Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I can just imagine if the cabin was pressurized to simulate conditions at 10,000 feet. Half the people on the plane would be puking from altitude sickness.
 
Yea, I completely agree. Don't get mad when your product doesn't do something it is not supposed to do. You should have checked this first if it working at high altitudes was important to you. I think the problem here is consumer ignorance, and Apple is at fault in no way.

People never seem to take any responsiblitly for their actions these days. It's always someone else's fault....

This is BS. I took mine to Germany and was at 38,000 ft. I had no problems before during or after the ride over or the ride back. I also had it on a flight to and from NJ as well as to and from FL.

No problems. The OP has a bad iPT that needs to be replaced by Apple, PERIOD. Anything else, or any other excuse is just that, an excuse.

Do you all actually think that Apple would make a product in the iPod line that could not be used on an airplane? Pull your head(s) out of your rears and think about it. A plane is one of the most logical places to use and iPT.
 
lets help the guy instead of insult

write an email to steve jobs at sjobs@apple.com

explain your problem very politely, I'm sure you're wife doesn't want you to have something you aren't happy with also let him know you fly a lot and the ipod touch crashes inexplicably and tell him what store is refusing to help you.. i am sure you'll get this fixed. if you spend 400 dollars on gadget anything under par after 4 months form purchase is completely unacceptable, especially if it has an apple on the back. try it out. good luck.
 
When you fly, the cabin is pressurized to simulate lower altitudes usually 8000 ft or less, if it wasn't, your head might explode or you'd go unconscious.
Let's not get overly dramatic here.

Pressurized cabins are to prevent hypoxia from occurring and not to keep your head from exploding.

FWIW, here is the Effective Performance Time (EPT) for some altitudes:

Altitude (ft.) --> EPT (min.)*
18,000 --> 20-30
25,000 --> 3-5
30,000 --> 1-2
40,000 --> <.5

*May be reduced 50% with rapid decompression.
 
I didnt mean to raise such a ruckus.

Let me clarify a few things. First, Apple has offered more than once (and has done so) to take the iPod Touch back. The catch is that they won't give me anything in return except another new or refurbed (its up to them which one) iPod Touch. I don't want another stinkin' IPT. I've had enough of them. I got a feeling they haven't done enough to make sure the flash memory in them are protected from pressure changes in an airplane cabin. The IPT should not be affected by traveling on an airplane the way it is. No other electronic device (including any other iPod I've had) acts this way. I think either I just got extemely unlucky and got 2 crappy ones, or theres a design defect. I feel like its a design defect bc others on here have complained of the IPT acting quirky on a plane.

My problem with Apple, is that they won't let me exchange it for another item or store credit. Every other retailer I've dealt with has let me bring an item back even without a receipt and given me store credit. Shoot, Bed Bath and Beyond has even given me cold hard cash before. I've even gotten an exchange from CompUSA on some opened software. But the Apple store in Charlotte is stickin' to their 14 day guns.

I have not talked to a CCR at AppleCare yet. I've only spoken with a couple tech guys. I'll try that out and see if I can get anywhere. Otherwise I'm taking it back for another new one and selling it on eBay.
 
Moral of the story, Apple refuses to act like any other retailer and accept exchanges on faulty products.

What about the law? I keep seeing this kind of thing in threads - is there really no law in the US that says you get a refund when something's broken?
 
What about the law? I keep seeing this kind of thing in threads - is there really no law in the US that says you get a refund when something's broken?

I don't think so, and if there was I could see a very big problem with that. I don't think there could be a standard time for the law to be cut off. As in, how long does it take someone to notice that they have a defective product?

Some retail stores keep their return policy for as long as a year, no questions asked, but many don't because the general population will try to rip them off. Could you imagine somebody taking back a Mac Book Pro after a year, claiming it was defective and that they needed a new one?

At that point, no matter what the company did it would piss off the customer.
 
Sorry to hear about your problems. That is exactly why I never buy anything from the Apple store unless they are the only source. There are many choices of places to buy iPods, so I would never buy it from Apple unless it was a refurb.
 
I don't think so, and if there was I could see a very big problem with that. I don't think there could be a standard time for the law to be cut off. As in, how long does it take someone to notice that they have a defective product?

