iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[karellen]

People asking for pictures, there are some here - http://www.nanoscratch.com/showall/

I have had my white Nano about 5 days and it has only ever been kept (on it's own) in a shirt pocket or oakley type sunglass bag and it is starting to get covered in scratches!!

 

[AP_piano295]

People asking for pictures, there are some here - http://www.nanoscratch.com/showall/

I have had my white Nano about 5 days and it has only ever been kept (on it's own) in a shirt pocket or oakley type sunglass bag and it is starting to get covered in scratches!!

And this has just convinced me back with a little more scratching many of those screens will be quite worless.

 

[jjd]

Who ever said they didn't? 😕 Regardless, there is no need to insult people. 😎

Oh, and nice edit job SPUY767, but I caught your original post in my reply above. 😉

Not that its worth you trawling for them, but the suggestion was made. Whatever. 😉

 

[Takeo]

Regardless of the lawsuit... why can't people believe that these things scratch easy?!?! They are made from a very soft and HIGHLY polished plastic. I've seen nano's in person, and trust me... you could probably scratch the damn things just by breathing on them. They are very precious and even babying them will lead to lots of scratches. That's not to say that I support this lawsuit... especially the "portion of profits" part of it... I don't support that at all. But the fact remains that the iPod materials and finishes are very delicate. NOT GOOD for something that is SURE to get tons of abuse by it's target market. There are solutions that would be more scratch resistant... but they wouldn't have that shiney luminous quality that is Apple's trademark... and that sells the things.

 

[~Shard~]

Not that its worth you trawling for them, but the suggestion was made. Whatever. 😉

Alright then, sure, I just assumed if this suggestion was in fact made that you would have actually quoted that comment/post instead of one that had nothing to do with that claim. As you say, whatever though, not worth debating over. 😉

 

[autrefois]

People asking for pictures, there are some here - http://www.nanoscratch.com/showall/

I have had my white Nano about 5 days and it has only ever been kept (on it's own) in a shirt pocket or oakley type sunglass bag and it is starting to get covered in scratches!!

Thanks for posting this link, and sorry to hear about your problem. nanoscratch is a very enlightening site.

I found this interesting in particular:

The real reason for this site - my true motivation - is because of Apple's response. I posted in their support forums (along with hundreds of other iPod owners) that I thought the Nano's "scratchability" might become a problem. An hour later, my post was deleted and I received an (automated?) email from their moderators saying that the scratch problem was not a relevent topic. Fair enough. If Apple doesn't want the topic brought up in their discussion forums, that's fine. This website can be a place for users to discuss the problem instead.

Since I've had my own posts deleted from Apple's discussion forums, I think it is certainly possible that this happened to the guy (I assume since the name is Tyler) running the site.

The nano photos on the site in my opinion vary from "that looks like it would be disappointing/annoying" to "I bet those scratches might get in the way of viewing photos." None of the pics seem tohave scratches that render the nano completely unusable, but if that's how some of them look after a week or two, imagine a year down the line. Particularly worrying is the fact that Apple's socks apparently do not provide protection and may actually cause scratches.

Then there's the link on the site to some obscure sensationalist rag called the Wall Street Journal, where the author says

Based on my own experience of about a month with the product, and emails I've received from readers, I believe the tiny, thin iPod nano is much more prone to scratching than earlier iPods, even though they, too, picked up scratches.

If I were reviewing the nano today, I would still call it "the best combination of beauty and functionality of any music player I've tested," as I did in my review. But I would include a strong, prominent, warning that it scratches too easily in normal usage. This is a real downside to an otherwise excellent product.

So I don't think a WSJ reporter who called and still calls the nano "the best combination of beauty and functionality of any music player I've tested" can be seen as part of some anti-Apple conspiracy. If it's true that Apple is deleting posts from their forums about the scratching issue, it is they who are part of a conspiracy to cover up the problem.

We love your products, Apple, don't turn people away by trying to hide your mistakes or you risk becoming a 1984-esque organization like you parodied in that famous commercial...

