not made well enough.

People say if you don't like it, don't buy one
- Too late it's already been bought

People say if you don't like it, take it back
- Apple store says "Tough luck not our problem"


Wow, I am really glad I have an iPod mini vs. a Nano..
Let me ask you something (and I am not doubting that your gf's Nano is scratched). Since it is "scratched to bits", at one point during Apple's return policy did you not think to take it back? Or did all of the scratches occur after the return policy had expired? Just curious..

[Eniregnat]

There are a lot of pages here, so perhaps I missed somebody else posting this. This set of "tests" (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/3) was done with the first week of the Nano's release.

Link (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/1) to the first page of the article about the "Nano destruction tests".

It seems that in normal use would cause scratches. This is just my view, but when I get a cool anodized keychain or key, I expect it to get damaged with normal use. Plastic is never scratch free. Clear plastic on a dark background with tangental light shinning on it highlights scratches.

So far it looks like it takes a lot for a Nano's screen to become unreadable scratchy. Using Google, I haven’t found any images of Nano's badly scratched in normal use. This is a little telling, though a lawyer would note that this is just prudent.

In any case, it's a boon to other music outlets, services, and playback manufacturers. Even if it is unsubstantiated, it will damage sales.

It took a lot of work to scratch the Nano below (left). The photo to the right (biologic left) is after Sitting, dropping it while jogging, bicycling, and dropping it out a car going 30mph (48kph for the rest of the sane world or for our graphic artists 11400000 picas per hour-postscript)

[matticus008]

There are a lot of pages here, so perhaps I missed somebody else posting this. This set of "tests" (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/3) was done with the first week of the Nano's release.

Link (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/1) to the first page of the article about the "Nano destruction tests".

It seems that in normal use would cause scratches. This is just my view, but when I get a cool anodized keychain or key, I expect it to get damaged with normal use. Plastic is never scratch free. Clear plastic on a dark background with tangental light shinning on it highlights scratches.

Exactly right. The Ars link and pictures have been in this thread, but it bears repeating since it's conveniently skipped over frequently, it seems. What they did to the nano is far above and beyond normal use, and even then, the screen and controls were still functional (until being run over by a car, which caused the LCD to stop responding, but the controls and music playing ability continued to work). This is one tough player.

I don't know any reasonable person that expects something they carry around and use daily to remain scratchless, unless that something is a quality watch, scratchproof lenses, or sapphire or diamond jewelry. All of these are far more expensive relative to their markets (a minimum of five times the price of entry-level matching merchandise) than any iPod. The only Archos I've seen (an $850 portable movie player) has had some scratches on it, too.

[phd]

maybe a little off topic

A Charlotte, North Carolina lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and WON! (Stay with me.)


In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer "held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".


NOW FOR THE BEST PART


After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.


This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.
:rolleyes:

[ack_mac]

Just a point of clarification, is it mostly the black Nanos that are showing the scratches the worst? Every picture I have seen shows a black nano.. If that is the case then I would think that if someone were worried about the cosmetic features of the nano, they should think to purchase the white one...

[Maxx Power]

And there you have it! That's exactly right at the consumer level. Now replace "cellphone" with "iPod", "electromagnetic waves to communicate" with "polycarbonate," "metallic" with "harder," and "opaque in frequency" with "capable of scratching."

I'll do it for you. iPod technology uses polycarbonate, to/against which harder materials are inherently capable of scratching. There is no way to get around this, it's just standard physics.

Cell phones could use stronger signals, but they don't. They could use a lower frequency for better range, but they don't. But you're willing to accept that as a technical limitation. My radio works inside my house, so should my cell phone. You can't take opposite sides.

You are a pro at twisting words my friend. There are many other types of plastic that are much harder and can be used as casing material, I don't hear everyone else complaining about any other object made of plastic that we use which suffers from excessive scratch. The keyboard keys are made of plastic, I type on it all the time and very frequently strike my nails against the keys, they don't scratch, i can scratch the ipod surface with my nails and copper coins which has a hardness of 3, finger nails has a hardness of 2.5. There is no reason why they can't harden the polycarbonate plastic with some minerals or additives, many other kinds of plastics used has a hardness beyond copper, a very soft mineral. Cellphones can't use stronger signals, it's per FTC regulation for public interference and human health, there is a limitation that we decided upon when the health board and communications board decided what was acceptable. It's not a technical limitation, but not being able to transmit in certain houses is due to a physical limitation, the iPod being easily scratchable is due to a corporate decision to use last-minute materials for cost cutting, rush to the market, whatever their reason is, its nature is inherently different. SO of course there is a way to get around using polycarbonate, DON"T USE IT, or harden it with a coating. Is that so hard ?

I don't know any reasonable person that expects something they carry around and use daily to remain scratchless, unless that something is a quality watch, scratchproof lenses, or sapphire or diamond jewelry. All of these are far more expensive relative to their markets (a minimum of five times the price of entry-level matching merchandise) than any iPod. The only Archos I've seen (an $850 portable movie player) has had some scratches on it, too.

Nobody expects it to remain pristine through use, but if it starts to hinder the readability of the screen, or if it starts ruining the intended cosmetic design of the unit in such a short time after the Nano's release, then that is different matter at hand.

Wow, I am really glad I have an iPod mini vs. a Nano..
Let me ask you something (and I am not doubting that your gf's Nano is scratched). Since it is "scratched to bits", at one point during Apple's return policy did you not think to take it back? Or did all of the scratches occur after the return policy had expired? Just curious..

the return policy cleverly does not cover this type of damage. Seems like they planned it out doesn't it ?

No offense, but it's funny how so many people don't own a nano, yet talk about them all the time. I think if you owned one, you'd understand. You can return the thing and get a brand new one. On the other hand, we have to admit that they are fragile in comparison to other iPods. It's mainly because:
A) The normal scratch will look bigger on the nano.
B) The nano comes in black.
C) Instead of the rounded edges and corners of the ipod, it has a squared-off edge. Somehow, I think it makes the scratches easier to see in the light.
By the way, I throw my nano in with my keys ALL the time. Not a scratch.
What i think happened is the first batch of the Nanos were rushed, and this polycarbonate resin was not properly fixed with whatever they cure it with. Then they released some nanos that have a better surface. I have seen nanos that were literally scratched to bits by coins and keys, while one of my colleague's friends's nano was still in pretty good shape. Or maybe it was just random deviation in softness across a batch or two of the players. Oh, and you can't just return it, should read the policies. Unless you are in UK, then you have 15 days if you buy it online.

[Eniregnat]

URBAN LEGOND
A Charlotte, North Carolina lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and WON! (Stay with me.)


In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer "held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".


NOW FOR THE BEST PART


After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.


This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.
:rolleyes:

It's an Urban Legond (http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/cigars.html). Though a funny one.

Back on topic. I need to see pictures of the damaged iPods.

[matticus008]

Nobody expects it to remain pristine through use, but if it starts to hinder the readability of the screen, or if it starts ruining the intended cosmetic design of the unit in such a short time after the Nano's release, then that is different matter at hand.
Its asthestics is not what makes it valuable to, what I hope, most people, however, the reason why people choose apple products in a seeminly free market is inarguably biased toward its asthetism either in its design, physical shape, or ease of use. If you compromise that by a flawed design, yet you continue to claim to offer any of the asthetism people associate your products and choose your products by, then you are misleading people and commiting fraud.
If you choose one glass dinner plate over another based on aesthetics, do you expect the prettier plate to be less scratched by knives? Let's say that one has an opaque, matte finish and the other is a glossy, clear plate. Is that glossy plate, which is prettier, guilty of a flawed design for looking nicer and showing scratches more than the other plate?

You are claiming that the idea that the nano is sold by looks somehow requires it to have different properties from anything else. There is no precedent for that. Does a Dodge Durango scratch as easily as a Ford Explorer? Pretty much. That the Dodge is ugly doesn't change anything. If you buy something based on appearance, as many people do, and you feel that appearance is important to maintain, then you should treat it with respect and take responsibility for cleaning and maintaining it. That's why people baby cars or kitchen appliances or furniture that look(s) good (whether they're expensive or not)--they take pride in maintaining appearance. The fact that a given object has a nice design doesn't alleviate consumer responsibility for taking care of it and if anything increases that responsibility. If you don't take any active role in preserving that appearance, then it won't stay that way. If you never clean your car or change your oil, it won't be a nice car anymore. It's not the manufacturer's fault.

EDIT: As for "hindering the readability of the screen"...it hasn't been demonstrated. Hypothetically, an unreadable screen would be a problem to address, but since there's no reality to that claim as of yet, it's not a relevant consideration. Well over a million people have had like six weeks now to demonstrate even one case of this claim, and it has not happened. No picture on the internet anywhere has shown any screen usability problem. The nano dropped six times run over twice, and then thrown into the air still had a legible screen (if the screen itself were still working). So stop using that argument unless you can demonstrate it. Not owning a nano yourself, I suspect that will be rather difficult.

Besides, if apple execs use this player in their jeans pockets as they have, why shouldn't I ? And it this causes premature wear and accelerated marring of the surface until it is ridden with scratches, then maybe people have a case to fight for.
You are welcome to use it in your pocket. But it will scratch doing so in normal wear. Surface scratches on plastic are not "premature wear" because there is no time line for cosmetic damage. Whether you've owned it for one day or one hundred, the likelihood of it coming in contact with something that will scratch it is exactly the same. It depends on what comes in contact with the player, not how long you've had it. A painted wall might get scraped the day after it was painted (disappointing but not 'premature') or a two years later (less disappointing). Premature wear is like a fan belt that is guaranteed for 10,000 miles giving out after just 6,000, because it's in constant contact with the pulley and its lifespan can be calculated based on known constant stress. And just because you see Steve Ballmer on stage sweating like a pig and screaming like a monkey doesn't mean that you need to do it, too, or that doing so will make you filthy rich like him. Use some flipping common sense.

You are a pro at twisting words my friend. There are many other types of plastic that are much harder and can be used as casing material, I don't hear everyone else complaining about any other object made of plastic that we use which suffers from excessive scratch. [...]There is no reason why they can't harden the polycarbonate plastic with some minerals or additives, many other kinds of plastics used has a hardness beyond copper, a very soft mineral.
You twist them yourself. As has already been covered, polycarbonate is chosen in this field because of its other salient properties: great strength (25-30 times that of acrylic), high optical transparency, nonreaction to most common chemicals (unlike acrylic), low weight, its ability to cushion against impacts and not transmit kinetic energy (good for a dropped iPod), and its nature which resists cracking and chipping. Using additives negates the uses of the material. Using harder plastics is a bad idea, because it would make the iPod brittle. A crack is a far worse problem to face than some scratches that are easily polished. Please don't say "there is no reason" unless you've done your homework. You've demonstrated a patent lack of understanding of materials.

Cellphones can't use stronger signals, it's per FTC regulation for public interference and human health, there is a limitation that we decided upon when the health board and communications board decided what was acceptable. It's not a technical limitation, but not being able to transmit in certain houses is due to a physical limitation
You missed the point. If a cordless phone, a TV, and a radio work, that proves that it's possible for the cell phone to work as well. They've chosen not to grant that ability. Current cell phone signals are not at or near the legal or FTC-deemed "safe" limits. They were deliberately chosen for other reasons, which are quite complex. Again, think through before spouting off.

the iPod being easily scratchable is due to a corporate decision to use last-minute materials for cost cutting, rush to the market, whatever their reason is, its nature is inherently different. SO of course there is a way to get around using polycarbonate, DON"T USE IT, or harden it with a coating. Is that so hard ?
Polycarbonate is more expensive than acrylics or polyethylenes. There goes cost cutting. Polycarbonate is well established in the industry and was intentionally chosen and introduced in the 4G iPod. There go "rushed to market" and "last minute materials." Not using it would lead to an inferior iPod to what we have today. It wouldn't scratch lightly as easily, but it would chip, crack, gouge, and discolor/deform more readily. It would also be less likely to survive a fall and certainly would not survive being run over by a car. If you prefer to give all those things up for fewer (easily removed on polycarbonate, harder to remove on acrylic) scratches, by all means, cast your vote!

Seriously, your posts show a profound lack of comprehension. If you're going to continue to make assertions, make informed posts grounded in reality. That's the only way to have a discussion.

[gunnz]

You are a pro at twisting words my friend. There are many other types of plastic that are much harder and can be used as casing material, I don't hear everyone else complaining about any other object made of plastic that we use which suffers from excessive scratch. The keyboard keys are made of plastic, I type on it all the time and very frequently strike my nails against the keys, they don't scratch, i can scratch the ipod surface with my nails and copper coins which has a hardness of 3, finger nails has a hardness of 2.5. There is no reason why they can't harden the polycarbonate plastic with some minerals or additives, many other kinds of plastics used has a hardness beyond copper, a very soft mineral. Cellphones can't use stronger signals, it's per FTC regulation for public interference and human health, there is a limitation that we decided upon when the health board and communications board decided what was acceptable. It's not a technical limitation, but not being able to transmit in certain houses is due to a physical limitation, the iPod being easily scratchable is due to a corporate decision to use last-minute materials for cost cutting, rush to the market, whatever their reason is, its nature is inherently different. SO of course there is a way to get around using polycarbonate, DON"T USE IT, or harden it with a coating. Is that so hard ?



Nobody expects it to remain pristine through use, but if it starts to hinder the readability of the screen, or if it starts ruining the intended cosmetic design of the unit in such a short time after the Nano's release, then that is different matter at hand.



the return policy cleverly does not cover this type of damage. Seems like they planned it out doesn't it ?


What i think happened is the first batch of the Nanos were rushed, and this polycarbonate resin was not properly fixed with whatever they cure it with. Then they released some nanos that have a better surface. I have seen nanos that were literally scratched to bits by coins and keys, while one of my colleague's friends's nano was still in pretty good shape. Or maybe it was just random deviation in softness across a batch or two of the players. Oh, and you can't just return it, should read the policies. Unless you are in UK, then you have 15 days if you buy it online.

Why can't you return it? If it's really scratched up to the point where it's obviously a defect, you can exchange it (for a price of 25 bucks). People want their 25 bucks back, which is partly the reason for the lawsuit.

[ack_mac]

Why can't you return it? If it's really scratched up to the point where it's obviously a defect, you can exchange it (for a price of 25 bucks). People want their 25 bucks back, which is partly the reason for the lawsuit.

FACT:
I am a pretty recent Apple owner (iPod in June and a Mac Mini that I ordered less than two weeks ago). I may not be an expert, but this much I do know and is a fact. Apple recently came in first place (by a long shot) in a number of consumer ratings surveys for their customer service. Granted, this was for PC's but the just of this is that Apple knows a thing or two about customer service and loyalty. This is not my opinion but a fact recognized by a number of outside sources that have awarded Apple with the highest honors:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/15/HNcustomerratings_1.html

FACT:
I have a co-worker who tried to return an iPod to the local Apple Store (Clarendon) becasue their iPod mini had been dropped while running and started malfunctioning. The thing was dented and scratched as can be, and my co-worker thought that Apple would tell them to take a hike (due to both the cosmetic damage, and the fact that you could tell the thing had been dropped). Guess what Apple did? They gave him a brand new one, no questions asked.. Now he has purchased two more iPods (one for himself, one as a gift).

FACT:
I recently had some shipping problems (delay) with my Mac Mini and called Apple Customer Service to complain. Even though the issue appears to have been Fedex's fault, Apple apologized and gave me a $30 coupon of my next purchase of $100 or more. Even better, they followed up on my issue a few days later. They flat out care... In all my experience of owning PC's I have never been treated this fairly by a company (especially for a sub-$1000 computer purchase).

Now, I understand their policy, but has anyone actually tried to return one of these severly scratched iPods within the first 14 days? My guess is that if you gave Apple an opportunity to do the right thing they either will, or you can at least feel better because you tried..

[Maxx Power]

If you choose one glass dinner plate over another based on aesthetics, do you expect the prettier plate to be less scratched by knives? Let's say that one has an opaque, matte finish and the other is a glossy, clear plate. Is that glossy plate, which is prettier, guilty of a flawed design for looking nicer and showing scratches more than the other plate?

It would be if it was intentionally designed to be more scratchable.


You are claiming that the idea that the nano is sold by looks somehow requires it to have different properties from anything else. There is no precedent for that. Does a Dodge Durango scratch as easily as a Ford Explorer? Pretty much. That the Dodge is ugly doesn't change anything. If you buy something based on appearance, as many people do, and you feel that appearance is important to maintain, then you should treat it with respect and take responsibility for cleaning and maintaining it. That's why people baby cars or kitchen appliances or furniture that look(s) good (whether they're expensive or not)--they take pride in maintaining appearance. The fact that a given object has a nice design doesn't alleviate consumer responsibility for taking care of it and if anything increases that responsibility. If you don't take any active role in preserving that appearance, then it won't stay that way. If you never clean your car or change your oil, it won't be a nice car anymore. It's not the manufacturer's fault.


And i suppose you can change the faceplate of the Nano at ease or will ? Take pride in buying and maintaning items, that's funny. Your ego has to be pretty high for that to glide.



EDIT: As for "hindering the readability of the screen"...it hasn't been demonstrated. Hypothetically, an unreadable screen would be a problem to address, but since there's no reality to that claim as of yet, it's not a relevant consideration. Well over a million people have had like six weeks now to demonstrate even one case of this claim, and it has not happened. No picture on the internet anywhere has shown any screen usability problem. The nano dropped six times run over twice, and then thrown into the air still had a legible screen (if the screen itself were still working). So stop using that argument unless you can demonstrate it. Not owning a nano yourself, I suspect that will be rather difficult.

I saw that Ars article the day it came out, dropped six times ? That's nothing for the polycarbonate, if you rubbed your nano with paper towel twice per day for 1 year, then tell me the scratch isn't excessive. Just go to Apple Discussion Boards for under 1000 posts in this category of screen issues pertaining to both breaking and excessive scratching of the screen. Maybe if you read a few of those user's woes, you'll change your mind. I can demonstrate the scratching, apparently microfibre even scratches the Nano, give me your nano, and i'll rub it with a paper towel for a minute, then we'll see. Do your research even on this thread, there are people claiming that that either their or other people's Nano they have seen are scratched to the point whhere you can not read it under sunlight. The whole point from my perspective is to put an injunction on marketing the nano the way it is, for it is deceiving, and produce further Nanos to resist the scratch bettter than it is now. Not owning a Nano ? Must I be a victim to put my self in other people's shoes ?


You are welcome to use it in your pocket. But it will scratch doing so in normal wear. Surface scratches on plastic are not "premature wear" because there is no time line for cosmetic damage. Whether you've owned it for one day or one hundred, the likelihood of it coming in contact with something that will scratch it is exactly the same. It depends on what comes in contact with the player, not how long you've had it. A painted wall might get scraped the day after it was painted (disappointing but not 'premature') or a two years later (less disappointing). Premature wear is like a fan belt that is guaranteed for 10,000 miles giving out after just 6,000, because it's in constant contact with the pulley and its lifespan can be calculated based on known constant stress. And just because you see Steve Ballmer on stage sweating like a pig and screaming like a monkey doesn't mean that you need to do it, too, or that doing so will make you filthy rich like him. Use some flipping common sense.
then maybe this lawsuit should bring about a definition for timeline on wear and tear for cosmetics of the Nano. without these guidelines printed and quotable somewhere, you'll just keep on dodging the point.



You twist them yourself. As has already been covered, polycarbonate is chosen in this field because of its other salient properties: great strength (25-30 times that of acrylic), high optical transparency, nonreaction to most common chemicals (unlike acrylic), low weight, its ability to cushion against impacts and not transmit kinetic energy (good for a dropped iPod), and its nature which resists cracking and chipping. Using additives negates the uses of the material. Using harder plastics is a bad idea, because it would make the iPod brittle. A crack is a far worse problem to face than some scratches that are easily polished. Please don't say "there is no reason" unless you've done your homework. You've demonstrated a patent lack of understanding of materials.

And you've demonstrated your naiveness. Using additives is common to obtain colour, softness, hardness, etc. Using coatings is common to increase scratch resistance, optical transmission or reflection. I hardly see there being a good reason for not doing something to increase the scratch resistance if vast amounts of technology exists in this field.



You missed the point. If a cordless phone, a TV, and a radio work, that proves that it's possible for the cell phone to work as well. They've chosen not to grant that ability. Current cell phone signals are not at or near the legal or FTC-deemed "safe" limits. They were deliberately chosen for other reasons, which are quite complex. Again, think through before spouting off.



You need some basic physics education. Have you looked at FTC's regulated bandwidth of EM waves ? Do you know how tight it is between gaps ? You want to assign cellphones to a different frequency or amplify its signals ? Think about the interference, battery life, and your own tissues. TV suffers from interference just like a cellphone does, cordless phone suffers interference just like a cellphone does. TV signals are analog, you still see the picture but it degrades gradually as the signal worsens. Cellphone signals are now days digital, you either hear things or get cut-off as the error rate goes up. Cordless phones have a fraction of the range your cellphone has from its central antenna in your location. And comparing 1800 or 800 or 900 or 1900 or 400Mhz signals to 2.4, 5.8 or 10 ghz cordless handsets, I'd say they did plan for you to be able to reach further with a cellphone in terms of signal penetration power than with a coreless, and at the same time have enough bandwidth to carry data and voice.