Some retail stores keep their return policy for as long as a year, no questions asked, but many don't because the general population will try to rip them off. Could you imagine somebody taking back a Mac Book Pro after a year, claiming it was defective and that they needed a new one?

At that point, no matter what the company did it would piss off the customer.

Just because there are some logistical questions to think about should not remove the seller's responsibility to sell you something that is in good working order and fit for purpose. We have had such a law since 1979 and it is just an accepted fact of life - something doesn't work, you take it back. After 28 years the law is pretty mature so there don't tend to be problems implementing it.

You worry that "the general population will try to rip [companies] off" - but not about the potential for companies to rip consumers off! The Sale Of Goods act has struck an excellent balance, IMHO. :)
 
You worry that "the general population will try to rip [companies] off" - but not about the potential for companies to rip consumers off!

Well, you can't blame him. People have been trained (by corporations) to trust corporations (and distrust people) for as long as there have been corporations. It's part of the old 'divide and conquer' tactic governments have been using to control people for eons.
 
Well, you can't blame him. People have been trained (by corporations) to trust corporations (and distrust people) for as long as there have been corporations.

No-one ever acts like this in the UK, very few people totally trust corporations. Maybe its different in the US, if so that is scary.
 
Here's the beauty of the United States and capitalism. Did Apple rip me off? Sort of. Obviously to be a retailer in the US you have to offer some sort of coverage for faulty or defective items. The reason I'm pissed is bc Apple isn't offering a competitive value that other retailers are doing. I want Apple to stand by their product and let me exchange it if I dont like it like other retailers do. Apple just stands by their product by giving you another one. So Apple does stand by their products in that sense. Its just not as much as other retailers. In this case its a crappy policy bc it doesnt fully protect me from a poorly designed product.

But here's the beauty of capitalism. I have a choice, and from now on my choice is going to be to purchase from another retailer who does have a better value. Walmart or Target for instance. More regulation isn't the answer. We in the US like to let the market straighten itself out where it can. So will Apple start losing share to other retailers over this? Who knows, but they definitely lost me.
 
I think the problem HERE is poster ignorance. Maybe you should learn something before accusing people of not taking responsibility. Here's how it works young padawan.

When you fly, the cabin is pressurized to simulate lower altitudes usually 8000 ft or less, if it wasn't, your head might explode or you'd go unconscious. The idea that the iPod is subject to it's altitude limitations in a pressurized cabin is idiotic. If it were, my iPhone, and every iPod I've used on planes in the last 5 years would ALL have died when I flew. :rolleyes:
Sorry to rain down on this discussion about pressurized cabins and what not, but the altitude limits are not for air pressure related reasons, it is for exposure to charged particles raining from the sky. As you've got a thinner atmosphere to protect, more particles will reach you and your gadget and might cause the electronic circuitry to misbehave. However, I gotta say, I've never had a laptop or music player go funky in an airplane. Is iPod touch particularly sensitive or the original poster got bad luck?
 
Call applecare, state your experience and that you want store credit for another apple product, and then immediately state you are calling your credit card company next to file a complaint.

I guarantee an apple store credit in 5 minutes or less. ;)
 
What about the law? I keep seeing this kind of thing in threads - is there really no law in the US that says you get a refund when something's broken?
Well, most states have a lemon law. If you buy something and gets repaired more than three times for the same issue, they have to exchange it for a new one or refund your money.

I think the original poster should contact AppleCare and explain the situation. They may have heard of this issue before and maybe able to get his iPod fixed or replaced by another that works.
 
Three things:

1. Was your iPod Touch Jailbroken, or was it a stock, by the book, Touch?

2. I think many of us have flown with our iPod Touch. This is really the first report like this I've seen. And the likelihood of one or two people repeatedly getting the only iPod Touches that have this issue calls into play odds that are astronomical in scope. I am not saying it's you, but have you examined the way you are using it?

3. If all iPods have the same cautionary warning, as well as iPhones, that groups several iterations of Nano (if you believe the Flash memory is at fault) with this. And still, this is the first instance. How can you be sure a regular iPod would be better for you?

Somehow, I think there's more to the story, but because you've connected the dots only to the airplane, you think that's the cause.

I'd look deeper, and make the tread constructive, rather than a thread complaining about the Apple Store's policies.

