Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over iPhone 4 Glass Breakage

[Rodimus Prime]

Right, because you can sue the car manufacturer when the windows break in your car in an accident.

Sounds like a very appropriate analogy, doesn't it?

jW

umm the car arguments are pretty poor at best and need to be readdressed.

Lets change the car argument to a manufacture was selling cars will undersized brakes on a car. This means the stopping power of the car is below what it should be for the given weight.

This means the chances of that car getting into a wreak is greatly increased because the chances of the brakes failing when need are also increased.
In that case the manufacture bares some responsibly for every wreak those cars are involved in.
The owners of the cars should not have to go out and buy or install bigger brakes for the their car.

 

[Aatos.1]

Phones get dropped. It's part of life for a phone; it's a small object that you carry with you at all times and frequently take out of your pocket to use.

It's expected that a phone be able to be dropped without being destroyed. I've dropped my Treo 650 many times and it was fine. I even dropped my Palm Pre multiple times and it was fine too. The iPhone 4 should be no different.

I have mine in an inCase for extra protection, but it shouldn't need this. I think they are right in bringing the lawsuit if the iPhone 4 easily shatters when dropped. We're talking a device that WILL be dropped during its lifetime, unless you are hermit who never goes out into the real world.

Excellent post, I agree 100%.

I'm sure nearly everyone here takes care not to drop their phone. Especially since we are aware that it is glass, and by nature prone to break. That said, as you have so rightly pointed out our phones get handled a lot and as a result the odds of having a genuine unintended accident is high.

What I find disturbing about many of the posts here are those who choose to blame the person who drops the phone. As though the person placing blame is perfect. It's this type of attitude that causes the crazy arguments we see here. And based on my years of observation is the one common denominator on Apple forums... People attacking, judging & being extremely critical of their peers. When indeed much of the problem is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Yet Apple has a veritable Army of apologists, defenders & outright zealots.

Then to make it worse it's those very people who claim the bickering is no worse here than on any other forum. A true distortion and lie. I know first hand. Yes there is some arguing, one sees that everywhere, but not the huge amount as you witness, not just on this Apple forum, but other Apple forums as well.

The bottom line is simple really, why not respect each others thoughts & opinions even though we disagree. It's the wise, intelligent, thing to do.

 

[Mal]

umm the car arguments are pretty poor at best and need to be readdressed.

Lets change the car argument to a manufacture was selling cars will undersized brakes on a car. This means the stopping power of the car is below what it should be for the given weight.

This means the chances of that car getting into a wreak is greatly increased because the chances of the brakes failing when need are also increased.
In that case the manufacture bares some responsibly for every wreak those cars are involved in.
The owners of the cars should not have to go out and buy or install bigger brakes for the their car.

See, that's a very bad comparison (actually, I thought the last one was good, except it proved the opposite point from what it was intended). While bad brakes would cause accidents, all the iPhone glass being more easily broken would mean was that the damage from an accident would be worse. Thus, there are no accident being caused by the more brittle glass, it's just more likely to be actually broken in an accident.

There's a very significant difference, and in this case, I don't think there's any way that Apple can be held responsible for someone else dropping and breaking their phone, just because the materials they used don't happen to withstand that very well.

jW

 

[Rodimus Prime]

See, that's a very bad comparison (actually, I thought the last one was good, except it proved the opposite point from what it was intended). While bad brakes would cause accidents, all the iPhone glass being more easily broken would mean was that the damage from an accident would be worse. Thus, there are no accident being caused by the more brittle glass, it's just more likely to be actually broken in an accident.

There's a very significant difference, and in this case, I don't think there's any way that Apple can be held responsible for someone else dropping and breaking their phone, just because the materials they used don't happen to withstand that very well.

jW

But the should and can be head accountable for very misleading advertisements which Apple has a history of doing.

 

[chaoticbear]

I can feel his sentiments, I've owned several iPhones before the 4, and the 4 has been the only one to break. But at the same time - I mean, it fell out of my pocket onto concrete. What else would I expect?

 

[Archery]

No Your not getting it. Apple says that the glass used is 30x more durable than plastic and blah blahblah. So heres a quick test for you. get a 25c plastic cup, like one made for kids and drop it a 100, 1000, 1 000 000 times from any height and your pretty much guaranteed that it wont smash or break. You can maybe get away with dropping an iphone once or twice. Therefore Apple are buttering up the phone and are guilty of false advertising, much n the same way they touted their evolutionary antennae design and we all know thats became the biggest cover up since the assassination of JFK and the apparent WMD that were meant to be in Iraq.

Plastic is inherently shock absorbing and durable so Apple are wrong to compare the glass to it. Cough up I say.

Duribility can be defined in many ways. It's not commonly used in dropping something and if you want to compare it to dropping, how about we compare it to something like this.