Two things about the site I do NOT like:

1)

Scratch Stats
Totals thus far:
- 31683 scratches
- 180 scratches per iPod
- 18.3 hours till first scratch

180 scratches per iPod? That seems a little unbelievable, and even if close to true it should say something like "self-reported scratches" or "as reported by anonymous users who contact the site." It is certainly not a scientific measure.

2) The prominent ad for a product aimed at magically eliminating (or making less visibile I assume in reality) scratches on iPods. This makes it seem like a conflict in interest. It should be stated what relationship the site owner has to this company: do they get paid a flat fee, by the number of clicks on the ad? Making the problem seem serious might at least indirectly benefit the webmaster. I realize there are hosting costs, etc., but still...

So I think there is a real problem, and neither side is dealing with it correctly, which is a shame for Apple's image and for people whose nanos are scratched.

 

[oskar]

Everytime a warranty problem surfaces with an Apple product, everybody wants to compare the situation with buying/using a car.
First of all a car is usually more expensive than any consumer Apple product (I don't think a $20000+ topped out Quad G5 qualifies in this example either 🙄 ).
And a car is a car, and an iPod is just an iPod. Their functionality differs way too much to take a car comparison for granted with this lawsuit situation.

Why doesn't anybody compare the nano to something like a $300 TV or DVD player or a freaking TV with integrated DVD player? Those comparisons are at least more reasonable, and still I kind of disagree with using them.
A car is something too different and is a very very bad example, IMO.

 

[matticus008]

People asking for pictures, there are some here - http://www.nanoscratch.com/showall/

I have had my white Nano about 5 days and it has only ever been kept (on it's own) in a shirt pocket or oakley type sunglass bag and it is starting to get covered in scratches!!

None of those screens are even CLOSE to being unreadable. That's the best evidence I've seen so far that none of this amounts to anything more than whining. The light spot thing is a load of crap...all plastic products do that when light hits them, and the screen would be unreadable because of the glare, not because of the scratches.

 

[autrefois]

None of those screens are even CLOSE to being unreadable. That's the best evidence I've seen so far that none of this amounts to anything more than whining. The light spot thing is a load of crap...all plastic products do that when light hits them, and the screen would be unreadable because of the glare, not because of the scratches.

Picture 1

These scratches look annoying but would not (yet) affect usage, in my opinion.

Picture 2

On the left side of the screen, that seems like one serious scratch. After 3 days of use, according to the person who submitted the photo.

Is it unusable? No. Would that scratch cover up part of a photo you're viewing? Yes.

If your nano looked like this, would you be happy? There is such a thing as justifiable whining...


EDIT: links to images from http://www.nanoscratch.com/, I removed the pictures to avoid "hotlinking".

 

[Loke]

Come on, is there anyone out there with a mobile phone that doesn't have a scratch on it with heavy usage and logging around daily in the pocket or in the hangbags?

*raise hand*

 

[decksnap]

I've just looked through all the pictures at that site. If this is the worst that's happening, they've got no case at all. All scratches seen there appear exactly similar to those of any previous iPod when put in certain situations... and they all look 100% useable. Again, I think these people are (over) reacting to the transition between brand-new iPod and used-daily iPod. The material gets scratched. Do they think Apple didn't know this? Hadn't tested it to see if it rendered the device unuseable? Use some common sense with your $300 purchase. Treat it like that's what it's worth.

 

[oskar]

Two things about the site I do NOT like:

1) 180 scratches per iPod? That seems a little unbelievable, and even if close to true it should say something like "self-reported scratches" or "as reported by anonymous users who contact the site." It is certainly not a scientific measure.

People must have reported: "My iPod nano has hundreds of scratches" 😡
😛 I would never imagine someone taking their time to count how many scratches there are on a product so small, especially if they exceeded 100. How stupid. These people definitely need to get a life.

However after seeing the pictures I agree that I would be dissappointed with my nano scratching up so easily, but none of those, make the nano unusable. The problem also seems to appear on the white nano, so forget buying a white nano is the solution. I wonder if the 5G iPod has the same issue.