Polycarbonate is more expensive than acrylics or polyethylenes. There goes cost cutting. Polycarbonate is well established in the industry and was intentionally chosen and introduced in the 4G iPod. There go "rushed to market" and "last minute materials." Not using it would lead to an inferior iPod to what we have today. It wouldn't scratch lightly as easily, but it would chip, crack, gouge, and discolor/deform more readily. It would also be less likely to survive a fall and certainly would not survive being run over by a car. If you prefer to give all those things up for fewer (easily removed on polycarbonate, harder to remove on acrylic) scratches, by all means, cast your vote!

Seriously, your posts show a profound lack of comprehension. If you're going to continue to make assertions, make informed posts grounded in reality. That's the only way to have a discussion.

You should really try to think outside the box. Polycarbonate is more expensive than other plastics, Hmmm, since they have been using it since the Cube, maybe you'd think they know it well enough to plan for the future, right ? So say they didn't want the iPod to scratch on purpose, then they made a mistake, in which case the lawsuit has a foothold, and they have a responsibility. If they did know the iPod will have a scratching problem, they should have switched materials, but since their production lines are using the moulding processes specific to polycarbonate and it is more transparent to give a pleasing look, it does cost them less to stick with what they have than to switch.
You speak of apple as if the Nano is the only design they can produce for an iPod. They need not use polycarbonate at all. They can do what they did with the Mini, wrap the thing in aluminum or steel, tough, won't scratch easily, and look stylish. If you are convinced there is no plastic better than polycarbonate for this application (i'd like to see you yet prove this), then please, face the fact that there are other things other than plastics to use for a mp3 player.

[Maxx Power]

Why can't you return it? If it's really scratched up to the point where it's obviously a defect, you can exchange it (for a price of 25 bucks). People want their 25 bucks back, which is partly the reason for the lawsuit.

I was just standing up for the people here who posted earlier claiming that they did have badly scratched Nanos, because I have seen them and am not proud of whoever's idea it was at apple to produce the Nano the way it is. I'm not in this for any personal gain or loss, I have no nano. Probably more subjective this way .

[AP_piano295]

SOMEONE TELL ME IF IM WRONG ABOUT THIS the current ipod and ipod nano are different from all the others in that they now have A CLEAR RESIN COATING I dont know what that means but I have herd it from a number of sources.

And this is to matticus.

You have had a number of good arguments and you got me thinking that you might be right for a while. I told my neighbor with a nano to try polishing out some of the hairline scratches (as you suggested). He did, he used clean lint free eye glass cleaning cloth that he went out and got just for the purpose and the DA** and polishing gave it even more scratches:mad: That is called an issue and it is apples fault.

[Loke]

This is to all of you who defend the iPod nano scratchiness with various long and sometimes boring essays:

How come my Siemens SX1 mobile phone is virtually scratch free after 2 years of everyday, regular use. The screen covers over half of one side of the device. And yes, it has been in my pockets together with keys, coins, you name it from time to time.

If Siemens can, why cant Apple?

Edit: Its also been dropped several times, bent/strained when in pockets and put under pressure in various scenarios. Still it doesnt exhibit the appearance (no cracks, no chipping, not miscolored etc) as some here claim such device would.

[Maxx Power]

This is to all of you who defend the iPod nano scratchiness with various long and sometimes boring essays:

How come my Siemens SX1 mobile phone is virtually scratch free after 2 years of everyday, regular use. The screen covers over half of one side of the device. And yes, it has been in my pockets together with keys, coins, you name it from time to time.

If Siemens can, why cant Apple?

Edit: Its also been dropped several times, bent/strained when in pockets and put under pressure in various scenarios. Still it doesnt exhibit the appearance (no cracks, no chipping, not miscolored etc) as some here claim such device would.
Had a siemens C56 with the screen covering half the body on one side, a A56 that looks the same, and now a sony ericsson walkman phone W800 that has no scratches and I treat my phones like my keys.

[matticus008]

It would be if it was intentionally designed to be more scratchable.
Now that's just ridiculous. Nobody designs anything with the intention of introducing problems. Apple made a calculation that out of the long list of possible materials, this was the best suited and least problematic. Nothing is perfect. There will always be some weakness or another. It doesn't mean that it was designed to have that weakness.


And i suppose you can change the faceplate of the Nano at ease or will ? Take pride in buying and maintaning items, that's funny. Your ego has to be pretty high for that to glide.
Uh, what does changing the faceplate have to do with anything? Another case of your words getting ahead of you. And people do take pride in maintaining items that are important or valuable to them. Do I even need to explain that? I shouldn't. Do you not have neighbors who wash their cars almost excessively, or people who own just about every cleaning product known to man? Do you know people who neglect expensive items and expect them to keep themselves in top condition? Regular maintenance is part of ownership (and largely why some people continue renting rather than buying a home even when they could afford one).



I saw that Ars article the day it came out, dropped six times ? That's nothing for the polycarbonate, if you rubbed your nano with paper towel twice per day for 1 year, then tell me the scratch isn't excessive.
So now you agree that the nano is durable and tough. Good. The broken screens have already been address, so there's no reason to bring that up. A paper towel is not an appropriate product to use on a nano, but I doubt it would cause the sort of damage you're fantasizing. I don't disagree that there are a lot of posts. But there are also MILLIONS of posts on the internet that say "Mac suck! LOLZ!!!111one"...doesn't make them TRUE statements. If there are so many complaints, why are there ZERO commensurate pictures? This is the last time I'm going to address your nonexistent argument until you provide pictures. Seriously.

Here are several links to places that support the opposite view of the scratch whiners (check Slashdot for hundreds more)
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/is_the_ipod_nano_hubbub_really_worth_a_class_action_suit/
http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2005/10/ipod-nano-lawsuit-fighting-is-right.html
http://jackwhispers.blogspot.com/2005/10/parananoia.html
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=156416
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=156606
http://nanoscratch.com/


The whole point from my perspective is to put an injunction on marketing the nano the way it is, for it is deceiving, and produce further Nanos to resist the scratch bettter than it is now. Not owning a Nano ? Must I be a victim to put my self in other people's shoes ?
Deceived how? Does anything say anywhere that the iPod is scratchproof? Did Steve Jobs say "hey look no scratches 4 ever" when he introduced the model? Does Apple have some sort of marketing campaign involving dragging the iPod through rivers and dirt and across pavement where it comes out in perfect condition? No. There are NO claims about the iPod's resistance to scratches anywhere that have been violated. But since you've got the sympathy pains of a problem you can't see, it's not suprising that you also can't see the answer.

then maybe this lawsuit should bring about a definition for timeline on wear and tear for cosmetics of the Nano. without these guidelines printed and quotable somewhere, you'll just keep on dodging the point.
You missed it again. You can't put a timeline on something with no time-related variables. It's not color fade, surface ablation, battery life, luminescence or any other time-based statistic. Putting a label on it would be impossible.

And you've demonstrated your naiveness. Using additives is common to obtain colour, softness, hardness, etc. Using coatings is common to increase scratch resistance, optical transmission or reflection. I hardly see there being a good reason for not doing something to increase the scratch resistance if vast amounts of technology exists in this field.
Adding hardness to polycarbonate defeats its strengths for which it was selected in the first place. The other additives have nothing to do with this situation. Do you really not read? Also, not that I expect you to see it the second time, either, coatings introduce problems of their own with thermal expansion, potential bonding problems, and chipping. What coating do you suggest? Be specific or don't respond.



You need some basic physics education. Have you looked at FTC's regulated bandwidth of EM waves ? Do you know how tight it is between gaps ? You want to assign cellphones to a different frequency or amplify its signals ? Think about the interference, battery life, and your own tissues.
Exactly. These are all reasons why cell phone signals are the way they are. That does not mean it's not POSSIBLE to change them or to use different ones. It's just not economically feasible to do so in the opinion of the companies involved. There are other options, which you are (correctly) dismissing as inferior at the present time. The same is the case with the choice of materials for the nano. There are other options, but this is the best currently feasible.


You should really try to think outside the box. Polycarbonate is more expensive than other plastics, Hmmm, since they have been using it since the Cube, maybe you'd think they know it well enough to plan for the future, right ? If they did know the iPod will have a scratching problem, they should have switched materials, but since their production lines are using the moulding processes specific to polycarbonate and it is more transparent to give a pleasing look, it does cost them less to stick with what they have than to switch.
The first 3 generations of iPod did NOT use polycarbonate (they used acrylic at least for the first two). Your cursory reading led you to skip over that as well. It has nothing to do with their production lines, because Apple doesn't own its production lines, but contracts out to companies that handle manufacturing for Apple making no difference in cost or complication. That, coupled with their former use of acrylic combine to show that they consciously switched to the new materials and the new design.


You speak of apple as if the Nano is the only design they can produce for an iPod. They need not use polycarbonate at all. They can do what they did with the Mini, wrap the thing in aluminum or steel, tough, won't scratch easily, and look stylish. If you are convinced there is no plastic better than polycarbonate for this application (i'd like to see you yet prove this), then please, face the fact that there are other things other than plastics to use for a mp3 player.
So now you're arguing that the design, which is why people buy it you claim, is not the right design for the nano. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with the nano's design, and there is no fault on the manufacturer for cosmetic defects caused in normal use. They can't be responsible for what you do to it after you buy it. A good comment I saw was that Jeep's commercials show their SUVs going through a great deal of trauma, but they're always shiny and flawless at the end of the commercial. That is a suggestive use which is not realistic. Apple hasn't made any claims or implications at all, let alone ones on that scale. And any suit on similar grounds against Jeep would be dismissed in an instant.

As for the plastic, that has already been covered in this thread. Polyethylene is too weak, acrylic has numerous disadvantages already named, and that leaves polycarbonate among the major plastics used in electronics. For all of its benefits (also already discussed), the downside to polycarbonate is a surface that is not as scratch-resistant as some other plastics (but it is also superior to several). But the same thing that makes it easier for minor, purely cosmetic surface scratches makes it easier to clean them off. Furthermore, its great strength makes deep gouges and major scratches very difficult...and THAT is what would carry a risk of lost legibility. As it stands, there are ZERO iPods that have been impaired in use by cosmetic scratches caused by or in the possession of owners.

If the nano scratches too easily in your opinion, you should have returned the product and purchased something else. If you didn't decide you didn't like the product until after the 14-day return period, then that's your own fault and no one else's. If you chose not to return the product because of the restocking fee, it's your own fault for buying it at a location with a restocking fee. Not all places that sell iPods charge them, and if you are so opposed to them, you can take your money elsewhere. If you're especially upset about them, you can try to find some legal grounds to sue over the restocking fee. If Apple broke the law with regards to restocking fees, I'd be happy to support that suit. But that's not what this suit is about. It's about greedy opportunism and a ridiculous internet meme not founded in any documented reality.

Please stop making several posts in a row, as well. It makes it difficult to follow.

[nomad01]

Had a siemens C56 with the screen covering half the body on one side, a A56 that looks the same, and now a sony ericsson walkman phone W800 that has no scratches and I treat my phones like my keys.

I've owned about a dozen (mostly Nokia) phones over the years and all of them get scratched. So now, unless they have replaceable fascias, I buy screen protectors for them before I get them scratched... just like I do with my iPods.

[ksz]

That's your opinion. All polycarbonate sheeting is coated for scratch resistance. It's not like Apple strips this off, and it's not as high quality a coating as expensive eyeglass lenses for a number of reasons.
But it *does not work*. I said the nano should offer even a modicum of scratch resistance against the rigors of normal use, but it does not. If you're uncertain what "modicum" means, please look it up.

However, "normal use" does NOT mean that a product should be invulnerable to normal wear and tear, which is exactly what you are asking for.
Invulnerable? Who said invulnerable? I said it should offer even a modicum of scratch resistance against normal wear and tear. Scratches are so easy to produce on the nano that in 2 days its appearance becomes tarnished.

Do you own any other portable electronics device whose appearance gets tarnished after 2 days of normal use? I certainly don't.

Unless your nano doesn't work, you've got no cause for compensation. You can be unhappy about it, fine, but it's not Apple's job to give you money for it.
I am not the one asking for money. I'm not involved in the lawsuit. I am on a 5-month business trip in Taiwan where, during normal use, my nano became covered with scratches.

Otherwise, why even have a concept of "wear and tear?" Why have a polish and cleaning market for plastics that existed long before the nano and will exist long after it's gone?
If scratches accumulated SLOWLY on the nano, taking years to accumulate 100 scratches, I would be OK. But my nano accumulated 100+ scratches in just a few days. A scratch here and a scratch there might be okay, but 100 scratches?

Similarly, I own a BMW 545i which cost me...well, you can figure out how much a loaded 545i costs...and it is subject to normal wear and tear. It has accumulated just a few scratches after 18 months of ownership. In fact it has only about 10 or 15 very small scratches sparsely located, mostly on the front end. These scratches HAVE NOT TARNISHED the appearance of my car.

If my 545i was a scratch magnate and broke out into a hive of scratches after the first week whereas my friend's Camry or Lexus or Mercedes or Audi developed NO scratches after the same period of time, do you think I would be dissatisfied to say the least?

Now you will tell me that I should shut up because the scratches on my BMW DO NOT IMPAIR functionality of the car. The car still drives, right? Yes it does. The car's electronics and fancy gadgets still work, right? Sure they do.

So why would I be dissatisfied? Simple. Because in this hypothetical case my BMW would be accumulating scratches at a rate that is disproportionate to other comparable items and these scratches are ruining its appearance.

Of course my car still runs, of course its gadgets still work, but THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE, although after another few weeks my nano's screen might be too scratched up to be easily readable, and then its functionality will be impaired.

I have also stated that I am babying the nano in order to stop or at least slow down the rate of appearance-decay, but I wish the nano had been scratch resistant to at least a practical degree, and if a sleeve is that important, one should have been included in the box. The new iPod (video) comes with a carrying sleeve; this means Apple is now acknowledging that iPods really need one. If they did not need a sleeve, there would not be a sleeve in every box.

No, it's not just opinion. No scratch has yet to interfere with the function of the music player, and therefore there has yet to be a warranted claim against the functionality or durability of the device.
If the hypothetical BMW case stated above were true, don't you think every such owner would be upset at BMW?

You say the scratching is disproportionate to everything in YOUR experience, which is YOUR opinion and may be true in your experience, but no nano has yet been demonstrated to have an outrageous number of scratches for being made of plastic.
What other portable consumer electronics device you own has had its appearance tarnished in just 2 days of normal use? Name it. If the scratches on my nano took 2 or 3 years to accumulate, I would not be complaining, but these scratches accumulated in just days.

I'm sorry, but your scratches, highly exaggerated by your images, are still not severe enough that you can claim to have a problem.
I don't think we're communicating any more.

Use one of the available polishing products, and your nano will look great again.
I will polish it when I return to the U.S.

Nothing's perfect. As you said, they can improve the look. For a cost per application of a few cents, expecting more is unrealistic.
Hogwash. If my BMW accumulated scratches at a disproportionate rate, I would be very dissatisfied.

Polish it every few months, and it will continue to work perfectly well for a long time to come.
It hasn't even been 1 month and it's covered with scratches! I will have to polish it every few days. And this is disproportionate and unrealistic to expect a customer to do.

like expecting the soles of your shoes not to wear down if you walk in them.
It seems you still don't get it.

I'll do it for you. iPod technology uses polycarbonate, to/against which harder materials are inherently capable of scratching. There is no way to get around this, it's just standard physics.
Bad analogy. Polycarbonate is NOT the only material available to Apple from which to make a successful iPod. The mini was the most successful iPod and it was made from anodized aluminum.

However, cell phone companies HAVE TO USE the EM band set aside by the FCC for consumer mobile communication. Can you give them an alternative technology for wireless? I'd like to see that!

Cell phones could use stronger signals, but they don't. They could use a lower frequency for better range, but they don't. But you're willing to accept that as a technical limitation. My radio works inside my house, so should my cell phone. You can't take opposite sides.
My mobile phone works inside my house and inside my office. However, there were deadspots a year ago which have been fixed. My phone company (Cingular) listened to my complaints about deadspots, acknowledged that those deadspots existed and had been reported by others, and told me they're working to improve coverage in those areas. And they lived up to their promises.

[matticus008]

But it *does not work*. I said the nano should offer even a modicum of scratch resistance against the rigors of normal use, but it does not. If you're uncertain what "modicum" means, please look it up.
Having yet to see a nano horribly disfigured and destroyed by scratches, and having my own nano in perfectly reasonable condition for not being protected, I'm not inclined to believe that the nano is lacking in a fundamental way its resistance to scratching. Judging by the fact that it has superior scratch resistance to many CDs, I believe the nano has more than a cursory level of scratch protection. I have worked with many softer plastics and know that polycarbonate is not sitting at the bottom. Compared to the standard laundry list of plastic weaknesses, frankly this is the one I'd most want. Perhaps you'd choose a different weakness...but there will always be some sort of deficiency, and since all plastic scratches and the difference in sensitivity at the high end is not dramatically large, any other deficiency would be worse and it still wouldn't be scratchproof.

Do you own any other portable electronics device whose appearance gets tarnished after 2 days of normal use? I certainly don't.
I don't own any device whose appearance is flawless after a short period of time, nor do I own any device, all iPods included, that I could define as criminally or disproportionately tarnished after such a time. The worst condition of anything I own after the shortest period of time was a pair of Fossil sunglasses which got scratched in my glove compartment after less than two hours. Runner up would be my car, which came with a number of small and faint scratches and collected some minor paint damage on the way home from where I purchased it (it was a 90 minute drive).


If scratches accumulated SLOWLY on the nano, taking years to accumulate 100 scratches, I would be OK. But my nano accumulated 100+ scratches in just a few days. A scratch here and a scratch there might be okay, but 100 scratches?
There's no time factor involved. Honestly. It's all about the environment and the conditions. And furthermore I know of nothing, save my most expensive watch, that took years to scratch. And even that "scratchproof" watch has a small scrape from a run in with a computer part.

These scratches HAVE NOT TARNISHED the appearance of my car.
And if they had, you would have to live with it, so count yourself lucky on the car and not so lucky on the iPod.

If my 545i was a scratch magnate and broke out into a hive of scratches after the first week whereas my friend's Camry or Lexus or Mercedes or Audi developed NO scratches after the same period of time, do you think I would be dissatisfied to say the least?
Sure, dissatisfied, possibly even angry. But you're also talking about something that's easily double the price of a Camry. By that logic, there would have to be something half the price of the nano with similar function and features in order to be upset about the nano over any other product of the same type. That is not the case, so the "premium" tactic doesn't apply. And you probably want to look up "magnate" since this is at least the third time you've misused it. Meanwhile, my dictionary continues to collect dust.

So why would I be dissatisfied? Simple. Because in this hypothetical case my BMW would be accumulating scratches at a rate that is disproportionate to other comparable items and these scratches are ruining its appearance.
Dissatisfied fine, but entitled to nothing in the way of compensation.

If the hypothetical BMW case stated above were true, don't you think every such owner would be upset at BMW?
Sure they would be upset. One or two might even try to sue and possibly demand a share of BMW's profits. But they'd be entitled to nothing, and aside from being upset, life goes on and BMW continues to sell the exact same car.


What other portable consumer electronics device you own has had its appearance tarnished in just 2 days of normal use? Name it. If the scratches on my nano took 2 or 3 years to accumulate, I would not be complaining, but these scratches accumulated in just days.
Your scratches are not inconsistent with several months of use. It's unfortunate that they occured sooner rather than later, but the time factor is random. The abrasion factor is not. I don't have any device, including my nano, which today became two nanos, which I consider to be heavily damaged within two days. That said, I have seen people inexplicably damage something brand new, and myself have had $75 sunglasses damaged within hours, left in a glove compartment that I thought to be clean. I was upset, but sometimes that happens. If people talked about sunglasses or watches that often, I'm sure I could find plenty of people on the internet to say "hey! me too! what's up with that?" about scratches from nowhere.


Bad analogy. Polycarbonate is NOT the only material available to Apple from which to make a successful iPod. The mini was the most successful iPod and it was made from anodized aluminum.
The nano is fast taking its place. They went with a different design. Although transparent aluminum may be available now, I don't think for a second that it fits the design of the nano. If you don't like the design, there are plenty of alternatives. And if your nano really scratched that much after two days, why not return it? If the restocking charge was more valuable to you than the iPod's appearance, you've just put an extremely small value on aesthetics and shouldn't be anywhere near this upset.