Durability means it's use over a long amount of time. I dare you to take that plastic cup and use it for two years; then compare it to the quality of the iPhone 4 used for two years.

Oh and just to be clear, the definition of durability is: "able to exist for a long time without significant deterioration".

Thank you.

EDIT: Also, don't forget that durability also means using the item as it was intended.

 

[Aatos.1]

But the should and can be head accountable for very misleading advertisements which Apple has a history of doing.

I agree, it's Apple themselves that are addicted to boasting. Jobs & Company have a very long history of believing their own claims of world superiority. As though no one on the planet could possibly be in the same class with them. They've got it refined to perfection.

In fact the man is so convincing he's got a cult like group of followers that love him more than they love themselves. He's got the power over them that's for sure. It's an amazing thing to watch.

 

[Journojulz]

if a phone can't reliable survive a single drop then IMHO that is a design flaw

By that reckoning you would not have approved the first iPhone.
isn't that dumbing down the future on behalf of the lowest common denominator?

Misleading claims are just as illegal. You can claim it isn't false, you cannot claim it isn't misleading. The sheer number of people who have been misled is proof enough of that.

An interesting shift of the burdon of proof to to the dumbest consumers.

I didn't think it was misleading. I thought it suggested was better glass than before - but there is no way i imagined i could drop it from a metre fifty times and then get to act surprised if it broke.

Surely the definition of "misleading" must take a idealised "reasonably well informed phone customer with £500 to spend" and not the lowest 10%?

What I find disturbing about many of the posts here are those who choose to blame the person who drops the phone. As though the person placing blame is perfect.

If someone gives a glass phone to a child - who is to blame when the child drops it and phone breaks?

What many of us are annoyed by - is the fact that someone can make a poor judgement - and then try the legal lottery to bail him out of the mistake he made. This i not free money - it will all be paid for by us consumers.

My lad worked out how to fire up the phone and load talking carl at the age of 2 and half.
But I only let him play with the phone on the sofa.
If he ran outside with it and dashed it on the flagstones - I would consider that an expensive lesson in supervising a child - not look for someone to blame.

I myself have chipped the glass on my iP4 on an exposed edge.
Do I sue? No. Its my dumb fault for taking it out of the case.

Seriously - before we look to profit by blame others - should we not look to see what blame lies with ourselves?

 

[blovett79]

Apple misleading? Not all its BREAKTHROUGH technology!

 

[2IS]

By that reckoning you would not have approved the first iPhone.
isn't that dumbing down the future on behalf of the lowest common denominator?



An interesting shift of the burdon of proof to to the dumbest consumers.

I didn't think it was misleading. I thought it suggested was better glass than before - but there is no way i imagined i could drop it from a metre fifty times and then get to act surprised if it broke.

Surely the definition of "misleading" must take a idealised "reasonably well informed phone customer with £500 to spend" and not the lowest 10%?



If someone gives a glass phone to a child - who is to blame when the child drops it and phone breaks?

What many of us are annoyed by - is the fact that someone can make a poor judgement - and then try the legal lottery to bail him out of the mistake he made. This i not free money - it will all be paid for by us consumers.

My lad worked out how to fire up the phone and load talking carl at the age of 2 and half.
But I only let him play with the phone on the sofa.
If he ran outside with it and dashed it on the flagstones - I would consider that an expensive lesson in supervising a child - not look for someone to blame.

I myself have chipped the glass on my iP4 on an exposed edge.
Do I sue? No. Its my dumb fault for taking it out of the case.

Seriously - before we look to profit by blame others - should we not look to see what blame lies with ourselves?

You think the lowest 10% was misled? You give the general public way too much credit friend. I know a lot of smart folks who make money who are not tech savvy who thought the glass was nearly indestructible because it's "helicopter" glass. It's misleading whether or not you want to admit it. Apple marketing knows what they're doing and knew this form of marketing would fool the general public.

 

[kdarling]

They said it was stiffer - not more durable.

Actually, the Apple iPhone 4 design page specifically says:

"Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic, the glass is ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever."

Their claims are specific and easily scientifically testable, they didn't use words like rugged or show such shock resistant behaviour - so it isn't false advertising

They also say it's "the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed trains."

Which is true, but they conveniently left out the critical fact that those aluminosilicate glass applications are far thicker -- up to three inches in the case of the trains, which have to withstand bird and hail hits at 200+mph.

 

[Surely]

I'm afraid that Journojulz is trapped on the dark side of the Apple.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Actually, the Apple iPhone 4 design page specifically says:

"Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic, the glass is ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever."



They also say it's "the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed trains."

Which is true, but they conveniently left out the critical fact that those aluminosilicate glass applications are far thicker -- up to three inches in the case of the trains, which have to withstand bird and hail hits at 200+mph.

Dang that pesky truth strikes again.

 

[Geckotek]

<snip>
If you accept the risk of a front facing screen - what the back of is irrelevant.

