Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over iPhone 4 Glass Breakage

[2IS]

Thanks for proving your own point. Not once did I say that Apple only said that the glass was harder. I said that apple used the word "harder" rather than a different word that would mean unbreakable such as "shatter-proof" or "bullet-proof". When claiming that people are prone to "skew words to try and mold them to their own beliefs," you may not want to do that yourself. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

No, you didn't say "apple only said it was harder" you said "advertisement said it was harder" sure, you didn't use the word "only" but that's IS the only thing YOU said while APPLE said a whole lot more. Once you actually factor in everything they DID say, the glass most certainly does seem quite a bit more indestructible then had they only used the word "harder"

So yes, I did in fact prove my point, thanks to your example.

 

[thegman1234]

This whole ordeal has reminded me of an old phone I used to have. Back when Nextel was popular, I had an i95cl. It wasn't uncommon back then for people with Nextel to have multiple phones and because I was unsure of how well the i95cl would take to water and such, I bought an i35, used from someone on a forum, to take with me when I went fishing. The i35 is claimed to adhere to Military Standard 810 c/d/e for resistance to dust, shock, vibration, and if I remember correctly, light rain as well.

To test this claim, my friends and I had a field day with the phone. We'd hold it hi and drop it, hold it under the sink, throw it at the walls. It never broke. In fact, if I could find it and charge it, it would probably turn on still. Now, where am I going with this?

Apple has not claimed that the iPhone adheres to any specific Military or other standard to be resistant to water, dust, shock, and vibration. All that they've claimed is that their glass is stiffer and harder than plastic. And don't forget, plastic is breakable too.

No, you didn't say "apple only said it was harder" you said "advertisement said it was harder" sure, you didn't use the word "only" but that's IS the only thing YOU said while APPLE said a whole lot more. Once you actually factor in everything they DID say, the glass most certainly does seem quite a bit more indestructible then had they only used the word "harder"

So yes, I did in fact prove my point, thanks to your example.

Your specifics between the words "Apple" and "advertisement" are irrelevant as it's an Apple advertisement which they have paid for and approved. And once again, you may want to take your own advise and not skew other peoples words. I stated, to redundantly reiterate, that the advertisement uses the word "harder" rather than a different word that would imply indestructibility. It doesn't matter what wordage they use before the word harder because the word harder does not mean indestructible. Unless Apple makes the claim that the glass is so much harder than plastic that its basically indestructible, there is no reason to believe that 30x harder means indestructible. 30x zero is still zero, 30x harder is still harder.

Now that I've basically spelled it out for you, you can stop skewing my words and accusing me of skewing Apple's.

 

[Arran]

When I was growing up, plastic was seen as a cheap, fragile material. Now it comes in very strong types and we're using to seeing it bounce off floors.

Ceramics were also considered cheap and breakable. Now they build engines and tank armor out of the material.

So there's no reason why people wouldn't believe Apple claiming amazing qualities for glass.

I have to agree with you there. Having easily broken one already ($200 to fix) I'm not sure I'd be rushing to buy another glass phone. I've learned a lesson and hopefully Apple has too.

IMHO, unless it's a solid half-inch-thick block of bulletproof glass with rounded edges (or thin glass, but better protected, somehow), I think glass is a completely unsuitable material for a mobile, handheld device. I'd say drop survivability is a key requirement in that segment - just as important as long battery life, not dropping calls, voice clarity, etc.

 

[Surely]

Apple made two mistakes:

1. They covered an ultra-portable device with glass.
   
2. They posted misleading advertising.

Making a cell phone out of glass is a step backwards from the 3GS.

https://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/12/iphone-4-more-prone-to-accidental-damage-than-3gs/

Touting it as "ultra-durable", when everyone knows it's covered with glass, is misleading at best.

 

[2IS]

Your specifics between the words "Apple" and "advertisement" are irrelevant as it's an Apple advertisement which they have paid for and approved. And once again, you may want to take your own advise and not skew other peoples words. I stated, to redundantly reiterate, that the advertisement uses the word "harder" rather than a different word that would imply indestructibility. It doesn't matter what wordage they use before the word harder because the word harder does not mean indestructible. Unless Apple makes the claim that the glass is so much harder than plastic that its basically indestructible, there is no reason to believe that 30x harder means indestructible. 30x zero is still zero, 30x harder is still harder.

Now that I've basically spelled it out for you, you can stop skewing my words and accusing me of skewing Apple's.

Edit: apologies for the double-post.

No one expects the phone to be indestructible an no one claimed that apple said that. What I'm saying, and what you've continued to fail to acknowledge the relevance of is that apple said a whole lot more than harder. It most certainly is not irrelevant what apple said before or after the word "harder" just because you said so. Ignoring everything they said with the exception "harder" doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant.