However, cell phone companies HAVE TO USE the EM band set aside by the FCC for consumer mobile communication. Can you give them an alternative technology for wireless? I'd like to see that!
But there are other EM bands they could have chosen from, and to think that there wasn't an extensive discussion before adopting them would be foolish. Another EM band could provide a longer range, or a higher data rate, but for whatever factors, they chose these specifically. No different with the nano. There are many slightly different characteristics, all very similar overall, but this was the one deemed best, all things considered.

My mobile phone works inside my house and inside my office. However, there were deadspots a year ago which have been fixed. My phone company (Cingular) listened to my complaints about deadspots, acknowledged that those deadspots existed and had been reported by others, and told me they're working to improve coverage in those areas. And they lived up to their promises.
Fine. But you didn't try to sue them over it, and although your dead spot may be gone, there are thousands or millions more. People have been complaining about problems with plastic for a long time, and the materials industry is working on it. They've made some impressive improvements, but they're not done yet, just like Cingular. Suing them won't really help matters when they're already working on the problem. As soon as better materials are in the pipeline, Apple will use them. They have a good track record of keeping up with the best that's available to them. Nobody sued them when they didn't produce a 3.0 GHz PowerMac in over a year, and in that case, Jobs even said so. They don't need to sue to draw attention to an issue, because it's already known that plastic scratches. Glass breaks, but sometimes it's still better than plastic, judged by the engineers behind a given product. Iron rusts. It's an obvious shortcoming that can affect appearance (and integrity, if sufficiently bad). But people don't sue when it happens (unless it affects integrity, and even then they must prove that they actively took reasonable care of the item rather than simply watch it rust away until it was bad enough to sue).

You have every right to be upset about your nano. But one simply doesn't have the right to accuse Apple of foul play or to demand compensation unless their choice of material makes the product unsafe or unuseable. For aesthetic concerns, your wallet is the court.

[Azbola]

To the guy who asked if I could take the nano back within 14 days, my Girlfriend only bought it to my attention recently as she was embarassed that she was damaging a gift but after it got pretty bad she showed me and showed me how she had been storing it.

Thats when I returned it to the Apple Store london and the assistant told me "We will not exhange ipod nanos because of scratches" he even mentioned "people think we will exchange them because of lies printed by the BBC and Which magazine, we will not"

Thats when I looked into the whole thing online and found all these other unhappy people.

To the guy arguing with Maticcus, I wouldn't bother - he seems completely closed to other opionions and seems to regard this thread as a debating exercise where all that matters is winning the argument.

[matticus008]

To the guy arguing with Maticcus, I wouldn't bother - he seems completely closed to other opionions and seems to regard this thread as a debating exercise where all that matters is winning the argument.
I have no problem with people of the opinion that the nano scratches easily or being disappointed that their recent purchase is no longer in a museum-quality condition. I have a problem with people taking such an opinion as the sole platform to make a serious legal accusation against an individual or a company for the purposes of monetary gain.

In this discussion, I'm not interested in dealing with opinions. Neither is the court. I'm interested in dealing in fact, and am making a deliberate effort to find facts about this case, and yet all that continues to pour in is purely conjectural opinion. In the search for concrete evidence of the alleged harm(s), there has been none to find yet, and that this thread continues onward without those essential facts is troubling to me.

Basing what amounts to a major civil (or criminal, in the case of implied fraud) accusation on not so much as a single harm-demonstrating photo reflects a very grave lack of respect for all parties involved, and I'm shocked that people who take lawsuits so wantonly can think that they're not part of the problem with the system. People need to stand up to causes they find important. Doing so pretty much killed President Wilson, but I'm hoping I fare better.

The bottom line is that people who are affected by this "problem" all claim it occured within days, yet many failed to return the nano, pay the restocking fee, and then seek reimbursement for that fee via customer support, a formal written complaint, and then, failing those, legal action if they felt the restocking fee broke some sort of law. That kind of legal action or formal complaint would at least be rational, even if Apple won the suit, which it would have a good chance of doing. But these customers did not take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation.

[Azbola]

To the guy arguing with Maticcus, I wouldn't bother - he seems completely closed to other opionions and seems to regard this thread as a debating exercise where all that matters is winning the argument.

Just re-reading this it sounds a bit arsey towards Maticcus to which I apologise, he does make good points particularly about the court case, but refuses to accept that the product itself it worse than other similar sized and quality products which I believe it patently is.

[Azbola]

Cant beleive I posted an apology just as you were posting a reply, what bad timing on my part!

[ksz]

To the guy arguing with Maticcus, I wouldn't bother - he seems completely closed to other opionions and seems to regard this thread as a debating exercise where all that matters is winning the argument.
I agree! He only seems interested now in winning an argument and saving face. His arguments and replies are becoming increasingly academic and he cannot fathom a simple idea that the iPods scratch very easily and their appearance gets tarnished in days with normal use. He does not think that cosmetic damage in 2 days is relevant.

[ksz]

The bottom line is that people who are affected by this "problem" all claim it occured within days, yet failed to return the nano, pay the restocking fee, and then seek reimbursement for that fee via customer support, a formal written complaint,...
All such people failed to return the nano or pay a restocking fee? Your facts are already miserably twisted. You have no hope of finding the truth!

In my case I had a colleague in California buy two 4GB nanos for me and bring them to Taiwan on his next flight, but others did return, including Azbola who posted just before me.

[matticus008]

All such people failed to return the nano or pay a restocking fee? Your facts are already miserably twisted. You have no hope of finding the truth!

In my case I had a colleague in California buy two 4GB nanos for me and bring them to Taiwan on his next flight, but others did return, including Azbola who posted just before me.
No, the rules of parallelism apply. The "all" modifies just "claim." It doesn't modify the subsequent section of the sentence. But just as a show of good will, I'll change it for you.

[Loke]

In this discussion, I'm not interested in dealing with opinions. Neither is the court. I'm interested in dealing in fact, and am making a deliberate effort to find facts about this case, and yet all that continues to pour in is purely conjectural opinion.

Basing what amounts to a major civil (or criminal, in the case of implied fraud) accusation on not so much as a single harm-demonstrating photo reflects a very grave lack of respect for all parties involved, and I'm shocked that people who take lawsuits so wantonly can think that they're not part of the problem with the system.


This is where I believe you are wrong. If or when this case do appear in court, it will be VERY relevant how Apples portable device compare to other similar portable devices with regards to wear and tear. If it can be demonstrated, that Apples portable device is subject to much more scratching than whats normal for portable devices, they can also build a case that the nano is inferiour in design.

When such cases appear in court, it has always been relevant how a product compare to other similar devices. In this regard, I think Apple has got a problem legal-wise. But we'll see.

OTOH: I dont think its right that people are suing for anything else than Apple fixing the problem, BUT that is another discussion really.

[matticus008]

This is where I believe you are wrong. If or when this case do appear in court, it will be VERY relevant how Apples portable device compare to other similar portable devices with regards to wear and tear. If it can be demonstrated, that Apples portable device is subject to much more scratching than whats normal for portable devices, they can also build a case that the nano is inferiour in design.

When such cases appear in court, it has always been relevant how a product compare to other similar devices. In this regard, I think Apple has got a problem legal-wise. But we'll see.

OTOH: I dont think its right that people are suing for anything else than Apple fixing the problem, BUT that is another discussion really.
Suits are very specific, so unless the original filing contains a statement (it may, in which case you're absolutely correct, but I don't recall) to the effect of the iPod not meeting the same standards as a competitor, then they can't win damages under that provision. You may only assess alleged harms in a given case. It must say specifically that the iPod is inferior to competitors, or it can't be tried in court. That's why lawyers wiggle around wording so much. It can save them. It doesn't say anything about the restocking fee being unjust or illegal, for example, so that can't be used as a factor.

Same thing when bills fail in legislation. They don't fail to get passed because they're bad ideas, just disagreeable representation, a suspect clause, or a sneaky rider attachment.

[ksz]

No, the rules of parallelism apply. The "all" modifies just "claim." It doesn't modify the subsequent section of the sentence. But just as a show of good will, I'll change it for you.
The change you made is not for good will, but for a real error correction. Your original sentence as quoted in my previous reply clearly states that all who make the scratch claim do not return the nano, pay the restocking fee, or otherwise file a complaint. You therefore corrected an error in your statement -- your claim of good will is wrong and is just a face-saving statement. As I stated, your arguments now are increasingly academic.

[ksz]

Having yet to see a nano horribly disfigured and destroyed by scratches,
Horribly disfigured and destroyed by scratches? How do you define "horribly disfigured" and "destroyed by scratches"? Do you mean the nano is warped into a figure-8, hence "disfigured"? Do you mean the nano is torn to shreds, hence "destroyed" by scratches? You are using extreme terms in an argumentative manner which serves only to digress.

and having my own nano in perfectly reasonable condition for not being protected, I'm not inclined to believe that the nano is lacking in a fundamental way its resistance to scratching.
So just because your nano has not suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune it must mean that no one else has any legitimate reason to think that the nano is highly prone to scratching and that such scratching tarnishes its surface within days? If what happened to my nano happened to yours, I suspect you would be playing a different tune.

Judging by the fact that it has superior scratch resistance to many CDs, I believe the nano has more than a cursory level of scratch protection.
You can believe whatever you want, but if FACTS are what you're interested in, you need to consider that the nano may not have the level of scratch protection you seem to think it does...or at least NOT ALL of them. If several batches of nanos are flawed, then there is a flaw Apple must acknowledge and correct.

I have worked with many softer plastics and know that polycarbonate is not sitting at the bottom. Compared to the standard laundry list of plastic weaknesses, frankly this is the one I'd most want. Perhaps you'd choose a different weakness...but there will always be some sort of deficiency, and since all plastic scratches and the difference in sensitivity at the high end is not dramatically large, any other deficiency would be worse and it still wouldn't be scratchproof.
An example of an academic response with little bearing on the issue at hand. I am only concerned about the high scratchability of the nano and that it took 2 days to tarnish its appearance under normal use conditions. No other portable electronics device I own or have owned has decayed so poorly and so quickly.

I don't own any device whose appearance is flawless after a short period of time, nor do I own any device, all iPods included, that I could define as criminally or disproportionately tarnished after such a time. The worst condition of anything I own after the shortest period of time was a pair of Fossil sunglasses which got scratched in my glove compartment after less than two hours. Runner up would be my car, which came with a number of small and faint scratches and collected some minor paint damage on the way home from where I purchased it (it was a 90 minute drive).
And what if you got stuck with an iPod nano that got scratched up in 2 days whereas nothing else you ever owned decayed as badly and as quickly? Would you characterize that nano as having defective workmanship?

There's no time factor involved. Honestly. It's all about the environment and the conditions. And furthermore I know of nothing, save my most expensive watch, that took years to scratch. And even that "scratchproof" watch has a small scrape from a run in with a computer part.
I think you are very very wrong here. A time factor is relevant. A time factor is in fact extremely relevant. Why do warranties expire after 90 days? A device whose appearance tarnishes in 2 days with normal use whereas no other similar device decays as badly and as quickly is grounds for real concern and, in my view, is to be considered flawed.

Sure, dissatisfied, possibly even angry. But you're also talking about something that's easily double the price of a Camry. By that logic, there would have to be something half the price of the nano with similar function and features in order to be upset about the nano over any other product of the same type. That is not the case, so the "premium" tactic doesn't apply.
No no, the point is this: If even a Camry at half the price (actually closer to 1/3 the price) of the BMW scratched MUCH LESS, then I would consider the BMW shell to be flawed and/or defective.

And you probably want to look up "magnate" since this is at least the third time you've misused it. Meanwhile, my dictionary continues to collect dust.
Sorry, delusions of grandeur. Magnet it is, happy now? :)

Dissatisfied fine, but entitled to nothing in the way of compensation.
Disagree. Entitled to a replacement or full money back with NO RESTOCKING FEE.

Sure they would be upset. One or two might even try to sue and possibly demand a share of BMW's profits. But they'd be entitled to nothing, and aside from being upset, life goes on and BMW continues to sell the exact same car.
Disagree again. Word of mouth would travel and soon BMW would be facing a bewildering reduction in sales. I say bewildering because they might still be scratching (bad pun) their heads wondering where the flaw is.

Your scratches are not inconsistent with several months of use. It's unfortunate that they occured sooner rather than later, but the time factor is random.
Disagree again. The time factor is NOT random. Others are continuing to post the same experiences. Please check your facts and do pull that dusty dictionary off the shelf and look up "random".

The abrasion factor is not. I don't have any device, including my nano, which today became two nanos, which I consider to be heavily damaged within two days.
You are once again basing your argument only on your own immediate experience. What of the postings by all those in this and similar threads who are long time Apple customers, love the iPod, own several iPods, and yet find this particular one to be highly scratch-prone? You do think they suffer from mass delusion?

That said, I have seen people inexplicably damage something brand new, and myself have had $75 sunglasses damaged within hours, left in a glove compartment that I thought to be clean.
"Inexplicably" is a very convenient word, isn't it? It places the blame on THEM. This might be true in many cases, but don't blindly extrapolate that to this case.

I was upset, but sometimes that happens. If people talked about sunglasses or watches that often, I'm sure I could find plenty of people on the internet to say "hey! me too! what's up with that?" about scratches from nowhere.
Scratches from nowhere? You continue to deny that a problem exists.

The nano is fast taking its place. They went with a different design. Although transparent aluminum may be available now, I don't think for a second that it fits the design of the nano. If you don't like the design, there are plenty of alternatives.
I see, so now it's "take it or leave it". This is a continued stubborn denial that a problem exists.

And if your nano really scratched that much after two days, why not return it?
Because I am in Taiwan on a long business trip.

If the restocking charge was more valuable to you than the iPod's appearance, you've just put an extremely small value on aesthetics and shouldn't be anywhere near this upset.
I am not upset. I am dissatisfied with the nano's scratchability and disappointed with Apple in this regard. I think you are upset at people who dare claim there might be a flaw in the nano...and mainly because the problem has not affected you. So if it has not affected you, you don't care about those who have been affected. You would rather call them delusional and careless.

But there are other EM bands they could have chosen from, and to think that there wasn't an extensive discussion before adopting them would be foolish. Another EM band could provide a longer range, or a higher data rate, but for whatever factors, they chose these specifically.
In order to digitize and transmit audio and data at acceptable rates AND allow hundreds or thousands of callers to be using their phones at the same time, you need high-frequencies and a multiplexing scheme. So although shortwave radio has the benefit of distance, it suffers in bandwidth and transmission through various mediums. Shortwave can be reflected by objects and the atmosphere, whereas high-frequency EM passes right through. This limits the range of acceptable frequencies.

No different with the nano. There are many slightly different characteristics, all very similar overall, but this was the one deemed best, all things considered.
Not the same thing. The choice of EM band is a fundamental technological design decision, not a cosmetic one. There are many more choices for cosmetics than for core technology.

You have every right to be upset about your nano. But one simply doesn't have the right to accuse Apple of foul play or to demand compensation unless their choice of material makes the product unsafe or unuseable. For aesthetic concerns, your wallet is the court.
Ok, you're making sense here. And again, I am not upset, merely dissatisfied with my nano's fragility and disappointed with Apple in their refusal to acknowledge a problem. Charging a restocking fee is ludicrous. Would I pay Apple another $25 or $35 (I don't recall what it is since I'm not in the US now) to take back what I consider to be a flawed unit? No way.

[Azbola]

Just to clarify, in the London Apple Store no-one has ever mentioned a restocking fee - they just say "we will not replace ipods due to scratching".

I have no idea if this is because it is after the 14 day thing as no-one at the shop has ever mentioned this either.

[snowmoon]

Ok, you're making sense here. And again, I am not upset, merely dissatisfied with my nano's fragility and disappointed with Apple in their refusal to acknowledge a problem. Charging a restocking fee is ludicrous. Would I pay Apple another $25 or $35 (I don't recall what it is since I'm not in the US now) to take back what I consider to be a flawed unit? No way.

One small point. If you can't show monitary damange I don't see how your case will be very sucessful. Your mitigated damaged due to the problem with the nano would be $0 ( since you still have and use the device ). At this point you must prove fraud or malfesence(sp?) in order to move forward with your case. You can't really claim that apple engeneered them with a lifespan since the battery already does that! Neglangance alone may not be enough to get damages above and beyond mitigated damages. ( IANAL )

Which brings me to my point with the nano/iPod with video. I am withlding judement until one thing is proven. That they intentionally changed the formulation of the case IN ORDER TO reduce scratch resistance.

I think what's happeneing is that as looking at the device is becoming more important, the color display, the black casing, and the size of the diplay AS A PERCENTAGE OF DEVICE SIZE have all comt together to make people more aware of scratches that the device has ALWAYS gotten.

[Maxx Power]

I have no problem with people of the opinion that the nano scratches easily or being disappointed that their recent purchase is no longer in a museum-quality condition. I have a problem with people taking such an opinion as the sole platform to make a serious legal accusation against an individual or a company for the purposes of monetary gain.

In this discussion, I'm not interested in dealing with opinions. Neither is the court. I'm interested in dealing in fact, and am making a deliberate effort to find facts about this case, and yet all that continues to pour in is purely conjectural opinion. In the search for concrete evidence of the alleged harm(s), there has been none to find yet, and that this thread continues onward without those essential facts is troubling to me.

Basing what amounts to a major civil (or criminal, in the case of implied fraud) accusation on not so much as a single harm-demonstrating photo reflects a very grave lack of respect for all parties involved, and I'm shocked that people who take lawsuits so wantonly can think that they're not part of the problem with the system. People need to stand up to causes they find important. Doing so pretty much killed President Wilson, but I'm hoping I fare better.

The bottom line is that people who are affected by this "problem" all claim it occured within days, yet many failed to return the nano, pay the restocking fee, and then seek reimbursement for that fee via customer support, a formal written complaint, and then, failing those, legal action if they felt the restocking fee broke some sort of law. That kind of legal action or formal complaint would at least be rational, even if Apple won the suit, which it would have a good chance of doing. But these customers did not take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation.

How do you have access to lawsuit data ? I don't know how many people are getting evil gains from this, but then, Apple would be the one who made this possible.

[Maxx Power]

In this discussion, I'm not interested in dealing with opinions. Neither is the court. I'm interested in dealing in fact, and am making a deliberate effort to find facts about this case, and yet all that continues to pour in is purely conjectural opinion. In the search for concrete evidence of the alleged harm(s), there has been none to find yet, and that this thread continues onward without those essential facts is troubling to me.


Your facts ? Everyone else here has been talking about facts, how similar products or cellphones don't scratch easily, so there must be alternatives for the faceplate, how apple foreseen this scratching issue and made it impossible for you to return a Nano if it has scratches, how even one particular Apple store clerk (won't mention her name) was interviewed on that one guy's website about cracking and brittle screens and assured the rest of us that Apple knows, and the employee knows, and it is obvious if you played with a Nano, that the Nano scratches easily, and much easier than the competition. The fact how it is physically possible to use different materials, since they have done it in the past, other companies have done this with whatever products they produced. How it is a fact that the Nano ads makes no mention of the scratchability while it does say the battery holds limited charge cycles. How it is a fact that the lawsuit is the first step toward revealing to all the people who by now only have seen the Nano ad and thus can not make informed decisions. How it is also a fact that just a few posts back someone took your advice and rubbed the screen with polish with a special lens cleaner lint free cloth and wind up with more scratches than before. You have your facts, Matticus, you cherry picked them.

[Maxx Power]

I have no problem with people of the opinion that the nano scratches easily or being disappointed that their recent purchase is no longer in a museum-quality condition. I have a problem with people taking such an opinion as the sole platform to make a serious legal accusation against an individual or a company for the purposes of monetary gain.


Scratching easily is not an opinion. If you have been using inferior products and polycarbonates all your life then that's different. For the most people, including people who use cellphones, knows the screens are more durable than the Nano, my old Siemens c56 for one, I barely spent a cent on it, and I treat it like I didn't spend any money on it, it's been dropped from countertops onto hard floors when it vibrates itself off the surface, it has been together with coins, keys, and whatever in my pocket including tissue paper I clean it with, for two whole years while I was on the contract. Are there scratches ? Of course, but are they excessive ? NO. The surface stood up to beatings the way it was meant to be anyway. Nano, on the other hand, scratches with a lint-free lens cleaner. Thats clearly an inferior polycarbonate formulation.

[snowmoon]

Scratching easily is not an opinion. If you have been using inferior products and polycarbonates all your life then that's different.

There is no evidence that apple has changed it's case formulation for the nano or the ipod with video besides wild specualtion.

[Azbola]

There is no evidence that apple has changed it's case formulation for the nano or the ipod with video besides wild specualtion.

If thats true then the ipod product line has always been shoddily made and they have only just been rumbled due to the new wave of people buying into the nano.

[gunnz]

there must be at least four lawyers in here, because it's getting crazy!

[gugy]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!
Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.
Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go!

