hey hey, good call.
though, apple cheerfully replaced both my cracked iphone and my wife's. neither has cracked since then.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Settles iPod Nano Scratch Lawsuit with $25 Refund
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hey hey, good call.
though, apple cheerfully replaced both my cracked iphone and my wife's. neither has cracked since then.
Third. In the quest for "teh shiny", they made the first gen nanos incredibly scratch-prone. I've had mine in the (admittedly lousy) Apple armband since September 05, and it's still scratched to hell. None of my other iPods have exhibited this kind of fragility.
Mmm. It would really annoy you in 2005, but everybody's moved on now.
Just buy a new one and be done with it.
Just buy a new one and be done with it.
Can I sue the maker of every pair of sunglasses I've ever bought? I treat them with kid gloves and they still get scratched from nothing.
People who sue over this kind of thing deserve a special place in hell. They serve only to enrich lawyers and make life worse for the rest of us.
Zune? *whispers*: Zune's a dirty word in here. The fan boys will rip you alive if they heard such talk w/in these walls.
Some of us like to use iPods for a few years. Who cares about having the latest iPod, as long as your current one serves your needs? I know many people who still use an iPod mini as their main iPod (And so did i until a few months ago.) Nothing wrong with using "outdated" technology.
great, i bet it also cooks you dinner and wanks your weiner when bored..
consumer products scratch and die. my nokia phone scratched. my sony ericsson display scratched awfully in less than a month. but its okay, i dont buy sleeves, and things like this like to scratch.
this lawsuit may have increased the screen durability of apple products, but anyone who has long stopped using ipod 1st gen and now claims 25$ is a hypocrite...
this is the exact problem with Class action lawsuits. frequently they are brought to "help" consumers, but all they end up doing is costing the company sued:
1- Legal costs for plaintiffs... which means the lawyers who assembled the "class action" get a nice paycheck.
2- some type of a refund/discount to the plaintiff "group" never mind that only 3-5% of owners will at best receive any "winnings" or "discounts"
it is pretty lame, but hell i wish that these suits were reserved for issues that mattered. or at least the outcome was stronger. no discount, but free replacement with newer model.
all too often these cases only profit the lawyers. like in this case, the plaintiff attorney's received $4,500,000 in legal income and $200,000 for their costs... which means they are profiting a hell of alot more than the people who are receiving the credits from apple for their scratched ipods.
1- Legal costs for plaintiffs... which means the lawyers who assembled the "class action" get a nice paycheck.
2- some type of a refund/discount to the plaintiff "group" never mind that only 3-5% of owners will at best receive any "winnings" or "discounts"
it is pretty lame, but hell i wish that these suits were reserved for issues that mattered. or at least the outcome was stronger. no discount, but free replacement with newer model.
all too often these cases only profit the lawyers. like in this case, the plaintiff attorney's received $4,500,000 in legal income and $200,000 for their costs... which means they are profiting a hell of alot more than the people who are receiving the credits from apple for their scratched ipods.
I have a first gen nano, covered with scratches. $25 though? I would rather have a $25 Apple gift-card instead of credit toward a new iPod.
More like YAY at all the idiots in this thread who never owned a 1st gen Nano but think they still know better
Well this is weird, I submitted the SN for mine, which I got in september of '05 and is scratched like you wouldnt believe, and it said it wasnt covered because its coated. Doesnt look like it!
No, except for the fact that you have to spend 20 big ones.
That was the stupidest quote I've ever read.
Maybe you can afford cases any day, 20$ here, 15$ there..
But some people are low middle class and when you buy a 250$ iPod, you don't want to add another 20$ for a case for two reasons: 1) A case hides the beauty of the iPod and 2) IT'S 20$!
It's kind of late, three years later, I already sold my iPod nano, I moved to an iPod touch 2G but still, there's no defending Apple in this. Thanks to these lawsuits, the new iPods have a glass surface, which is almost scratch-proof.
I qualify for the $25 but I'm not going to make a claim. I installed a ZAGG invisibleSHIELD the minute I got my Nano. I would do the same thing for any new iPod, even if it wasn't prone to scratching easily.
http://www.zagg.com/invisibleshield...es-screen-protectors-covers-skins-shields.php
.
http://www.zagg.com/invisibleshield...es-screen-protectors-covers-skins-shields.php
.
How is it abusing the system if you owned one of these ipods? Even if it didn't bother you to have scratches, $25 towards a new nano might make a lot of people buy one...then it will actually benefit Apple sales.
If Apple does the same thing they did with the first generation ipod battery settlement. ( They gave $50 Apple gift card or $25 cash )...