Apples claims make the phone out to be far less prone to breakage than it actually is. Period.

 

[thegman1234]

No one expects the phone to be indestructible an no one claimed that apple said that. What I'm saying, and what you've continued to fail to acknowledge the relevance of is that apple said a whole lot more than harder. It most certainly is not irrelevant what apple said before or after the word "harder" just because you said so. Ignoring everything they said with the exception "harder" doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant.

Apples claims make the phone out to be far less prone to breakage than it actually is. Period.

I'm ignorant for believing that the glass on the iPhone is capable of breaking from a drop, even alongside the claim that it's 20x stiffer and 30x harder than plastic? I'm ignorant for using my common sense and not letting the words used in the advertisement alter my perception of physics? I'm ignorant for using my knowledge of the English language to understand that Apple's claims don't mean that the glass in indestructible or drop proof?

I have acknowledged Apple's wording regarding the claims of harder and how much more hard. But how do you know that the glass isn't as stiff and hard as Apple claims? Have you ever taken the windshield from a helicopter, cut it into two pieces as thin as the glass on the iPhone, attached them at the same exact tension that the iPhone glass experiences, and dropped it? You have no solid proof that Apple's claims are exaggerated. Until you have proof through durability testing, I'd say you're ignorant to assume that Apple has lied.

Apple has not, as far as I'm aware, ever made the claim that the iPhone 4 is shock resistant and/or will not break when dropped. Therefore, Apple should not be held liable for any broken phones due to excessive shock. This goes back to my original point that no one can take responsibility for their own actions. Everyone always has to put the blame on someone else.

 

[2IS]

It has nothing to do with proof or apple "lying" it has to do with misleading claims even though in the strictest definition of the words they used, may be accurate. It may not have been misleading to you, and it wasn't to me either. I know better as do a lot of tech savvy people that you typically find on internet forums like this. The general public on the other hand is not so savvy, and they were misled, intentionally. Yes, thinking that everyone should recognize a misleading Apple advertisement because you were able to is IMO, ignorant.

 

[thegman1234]

It has nothing to do with proof or apple "lying" it has to do with misleading claims even though in the strictest definition of the words they used, may be accurate. It may not have been misleading to you, and it wasn't to me either. I know better as do a lot of tech savvy people that you typically find on internet forums like this. The general public on the other hand is not so savvy, and they were misled, intentionally. Yes, thinking that everyone should recognize a misleading Apple advertisement because you were able to is IMO, ignorant.

Right, but my point is that it may not be misleading. The glass may very well be as strong as Apple claims it to be, which is technically not misleading. I agree with you that people may, by the terminology used, be mislead into thinking that the glass is drop or shatter proof. However, Apple never made that claim, they simply stated that the glass used was of a specific hardness and strength. If the glass does meet that qualification, then they're not technically being misleading. To take the terminology Apple used and turn that into "this glass shouldn't break if I drop the phone" would be on the consumer to do. Now, as I stated before, I agree with you that the consumer may very well make that assumption, but that doesn't put Apple at fault in my opinion. Which brings us back to our original points. Yours, that people shouldn't misconstrue what they hear or read and mine, that people should take responsibility for their own actions.

Now, if you want talk court cases for misleading advertising, I'd say you could bring about 99.9% of companies in the world to court, Apple included. I just can't no matter how hard I try, find Apple at fault for this.

Btw, thank you for your input on the subject, I enjoyed this discussion thoroughly.

 

[JAT]

It has nothing to do with proof or apple "lying" it has to do with misleading claims even though in the strictest definition of the words they used, may be accurate. It may not have been misleading to you, and it wasn't to me either. I know better as do a lot of tech savvy people that you typically find on internet forums like this. The general public on the other hand is not so savvy, and they were misled, intentionally. Yes, thinking that everyone should recognize a misleading Apple advertisement because you were able to is IMO, ignorant.

This is the most circular paragraph I have read in quite some time. MC Escher fan?

 

[chukronos]

My wife and I have had every generation of iphone. She constantly drops her phones. So, we always use a case on her phone. All the previous generations have fared well being dropped numerous times. The iPhone 4, however, hasn't. Using a case provided by Apple, the phone glass shattered when it fell as she was getting out of the car. I was pretty surprised that it broke so easily. Especially compared to past iPhones. It was only a $150 fix, so it wasn;t a big deal, but it still stinks. 1st time in nearly 20 years that she has had to fix a phone. She now uses an otterbox case, named Shamu, because the phone is so much more fragile than any of her past phones. I don't drop mine, so I don't have any issues.