[matticus008]

The change you made is not for good will, but for a real error correction. Your original sentence as quoted in my previous reply clearly states that all who make the scratch claim do not return the nano, pay the restocking fee, or otherwise file a complaint. You therefore corrected an error in your statement -- your claim of good will is wrong and is just a face-saving statement. As I stated, your arguments now are increasingly academic.
No, as per the rules of parallelism, you may not carry a modifier across a comma. To be strictly parallel, in order for your claim to be true, it would have to read "all claim," "all failed," and so on. Otherwise, you cannot assume that your interpretation is correct.

Furthermore, if you REALLY want to get into the fine detail, nobody HAS followed all four steps outlined therein, because there is no lawsuit against the restocking fee and no one has mentioned Apple's response to a formal complaint (that is, a written complaint). So no one has followed the steps to appropriate remedy through to their conclusion. Your arguments are increasingly confined to the periphery of the supposed issue, and particularly in attempting to find faults in minor points just to find some sort of foothold.


Horribly disfigured and destroyed by scratches? How do you define "horribly disfigured" and "destroyed by scratches"? Do you mean the nano is warped into a figure-8, hence "disfigured"? Do you mean the nano is torn to shreds, hence "destroyed" by scratches? You are using extreme terms in an argumentative manner which serves only to digress.
No, a fault of defect requires something beyond minor cosmetic damage. Hence, the nano must be seriously marred in such a way as to affect functionality. We've been through this point.


So just because your nano has not suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune it must mean that no one else has any legitimate reason to think that the nano is highly prone to scratching and that such scratching tarnishes its surface within days? If what happened to my nano happened to yours, I suspect you would be playing a different tune.
As I said, the opinion is valid. That unproved opinion is not a factual basis to make a serious legal accusation. The end.

You can believe whatever you want, but if FACTS are what you're interested in, you need to consider that the nano may not have the level of scratch protection you seem to think it does...or at least NOT ALL of them.
Okay, but then I need to see FACTS that demonstrate this.


And what if you got stuck with an iPod nano that got scratched up in 2 days whereas nothing else you ever owned decayed as badly and as quickly? Would you characterize that nano as having defective workmanship?
No. I don't characterize my car for defective workmanship for scratching on the way home. I don't claim my sunglasses had defective workmanship for scratching out of nowhere. These things happen to everyone, and they always have. If it becomes damaged in the return period, and you find it unreasonable, return it. You must follow policy.

I think you are very very wrong here. A time factor is relevant. A time factor is in fact extremely relevant. Why do warranties expire after 90 days?
They expire because after some length of time it becomes too difficult to prove the cause of mechanical or functional defects. There is no warranty on cosmetic appearance AT ALL, so that warranty expires about 5 seconds after you swipe your credit card.

No no, the point is this: If even a Camry at half the price (actually closer to 1/3 the price) of the BMW scratched MUCH LESS, then I would consider the BMW shell to be flawed and/or defective. [QUOTE]
You might consider it to be so. BMW, most customers, and the courts would disagree.

[QUOTE]Disagree. Entitled to a replacement or full money back with NO RESTOCKING FEE.
Let me clarify something about restocking fees. With stores that have such a policy, when you return a fully functional item to stock, you are charged a fee that covers refurbishing and resale of that item at a reduced price. Apple did not create the restocking fee recently or introduce it just against the iPod to prevent dissatisfied customers from returning it. If your primary complaint is against the restocking fee, why stop at the nano? Apple charges a restocking fee on everything, and is not the only company to do so.

Disagree again. Word of mouth would travel and soon BMW would be facing a bewildering reduction in sales.
Only if most people agreed with you, and only even then if that affected sales. For the nano, it obviously has not.

You are once again basing your argument only on your own immediate experience. What of the postings by all those in this and similar threads who are long time Apple customers, love the iPod, own several iPods, and yet find this particular one to be highly scratch-prone? You do think they suffer from mass delusion?
Strictly speaking, as a representative of the status quo, I don't need to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative...that is...your side. You must prove a harm and prove damages, otherwise one must assume that there is no problem.

Because I am in Taiwan on a long business trip.
So that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? You made unusual purchase arrangements which meant that you lost the ability to return or exchange your purchase. What if you'd decided you simply didn't like the nano? What if it had actually been functionally or mechanically defective? You took a gamble, and you're disappointed with the outcome. I would try local resellers in Taiwan and see if they can help you out.


I am not upset. I am dissatisfied with the nano's scratchability and disappointed with Apple in this regard. I think you are upset at people who dare claim there might be a flaw in the nano
Claim without hard evidence, yes, absolutely I am upset at them. Whether or not the problem affects me, it still must be proved before you have the right to blame a person or company and to make serious legal accusations.


This limits the range of acceptable frequencies.
Yes and a myriad of factors limits the choice of materials for the iPod's construction. Like cell phones, they selected the BEST of a short list of qualified candidates. It seems we're in agreement on this.


Ok, you're making sense here. And again, I am not upset, merely dissatisfied with my nano's fragility and disappointed with Apple in their refusal to acknowledge a problem. Charging a restocking fee is ludicrous. Would I pay Apple another $25 or $35 (I don't recall what it is since I'm not in the US now) to take back what I consider to be a flawed unit? No way.
Good, I'm glad I'm getting through. I understand and empathize with your disappointment, and I share your dislike of restocking fees. If anyone wants to challenge Apple or any/all other companies on those grounds and finds a legal standing to do so, I'm all for it. But many people supportive of the existing suit's claims seem to be redirecting their frustration at the loss of $25 or so, or their misfortune with the environment, rather than constructively pursuing a rational response.

And maxx_power, the lawsuit's filing is available on the internet, and is even linked at least twice in this thread. You continue making broadly imprecise statements while failing to engage the discussion in a meaningful way. You're making statements even people who share your opinion wouldn't support. And for the umpteenth time, (read this several times) a fact is a statement, supported by veritable and consistently reproducible evidence, which conclusively proves that statement, beyond any reasonable doubt. So far, the "facts" you've mentioned are inconclusive statements. They're opinions, in other words, and it's fine to have them. It's not fine to make a public, major, serious legal accusation based on them.

[gunnz]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!

I have a job. Where do you think I am now?

Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.

I think 100 replies is a gross exaggeration. 90?

Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go

Ok. Well....we're debating right? The nano rules.

Just kidding, gugy.

P.S. I just bought another skin off of decalgirl.com. A solid black skin for the front and back, and 4 screen protectors for a little over 10 bucks! I have huge scratches on my current skin, and I just checked the nano's surface......as perfect as the first day I got it!

[Maxx Power]

And maxx_power, the lawsuit's filing is available on the internet, and is even linked at least twice in this thread. You continue making broadly imprecise statements while failing to engage the discussion in a meaningful way. You're making statements even people who share your opinion wouldn't support. And for the umpteenth time, (read this several times) a fact is a statement, supported by veritable and consistently reproducible evidence, which conclusively supports that statement, beyond any reasonable doubt. So far, the "facts" you've mentioned are inclusive statements. They're opinions, in other words, and it's fine to have them. It's not fine to make a public, major, serious legal accusation based on them. My statements are very precise, I have only one stance, and I aim all my statements to support ANY legal allegation against apple in their Nano conducts. Per your definition, I have other people's testimony here for evidence that supports the easy and unmistakable scratching of the iPod Nano, that is sufficient to justify a lawsuit for a ill-designed product, since it is inferior than the norm and hinders its operation in the long run. The scratches will cause the inevitable unreadability of the screen sooner than any of the competition's and thus reduce its effective lifespan. This is enough to guarantee a lawsuit. I support any general lawsuits that push Apple to recongnize publicly the existence of the problem and not just internally (no refunds because of scratches) and thus offer exchange, recall, repair, or whatever and thus pay its share of responsibility to the consumer. Oh, and i forgot to mention, just because you don't recongnize the evidence or refuse to listen to other people here doesn't make my facts inclusive, it makes you exclusive.

[Maxx Power]

Furthermore, if you REALLY want to get into the fine detail, nobody HAS followed all four steps outlined therein, because there is no lawsuit against the restocking fee and no one has mentioned Apple's response to a formal complaint (that is, a written complaint). So no one has followed the steps to appropriate remedy through to their conclusion. Your arguments are increasingly confined to the periphery of the supposed issue, and particularly in attempting to find faults in minor points just to find some sort of foothold.


This is ridiculous. suppose someone did file a complaint, and you'd automatically be notified how ? why ? And besides, the way the complaint system works is that the issue has to be settled somehow, then the complaint is gone, if apple supposedly settled the issue by saying the iPod scratches are normal, then they have met their end of the bargain and can end the complaint. If you are not satisfied with this resolution you'll have to prove beyond a doubt that Apple's definition of "normal" is not appriopriate. It is a tedious legal process. I know because I have filed complaints against a few companies for their shoddy services or products. Sometimes even BBB.
He is not confined to the periphery of the issue, you just don't want apple to get sued for some reason beyond my understanding.

[Maxx Power]

They expire because after some length of time it becomes too difficult to prove the cause of mechanical or functional defects. There is no warranty on cosmetic appearance AT ALL, so that warranty expires about 5 seconds after you swipe your credit card.


Yes and of course I'll know ahead of the time how easy it is to scratch a Nano, and that it is completely normal despite the fact none of the other devices I had before including iPods didn't scratch this easily, and of course, I'll decide I'll hold onto my precious Nano within five seconds of having it. So much for consumer choice and informed purchases. At the store where the Apple employee was interviewed by the original chap who started all this, she admitted to that the Nanos' are easily scratchable and the sample one was only touched by fingers and it was scratched to the point of barely readable screen, if people can see how easy it is for this thing to be scratched online at apple's website before making their purchase, they'll think twice or won't buy it. Oh, and apple ordered the chap to take down his website (is it still down ?) after issuing the statement of the cracking screens.

[Maxx Power]

Claim without hard evidence, yes, absolutely I am upset at them. Whether or not the problem affects me, it still must be proved before you have the right to blame a person or company and to make serious legal accusations.

But of course, I am too! Just except for that I have seen scratched up Nanos and have seen how they were used, and am given repeated confirmation from people here who protested apple's Nano's flaw, and how even lint-free lens cleaner would scratch it. He even tried to use polish to get rid of scratches as you suggested but wind up with more problems. What more evidence do you want ? Provided I can't physically fly over to wherever you are and sit down with you with a Nano and scratch it left and right with a clean lint-free cloth, or paper towel, or whatever is normal to clean typical mp3 players with.

[matticus008]

My statements are very precise, I have only one stance, and I aim all my statements to support ANY legal allegation against apple in their Nano conducts. Per your definition, I have other people's testimony here for evidence that supports the easy and unmistakable scratching of the iPod Nano, that is sufficient to justify a lawsuit for a ill-designed product, since it is inferior than the norm and hinders its operation in the long run.
Your statements, and the "testimony" of any other comments, are not evidence without documentation. I can find people making statements to support any claim in the world, and it doesn't make them evidence. Read the definition of fact a few hundred more times until you figure it out. This is the last comment I will make in response to you until you start making sense, coherent posts, or factually-supported claims.

[Eevee]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!
Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.
Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go!


gugy, I am glad this thread has been going for a while and hope it doesn't stop. I welcome the pros and cons, suggestions, etc.

One of the purposes of MacRumors is to promote the awareness in the quality of products to the Mac community, and I believe this thread has done so whether or not who wins the argument.

[Maxx Power]

Your statements, and the "testimony" of any other comments, are not evidence without documentation. I can find people making statements to support any claim in the world, and it doesn't make them evidence. Read the definition of fact a few hundred more times until you figure it out. This is the last comment I will make in response to you until you start making sense, coherent posts, or factually-supported claims.

You are the one who's not being sensical, i'm not trying to intentionally deceive you, nor is anyone else who posted on this thread, i have to provide you proof in documentation, can you be any more ignorant ? Aren't you in support of the durability of the iPod, something I believe Apple did make a claim of (correct me if i'm wrong on this people) when they launched it ? I don't see apple giving me any proof or you giving me any proof of your assertion. How am I supposed to provide to you proof in a blog about a physical object ? You've seen the pictures of that dropped ipod earlier in this thread, now, make the scratches thinner and shallower like you'd get from cleaning it and repeat it 10000 times in your head. I remember a proverb or something like that, I can show you red, but if you don't agree with me that it is red, there is nothing I can do. Or if you are into math or physics, think of the scratches you saw on that picture as differential scratches (dS), and integrate it over 1 year of total normal use over the surface of the Nano, and you'll have a sand paper looking surface. Do some thinking.

[64bytes]

What Apple is making nano owners do is to forcibly purchace a 'transparent' warranty for the nano. The 'transparent' warranty is basically just a pod skin. But shouldn't this warranty be included in the product warranty? Well, one of the main reasons apple sell so many ipods is because of their apperances; this is obvious, this is the case with all of their products. Ever since the iMac G3 appeared, apple has been fine tuning the asthetics of their hardware. Many people who bought them did so beacuse of their looks. And I remind you here, it is one of the reasons, there are many others. All of a sudden, along comes the nano, it looks great without any usage. As soon as the slightest bit of friction comes into contact with it, it is no longer desireable because of its abundance of scratches. People like to maintain what they have, but at what cost? And if there is a fault, how are people supposed to maintain what they own without prior knowlegde of that fault? So, basically if a product is regularly damaged in the environment it was intended to function in without external protection, then the design specifications where either ignored or just not taken into account; either one is just negligance. Furthermore, there exists a testing phase in the production phase that exists to catch flaws.

In short, apple did not have a testing phase, knew about the problem and ignored it, or they knew about the flaw before the testing phase; i.e. they designed it to be this way, extremely beautiful, yet 100 miles away from being scratch resistant. The latter is quite possible since the ipod skin market is saturated with skins and skin manufacturers. After every ipod release apple has made, third party skin manufacturers have become increasingly quicker to release new skins to accomodate for the new ipod form factors. Hence, it is no surprise that even though apple knew about the flaw they assumed the majority of the consumers would just buy a skin if they discovered it scratched easily.

Apple has become a large brand name over the past few years, yet their technical support is by far the worst among all pc brands. They consistently refuse to acknowledge faults in their products, and infact, they can afford this since their computer costumer base is so small, comparatively, there are no complaints. Along come the ipod, many people buy the ipod, there are flaws with the ipod, apple can't shut up all of these people. They are not used to having to deal with so many complaints. Apple is a small fish in a bid pond, not willing to make the sacrifices to become a big fish, even though they want to become a big fish.

[matticus008]

gugy, I am glad this thread has been going for a while and hope it doesn't stop. I welcome the pros and cons, suggestions, etc.

One of the purpose of MacRumors is to promote an awareness in the quality of product to the Mac community, and I believe this thread has done so whether or not who wins the argument.

Well said, my friend, well said.

Also we should all remember that we're a community of enthusiasts, so the level of debate here is artificially high. The rest of the world rarely cares as much about anything as any thread on any forum. We're also some of the most exacting users with some of the highest standards of any of the world's consumers, and are much more highly aware of subtleties. Who else in the world would have known that Apple switched from Synaptics to using its own in-house click wheel design or cared enough to discuss it? If there can be a few dozen posts on something like that, this thread should come as no surprise.

[Maxx Power]

Well said, my friend, well said.

Also we should all remember that we're a community of enthusiasts, so the level of debate here is artificially high. The rest of the world rarely cares as much about anything as any thread on any forum. We're also some of the most exacting users with some of the highest standards of any of the world's consumers, and are much more highly aware of subtleties. Who else in the world would have known that Apple switched from Synaptics to using its own in-house click wheel design or cared enough to discuss it? If there can be a few dozen posts on something like that, this thread should come as no suprise.


Yeah okay, this I completely agree with you. I just want the consumers to receive prompt attention from apple lawsuit or no lawsuit.

[bloogersnigen]

Sure, and today after I drove over my iPod with my truck, my ipod was smashed into a million pieces. Apple has clearly made another faulty product.

GET A LIFE AND A JOB!!!!!!!!!!!

John

Acually PC mag ran over a nano twice and it still worked "They sat on the Nano on a wooden chair; dropped it while jogging (4–6 miles per hour); dropped it at slow and fast bicycle speeds (8–10 MPH and 15–20 MPH); dropped it at slow and fast car speeds (30 MPG and 50 MPH); and then dropped it from a variety of heights. They also drove over it in a Volkswagen Jetta. Our friendly Nano passed with flying colors. It showed only scratching when dropped at car speed, and continued to work, in spite of a busted screen, when dropped from 9 feet. So they ran over it twice—and discovered that even still, the scroll wheel and music processing worked just fine. Only launching it 40 feet into the air, and its consequent Icarian descent, brought the poor Nano to its knees once and for all."

[Maxx Power]

There is no evidence that apple has changed it's case formulation for the nano or the ipod with video besides wild specualtion.

I had a first gen, second gen, my roomie had a 3rd gen and they were all pretty good against scratches except for the 3rd gen which had thinner plastics and flatter fronts that allowed the face to wear down a bit quicker. Then came the Nano, maybe they didn't intentionally change the formulation, but there is no reason for me to speculate that except that I did see a Store display unit pretty marred (not an apple store) with scratches and when combined with finger residue, it was pretty hard to read with the lights off. Or with the store lights on.

[matticus008]

What Apple is making nano owners do is to forcibly purchace a 'transparent' warranty for the nano. The 'transparent' warranty is basically just a pod skin. But shouldn't this warranty be included in the product warranty? Well, one of the main reasons apple sell so many ipods is because of their apperances; this is obvious, this is the case with all of their products. Ever since the iMac G3 appeared, apple has been fine tuning the asthetics of their hardware.
They're not forcing anyone to do anything. Sleeves and protectors for PDA screens, cases for cell phones or portable gaming units, and laptop sleeves are all separate products. The existence of those products is an acknowledgment that some people choose to protect their investments with some zeal. Sometimes cell phones come with cases in the box, but not always. It's not an admission that their product is inferior to another, it's just an extra feature they chose to include.

As soon as the slightest bit of friction comes into contact with it, it is no longer desireable because of its abundance of scratches.
I would like to point out the continued phenomenal sales of the nano.

People like to maintain what they have, but at what cost? And if there is a fault, how are people supposed to maintain what they own without prior knowlegde of that fault? So, basically if a product is regularly damaged in the environment it was intended to function in without external protection, then the design specifications where either ignored or just not taken into account
It depends on how important maintenance is to you. Some people repaint their houses every two years, others do it every ten years, some only do it if there has been major peeling or weathering. For the iPod, people can buy a skin, a case, or some other protective enclosure, for varying prices, or they can buy polishing products, also for varying prices, but $4 Brasso seems to be a sufficient investment, at a total cost of a few cents per application every month or two.

The iPod is NOT damaged in its intended environments. The Ars Technica review really highlights this innate durability. The iPod is, however, vulnerable to cosmetic wear, just like everything else one buys. If cosmetic wear is a major concern from the outset, use a skin or case (which also means wait to buy until a suitable one to be available if necessary).

In short, apple did not have a testing phase, knew about the problem and ignored it, or they knew about the flaw before the testing phase; i.e. they designed it to be this way, extremely beautiful, yet 100 miles away from being scratch resistant. [...] Hence, it is no surprise that even though apple knew about the flaw they assumed the majority of the consumers would just buy a skin if they discovered it scratched easily.
Of course they had a testing phase. And of course they knew it would scratch. It's a foregone conclusion that plastic scratches, even the better plastics (like polycarbonate and acrylic). Consumers have known that iPod cases and skins exist for years, and that some people find them necessary. The nano isn't the first to have an extensive case market (in which Apple is not a major player).

Apple has become a large brand name over the past few years, yet their technical support is by far the worst among all pc brands.
Then why do customers consistently rank it #1?

[gugy]

gugy, I am glad this thread has been going for a while and hope it doesn't stop. I welcome the pros and cons, suggestions, etc.

One of the purposes of MacRumors is to promote the awareness in the quality of products to the Mac community, and I believe this thread has done so whether or not who wins the argument.

I totally agree with you.
The problem is that few indivuduals are fighting to have their point proved no matter what. So the posts keep coming and coming and coming. not that I have a problem with that as long as is something new and not the same issues over and over and over again!:eek:

[saint.duo]

Gotta comment on this. A scratched iPod is still a working iPod. It is still a working portable music player. Normal usage is AS A MUSIC PLAYER, not as a beautiful centerpiece!

Oh no, my wood desk got a scratch on it when I slid my computer into place in it, I should sue the desk manufacturer.

Im gonna do something quite bold, and NOT comment on the thread topic. HOWEVER: Are you guys, who claim people need to buy a case for their iPod to prevent the screen from scratching badly, for real?

I dont know what its like in America, but here in Norway customers have certain rights and privileges. And one of those rights, is that a device like a portable music player is expected to be carried around in jackets, jeans, purses etc. This is the normal usage! And since this is the normal and expected usage, the device must also be able to handle such conditions without being damaged.

Nowhere did Apple say: "If this device is to be carried around in your pocket, you MUST use a case in order to protect it from being scratced. Warranty void if caseless."