I came upon this site which discusses how to polish the nano with a $4 cleaning product, when I was looking for a scratch remover solution for my PowerBook. I guess I might just sue Apple instead. 🙄

 

[Takeo]

Here is an interesting article if anyone is interested... it's about a new scratch resistant coating being developed

Super-tough coating for cellphones and discs

Also, the idea of scratch resistant coating is not new. They've been around forever for things like plastic lenses... and they are not expensive. Apple should be applying some kind of coating to the nanos. My guess is that this problem could really hurt them since it's getting a TON of press... and it is a real problem.

 

[matticus008]

Is it unusable? No. Would that scratch cover up part of a photo you're viewing? Yes.

If your nano looked like this, would you be happy? There is such a thing as justifiable whining...

Normally I'd say something about hotlinking, but if this website goes down or costs more money, good.

That scratch is caught in reflected light. Outside of a direct light source, it'd be fine. Furthermore, that scratch and all the others would polish out in a few minutes of effort. Basic maintenance and general care is required of any product.

I don't understand why one would think he could sue over this. It doesn't affect usability, it can be prevented with the proper care or repaired without any major effort, and it's not out of line with anything else made of plastic.

 

[autrefois]

Use some common sense with your $300 purchase. Treat it like that's what it's worth.

What would you say to this person?

No case available yet for it when I bought it. I told myself not to put this in my pocket with keys...keys heck! Just rolling around in my dockers caused this after carrying it around for 3 full days.

1) You should not have used your nano until a case came out to protect it.
2) You should not have put the nano in your pocket unprotected, even though Steve Jobs did so in his presentation.

If the iPod nano could not withstand being carried around in a jeans pocket, Steve Jobs should have used some common sense and not used this as part of his presentation, in my opinion. Because obviously if you see the head of Apple carrying it in his jeans pocket, you have a tendancy to think this might be an acceptable usage.

Otherwise the documentation that comes with the nano should state that this is not an appropriate use of the nano. Or maybe they should have shown on the screen behind Steve, "Do not try this at home." 🙂

 

[decksnap]

Behold- my three-year old iPod, with 1,000,000 scratches on it, that works and views just fine.

What would you say to this person?

I would say, "calm down, your iPod still works just fine."

 

[840quadra]

I have had my nano longer then most people on these forums. Right away I protected it with a clear stick on cover (in my case Package tape). It has to this date no scratches, and has been through the following situations;

- In pocket while trail riding my KTM
- In Pocket while play riding on my honda XR-50
- In pocket during jogging
- In pocket while MTN Bike riding
- In pocket while at work (racking servers, setting up hardware, and moving)
- In pocket while sleeping (oops!)

Granted my nano is Protected, I did buy it expecting that it would get scratched if I didn't protect it. My normal iPod has the same level of protection and is doing fine.

The only issue I have with my nano is a dent on the back cover, that was my fault NOT Apple's. I don't blame them for me having it in my pocket while crashing my bike, something that the people involved in this suit would!

 

[autrefois]

I would say, "calm down, your iPod still works just fine."

Fair enough. I've come to the conclusion that this is an issue that you can't convince someone on.

I think I and others will continue to believe that the nano shouldn't scratch so easily after a couple of days, and that you shouldn't have to try to avoid using your nano under [edit] the kind of light in this photo [/edit] where the scratches will apparently become rather visible.

I think you and others will continue to believe the scratches are merely a cosmetic issue that isn't worth complaining about and certainly not suing Apple over, and that users should have known not to carry their $300 machines in their jeans pocket.

Maybe the truth is somewhere inbetween.

The only thing just about everyone seems to agree on is that the lawyers and/or users in the class action suit are being greedy when asking for a share of nano profits and that this whole issue (whoever's fault it is) is bound to hurt Apple unfortunately.


EDIT: my use of "direct light" was incorrect as pointed out by matticus008.

 

[matticus008]

Otherwise the documentation that comes with the nano should state that this is not an appropriate use of the nano. Or maybe they should have shown on the screen behind Steve, "Do not try this at home." 🙂

Why? The nano works just fine in a pocket. Keeping your iPod in a pocket also leads to it getting scratched. With the full-size iPod though, it dominates the space and things don't move around that much. The nano is much smaller, so it's in a mini tumbler. Just look at plastic keychains. They're thrashed after a couple days with surface scuffs.