I don't blame Apple. I know that their marketing of the phone glass is a bit deceptive. But, I knew when we bought it, it was going to be much more fragile than past phones. It may be stiffer and harder than plastic, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that thin glass is NOT more durable than plastic.

 

[tigress666]

The iPhone 4, however, hasn't. Using a case provided by Apple, the phone glass shattered when it fell as she was getting out of the car. I was pretty surprised that it broke so easily. Especially compared to past iPhones. It was only a $150 fix, so it wasn;t a big deal, but it still stinks. 1st time in nearly 20 years that she has had to fix a phone. She now uses an otterbox case, named Shamu, because the phone is so much more fragile than any of her past phones. I don't drop mine, so I don't have any issues.

I don't blame Apple. I know that their marketing of the phone glass is a bit deceptive. But, I knew when we bought it, it was going to be much more fragile than past phones. It may be stiffer and harder than plastic, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that thin glass is NOT more durable than plastic.

I dunno, the free cases apple gave out, some of them were really crappy. The one I ordered there is no way i'd trust my iphone in it (I kept with the free case I got from some website that was passing them out to people waiting in front of the apple store). I think I threw it out. So depending on which one she got, I'd say part of hte problem there was probably a crappy case.

Now I have one of those silicone ones. I've dropped my iphone 4 several times with it on and it does not have a scratch/dent/or shattered anywhere. And it's been dropped on its corner a few of those times. Not an otterbox, but still seems protective enough.

But yeah, with that glass back combined with the fact my insurance company won't insure phones anymore, no way would I let my phone go naked.

 

[maccompaq]

The greedy lawyers are always looking for a fast buck.

 

[charliehustle]

IMO claiming something is "30 times harder" would mislead costumers to think it's 30 times stronger..

so drop for drop, the iphone 4 doesn't stand a chance compared to the 3g or 3gs..

we'll see how the case goes.

 

[mrochester]

Right, but my point is that it may not be misleading. The glass may very well be as strong as Apple claims it to be, which is technically not misleading. I agree with you that people may, by the terminology used, be mislead into thinking that the glass is drop or shatter proof. However, Apple never made that claim, they simply stated that the glass used was of a specific hardness and strength. If the glass does meet that qualification, then they're not technically being misleading. To take the terminology Apple used and turn that into "this glass shouldn't break if I drop the phone" would be on the consumer to do. Now, as I stated before, I agree with you that the consumer may very well make that assumption, but that doesn't put Apple at fault in my opinion. Which brings us back to our original points. Yours, that people shouldn't misconstrue what they hear or read and mine, that people should take responsibility for their own actions.

Now, if you want talk court cases for misleading advertising, I'd say you could bring about 99.9% of companies in the world to court, Apple included. I just can't no matter how hard I try, find Apple at fault for this.

Btw, thank you for your input on the subject, I enjoyed this discussion thoroughly.

I agree with you on this one.

As long as Apple can back up their claims that the glass they've used is X times stronger than plastic through scientific testing (remember the slides showing the glass screen being bent by a mechanical rod?), they are perfectly entitled to make that claim in their advertising. Call it ignorance on the part of the customer, or misleading on the part of Apple, but some people have taken that claim and transferred it over to mean that the glass is indestructable, or near indestructable, and won't break when dropped.

I feel that it was the ignorance of the customer that's played the biggest part in this by reading claims into the advertising that just weren't there. He should be taking responsibility for his own and daughters' actions instead of sueing.

IMO claiming something is "30 times harder" would mislead costumers to think it's 30 times stronger..

That's just the thing, the glass is 30 times stronger, as I'm sure Apple can prove to you in scientific testing. But that'll only be when it receives impact from straight on. If you drop it and it lands on an edge, there's a good chance the glass will break.

 

[ComputersaysNo]

Dragontrailglass looks allright to be used in the next iphone, just did a google for hardened glass and this shows up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpbOoQpwAFs

 

[lPHONE]

I'm with the users on this one.

• Apple made a phone with "ultra strong" glass.
• They were wrong. Now it's back to bite them in the ass.

Had they not hyped up their glass to be super tough, then I'd say GFY, but...

 

[tigress666]

I don't know if this speaks for or against Apple (I would suspect against in the lawsuit), but from what I remember, the glass on the back is not the super strong glass they are claiming, just the glass on the front screen. It's just "regular" glass on the back.

I would be curious as to how many iphones shattered on the front vs. the back. I will say that it seems most stories I hear of phones being dropped and shattered it was the back that shattered.

So maybe their strong glass really does handle drops better but Apple was silly in only putting it on the front?

 

[ghostshadow]

Sorry, I know it's been said.. But I have no remorse for how negligent people are. If you take care of your expensive toys, they'll remain intact. Let your uncoordinated child play with such an expensive piece of equipment, what do you expect to happen?