And yet, you guys scream "Buy a CASE, you frikkin' moron!" I mean.. come on.. its a PORTABLE music player, for crying out loud. It should be able to withstand normal and expected usage without deteriorating. It really is that simple.

If the iPod do or do not scratch - I dont know. But you guys who keep yelling "CASE!" needs to wake up and smell the coffee...

[ksz]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!
Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.
Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go!
Come on, we are gainfully employed and we are honing our debating skills for future combat in other areas.

[ksz]

Very good comments. Matticus008 has chosen to ignore what I believe are the essential points, so I'll highlight them below...

What Apple is making nano owners do is to forcibly purchace a 'transparent' warranty for the nano. The 'transparent' warranty is basically just a pod skin. But shouldn't this warranty be included in the product warranty?
Agreed. Apple is now including the 'transparent' warranty in every box of the new iPod (video). That measure is an ackowledgement of the fragility of the device even when it is operated under normal conditions.

Well, one of the main reasons apple sell so many ipods is because of their apperances; this is obvious, this is the case with all of their products. Ever since the iMac G3 appeared, apple has been fine tuning the asthetics of their hardware. Many people who bought them did so beacuse of their looks.
Completely agree. A large part of Apple's success in turning around a flagging corporation is due to the aesthetics of its models. Jonathan Ive wins design award after design award, and Jobs continues to tout design and beauty in his stage events. Replay recent Media Events and Expos for a refresher.

If the iPod looked like the Rio or the Zen or the Dell MP3 player, how many of you would raise arms against a sea of troubles? Who cares if it looks like crap; it still works doesn't it? It's still got the same menu, the same clickwheel, and the same iTunes interface. It just looks like crap, so what's the big deal?

And I remind you here, it is one of the reasons, there are many others. All of a sudden, along comes the nano, it looks great without any usage. As soon as the slightest bit of friction comes into contact with it, it is no longer desireable because of its abundance of scratches.
Correct again. Aesthetics and preservation of that aesthetic are important considerations. If my BMW were a scratch magnet that broke out into a hive of scratches after just 2 days (or even a week) whereas no other car regardless of price suffered such an ailment under the same use conditions I would damn well conclude that the BMW was flawed and that the paint job is easily ruined. Would the car continue to drive? Of course it would. Would the fancy gadgets inside continue to work? Of course they would. But I would be extremely dissatisfied because my BMW's appearance makes it look cruddy and 10 years old. Appearance of a product is an important consumer consideration particularly for products that are part fashion. BMW and Mercedes are part fashion -- you pay for the name. Apple is also part fashion -- they market their products on the basis of functionality AND ALSO on the basis of cosmetics.

People like to maintain what they have, but at what cost? And if there is a fault, how are people supposed to maintain what they own without prior knowlegde of that fault?
Exactly. Shoot first and ask questions later. This describes what is happening to many nano buyers.

So, basically if a product is regularly damaged in the environment it was intended to function in without external protection, then the design specifications where either ignored or just not taken into account; either one is just negligance. Furthermore, there exists a testing phase in the production phase that exists to catch flaws.
Right again. Well stated.

In short, apple did not have a testing phase, knew about the problem and ignored it, or they knew about the flaw before the testing phase; i.e. they designed it to be this way, extremely beautiful, yet 100 miles away from being scratch resistant.
While I do not know what Apple knew and did not know, or whether Apple intentionally ignored a problem, or whether some batches of nanos have a manufacturing flaw while others do not, I do know that there is a problem and it needs to be examined.

[gugy]

Above, This is the best post.
KSZ and 64bytes you guys are right.
Thanks

[matticus008]

Agreed. Apple is now including the 'transparent' warranty in every box of the new iPod (video). That measure is an ackowledgement of the fragility of the device even when it is operated under normal conditions.
So when you buy a table, it should come with furniture wax?

Completely agree. A large part of Apple's success in turning around a flagging corporation is due to the aesthetics of its models. Jonathan Ive wins design award after design award, and Jobs continues to tout design and beauty in his stage events. Replay recent Media Events and Expos for a refresher.
Granted, but superior design doesn't mean it will magically maintain that appearance. Again, if I buy a set of champagne flutes because they're prettier than another set, even a cheaper set, I can't reasonably expect that they will not break just as easily.

If the iPod looked like the Rio or the Zen or the Dell MP3 player, how many of you would raise arms against a sea of troubles? Who cares if it looks like crap; it still works doesn't it? It's still got the same menu, the same clickwheel, and the same iTunes interface. It just looks like crap, so what's the big deal?
So it's because an iPod is "pretty" and not because it doesn't work well. I can't complain because a nice shirt got stained while ignoring the crappy shirt that also got stained.


Correct again. Aesthetics and preservation of that aesthetic are important considerations. If my BMW were a scratch magnet that broke out into a hive of scratches after just 2 days (or even a week) whereas no other car regardless of price suffered such an ailment under the same use conditions I would damn well conclude that the BMW was flawed and that the paint job is easily ruined.
So how does Saturn fit in? Their cars are harder to dent than others many times their price. Wouldn't I then be required to think Audi flawed to have sold me an inferior car?

BMW and Mercedes are part fashion -- you pay for the name. Apple is also part fashion -- they market their products on the basis of functionality AND ALSO on the basis of cosmetics.
Not always. BMW and Mercedes are marketed more as a status symbol because of the brand, but they do tend to be aesthetically superior. That status symbol and the price it commands over competitors is usually double or more that of a comparable product from a competing manufacturer. In the case of the iPod, the "premium" for the Apple name is minimal. The cheapest 20GB music player is somewhere around $250 last time I checked. More specifically, for the nano, the product is actually cheaper and has more features than any of its competitors.

Exactly. Shoot first and ask questions later. This describes what is happening to many nano buyers.
Do you mean the buying habits of nano customers? If so, "shooting first" is a bad idea in product selection. Research before making an important purchase.

I'll say it again...aesthetics (a subjective field by nature) have varying opinions. Your opinion on the appearance of the iPod is certainly valid, whatever it may be. But since the iPod continues to function perfectly in its intended use as a personal music player and portable data storage device, irrespective of any cosmetic damage, your rational action would be to a) not buy the nano or b) return the nano. You can even go so far as to complain to Apple. But you can't accuse them of foul play or fault because you don't agree with their aesthetic decisions. I'd love to sue Honda for the Element and Pontiac for the Aztec. I think they're just that ugly. I'd love to get on the internet and complain dinner plate manufacturers because I don't think they hold up very well with heavy use--but I don't expect Crate and Barrel to give me money or bend to my preferences when I can just as easily buy something else. They'll change when they lose sales...that's the market indicator.

[ksz]

So when you buy a table, it should come with furniture wax?
Only if the table scratches disproportionately to other tables. If the table's surface is extremely and abnormally prone to scratching under normal use, then yes, absolutely yes. This is why, in my view, Apple is now including a carrying sleeve with every new iPod (video) -- they are shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

Granted, but superior design doesn't mean it will magically maintain that appearance. Again, if I buy a set of champagne flutes because they're prettier than another set, even a cheaper set, I can't reasonably expect that they will not break just as easily.
You have ignored the issue of disproportionate accumulation of scratches. If the champagne flutes had a propensity to break under the normal holding force of your hands, you would consider them to be defective because they are not designed for the rigors of their intended use.

So it's because an iPod is "pretty" and not because it doesn't work well. I can't complain because a nice shirt got stained while ignoring the crappy shirt that also got stained.
You again ignored the point about other portable consumer items. If your crappy shirt accumulates stains VERY slowly, but your nice shirt accumulates stains after 2 days under normal use (i.e. you never spilled any coffee or ketcup on it), you would consider the nice shirt to be defective.

So how does Saturn fit in? Their cars are harder to dent than others many times their price. Wouldn't I then be required to think Audi flawed to have sold me an inferior car?
This is not even an issue. If my BMW accumulates scratches at a slow rate that is comparable to other cars, then no problem. If the Saturn is designed for extra resilience, great, but that does not produce an argument in your favor. I cannot accept a car whose appearance is tarnished with scratches after less than a week of normal use whereas other cars remain flawless. This is the issue of disproportionate rate of decay which you are conveniently ignoring.

Not always. BMW and Mercedes are marketed more as a status symbol because of the brand, but they do tend to be aesthetically superior. That status symbol and the price it commands over competitors is usually double or more that of a comparable product from a competing manufacturer. In the case of the iPod, the "premium" for the Apple name is minimal. The cheapest 20GB music player is somewhere around $250 last time I checked. More specifically, for the nano, the product is actually cheaper and has more features than any of its competitors.
Regardless of price, the fact that the iPod has outsold all other models is not due to its technical merits alone, but also to its aesthetic appeal. Consumer products sell in large part on the basis of their aesthetic appeal. It is this aesthetic appeal that gets destroyed after 2 days of use. It is this aesthetic appeal that factored into my decision to purchase a nano. The aesthetic design is a feature of the product. It is this aesthetic design that decays far too quickly and disproportionately. While all products -- and features of the products -- decay over time, they must not decay at an alarming rate.

Do you mean the buying habits of nano customers? If so, "shooting first" is a bad idea in product selection. Research before making an important purchase.
What research? The nano is a new product. There was no prior warning.

I'll say it again...aesthetics (a subjective field by nature) have varying opinions. Your opinion on the appearance of the iPod is certainly valid, whatever it may be. But since the iPod continues to function perfectly in its intended use as a personal music player and portable data storage device, irrespective of any cosmetic damage, your rational action would be to a) not buy the nano or b) return the nano. You can even go so far as to complain to Apple. But you can't accuse them of foul play or fault because you don't agree with their aesthetic decisions.
If mine was an isolated case, that is one thing. But there seems to be a systematic issue with nanos. How widespread is that issue, I do not know. But the issue is more prevalent than one or two isolated cases. If a few early batches of the nano had a manufacturing problem that has since been corrected, great. But Apple should acknowledge the problem, NOT CHARGE A FEE for restocking, perhaps issue a RECALL on selected serial numbers, and replace them with known GOOD UNITS.

I'd love to sue Honda for the Element and Pontiac for the Aztec. I think they're just that ugly. I'd love to get on the internet and complain dinner plate manufacturers because I don't think they hold up very well with heavy use--but I don't expect Crate and Barrel to give me money or bend to my preferences when I can just as easily buy something else. They'll change when they lose sales...that's the market indicator.
Huh? I don't get it. Irrelevant, digressive, and argumentative.

[matticus008]

Only if the table scratches disproportionately to other tables. If the table's surface is extremely and abnormally prone to scratching under normal use, then yes, absolutely yes. This is why, in my view, Apple is now including a carrying sleeve with every new iPod (video) -- they are shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.
No table would come with such a product, even under that circumstance. What you've ignored throughout your entire reply is that there is no proof that the nano scratches in a manner which is inconsistent with the materials used. Nor have you demonstrated a functional harm in the choice of materials. Black is notorious for showing dirt, but it doesn't mean that it's a flawed color. It's a natural property, and you could always choose a different product that wasn't black. Wine glasses are breakable, but that doesn't make them flawed, because they also make plastic wine glasses which you're free to buy. You're free to buy another product if you don't like the nano's qualities.


You have ignored the issue of disproportionate accumulation of scratches. If the champagne flutes had a propensity to break under the normal holding force of your hands, you would consider them to be defective because they are not designed for the rigors of their intended use.
You're equating functional damage to cosmetic damage where no correlation exists. If nano scratching had a propensity to break the iPod, you'd be making a valid point. In making analogies, both analogous examples should be either functional or cosmetic, not one of each. You can't tie "breaking" with "normal use" for one and not the other. The iPod functionally withstands all rigors of intended use, just like a scratched up dinner plate and a not scratched dinner plate both being structurally sound, and just like the champagne flutes both break when dropped.


You again ignored the point about other portable consumer items. If your crappy shirt accumulates stains VERY slowly, but your nice shirt accumulates stains after 2 days under normal use (i.e. you never spilled any coffee or ketcup on it), you would consider the nice shirt to be defective.
Me spilling coffee on a shirt will stain it. There is no time-based variable in cosmetic damage. I can spill coffee on it after one day or after three years. It will stain the shirt the same either way. You might have the logical assumption that an older shirt might be more likely to be stained, but that assumption does not rule out the very likely possibility that the new shirt was stained and the older shirt has no stains. And unless that shirt (or my iPod) was sold to me with a claim of "spillproof" (or "scratchless"), I have no right to accuse the company of anything. Your example very clearly demonstrates the lack of time as a variable. Staining, scratching, and denting are all caused purely by incidental conditions which can and do occur at any time. It's a simple reality and shouldn't even be a point of contention.


This is the issue of disproportionate rate of decay which you are conveniently ignoring.
"Rate of decay" does not apply to scratching, because if the nano never comes in contact with anything, it will not scratch. The incidence of scratching does not have a time line. The longer you have it, the more likely it is that it will be scratched. But it's not time that is causing this, it's the fact that you've used it on several occasions and have exposed it to a higher total number of events. A scratch is a random event. Rolling a die 10 times means that you're more likely to have rolled a five than if you'd only rolled the die 3 times. It's not that you've been sitting there rolling the die for three times as long, it's that you've had multiple events.


Regardless of price, the fact that the iPod has outsold all other models is not due to its technical merits alone, but also to its aesthetic appeal. Consumer products sell in large part on the basis of their aesthetic appeal. It is this aesthetic appeal that gets destroyed after 2 days of use. It is this aesthetic appeal that factored into my decision to purchase a nano.
Then return the nano, as it does not live up to your expectations. (I understand you specifically can't, but that situation is of your own creation.) Buy something that does meet your criteria. It's not like Apple is refusing to take returns. They have a published return policy, and you agree to those terms implicitly when you make a purchase. If, truly after two days, you find its cosmetic value less than you find appropriate, you return it. If you don't currently own one and you've convinced yourself that it scratches too easily, don't buy one. Either way, they're not forcing you to keep or buy a product you don't like.

What research? The nano is a new product. There was no prior warning.
Any prior research into iPods. When a new model year comes out for a car, you turn to the previous model's reviews to look for any particular complaints or issues. If you find them, you then look at the reviews of the new product to see whether or not these are mentioned as having been addressed. No prior warning? Have you never heard complaints about iPod scratches in the past? And, if this "problem" is apparent after just two days, wouldn't there then be complaints to be found rather quickly? Certainly by three weeks after its release, those complaints were there. Any research into iPods before purchase would have revealed not only the huge case/skin market, but also prior complaints.

But Apple should acknowledge the problem, NOT CHARGE A FEE for restocking
They have a published return policy that applies to all fully functional hardware products. Apple did not conceal this and they did not create it just for the iPod to keep you from returning it. You agree to those terms by purchasing through Apple. If you have a problem with the RESTOCKING FEE, you should direct your complaint's at Apple's RESTOCKING FEE policy. If $25 (or however much the restocking fee is) is more important to you than the principle of its aesthetics, then you've just put a price on the value of design, and it's not a high one.

It's not irrelevant or digressive. You could buy something else. You could have returned the nano if it was disappointing. You could even complain about the restocking fee you had to pay. But you have no grounds for legal action because legal action is a last resort, not a front line weapon. Go through the ALL of the proper channels, and only then if they fail you, pursue appropriate legal action. This has not been done.

[ksz]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1344

Introduced just last month, the nano is available in 2GB and 4GB capacities for $199 and $249, but does not ship standard with any protective casing. While Apple offers a set of iPod nano protective tubes for $29, the accessory was on backorder during the first month the player was available.

As a result of problems with the nano, Apple now ships a standard soft protective sleeve with each fifth-generation iPod video player that it sells. The company is also expected to include a standard protective casing with future revisions to the iPod nano.
This is wonderful news for iPod (video) owners and prospective buyers of both the 5G iPod and iPod nano. Now Apple will be shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

[ksz]

What you've ignored throughout your entire reply is that there is no proof that the nano scratches in a manner which is inconsistent with the materials used.
Exactly, the materials used are inappropriate for the rigors of its intended use, hence "design flaw". Different materials should have been used or existing ones reinforced against scratches. Capiche?

Nor have you demonstrated a functional harm in the choice of materials.
If my BMW scratches more than any other car under the same normal use conditions, I would consider the BMW's surface to be made of inappropriate materials that tarnish its appearance. Functional harm is irrelevant because aesthetic appeal is a feature of the product. That appeal will decay over time, but it must be a gradual decay. My iPod nano looks 3 years old after less than 3 weeks. That's a problem. Capiche?

Black is notorious for showing dirt, but it doesn't mean that it's a flawed color.
Who said anything about a flawed color?

Wine glasses are breakable, but that doesn't make them flawed, because they also make plastic wine glasses which you're free to buy. You're free to buy another product if you don't like the nano's qualities.
If the wine glasses broke simply by put your hands around them and lifting them, then the strength of the glass would be inappropriate for the intended rigors of its use, and the glasses would be defective -- in fact the breakage would lead to a catastrophic functional failure.

You're equating functional damage to cosmetic damage where no correlation exists.
No I am not. I made it clear that the aesthetic appeal of the iPod is a feature of the product. The aesthetic appeal is marketed and people factor their purchasing decision on that aesthetic. When that same aesthetic is tarnished after only 2 days, I consider that to be a problem, a legitimate problem. Capiche?

If nano scratching had a propensity to break the iPod, you'd be making a valid point. In making analogies, both analogous examples should be either functional or cosmetic, not one of each.
I made a clear distinction between aesthetics and functionality. Reread my BMW analogy. Capiche?

You can't tie "breaking" with "normal use" for one and not the other. The iPod functionally withstands all rigors of intended use, just like a scratched up dinner plate and a not scratched dinner plate both being structurally sound, and just like the champagne flutes both break when dropped.
Wrong. A dinner plate that becomes grossly scratched up after 2 days whereas other dinner plates do not, indicates that one of them is flawed in design. It is once again a matter of disproportionate rate of decay.

Me spilling coffee on a shirt will stain it. There is no time-based variable in cosmetic damage. I can spill coffee on it after one day or after three years. It will stain the shirt the same either way. You might have the logical assumption that an older shirt might be more likely to be stained, but that assumption does not rule out the very likely possibility that the new shirt was stained and the older shirt has no stains. And unless that shirt (or my iPod) was sold to me with a claim of "spillproof" (or "scratchless"), I have no right to accuse the company of anything.
Stained shirts are a bad example. Try this: If shirt #1 develops loose threads whereas shirt #2, under the same wearing conditions remains fully intact, would you consider shirt #1 to be defective? I certainly would.

Your example very clearly demonstrates the lack of time as a variable. Staining, scratching, and denting are all caused purely by incidental conditions which can and do occur at any time. It's a simple reality and shouldn't even be a point of contention.
Wrong again and again. Reread my analogy of loose threads. Capiche?

"Rate of decay" does not apply to scratching, because if the nano never comes in contact with anything, it will not scratch.
If the nano never came into contact with anything, it means I could not even put my finger on it to turn it on. It would just sit on the shelf. Your point here is again bogus. Not coming into contact with anything is not a normal use condition; it is, instead, a zero-use condition. Bogus.

The incidence of scratching does not have a time line. The longer you have it, the more likely it is that it will be scratched. But it's not time that is causing this, it's the fact that you've used it on several occasions and have exposed it to a higher total number of events.
Yes I have exposed it to a higher total number of "events" because I actually use it! I do not put it inside a glass cage and admire it from a distance! From normal use its surface has become tarnished after 2 days.

A scratch is a random event. Rolling a die 10 times means that you're more likely to have rolled a five than if you'd only rolled the die 3 times. It's not that you've been sitting there rolling the die for three times as long, it's that you've had multiple events.
Purely and utterly academic.

Then return the nano, as it does not live up to your expectations. (I understand you specifically can't, but that situation is of your own creation.) Buy something that does meet your criteria.
So it is once again down to, "take it or leave it." No thanks. I want Apple to FIX it. I want Apple to produce a wonderful iPod nano that does withstand the rigors of its intended use. I am NOT SUING Apple, but I hope they are listening to customers...customers like me. You would rather suppress the voice of the customer and tell them to just return the product and go away.

It's not like Apple is refusing to take returns. They have a published return policy, and you agree to those terms implicitly when you make a purchase. If, truly after two days, you find its cosmetic value less than you find appropriate, you return it. If you don't currently own one and you've convinced yourself that it scratches too easily, don't buy one. Either way, they're not forcing you to keep or buy a product you don't like.
I am keeping my nano and I will polish it. I will live with the tarnished surface. But I want to make it very clear that Apple is doing a disservice to its customers by not making the iPod nano resistant to scratches. The aesthetic appeal of the nano factored heavily in my decision to buy it, and I am dissatisfied that that aesthetic which I admired so much has been lost. I want to purchase future iPods, but I want Apple to make them right.

Any prior research into iPods. When a new model year comes out for a car, you turn to the previous model's reviews to look for any particular complaints or issues. If you find them, you then look at the reviews of the new product to see whether or not these are mentioned as having been addressed.
I purchased 5 iPods prior to the two nanos...or was it 6 prior iPods...checking...yes it was 6 (four 30GB models and 2 shuffles). None of them accumulated so many scratches so quickly. I expected the nano to have the same resilience and purchased two units the day after the announcement.