BONUS POINT: An Apple Store employee told me that when customers are dicks to them, they will put them through the ringer. But when customers are nice, the sky's the limit. Which are you?
 
BONUS POINT: An Apple Store employee told me that when customers are dicks to them, they will put them through the ringer. But when customers are nice, the sky's the limit. Which are you?

This just sounds like another reason to avoid the Apple Store. If the employees have a thing for playing mind games with people who come in for help, it makes sense to avoid them. Stuff like this (be on your best behavior if you don't want us to give you another lemon!) makes Apple seem like Abercrombie & Fitch instead of a computer store.
 
Just because there are some logistical questions to think about should not remove the seller's responsibility to sell you something that is in good working order and fit for purpose. We have had such a law since 1979 and it is just an accepted fact of life - something doesn't work, you take it back. After 28 years the law is pretty mature so there don't tend to be problems implementing it.

You worry that "the general population will try to rip [companies] off" - but not about the potential for companies to rip consumers off! The Sale Of Goods act has struck an excellent balance, IMHO. :)

That law looks pretty confusing. At one point it says a reasonable time for a return is "just a few weeks"... then at the end it says "[companies] have a responsibility to your customer for up to six years from the date of purchase." :eek: Good lord!

Beats AppleCare i guess though.
 
This just sounds like another reason to avoid the Apple Store. If the employees have a thing for playing mind games with people who come in for help, it makes sense to avoid them. Stuff like this (be on your best behavior if you don't want us to give you another lemon!) makes Apple seem like Abercrombie & Fitch instead of a computer store.

It's common sense though! If you're nice to people and don't act like a dick and scream at people you'll usually get something done for you. I work in retail (banking) and trust me, if you get nasty nothing will get done for you.
 
It's common sense though! If you're nice to people and don't act like a dick and scream at people you'll usually get something done for you. I work in retail (banking) and trust me, if you get nasty nothing will get done for you.

Oh, sure. I just thought it was strange to imply that the OP had to have been a jerk to have been treated badly. People here seem amazingly willing to give the benefit of doubt to Apple/The Apple Store/etc over the people who wish to buy Macs. It's pretty off-putting.
 
Oh, sure. I just thought it was strange to imply that the OP had to have been a jerk to have been treated badly. People here seem amazingly willing to give the benefit of doubt to Apple/The Apple Store/etc over the people who wish to buy Macs. It's pretty off-putting.

Ahhh I misunderstand your original statement. My apologies.

That's the common theme around here now a days, it tis be sad to see.
 
Yeah, both times I've been as nice as possible. I haven't yelled, I haven't thrown around threats or anything. Just politely asked them to offer the same service as all other retailers. Still no dice.
 
I'm addicted to online shopping, as I'm the type of person who likes not worrying about traffic, crowds, and out-of-stock items. Still, I do enjoy cruising through the mall for fun, so it's still good to know if the Apple Retail Store is up to snuff. I got my Mini from there on a whim, since I wanted a Mac and didn't have time to mail order it.

My only real complaint is that the stores are always so small and crowded. I suppose that bodes well for the company, since they're selling lots of Apple stuff, but it gets hard to just get something and go.

OTOH, when I do talk to an associate, I get zero sales pressure. Gotta love that!
 
I think they are pressurized to something like 6000 feet equivalent.

I'm a plane geek. I'm pretty sure that 8,000 ft. is typical for most aircraft but newer a/c like the 787/Dreamliner will pressurize to 6,000 to provide a more humid and more comfortable environment in the cabin. This should help alleviate many of the health problems that result from the thin dry air you get exposed to on most flights. The 787 will also have larger windows and is designed to have a more open feel to the cabin which should help on long-haul flights.

10,000 feet is the maximum altitude at which humans can survive without supplemental oxygen. If pressurization is lost the emergency procedure involves a rapid descent to 10,000 feet or lower as the emergency oxygen bottles in the cabin don't last longer than about 8-15 minutes (I forget the exact time). They are there to keep you alive for the amount of time it takes for the flight crew to descend to an altitude that can sustain life.

So no, you should never "exceed 10,000 feet" on a commercial flight. If you did, you would be dead without an oxygen mask within a matter of minutes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.