I can't tell you how often I have seen kids playing with iPhone 4's in the grocery store. Every single time they have held the thing, they hold it by the bottom so it's nearly flying out of their hands as it is. It's not made for children, so why are people surprised when they suddenly smash into the ground because their wee little hands can't hold onto the device appropriately?

I think the lawsuit is bs. Like I said at the beginning of my response, if you take care of it, it'll be fine. People seem to think they can throw their gadgets around like it's nothing, like they shouldn't care for it. How have we gotten so careless about the items we own is beyond me. I don't know why an iPhone is any different than your new car or any different than a 60's les paul. No matter the age or value, I think you should treat your belonging with care and dignity. You worked so hard to get the damn thing in the first place, why not care for it?

I completely understand if you could care less about your gadgets, that's fine, but don't go bitching when you end up smashing it. The iPhone is a luxury device, you should treat it as such. You should know this when you buy it.

 

[lPHONE]

Sorry, I know it's been said.. But I have no remorse for how negligent people are. If you take care of your expensive toys, they'll remain intact. Let your uncoordinated child play with such an expensive piece of equipment, what do you expect to happen?

That's not the issue.
The issue is that APPLE SAID the glass is 30x stronger and hyped it up to be revolutionary.
That puts the idea in people's heads that it's semi-rugged and they don't have to baby it like they did with previous phones.

I don't know how many times it has to be said. Probably 30 more times.

 

[ghostshadow]

That's not the issue.
The issue is that APPLE SAID the glass is 30x stronger and hyped it up to be revolutionary.
That puts the idea in people's heads that it's semi-rugged and they don't have to baby it like they did with previous phones.

I don't know how many times it has to be said. Probably 30 more times.

Yet those people still don't realize it's still glass. It is stronger, but it doesn't mean you have to treat it with any less value. I don't care if it's made out of glass, wood, delrin, lava, whatever it's made of, I still treat it with care.

Maybe Apple did market it as being far far stronger than standard window pane glass, but still.. it's also the people that are mistreating their devices.. You need to think that glass, all forms, does break after all.

 

[Andeavor]

There was a time when they said plastic was durable.

 

[lPHONE]

Yet those people still don't realize it's still glass.

You're absolutely right, they don't. They think it's a shatterproof super-screen.
Don't you get it? It's that Steve guy... He put the Jedi mind trick on them!

 

[kdarling]

The US Federal Trade Commission view on misleading ads

The FTC doesn't care if a claim is technically correct, but only whether it's misleading. They have three criteria for that:

1. There must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer.

They judge the entire ad, not just individual sentences, to see if it has any implied claims. Stringing true statements together in such a way as to imply more, is not allowed.

E.g. does the overall ad imply that the material is stronger than other materials that don't break as easily?

2. View the ad from the perspective of a reasonable consumer.

Prior cases have established that "the important criterion is the net impression that it is likely to make on the general populace."

E.g. would most people believe that the material was less breakable?

3. The impression must have a material effect.

Can the misleading ad cause something bad to happen to the consumer or the product.

E.g. can it result in breakage, and/or when broken, cause a hazard to the user?

 

[CQd44]

This is the most circular paragraph I have read in quite some time. MC Escher fan?

Lol'd. Thanks.

Also, Apple doesn't force you to buy their phone. If you want a phone covered in glass that's your choice. Just think of it as a sort of Apple tax.

 

[tigress666]

Sorry, I know it's been said.. But I have no remorse for how negligent people are. If you take care of your expensive toys, they'll remain intact. Let your uncoordinated child play with such an expensive piece of equipment, what do you expect to happen?

It's a phone designed to be put in purses, held a lot, put in pockets, and basically put in situations that it is much more likely to be dropped. It should be designed to at least take a little abuse occasionally. Cause no matter how nicely you treat your gadgets, drops happen. Everyone has a bad day and sometimes no matter how hard you try to control things, things happen (and when you have an item that is held a lot or put in things that it can drop out of, those things are more likely to happen).

Sorry, but I hate this argument that if you just take care of a handheld item nothing ever will happen to it and that should be license for companies to make an item that is supposedly designed to be portable and hand held that breaks at the tiniest drop. That you'll never drop it. Cause that's simply not true. You may get lucky and never drop it. You can increase your odds that you'll never drop it. But sometimes, it happens whether it be you had a bad day or just bad luck.

But, honestly, this case isn't even about how fragile the phone is. It's about if Apple was misleading people in thinking it was more durable than it is. There's a difference. It doesn't matter if Apple made a phone out of crystal that breaks at the slightest tap. It matters if Apple was misleading in their advertising on how strong the phone was.