No prior warning? Have you never heard complaints about iPod scratches in the past? And, if this "problem" is apparent after just two days, wouldn't there then be complaints to be found rather quickly? Certainly by three weeks after its release, those complaints were there. Any research into iPods before purchase would have revealed not only the huge case/skin market, but also prior complaints.
So what does this "huge market" for iPod protection tell you? Is there a similar huge market to protect your other portable electronics devices? Seem to me it is quite clear that the iPod's scratchability is beyond normal and is a problem that Apple would be wise to address.

And now it seems Apple may be beginning to address the problem by offering a "generous" exchange policy to 5G iPod buyers and planning to ship every future nano with a protective sleeve. This is a good start, and more needs to be done.

[Azbola]

Nothing to do with the legal case itself really, but I believe Apple made a poor decision with the construction of this device.

It's all very impressive that it can be run over by a car or dropped from a helicopter or whatever and still work, but this isn't going to happen in reality.
It is however going to be in and out of pockets with the headphones attached and within weeks will look like crap.

A real shame as it is a really nice piece of equipment but I won't be buying another ipod product after this unless Apple change the construction, and more importantly change their attitude to their (new) customers.

As someone else has said, the nano took Apple mass market and they have to realise that all sorts of average people are going to buy this thing and don't care what it is made of, they just want it to work and look good. They will not look after it like some people here suggest because they are not used to doing this. They will however blame Apple when it looks like crap after a few weeks and not buy anything else from them.

Apple could so easily have avoided all this bad press and customer experience buy admitting the product was not quite right, changing the construction and fixing/replacing existing ones.

[matticus008]

Exactly, the materials used are inappropriate for the rigors of its intended use, hence "design flaw". Different materials should have been used or existing ones reinforced against scratches. Capiche?
No they are not inappropriate. They are structurally sound and functionally superior. Any plastic will scratch. Other plastics have other vulnerabilities as well that polycarbonate does not share. Again, you have an opinion that the iPod should be made of something different, but are unable to say WHAT it should be made of.


Functional harm is irrelevant because aesthetic appeal is a feature of the product. That appeal will decay over time, but it must be a gradual decay. My iPod nano looks 3 years old after less than 3 weeks. That's a problem. Capiche?
Oh, that is hilarious. "Functional harm is irrelevant." Indeed! Actually, it is the ONLY RELEVANT CONCERN in an accusation of product fault. Period. Give me a legal precedent where aesthetics have ever been considered in a claim of defect. I'll save you some trouble by telling you that you won't find any.

If the wine glasses broke simply by put your hands around them and lifting them, then the strength of the glass would be inappropriate for the intended rigors of its use, and the glasses would be defective -- in fact the breakage would lead to a catastrophic functional failure.
It would be defective because it failed to perform its function. It would not be defective because it didn't look as nice anymore. Again, think carefully about the issue of functional vs. aesthetic harm. There is a difference, and one is valid while the other is not.

No I am not. I made it clear that the aesthetic appeal of the iPod is a feature of the product. The aesthetic appeal is marketed and people factor their purchasing decision on that aesthetic. When that same aesthetic is tarnished after only 2 days, I consider that to be a problem, a legitimate problem. Capiche?
No. Aesthetics are not relevant in a claim of defect. Period. Not applicable. The end. A defect must be a structural, safety, mechanical, or otherwise functional deficiency. Something cannot be defective because it is ugly in any condition beyond personal opinion.


I made a clear distinction between aesthetics and functionality. Reread my BMW analogy. Capiche?
No you did not. Your BMW would not be defective if it happened to have more scratches on it after a week than another car one week old. The conditions of its use were different and uncontrollable. Even two BMWs of the same model would not look exactly the same after a week of normal use.


Wrong. A dinner plate that becomes grossly scratched up after 2 days whereas other dinner plates do not, indicates that one of them is flawed in design. It is once again a matter of disproportionate rate of decay.
No it doesn't. A clear glass plate will have highly visible scratches after the first few uses. An opaque, neutral color plate will not show those scratches to the same extent. This does not make the clear plate defective. That, good sir, is a ludicrous argument.


Stained shirts are a bad example. Try this: If shirt #1 develops loose threads whereas shirt #2, under the same wearing conditions remains fully intact, would you consider shirt #1 to be defective? I certainly would.
This is exactly what I mean when I say you must distinguish between aesthetic and functional. A stained shirt is an aesthetic problem, like a scratched nano. A shirt whose threads are wearing or losing their weaving is a functional problem. You have yet again taken an analogy and presented an invalid response.

Purely and utterly academic.
Absolutely not! It's very clear and salient. You've had a higher number of times to potentially scratch your iPod the longer you've had it. The fact that you've had it for a long time doesn't create scratches. Let's say you put it in a drawer and lost it for two years. It wouldn't magically have two years' worth of scratches on it when you found it. But let's say that instead you carry it with you every day. That's exposing it to a high number of possible scratching events.

It only takes one small movement against one particle to cause a scratch. That particle might be a bit of metal dust or it might be a Ford F150. The more total movements that the iPod makes, the higher the likelihood of scratching. That is the only measure. Time is NOT a relevant consideration. Time itself does not tell you anything useful. You need number of movements regardless of any other data you consider, so the dominant consideration is indeed number of events. This is not hard to see. The die-rolling example is fairly self-explanatory and exactly spot on. Have you ever looked at abrasion testing results? They are all listed in units of number. Even when the report says "several minutes in the tumbler lined with x grit of y type of sandpaper," it reports the observed number of strikes to plot against abrasion. Scratching is number of successful scratches / number of total impacts.


So it is once again down to, "take it or leave it." No thanks.
No, it's not. It's down to "play by the rules or quit your whining." You can't skip the rational steps and then complain about the exactly WRONG issue and expect to have any validity. It seems that the REAL complaint here is that returning the nano means a loss of some money. Everything else is an attempt to rationalize and irrational behavior and to force blame on Apple for "bad materials" when really the issue is restocking fees. It's a load of crap, and you know it.

You would rather suppress the voice of the customer and tell them to just return the product and go away.
The voice of the dollar is the most important. If people returned their nanos and sales fell, that would have a much greater effect on Apple than people throwing pointless and baseless lawsuits at them. The voice of the customer, in this case, is not one of being stuck with a defective product, but rather of one that they've decided is disappointing and they're being opportunistic corner-cutters. Again, the appropriate steps are (in this order, no skipping, no redirection):

1. Return the nano that is disappointing
2. Ask that you not be charged a restocking fee because you feel the product didn't meet your expectations. Because the product was working perfectly, unless they are sympathetic, you'll have to pay the restocking fee.
3. Make a formal complaint against Apple by sending them an email or preferably, a letter outlining your disappointment with the nano and the restocking fee.
4. Wait for Apple's response. Two weeks is a normal period.
5. If Apple tells you that you're not entitled to a refund of the restocking fee because you returned a working product, and their return policy clearly states that working products will be charged a restocking fee, then you may look into restocking fees and legal action.
6. File legal action against Apple for breaking a law protecting you from restocking fees. Do NOT file a suit that claims the product is defective for aesthetic imperfection, because in your research you will have discovered that the legal definition for a suit of defect requires "a flaw or deficiency in a product that creates a significant risk of harm or interferes with the normal function of that product." (emphasis added)

So what does this "huge market" for iPod protection tell you? Is there a similar huge market to protect your other portable electronics devices?
Yes. PDA screen protectors, keyboard protectors, laptop sleeves, padded laptop cases, portable game console cases, PDA cases, cell phone cases and screen protectors, other music player cases, camera cases and lens covers, and I'm sure I'm forgetting several.

All in all, the complaints against durability or strength are just flat out wrong, given the extremely high durability and strength of polycarbonate and the nano. Complaints of the use of inferior materials have not been backed by the suggestion of a superior material, so there's nothing to that. Complaints of the law suit's type that allege functional failure because of scratching have not been demonstrated by evidence. The suit's abuse of the legal system to use brute force and media intimidation against Apple certainly isn't going to work.

And yet the one complaint that is not an aggressive accusation against Apple--that the iPod just scratches a lot, like (and not more than) everything else--is the one Apple responds to. It's the one Apple has been working on in its design and engineering labs for a long time. And it's one the industry has been fighting for a long time. They've made progress, but they haven't found the answer. The discussion of how to handle complaints and what to do at Apple started before the lawsuit and was ongoing at least shortly prior to the 5G launch. That case they threw in was not an admission of fault or inferiority. It is just an attempt to placate customers while they continue to work.

But of course one might say that it's just a band aid and continue trumpeting your "defective materials" argument. If one truly believes that the materials are faulty...nothing has changed. But I'll say again, material fault has not been demonstrated, and I think that the real impetus here is that restocking fee and nothing else.

[snowmoon]

The two of you. Before you make a new post.... think... will you add anything to the discussion? If not DON'T POST ANYMORE!


Since some people keep dancing around the issue. While scratches are cosmetic, because the nano is sold as a way to view pictures as well a badly scratched screen could prevent one of it's functions from working properly. OTOH, I have yet to see a legitimate picture of a nano that is SO BADLY SCRATCHED as to prevent normal ( backlight on ) viewing of pictures and ( backlight off ) operation of menus. While I understand that cosmetics can, in theory, be the basis of an action I have yet to see ONE DEVICE that is marred in such a way as to prevent operation.

As for the materal choice. The plasic used may scratch easier, but is designed ( as ars technica found out ) to take a lot of abuse. It is more resiliant to shattering from a drop and other types of abuse that is common on electronics devices. Would you prefer they use a type of plastic that a) made them unable to design is such a small form factor or b) cracked and fractured easly?

So people, please THINK before you post! If you are not adding anything reasonable, let this thread die.

[~Shard~]

The two of you. Before you make a new post.... think... will you add anything to the discussion? If not DON'T POST ANYMORE!

Ah. but which one of them will be content with letting the other one have the last word? :p ;) :D

I'm enjoying the debate - I say let it continue until they tire out, it's all good.... :cool:

[ksz]

No they are not inappropriate. They are structurally sound and functionally superior.
Yes the materials are inappropriate because they tarnish the aesthetic value of the device and precipitate its surface decay. The look of the nano factored highly in my purchase decision and I have been robbed of that "feature" after 2 days.

Any plastic will scratch. Other plastics have other vulnerabilities as well that polycarbonate does not share. Again, you have an opinion that the iPod should be made of something different, but are unable to say WHAT it should be made of.
It can be made more scratch resistant. It can be made of anodized aluminum. It can be made of a magnesium-titanium shell. It can even be made of thick plastic. It can be accompanied by clear warnings on the package. It can be accompanied by a protective sleeve.

Oh, that is hilarious. "Functional harm is irrelevant." Indeed! Actually, it is the ONLY RELEVANT CONCERN in an accusation of product fault. Period. Give me a legal precedent where aesthetics have ever been considered in a claim of defect. I'll save you some trouble by telling you that you won't find any.
Sorry, you are demonstrating your ignorance again. I asked if you understood my arguments -- "capiche" -- but you don't. Functional harm is not relevant in this case because we're talking about aesthetic degradation, but if allowed to continue unabated, that aesthetic degradation can lead to functional failure. Because the aesthetics of the nano are a feature of the product, premature aesthetic degradation under normal use conditions is most certainly an impairment.

It would be defective because it failed to perform its function. It would not be defective because it didn't look as nice anymore. Again, think carefully about the issue of functional vs. aesthetic harm. There is a difference, and one is valid while the other is not.
Wrong. Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay is a product impairment. It is the use of inappropriate materials for the rigors of its intended use.

No. Aesthetics are not relevant in a claim of defect. Period. Not applicable. The end. A defect must be a structural, safety, mechanical, or otherwise functional deficiency. Something cannot be defective because it is ugly in any condition beyond personal opinion.
I think your comprehension of English is rapidly decaying as demonstrated once again by an ignorant statement. Who said anything about ugly? We're not talking about ugly. We're talking about a premature degradation of a product's appearance due to an inappropriate choice of materials. That choice of materials might provide structural strength, but it compromises aesthetic durability.

No you did not. Your BMW would not be defective if it happened to have more scratches on it after a week than another car one week old. The conditions of its use were different and uncontrollable. Even two BMWs of the same model would not look exactly the same after a week of normal use.
Wrong again. I said it before and I'll say it again because you're losing control: If my BMW accumulated disproportionately more scratches than any other car under the same use conditions, I would conclude that the materials of my car's shell are defective and not suited to the rigors of its intended use, and that more resilient materials are available, but aren't being used by BMW. Capiche?

No it doesn't. A clear glass plate will have highly visible scratches after the first few uses. An opaque, neutral color plate will not show those scratches to the same extent. This does not make the clear plate defective. That, good sir, is a ludicrous argument.
I have many clear glass plates that have no scratches. Glass is brittle, but it's hardened and resilient to scratching. Go to a window right now and try to scratch it. How much force and what type of blunt object will you need? You are really beginning to lose it.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you must distinguish between aesthetic and functional. A stained shirt is an aesthetic problem, like a scratched nano. A shirt whose threads are wearing or losing their weaving is a functional problem. You have yet again taken an analogy and presented an invalid response.
Wrong again. A few threads will loosen here and there, but you can still wear the shirt perfectly. A few people will stare at you, but who cares, it is just a few loose threads. Over time, more of those threads will become loose until such a time when it would no longer be a good idea to wear the shirt. The same is true with the accumulation of scratches on the nano. A few more weeks and I may not be able to see the screen. A shirt whose threads loosen far more precipitously than another would be considered defective.

Absolutely not! It's very clear and salient. You've had a higher number of times to potentially scratch your iPod the longer you've had it. The fact that you've had it for a long time doesn't create scratches. Let's say you put it in a drawer and lost it for two years. It wouldn't magically have two years' worth of scratches on it when you found it.
Did you not read my reply? Maybe you did but could not remember...short term memory loss. If I put the nano in a drawer or glass cage for 2 years, do you think that is considered to be normal use? You are describing a ZERO-USE condition. Sure I can subject the nano to a zero-use condition; in this case I would not have bothered to purchase it. But the moment I start to use it, it breaks out into a hive of scratches. This is NOT normal and indicates a problem. Capiche this time?

But let's say that instead you carry it with you every day. That's exposing it to a high number of possible scratching events.
Okay, so now Apple should publish guidelines for how often you are supposed to use the nano? Ridiculous.

It only takes one small movement against one particle to cause a scratch. That particle might be a bit of metal dust or it might be a Ford F150. The more total movements that the iPod makes, the higher the likelihood of scratching. That is the only measure. Time is NOT a relevant consideration. Time itself does not tell you anything useful.
Completely wrong to the point of hilarity. I buy a nano and I use it every day. In 2 days it is covered in a hive of scratches. The rate of aesthetic decay on the nano is greatly disproportionate to any other portable consumer device I own or have ever owned. That is a problem. Capiche this time?

You need number of movements regardless of any other data you consider, so the dominant consideration is indeed number of events.
Number of movements? Get real, man.

This is not hard to see. The die-rolling example is fairly self-explanatory and exactly spot on.
Exactly spot on? Self-proclaimed truism if ever there was one.

Have you ever looked at abrasion testing results? They are all listed in units of number. Even when the report says "several minutes in the tumbler lined with x grit of y type of sandpaper," it reports the observed number of strikes to plot against abrasion. Scratching is number of successful scratches / number of total impacts.
You want consumers to compute this formula for you? Ridiculous.

No, it's not. It's down to "play by the rules or quit your whining."
What whining? You are so content with the status-quo that you have abandoned all desire for change. I want Apple to make the product better; you want Apple to forget anything is wrong.

[ksz]

You can't skip the rational steps and then complain about the exactly WRONG issue and expect to have any validity. It seems that the REAL complaint here is that returning the nano means a loss of some money.
Do you think $250 makes a difference to me? I am not suing Apple. I want Apple to make a better product for all its customers because the current one is sub-par in the accumulation of aesthetic damage. You would not know what a problem is if it smacked you upside down because you spend your time convincing people that no problem can possibly exist.

Everything else is an attempt to rationalize and irrational behavior and to force blame on Apple for "bad materials" when really the issue is restocking fees. It's a load of crap, and you know it.
Completely wrong once again. You seem to be exhibiting a whole string of wrong answers. The rate of aesthetic decay on the nano is disproportionate to all other consumer portable devices I have owned. Therein lies a problem because it tarnishes the aesthetics of the device very prematurely. Stop and think about it.

The voice of the dollar is the most important. If people returned their nanos and sales fell, that would have a much greater effect on Apple than people throwing pointless and baseless lawsuits at them.
Wrong again. This means Apple will wait until Apple gets a larger and larger set of angry customers. Then and only then will Apple begin to make changes and attempt to regain their lost credibility. Do you really want Apple to wait until they have 1 million angry customers? If you want to run a company that way, be my guest, but make sure you tell me the name of that company so I make it a point NOT to invest there.

The voice of the customer, in this case, is not one of being stuck with a defective product, but rather of one that they've decided is disappointing and they're being opportunistic corner-cutters. Again, the appropriate steps are (in this order, no skipping, no redirection):
Once again: I want Apple to make the nano more scratch-resistant.

...6. File legal action against Apple for breaking a law protecting you from restocking fees. Do NOT file a suit that claims the product is defective for aesthetic imperfection, because in your research you will have discovered that the legal definition for a suit of defect requires "a flaw or deficiency in a product that creates a significant risk of harm or interferes with the normal function of that product." (emphasis added)
I haven't filed any lawsuit at all.

Yes. PDA screen protectors, keyboard protectors, laptop sleeves, padded laptop cases, portable game console cases, PDA cases, cell phone cases and screen protectors, other music player cases, camera cases and lens covers, and I'm sure I'm forgetting several.
The difference is that the "huge market" for iPod protectants and polishers is ONLY for the iPod -- one specific brand from one specific manufacturer. What you have listed above services hundreds of brands from many many manufacturers. And those devices, by your own admission, do NOT accumulate scratches at any abnormal rate.

My Dell Axim 50v, for example, has NO screen protectant. Never had it. I write with the Dell stylus all the time and there is not a single scratch of any kind after a year of ownership. While I could purchase a screen protectant, there is no NEED for one under normal use conditions. If someone hits it with a blunt object, a screen protector might help, but that would not be a "normal use" condition.

All in all, the complaints against durability or strength are just flat out wrong, given the extremely high durability and strength of polycarbonate and the nano.
Hogwash and merely opinion.

Complaints of the use of inferior materials have not been backed by the suggestion of a superior material, so there's nothing to that.
Wrong again. See opening statements.

Complaints of the law suit's type that allege functional failure because of scratching have not been demonstrated by evidence. The suit's abuse of the legal system to use brute force and media intimidation against Apple certainly isn't going to work.
Fine, but I am not suing so what are you talking about? You are addressing the entire response to me, but I am not part of the lawsuit. You are off the mark yet again.

And yet the one complaint that is not an aggressive accusation against Apple--that the iPod just scratches a lot, like (and not more than) everything else--is the one Apple responds to.
Wrong again. The nano scratches at a disproportionate rate.

It's the one Apple has been working on in its design and engineering labs for a long time. And it's one the industry has been fighting for a long time. They've made progress, but they haven't found the answer.
Name another portable consumer device with a soft polycarbonate layer similar to the nano's exterior construction. Then tell me how many such devices are there in relation to devices NOT made of that material.

But of course one might say that it's just a band aid and continue trumpeting your "defective materials" argument. If one truly believes that the materials are faulty...nothing has changed. But I'll say again, material fault has not been demonstrated, and I think that the real impetus here is that restocking fee and nothing else.
Wrong again. Since you are responding to my post I must again inform you that I am not part of the lawsuit and my impetus here is to raise awareness of an issue that Apple needs to correct.

And I am glad that Apple is starting to correct the problem:

1. 5G iPod owners can exchange the product for any hardware defect (any).
2. Future nanos will come with a protective sleeve.

Now why would Apple do this, particularly #2, if there was no problem? Why would they increase their COGS for no reason?

[devilot]

I wouldn't be surprised if my little post gets lost amidst the er, longer posts...
But I must mention one thing that's been bugging me about this debate.

As for the car paint issue, BMW's MINI had to 'recall' in effect, and re-paint a whole slew of 2002 and some 2003 black MINIs because the black paint was showing a propensity for peeling/cracking/scratching more so than all the other colors.

This was ignored for quite awhile w/ MINI USA passing off all responsibility to BMW USA who would then pass it off as owner negligence or abuse.

Eventually, the few vocal owners won out and did get new paint jobs.

[snowmoon]

And I am glad that Apple is starting to correct the problem:

1. 5G iPod owners can exchange the product for any hardware defect (any).
2. Future nanos will come with a protective sleeve.

Now why would Apple do this, particularly #2, if there was no problem? Why would they increase their COGS for no reason?