.

Yes - I dis say it made the phone twice as likely to break.

 

[davidbrummy]

So my wife and I got iPhone 4's as an upgrade to our iPhone 3G's. We dropped our iPhone 3G's all the time. No issues.

My wife dropped her iphone 4 as it fell out of her pocket getting out of the car. Probably fell 2ft. Completely shattered and Apple charge me $200 to replace.

It is obvious there is an issue and for Apple to say we have to pay $200 is taking the p***. I don't agree with most class action law suites but on the other hand there does seems to be a lot of issues with the iPhone 4.

 

[meatballs]

I guess that applies to champagne glasses and coffee cups too then.

Do people take champagne glasses and coffee cups with them when they go shopping, on the bus, to the gym or when they go jogging? A glass phone was a bad idea.

 

[meatballs]

umm the car arguments are pretty poor at best and need to be readdressed.

Lets change the car argument to a manufacture was selling cars will undersized brakes on a car. This means the stopping power of the car is below what it should be for the given weight.

Why not change the the car argument to a car with a glass body?

 

[Aatos.1]

If you want apple to change their design - buy an android.

Fascinating thought, is that what you did?

 

[makeyourfaith]

CorningWare???

no, but maybe he thinks apple shouldnt make an iphone whose front and back are made of glass? which makes total sense.

Totally agree. a drop from two feet has shattered my front glass. doesn't seem 'ultra-durable' to me. And it's $150 to get a new screen with glass, assuming you can manage the courage for a do-it-yourself replacement. Maybe CorningWare cookware can do it seriously...

 

[CplBadboy]

They said it was stiffer - not more durable.

Their claims are specific and easily scientifically testable, they didn't use words like rugged or show such shock resistant behaviour - so it isn't false advertising



Are there any published results for glass fronted smartphones?

I can't see any iPhone / palm / android withstanding 50 drops.

I think the sticker advice is good.

Agreat big sticker saying "GLASS BREAKS WHEN YOU DROP IT - SO GET A CASE, BUY INSURANCE OR DON'T DROP IT."

Lol!!! They said it was stiffer and not more durable?????

May I direct you to the design tab of the apple iPhone 4 and scroll down to the first paragraph under the video and then remove those Rose coloured tinted apple fanboy specs!! You look very stupid right now:

http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/design/index.html#design-video

It's there in black and white sonny!! 'ultra-durable' muwhahahah!! You have failed big!! Everyone is gonna point an laugh at ya!!

 

[Journojulz]

Fascinating thought, is that what you did?

Nope - I bought a case for a fiver.

I don't care how "ultradurable" a phone claims to be - I because accidents are unpredictable you never know how high you are going to drop it from. So it makes obvious sense to get a case.

I suppose maybe apple is understimating quite how simple customers with £500 in their pocket are these days.

Stiffer is not the same as stronger.

Ultradurable does not mean rugged.
It means able to withstand normal operating conditions very well, its root comes from the word "work".

If there is a 'fail' here - it is the californian educational system.
Oh, and people who drop unprotected glass phones.

But don't worry - I am sure a lawyer is on call to sue the world for not quite dumbing the world down to their level.

 

[paravis]

This guy ...

What a clown this guy is. A legitimate flaw--like maybe faulty mainboard engineering--fine. BUT BREAKING GLASS?! Are you KIDDING?

"Yea, I can't drop something made of glass anymore. According to their ad, it seemed to me that I could get hit by a helicopter and a high-speed train and my phone would survive without a scratch. I thought this thing was supposed to be moron proof? Well, on that note, since I'm a moron, I'm going to file a class-action suit against Apple for something my daughter did. Bet you can't wait to see how I raise her ..."

I've dropped my phone so many times on so many different surfaces, I don't even know how it could still be working. I even dreamt once that I broke it in half and it still worked (seriously). Two hair scratches on the front, none on the back, and one mysterious scratch on the metal band--maybe from before I got the bumper.

 

[jasonmanning]

Why is it so hard to take responsibility for his/her own actions. You dropped it, you broke it ... no, not my fault, apple's fault, let's sue. I am going to sue Jack Daniels for all their damn bottles I have dropped ... class action, anyone?

 

[Journojulz]

Obviously, even if this frivolous case goes ahead - the logical conclusion would be for to just give away more free bumpers.

Maybe they could make them in yellow and black stripes with the warning "ATTENTION MOUTH BREATHER! - DO NOT DROP THIS PHONE!" round the sides?

 

[Shanesan]

What a clown this guy is. A legitimate flaw--like maybe faulty mainboard engineering--fine. BUT BREAKING GLASS?! Are you KIDDING?

You make a product, call it "ultradurable", make it shatter in a 3 foot fall, and I won't sue you. Okay?

The levels of apple brainwashing this morning are greater than usual.