To prevent whiney people with buyers remorse from creating a harmful negative spin on the item. The cost of a sleeve is far less than the cost it will take apple to even respond to such a disgraseful class action lawsuit.

I understand the complaint, but have yet to see one nano or iPod with video that has a FUNCTIONAL defect because of non-abusive scratching ( not using harsh cleaners, not carring in your pocket with keys, not using paper towels and other abrasive cleaning products ).

I have owned several PDA's over the years and ALL screens would scratch under NORMAL use, and many people reported as much, had I not used a simple screen protector. Plastic PDA screen WILL scratch, just some will scratch sooner than others. Generally though they use a product that will scratch less easly that the iPod becuase it does not have to be structurally sound like the iPod.

[Maxx Power]

This is wonderful news for iPod (video) owners and prospective buyers of both the 5G iPod and iPod nano. Now Apple will be shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

Bingo.

[Maxx Power]

64Bytes is utterly right. And matticus, the judging criteria for who has the best customer support can be greatly biased, they have to be consistent from customer to customer, and from what I have experienced for paying 60 bucks for a "technical" call, I wouldn't say they are in number 1. In my opinion, IBM was better for at least laptops (now Lenovo).

[ksz]

I wouldn't be surprised if my little post gets lost amidst the er, longer posts...
But I must mention one thing that's been bugging me about this debate.

As for the car paint issue, BMW's MINI had to 'recall' in effect, and re-paint a whole slew of 2002 and some 2003 black MINIs because the black paint was showing a propensity for peeling/cracking/scratching more so than all the other colors.

This was ignored for quite awhile w/ MINI USA passing off all responsibility to BMW USA who would then pass it off as owner negligence or abuse.

Eventually, the few vocal owners won out and did get new paint jobs.
Your post is not lost.

Wow, what a nice case in point!

[ksz]

To prevent whiney people with buyers remorse from creating a harmful negative spin on the item. The cost of a sleeve is far less than the cost it will take apple to even respond to such a disgraseful class action lawsuit.

I understand the complaint, but have yet to see one nano or iPod with video that has a FUNCTIONAL defect because of non-abusive scratching ( not using harsh cleaners, not carring in your pocket with keys, not using paper towels and other abrasive cleaning products ).

I have owned several PDA's over the years and ALL screens would scratch under NORMAL use, and many people reported as much, had I not used a simple screen protector. Plastic PDA screen WILL scratch, just some will scratch sooner than others. Generally though they use a product that will scratch less easly that the iPod becuase it does not have to be structurally sound like the iPod.
Snowmoon, I have already addressed all of these points in my varied responses to matticus008. I will not start a new debate with you. I will say that Apple is taking this action in order to prevent having 1 million angry customers because Apple believes that without this action, they would get 1 million angry customers. Now why would they think that?

Your points are noted, though.

[Maxx Power]

To prevent whiney people with buyers remorse from creating a harmful negative spin on the item. The cost of a sleeve is far less than the cost it will take apple to even respond to such a disgraseful class action lawsuit.


Yeah, this is the samething the corps tried to do with asbestos and other harmful products, tried to divert the responsibility to the workers and buyers by issuing posters stating how you can avoid contact or how harmful the substance is, and hence if you still choose to get in contact with the substance, it is supposed to be your own fault. Of course, this was in place of otherwise expensive action taking to rectify the problem.

[Maxx Power]

Your post is not lost.

Wow, what a nice case in point!
Exactly, precedence has been set, actually there have been plenty of lawsuits like this one.

[Azbola]

I understand the complaint, but have yet to see one nano or iPod with video that has a FUNCTIONAL defect because of non-abusive scratching ( not using harsh cleaners, not carring in your pocket with keys, not using paper towels and other abrasive cleaning products ).
.

Its only been out a few weeks, if they are like they are already what will they be like in a few months? Years?

And it scratches worse than any other portable electronic device I have ever owned.

Oh and another car paint legal example:
"Even though CAS forwarded numerous complaints of fires to NHTSA, the Tempo/Topaz was the only model not included in the 1987 recall of 3.6 million 1986-87 Ford vehicles for faulty fuel line couplings that caused engine compartment fires. A common and expensive defect is paint peeling on all 1985-93 models. Ford attempts to cover up paint problems by buying off aggressive consumers under a secret warranty and ignoring consumers who don't complain loudly."

[devilot]

Your post is not lost.

Wow, what a nice case in point!I just thought of a slight spin from the same company, BMW's MINI... Because of the stink raised over those black-paint job MINIs, other owners became much more aware of their cars' coats.

To ease owners, MINI has since extended the warranty coverage for rust damage to a full 10 years (I suppose in case the paint peels and exposes the underlying metal and allowing oxidation).

So that is one such instance where first of all, cosmetics allowed for a recall and second of all... a cosmetic issue could develop into a functional issue. Luckily, BMW has stepped up to meet these issues (but not w/out a lot of effort on the part of a very few owners-- and yet so many of us have benefited from their vocal fight and initiative). It is because of this that although I am not currently involved w/ this nano lawsuit, I have no qualms w/ people who choose to fight it because if the courts prove it to have merit, then all of us w/ affected nanos could/would benefit from those few, similar to the iPod battery lawsuit.

[~Shard~]

I just thought of a slight spin from the same company, BMW's MINI... Because of the stink raised over those black-paint job MINIs, other owners became much more aware of their cars' coats.

To ease owners, MINI has since extended the warranty coverage for rust damage to a full 10 years (I suppose in case the paint peels and exposes the underlying metal and allowing oxidation).

So that is one such instance where first of all, cosmetics allowed for a recall and second of all... a cosmetic issue could develop into a functional issue. Luckily, BMW has stepped up to meet these issues (but not w/out a lot of effort on the part of a very few owners-- and yet so many of us have benefited from their vocal fight and initiative). It is because of this that although I am not currently involved w/ this nano lawsuit, I have no qualms w/ people who choose to fight it because if the courts prove it to have merit, then all of us w/ affected nanos could/would benefit from those few, similar to the iPod battery lawsuit.

Very fascinating thanks for pointing this out. I've been reading this whole debate, and this sets a bit of a precedent, and as you say, shows that "cosmetic" issues can essentially lead to functional issues which can rightfully be acted upon in the form of recall/lawsuit/what have you.

Thanks for adding this to the discussion. :)

[snowmoon]

Yeah, this is the samething the corps tried to do with asbestos and other harmful products, tried to divert the responsibility to the workers and buyers by issuing posters stating how you can avoid contact or how harmful the substance is, and hence if you still choose to get in contact with the substance, it is supposed to be your own fault. Of course, this was in place of otherwise expensive action taking to rectify the problem.

Asbestos related health problems are VERY HARD TO CONTRACT! I have asbestos in my own home. It takes repeated airborne exposuse to actually show any signs of health problems. As a side note, asbestos also saves more lives and energy over the years that could ever have been harmed by this substance!

Please don't use an example of life and death when comparing it to a frigging peice of personal and completly unnecessary electronics.

[snowmoon]

Very fascinating thanks for pointing this out. I've been reading this whole debate, and this sets a bit of a precedent, and as you say, shows that "cosmetic" issues can essentially lead to functional issues which can rightfully be acted upon in the form of recall/lawsuit/what have you.

Thanks for adding this to the discussion. :)

Paint peeling -> RUST if not repainted.

iPod micro-scratching -> Nothing

Not equivilent.

[devilot]

Paint peeling -> RUST if not repainted.

iPod micro-scratching -> Nothing

Not equivilent.Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough-- even those of us MINI owners w/out the problematic black coats have still received extended warranties (I mean from Chili Red to Dark silver). And not all of the paint issues were peeling... some of them had paint bubbles, some of them scratched more, some coats got a cracked look but w/out exposure to air (yet). That's my point-- MINI recognized a potential issue; rectified the affected vehicles, and then extended coverage to all of their customers w/in a time bracket (generous really from 2002-2004 vehicles, that is a good # of cars by the way) to ward off more BBB complaints and/or lawsuits.

[ksz]

Paint peeling -> RUST if not repainted.

iPod micro-scratching -> Nothing

Not equivilent.
There is only one 'i' in equivalent.

She said peeling/cracking/scratching. These ailments could have been corrected by continuously applying touch-up paint. It's very cheap. And when you need more, just buy more. So what if the touch-up paint does not perfectly match the color and levelness of the rest of the paint job? The issue is not aesthetics, it is rust, so touch-up paint will protect you from rust and that's that. What fools they were that pressed on with a lawsuit and caused a recall of BMW Minis... :rolleyes:

[Azbola]

Blimey, the website got so bored of this thread it tried to kill itself :) :)
It feels better now though.

[snowmoon]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough-- even those of us MINI owners w/out the problematic black coats have still received extended warranties (I mean from Chili Red to Dark silver). And not all of the paint issues were peeling... some of them had paint bubbles, some of them scratched more, some coats got a cracked look but w/out exposure to air (yet). That's my point-- MINI recognized a potential issue; rectified the affected vehicles, and then extended coverage to all of their customers w/in a time bracket (generous really from 2002-2004 vehicles, that is a good # of cars by the way) to ward off more BBB complaints and/or lawsuits.

I guess neither did I....

The problem with the mini lead directly to a loss of FUNCTION because of MANUFACTURING DEFECT. Just as apple quicky responded to the MANUFACTURING DEFECT in the screens of the nanos. The iPod's use the same plastic coating that all previous models have used and in this case no one is claiming this is a defect in manufacturing but a defect in design.

Still have yet to see an iPod that has loss of function ( music playing, picture viewing, movie viewing, ... ) due to micro scratching due to non abusive handling.

[matticus008]

I just thought of a slight spin from the same company, BMW's MINI... Because of the stink raised over those black-paint job MINIs, other owners became much more aware of their cars' coats.

To ease owners, MINI has since extended the warranty coverage for rust damage to a full 10 years (I suppose in case the paint peels and exposes the underlying metal and allowing oxidation).

So that is one such instance where first of all, cosmetics allowed for a recall and second of all... a cosmetic issue could develop into a functional issue. Luckily, BMW has stepped up to meet these issues (but not w/out a lot of effort on the part of a very few owners-- and yet so many of us have benefited from their vocal fight and initiative). It is because of this that although I am not currently involved w/ this nano lawsuit, I have no qualms w/ people who choose to fight it because if the courts prove it to have merit, then all of us w/ affected nanos could/would benefit from those few, similar to the iPod battery lawsuit.

That is a rather good comment, and one which adds some relevant precedents to the discussion, rather than ksz's attempt to rewrite the laws of physics and declare simultaneously redefine strength as "opinion" when the actual results are published and accepted as scientific fact. However, the missing element in your example, which is a requisite element, is that someone MUST experience functional damage and prove it in court. At that point, it would behoove the manufacturer to extend the warranty coverage to the earliest possible cause of that defect (all the way back to scratching, which leads to peeling, which leads to oxidation, and then finally rust). However, it is absolutely critical that someone actually experience a functional defect and conclusively demonstrate the cause of that defect.

[matticus008]

Sorry for two in a row, but I wanted to make sure that devilot76's excellent comment was addressed separately and directly, because it's far better than the positions I counter below. (An opinion, not fact. See the difference, defect mongers?)
Yes the materials are inappropriate because they tarnish the aesthetic value
The materials do not tarnish themselves. Silver does this in the presence of certain molecules, including air alone, sometimes within days. Is silver defective?

It can be made more scratch resistant. It can be made of anodized aluminum. It can be made of a magnesium-titanium shell. It can even be made of thick plastic.
All of these would prohibit the nano from being "nano" in size and weight, which would alter the product's aesthetics, which you claim is perhaps the major feature in purchasing. You can't like something for its design and turn around and say it's a bad design. "Capiche?"

Functional harm is not relevant in this case because we're talking about aesthetic degradation, but if allowed to continue unabated, that aesthetic degradation can lead to functional failure.
No, the assertion is defective materials, which by definition includes a demonstration of functional failure. Aesthetic degradation can (contrast with "does") lead to functional failure, but you must demonstrate that this is the case.

Wrong. Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay is a product impairment. It is the use of inappropriate materials for the rigors of its intended use.
Once and for all, this "rate of decay" is a myth and an opinion and nothing more. Abrasion is measured in number. Consumers don't have to do the calculations unless they are attempting to prove damages in a legal claim or formal complaint. Since you are doing one or both of those, you must present the facts underlying your opinions. Since there is no time element, "rate of decay" is purely and utterly speculative.

I think your comprehension of English is rapidly decaying as demonstrated once again by an ignorant statement. Who said anything about ugly? We're not talking about ugly. We're talking about a premature degradation
So we're talking about functional harm, then, and we're finished here.

I have many clear glass plates that have no scratches. Glass is brittle, but it's hardened and resilient to scratching. Go to a window right now and try to scratch it. How much force and what type of blunt object will you need?
I have not seen a used dinner plate of any kind without scratches. As as for scratching a window, I can do it with a single grain of sand, a sturdy piece of titanium, or anything harder than the glass. Maybe the iPod should be made of glass, since it's substantially harder to scratch than any plastic.

A few more weeks and I may not be able to see the screen.
Speculative opinion. Come back when you accomplish that perceived reality.

Did you not read my reply? Maybe you did but could not remember...short term memory loss. If I put the nano in a drawer or glass cage for 2 years, do you think that is considered to be normal use?
It was merely to illustrate that time itself has no impact on scratching. If you substitute "lost in a cabinet" to "carried in a case" you can still use it every day without exposing it to potential scratches. You can also use it every day, expose it to scratches, and not be shocked when it does indeed scratch. If you put something out in the rain, expect it to get wet. Maybe something is more water-repellant than another, but it'll still get wet. My deck furniture cushions get soaked when it rains, and they're designed for use outside, which is generally where rain occurs. I can't sue them for waterlogged cushions even if every other manufacturer used vinyl covers (which they do not).

Okay, so now Apple should publish guidelines for how often you are supposed to use the nano? Ridiculous.
No, you should be able to use enough common sense to know that the more you use something, the more likely it will experience wear. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will, however, as everyone's usage is different. No two items are exactly the same.


What whining? You are so content with the status-quo that you have abandoned all desire for change.
A rather bold statement. I have said many times that I'm not saying the iPod is perfect. But there's a difference between "room for improvement" and "defective piece of crap" that you're either not getting, or just using to obscure the point. There is nothing that has been demonstrated to be wrong or defective wrt the iPod. That does not mean I have no desire for change.

[ksz]

I guess neither did I....

The problem with the mini lead directly to a loss of FUNCTION because of MANUFACTURING DEFECT. Just as apple quicky responded to the MANUFACTURING DEFECT in the screens of the nanos. The iPod's use the same plastic coating that all previous models have used and in this case no one is claiming this is a defect in manufacturing but a defect in design.

Still have yet to see an iPod that has loss of function ( music playing, picture viewing, movie viewing, ... ) due to micro scratching due to non abusive handling.
This is not a good rebuttal because customers could have purchased touch-up paint and corrected the problem themselves. They could apply touch-up paint every two days or every week to keep repairing new scratches. Do you want your car to have such demanding maintenance requirements?

Similarly, iPod owners are being told to keep buying and using polishers and protectants.

Car bodies are covered by many layers of paint and topcoats. If the surface layer of paint peels or scratches, it does not necessarily lead to rust. And if you accumulate small scratches, it still does not lead to rust. We all have these scratches and stone chips on our cars and if they are severe enough, we apply touch-up paint. We do this because stone chips from rough roads and minor scratches from extended use are normal wear and tear, but if the car's paint exhibits a materials or manufacturing flaw that renders it disproportionately susceptible to damage, then it is a systemic flaw attributable to the manufacturer and not to the buyer.

[ksz]

Sorry for two in a row, but I wanted to make sure that devilot76's excellent comment was addressed separately and directly, because it's far better than the positions I counter below. (An opinion, not fact. See the difference, defect mongers?)
Do you think a legal case has merit only when there is a precedent? Who do you think sets the precedent? And why do you think new precedents cannot be set? Very one-tracked thinking on your part.

The materials do not tarnish themselves. Silver does this in the presence of certain molecules, including air alone, sometimes within days. Is silver defective?
Have you seen a portable consumer electronics device whose exterior is made entirely from silver? Stay relevant please, not academic. I asked you, because of your propensity for numbers, to calculate the total number of portable electronics devices whose shell is made from the same material as the nano and divide that number by the total number of portable electronics devices. If you can't do this, guess. My guess will be that less than 1% of the makes and models of portable electronics devices use the same outer materials as the nano. Sony does not use that material, neither does Dell, nor Motorola, nor Nokia, nor Sony-Ericsson, nor Samsung, nor the notebook companies, etc. In fact I cannot think of anyone else who does...

All of these would prohibit the nano from being "nano" in size and weight, which would alter the product's aesthetics, which you claim is perhaps the major feature in purchasing. You can't like something for its design and turn around and say it's a bad design. "Capiche?"
Wrong. There are many MP3 players even tinier than the nano. Titanium is a very strong material than can be made into thin sheets. I also stated warnings on the package and a protective sleeve in the box. Don't pick and choose your excerpts.

No, the assertion is defective materials, which by definition includes a demonstration of functional failure. Aesthetic degradation can (contrast with "does") lead to functional failure, but you must demonstrate that this is the case.
In my estimation, a disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay under normal use conditions does warrant a case, and if you think there is no precedent, I think one should be set.

Once and for all, this "rate of decay" is a myth and an opinion and nothing more. Abrasion is measured in number. Consumers don't have to do the calculations unless they are attempting to prove damages in a legal claim or formal complaint. Since you are doing one or both of those, you must present the facts underlying your opinions. Since there is no time element, "rate of decay" is purely and utterly speculative.
You are still thinking in terms of the precedents you are aware of.

So we're talking about functional harm, then, and we're finished here.
I certainly hope you are finished! Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay warrants a case...all my comments have been suggesting exactly this.

I have not seen a used dinner plate of any kind without scratches. As as for scratching a window, I can do it with a single grain of sand, a sturdy piece of titanium, or anything harder than the glass. Maybe the iPod should be made of glass, since it's substantially harder to scratch than any plastic.
Yes you can intentionally induce a scratch on glass if that is what you set out to do. I did not set out to scratch my nano. Why would I?

It was merely to illustrate that time itself has no impact on scratching. If you substitute "lost in a cabinet" to "carried in a case" you can still use it every day without exposing it to potential scratches. You can also use it every day, expose it to scratches, and not be shocked when it does indeed scratch. If you put something out in the rain, expect it to get wet. Maybe something is more water-repellant than another, but it'll still get wet. My deck furniture cushions get soaked when it rains, and they're designed for use outside, which is generally where rain occurs. I can't sue them for waterlogged cushions even if every other manufacturer used vinyl covers (which they do not).
I have addressed the issue of disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay more times than I care to count. You still do not get it. Your analogies here are flawed and I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the flaws.

No, you should be able to use enough common sense to know that the more you use something, the more likely it will experience wear. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will, however, as everyone's usage is different. No two items are exactly the same.
Of course, the more I use something the more it will accumulate wear. The phrase 'the more I use' implies time. And if I use it only 2 times and it has broken out into a hive of scratches, that is a problem.

A rather bold statement. I have said many times that I'm not saying the iPod is perfect. But there's a difference between "room for improvement" and "defective piece of crap" that you're either not getting, or just using to obscure the point. There is nothing that has been demonstrated to be wrong or defective wrt the iPod. That does not mean I have no desire for change.
Again, I think you're losing it. Who said the nano is a "defective piece of crap"? Do you really have short-term memory loss? I was only joking in my last reply, but now I'm wondering... ;)

I am keeping my nano (for now) in spite of the scratched up surface. If Apple is really allowing nano customers now to replace scratched units, I will IMMEDIATELY GET IT REPLACED when I return to the United States and the next one will be treated immediately with protectants and carrying sleeves. Or maybe I will ask for a refund and wait for the next generation nano. I will decide when I return.

[matticus008]

Do you think a legal case has merit only when there is a precedent? Who do you think sets the precedent? And why do you think new precedents cannot be set? Very one-tracked thinking on your part.
New precedents come from new harms. There is no precedent for a purely cosmetic claim because no such suit has been successful, not because it has never been attempted.

Have you seen a portable consumer electronics device whose exterior is made entirely from silver? [...] My guess will be that less than 1% of the makes and models of portable electronics devices use the same outer materials as the nano. Sony does not use that material, neither does Dell, nor Motorola, nor Nokia, nor Sony-Ericsson, nor Samsung, nor the notebook companies, etc. In fact I cannot think of anyone else who does...
Actually, Motorola, Sony, Toshiba, and many other companies do indeed use polycarbonate in their products. It is, in fact, one of the most common plastics in electronics, and all optical media. For just one quick example, the Motorola V600 has a polycarbonate black plastic insert on its front cover. (ps - these things are also scratched! The horror!)


Wrong. There are many MP3 players even tinier than the nano.
With all the features of the nano? This is news to me.

You are still thinking in terms of the precedents you are aware of.
There is not a precedent for suing on aesthetic grounds without damages. That does not mean that there is no precedent at all--it's just the opposite, that many suits have been rejected for lack of substantive harm. In fact, that's one of the biggest presumptions of Western law.

Yes you can intentionally induce a scratch on glass if that is what you set out to do. [b]I did not set out to scratch my nano. Why would I?
Uh, if you remember your own example, you asked me to go to a window and attempt to scratch it.

I have addressed the issue of disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay more times than I care to count.
You are rewriting physics and the functioning of the universe in those examples. Anyone with a scientific mind or a high school physics class can see that there is no "rate of decay" unless the material itself breaks down over time. You're grafting a property, decay, into a scenario where it does not occur.

Again, I think you're losing it. Who said the nano is a "defective piece of crap"?
You're the one saying it's defective (and other posters). Maybe you've lost sight of that in your whole rewrite of the universe.

---
This is the last I intend to say on the matter, and I leave you, the readers, with the following questions to consider.

1. Do you own an iPod?
2. Are you disappointed with its appearance, which you feel has been worsened within just days as these posters claim?
3. Did you return the nano? Did you write a thoughtful, firm, but polite letter or email to Apple voicing your disappointment?
4. If you didn't return the nano, was it because you couldn't find a better alternative, or was it because you didn't want to pay the $20 or $25 (depending on the capacity) restocking fee?
5. If it was the restocking fee, have you complained about the restocking fee or taken any action about the real source of frustration--that fee?
6. If you kept the iPod, knowing you were disappointed in it and being well within the return period, do you honestly think you have a right to blame Apple for your disappointment?

This is for the entire community now to ponder
7. If Apple had no restocking fee policy, would anyone be so crass as to support the claims of the lawsuit or to accuse the nano of being legally (that is, functionally) defective?

[EricNau]

I have never seen people post posts this long...
This is starting to cut into my spare time :p

[ksz]

New precedents come from new harms.
My nano's aesthetics have been harmed from normal use at a highly disproportionate rate. Everything will decay from repeated use, but the rate of this decay is highly disproportionate in the nano.

There is no precedent for a purely cosmetic claim because no such suit has been successful, not because it has never been attempted.
You can always use touch-up paint if the paint on your BMW Mini scratches or peels. Why don't you? Why did the plantiffs win the lawsuit? This is a reasonably similar precedent in my opinion.

Actually, Motorola, Sony, Toshiba, and many other companies do indeed use polycarbonate in their products. It is, in fact, one of the most common plastics in electronics, and all optical media. For just one quick example, the Motorola V600 has a polycarbonate black plastic insert on its front cover. (ps - these things are also scratched! The horror!)
I have already stated that I actually own a black Motorola V620. The V620 is the same as the V600, but black in color and sold mostly in the European and Asian markets. I have owned it for more than 6 months and its shell and screen are in very good condition from very heavy use! The nano does not even come close to the scratch resilience of my black V620.

With all the features of the nano? This is news to me.
Who said it needed all the features of the nano?

There is not a precedent for suing on aesthetic grounds without damages. That does not mean that there is no precedent at all--it's just the opposite, that many suits have been rejected for lack of substantive harm. In fact, that's one of the biggest presumptions of Western law.
Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay is a valid flaw of a product, in my opinion. Again I remind you that I am not suing; I want Apple to fix the problem, put a warning on the label, enclose a sleeve in every box, etc.

Uh, if you remember your own example, you asked me to go to a window and attempt to scratch it.
Sure I remember. How much force does it take to scratch the window with a grain of sand? Go try it and measure the force or give a qualitative answer.

You are rewriting physics and the functioning of the universe in those examples. Anyone with a scientific mind or a high school physics class can see that there is no "rate of decay" unless the material itself breaks down over time. You're grafting a property, decay, into a scenario where it does not occur.
Excuse me? Have you been listening or sleeping? The nano exhibits a disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay from normal use conditions. If you don't understand this sentence, return to grade school.

You're the one saying it's defective (and other posters). Maybe you've lost sight of that in your whole rewrite of the universe.
You are rewriting the laws of quotation! I argue that the nano's materials are inappropriate for its intended use conditions and because of this, the choice of material for the nano's exterior is a design flaw. I also said I am keeping my nano. Who said, "it's a piece of crap?" I don't know how your universe works, in my universe no one here said it's a piece of crap. Laws of physics indeed.

This is the last I intend to say on the matter...
Thanks for a good exchange. :)

[matticus008]

I thought about letting this go, but as a point of clarity and because of being instructed to return to grade school, I'm going to have to provide additional remarks.

A harm in formal complaint and law, is a significant health, safety, functional, or substantial financial damage incurred because of the cause of your complaint. Again, aesthetics are not a basis for formal complaint or lawsuit, because aesthetics are not open to legal judgment.

You can always use touch-up paint if the paint on your BMW Mini scratches or peels. Why don't you? Why did the plantiffs win the lawsuit? This is a reasonably similar precedent in my opinion.
No. That suit demonstrated a functional and safety harm that could be attributed to be originated by the scratching. The suit was not won because the cars scratched, but because those scratches were proved to contribute to an actual demonstrated harm. This is something people must understand about law.

I argue that the nano's materials are inappropriate for its intended use conditions and because of this, the choice of material for the nano's exterior is a design flaw. [...] Who said, "it's a piece of crap?"
So the product is flawed but not defective? How does that work? And then it's not defective, and it's not inferior either? Does "piece of crap" not mean "inferior?"

Which is it? Is it flawed, defective, or inferior (all terms you've used) or is it simply imperfect?

Thanks for a good exercise. :). And I, barring any further orders to restart my education, am finished.

[ksz]

The debate got nowhere on legal grounds, but Apple is taking (voluntary?) action to improve the situation. And that is good for everyone.

[Aliquis]

So that sucks that people are having problems with scratching so easily. I say it's better to get some type of film cover to put on it, and then to also keep it in a slip case. Rad-tech makes some awesome slip cases, but I'm not sure if they have their nano model out yet.

[Azbola]

1. Do you own an iPod?
2. Are you disappointed with its appearance, which you feel has been worsened within just days as these posters claim?
3. Did you return the nano? Did you write a thoughtful, firm, but polite letter or email to Apple voicing your disappointment?
4. If you didn't return the nano, was it because you couldn't find a better alternative, or was it because you didn't want to pay the $20 or $25 (depending on the capacity) restocking fee?
5. If it was the restocking fee, have you complained about the restocking fee or taken any action about the real source of frustration--that fee?
6. If you kept the iPod, knowing you were disappointed in it and being well within the return period, do you honestly think you have a right to blame Apple for your disappointment?

This is for the entire community now to ponder
7. If Apple had no restocking fee policy, would anyone be so crass as to support the claims of the lawsuit or to accuse the nano of being legally (that is, functionally) defective?

Thought I'd answer Matticus' questions:

1) Yes (well, girlfriend does)
2) Yes (within weeks not days though)
3) Tried to return (28 days after purchase - ipod was in the box for 14 days prior to use as it was a gift), told to go away
4) Not told about 14 day return period or restocking fee when I bought it
5) Fee is not an issue, not being able to return it at all is
6) Damage was not seen within 14 day return period, I wasn't aware this period existed anyway
7) Restocking fee not an issue, inability to return/replace it is


As a side note, now I know about the 14 day return period I looked it up on their website and one of the terms is:

"ii) The Product(s) are returned in their original condition and the security seals on the Product(s) are intact; and"

So a scratched ipod is not returnable anyway as it is not in the original condition.

[Maxx Power]

Thought I'd answer Matticus' questions:

1) Yes (well, girlfriend does)
2) Yes (within weeks not days though)
3) Tried to return (28 days after purchase - ipod was in the box for 14 days prior to use as it was a gift), told to go away
4) Not told about 14 day return period or restocking fee when I bought it
5) Fee is not an issue, not being able to return it at all is
6) Damage was not seen within 14 day return period, I wasn't aware this period existed anyway
7) Restocking fee not an issue, inability to return/replace it is


As a side note, now I know about the 14 day return period I looked it up on their website and one of the terms is:

"ii) The Product(s) are returned in their original condition and the security seals on the Product(s) are intact; and"

So a scratched ipod is not returnable anyway as it is not in the original condition.

Forget it, I've tried, Matticus just deflects everything first from before I started posting about him not acknowledging the scratchability of the iPod, and then if it scratches, it must cause the screen to be unreadable despite the asthetical factor that the money people paid for in percentages that went into apple engineering of the asthetics (what apple is good at, and what people take apple consumer products for), and finally if it does hinder anything, show proof in documentation, so unless you can hard-mail him a copy of some kind of legal document with what he calls "hard evidence" and "facts", you won't be able to say much, he just drowns you, kinda like apple marketing does, shout loud, then something like this comes up, and they quietly introduce a hardware fault return policy including non-manufacturor hardware fault and includes a sleeve.

[Maxx Power]

The debate got nowhere on legal grounds, but Apple is taking (voluntary?) action to improve the situation. And that is good for everyone.

So even to Apple, this problem is already known, and has been prepared for awhile now, they always did know, kinda proves 64Byte's motive theory, eh ?

[snowmoon]

Forget it, I've tried, Matticus just deflects everything first from before I started posting about him not acknowledging the scratchability of the iPod, and then if it scratches, it must cause the screen to be unreadable despite the asthetical factor that the money people paid for in percentages that went into apple engineering of the asthetics (what apple is good at, and what people take apple consumer products for), and finally if it does hinder anything, show proof in documentation, so unless you can hard-mail him a copy of some kind of legal document with what he calls "hard evidence" and "facts", you won't be able to say much, he just drowns you, kinda like apple marketing does, shout loud, then something like this comes up, and they quietly introduce a hardware fault return policy including non-manufacturor hardware fault and includes a sleeve.

I may not agree with people here on the facts about the nano, but Matticus is correct that the current debate does not rise to the legal qualification for product negligance and/or other legal remedies. Sorry to say, but he IS correct. Will this case go forward anyways? sure lawers make millions on cases like this whether they win OR loose... will apple add accessories to the iPod to CYA? sure you would too after an expensive legal case... is apple legaly responsible? not necessarly.

And nothing in apple's current action can be seen as an admision of guilt, just a good strategy to prevent negative spin from a VERY SMALL percentage of vocal users who can't call apple directly and ask for reperations.

[Maxx Power]

I may not agree with people here on the facts about the nano, but Matticus is correct that the current debate does not rise to the legal qualification for product negligance and/or other legal remedies. Sorry to say, but he IS correct. Will this case go forward anyways? sure lawers make millions on cases like this whether they win OR loose... will apple add accessories to the iPod to CYA? sure you would too after an expensive legal case... is apple legaly responsible? not necessarly.

And nothing in apple's current action can be seen as an admision of guilt, just a good strategy to prevent negative spin from a VERY SMALL percentage of vocal users who can't call apple directly and ask for reperations.

With time, the scratching problems will get worse, it won't get better, if apple is trying to ward off negative spin by doing what they did (very minimal), the suit will proceed. There MAY not be enough people who saw far enough into the future that the Nano wears out too fast right now, but this is one of those cases that accumulates evidence and victims as time goes on.

Lots of users did contact apple or apple store where they purchased it, they told them to, and i quote "go away". Whether or not the case does benefit the lawyers is not my concern, if it benefits current customers of Apple, then i'm for it.

[ksz]

And nothing in apple's current action can be seen as an admision of guilt, just a good strategy to prevent negative spin from a VERY SMALL percentage of vocal users who can't call apple directly and ask for reperations.
It is generally this very small percentage of vocal users whose actions provide benefits for the rest of the silent majority. Leadership comes from the actions of a few.

Your implication that iPod nano scratchability affects only a small number of units (or owners) is not substantiated by fact. The disproportionate rate of aesthetic degradation under normal use conditions points to an inappropriate use of materials that do not hold up under the rigors of the iPod's intended use.

If there are no state or federal statutes to classify this as an actionable legal claim, we should petition our government to establish such statutes.

[davidgilmour]

my nano is scratched. can I sue steve jobs and ask him to give me a new one?

[pubwvj]

my nano is scratched. can I sue steve jobs and ask him to give me a new one?

You can sue anyone you want and try and get them to give you a new iPod. You can even sue me! It doesn't matter if I'm responsible for the scratches or not. Isn't this a great country? It is a place where ambulance chasing lawyers are now advertising on Google ads. A place where you can clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A place where you don't have to take responsibility for your own carelessness or stupidity. May you rot in a hell of your own crafting where your iPod is constantly being scratched.

What we need is legislative reform that makes the bringer of a suite responsible for proving the claim to the same test as criminal cases are held, nothing less, and if someone sues and loses then they must pay the defendant's legal costs AND if the judge finds the lawsuit to be frivolous then the person who brings the lawsuit should have to pay three times the costs to the defendant plus pay for the defendant's personal time at a rate of three times the higher of the defendant's rate of pay or the suer's rate of pay.

There are some valid lawsuits and it is a good mechanism for reform when all else fails but the court system is being abused by people and lawyers* who see it as a way to win the lottery and get rich quick.

*No, lawyers are not people. Recent scientific research has discovered that they are a sub-species of slime mold. That is why they don't bleed. Previously it had been thought that lawyers were a cross between a leach and a particularly nasty shark but that is not true. :)

[devilot]

*No, lawyers are not people. Recent scientific research has discovered that they are a sub-species of slime mold. That is why they don't bleed. Previously it had been thought that lawyers were a cross between a leach and a particularly nasty shark but that is not true. :) :( Not all lawyers are completely corrupt... my cousin is one and she's a cool cat. :D

[EricNau]

You can sue anyone you want and try and get them to give you a new iPod. You can even sue me! It doesn't matter if I'm responsible for the scratches or not. Isn't this a great country? It is a place where ambulance chasing lawyers are now advertising on Google ads. A place where you can clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A place where you don't have to take responsibility for your own carelessness or stupidity. May you rot in a hell of your own crafting where your iPod is constantly being scratched.

What we need is legislative reform that makes the bringer of a suite responsible for proving the claim to the same test as criminal cases are held, nothing less, and if someone sues and loses then they must pay the defendant's legal costs AND if the judge finds the lawsuit to be frivolous then the person who brings the lawsuit should have to pay three times the costs to the defendant plus pay for the defendant's personal time at a rate of three times the higher of the defendant's rate of pay or the suer's rate of pay.

There are some valid lawsuits and it is a good mechanism for reform when all else fails but the court system is being abused by people and lawyers* who see it as a way to win the lottery and get rich quick.

<sarcasm>
I love America (please excuse me, I have to go sue GE because I burnt myself on one of their stoves).
</sarcasm>
Those reforms are welcomed in my opinion.

[pubwvj]

:( Not all lawyers are completely corrupt... my cousin is one and she's a cool cat. :D

Yes, you are right, I over generalized there. Some lawyers are human. Two of my neighbors (father & son) are lawyers and they are fine people. This is what causes the confusion in species identification. I once heard a <i>lawyer</i> say that it is the 20% who are corrupt that give the other 80% a bad name. Her words, not mine. :)

[gunnz]

I finally got the new skins from Decalgirl. I have a solid black one (three pieces....for the body, clickwheel and button) on the front, and a clear one on the back. You can pretty much mix and match anything....but i wanted it to look as original as possible. I highly recommend these! A little tough to get on...but it offers some really good protection from scratches.

[Seasought]

This is nothing more than someone looking for free money. It's an unfortunate reminder of the state of things today.:(

[840quadra]

I finally got the new skins from Decalgirl. I have a solid black one (three pieces....for the body, clickwheel and button) on the front, and a clear one on the back. You can pretty much mix and match anything....but i wanted it to look as original as possible. I highly recommend these! A little tough to get on...but it offers some really good protection from scratches.

so does good 3M clear packing tape :)

I have 3 friends that have copied what I do (I was not the first in the world to do this) and protect their Nano investment with this tape. Best thing is, when the tape gets cloudy or scratched too much, cut a new piece from your homemade stencil template (made by yourself using a special kind of waxed paper, a pen, and some scissors) and apply it to your nano . :)

Best of all, most everyone has a roll of this stuff in their house, or you can sometimes get a roll of it free from your local UPS store or post office if you are super cheap :)

Sometimes DIY is just more fun, and often less expensive :)

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile

[adriantoll]

I've had a Nano since the day they came out. I haven't bought a skin, used it with a sock, anything like that, and despite some very minor scratching, which I'd expect given the things I've put it in my pocket with (keys etc.) it's absolutely fine.

Now, consider this quote from BBC News:
"Named UK plaintiff, Ben Jennings, bought a Nano in September. Despite efforts to protect it, he claims that within a week the screen was so scratched it was hard to read."
Link to the story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4417344.stm)
(I have to admit that I'm dubious about what is "efforts" were, but let's take it at face value for now)

My experience shows beyond all doubt that this isn't something which affects all iPod Nanos. Therefore, the idea that there's some kind of inherent design flaw in the Nano is just plain wrong.

This doesn't preclude the possibility that a batch or some batches of the Nano are particularly prone to scratching, which Apple have admitted. But the size of this problem, if it exists at all, is up for debate and probably won't be known for a while.

My guess is that if the class action lawsuit claims that there is an "inherent design flaw" then they'll get laughed out of court. As Apple have admitted there is a problem with a number of them and has said that they're replace them, I don't see that they can complain about bad customer service, even thought it might have taken a while for Apple to get around to admitting something was wrong.

As to why someone would take legal action about something like this - what on earth are they going to claim damages for? Crippling psychological damage because Steve Jobs didn't personally come round and grovel in front of them? Pathetic.

[gunnz]

I've had a Nano since the day they came out. I haven't bought a skin, used it with a sock, anything like that, and despite some very minor scratching, which I'd expect given the things I've put it in my pocket with (keys etc.) it's absolutely fine.

Now, consider this quote from BBC News:
"Named UK plaintiff, Ben Jennings, bought a Nano in September. Despite efforts to protect it, he claims that within a week the screen was so scratched it was hard to read."
Link to the story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4417344.stm)
(I have to admit that I'm dubious about what is "efforts" were, but let's take it at face value for now)

My experience shows beyond all doubt that this isn't something which affects all iPod Nanos. Therefore, the idea that there's some kind of inherent design flaw in the Nano is just plain wrong.

This doesn't preclude the possibility that a batch or some batches of the Nano are particularly prone to scratching, which Apple have admitted. But the size of this problem, if it exists at all, is up for debate and probably won't be known for a while.

My guess is that if the class action lawsuit claims that there is an "inherent design flaw" then they'll get laughed out of court. As Apple have admitted there is a problem with a number of them and has said that they're replace them, I don't see that they can complain about bad customer service, even thought it might have taken a while for Apple to get around to admitting something was wrong.

As to why someone would take legal action about something like this - what on earth are they going to claim damages for? Crippling psychological damage because Steve Jobs didn't personally come round and grovel in front of them? Pathetic.

What color do you have?

[gunnz]

so does good 3M clear packing tape :)

I have 3 friends that have copied what I do (I was not the first in the world to do this) and protect their Nano investment with this tape. Best thing is, when the tape gets cloudy or scratched too much, cut a new piece from your homemade stencil template (made by yourself using a special kind of waxed paper, a pen, and some scissors) and apply it to your nano . :)

Best of all, most everyone has a roll of this stuff in their house, or you can sometimes get a roll of it free from your local UPS store or post office if you are super cheap :)

Sometimes DIY is just more fun, and often less expensive :)

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile

That's nice. I had a clear skin before that was one piece and covered the entire face....and I didn't really like the airpockets around the clickwheel. The advantage of mine that comes with separate clickwheel pieces. Plus.....doesn't packing tape leave some residue?

[p20789]

http://www.zlk.com/ipodnano.html

[adriantoll]

What color do you have?

White... why?

[gunnz]

White... why?

As I suspected. The black ones are MUCH more prone to scratching.

[adriantoll]

As I suspected. The black ones are MUCH more prone to scratching.

I can certainly see that the black ones would show up their scratches more, as the scratches will diffuse and reflect light more than the clear resin. On a white background that doesn't make much difference, but on a non-reflective black background they'll seem more apparent.

But it still doesn't explain why people are saying that the iPods *screens* were so scratched they were hardly legible - there's no difference between the screens on white and black Nanos...

[EricNau]

I can certainly see that the black ones would show up their scratches more, as the scratches will diffuse and reflect light more than the clear resin. On a white background that doesn't make much difference, but on a non-reflective black background they'll seem more apparent.

But it still doesn't explain why people are saying that the iPods *screens* were so scratched they were hardly legible - there's no difference between the screens on white and black Nanos...
I suspect there was a little exaggeration involved.
Also, have you ever been trying to read something and it is getting a bad glare, well this is probably what most iPod users are talking about - the greater the light and the more the scratches make it harder to read.
In a dark room (w/ the backlight on) you probably can't even see the scratches, walk out into the sun and *boom* they magically appear making it impossible to read the screen.