People are really highly unaware of the fact that pants pockets are not museum display cases or clean rooms. They are not protective shells, they're just storage places. Even a just-washed pocket likely has bits of sand and dust and gritty debris in it, stuck in the seam, which works its way loose throughout the day. Lint is furthermore a jagged, frayed material and with the pressure and movement inside a pocket, bad things happen.

and that you shouldn't have to try to avoid using your nano direct light where the scratches will apparently become rather visible.

What? No. Nothing shiny is highly visible in direct light. Do you want to sue people for making shiny objects now?

 

[autrefois]

What? No. Nothing shiny is highly visible in direct light. Do you want to sue people for making shiny objects now?

By direct light, I meant "Being under whatever light is in this photo which makes the scratches stand out." I don't know the right way to describe it, but you're right that it's not direct light.

It appears that in spite of the minor glare at the very top of the nano (and not on the screen), you would be able to view the screen just fine while still seeing the scratches.

But as I already said in my post, the scratching issue is apparently a matter of opinion, so I don't think my opinions will change yours or vice versa.

 

[matticus008]

But as I already said in my post, the scratching issue is apparently a matter of opinion, so I don't think my opinions will change yours or vice versa.

That image is suffering from glare on the surface. A polished, brand new, shiny nano would be tough to read in that situation. That glare at the top shows there is a light source (possibly reflected) that interferes.

You're right about scratches being a matter of opinion, up until the point of a lawsuit. Scratches hindering usability are not particularly subjective and must be demonstrated in daily use to win this suit. We're talking rubbing sandpaper on a nano to achieve that level of abrasion. There has not been a single bit of evidence to support hindered usability, functionality, or performance of a nano. The lawsuit has no grounds, because all of those scratches are less severe than the Ars picture and can all be remedied by a publicly available and low cost plastic polish. Windows don't come with Windex, the nano doesn't need to come with plastic polish.

As most people know, iPods stop looking more scratched after a month or two...once they've got a fine layer of scratches, that doesn't change for the next couple years. There's no reason to believe that the scratches will get perpetually worse, because once the entire surface has been exposed, that's it. Scratching materials in pockets won't generally have enough pressure to do any further damage.

 

[ksz]

A large part of the iPod's appeal is its design, which includes the glossy finish. But the iPod is a *portable* music player that is going to go into pockets, into gyms, into airplanes and buses and trains, etc. It's going to get handled a lot.

When someone buys an expensive item that looks nice, they expect it to be designed to withstand the rigors of *normal* use. For an iPod, "normal use" includes the things mentioned above.

The nano is *far too easily* scratched. Its beautiful finish lasts only 2 days and the hapless buyer who put it to *normal use* finds themselves holding a product that is already years old. There is no resale value unless you polish the bajeezes out of it to restore whatever original luster you can.

Based on normal-use conditions for a portable music device, the nano's scratchability is a design flaw. I simply cannot find any credible argument against this statement. It is a design flaw that tarnishes user satisfaction and diminishes resale value.

If Apple is simply going to say, "who cares, just live with it and keep polishing it," they deserve to be sued. Apple should be congratulated for good designs and good products, but they should be held accountable for faulty or misguided designs.

At the very least Apple should put a very strong warning on the label:

"Use of this product under normal conditions leads to hundreds of scratches both on the front and rear. We suggest you never take it out of a thick security blanket. It will never see the light of day, but at least you will be happy to know that it will gather no scratches. If this is not practical, we suggest you leave the iPod in a padded glass case where you can at least see it everyday."

(I purchased two 4GB nanos, both of which are covered with scratches front and rear. Not a happy customer here.)

 

[oskar]

This is a link with info of how to remove iPod nano scratches with a $4 cleaning product. I had already posted it, but I do once again, hoping those with scratches on their nanos will just polish their iPods and be more careful with them.
It is so dissappointing to see how some people actually agree with the lawsuit.

 

[pubwvj]

This is so absurd. It is thin plastic. It will scratch unless you take care of it. People are doing class action lawsuits because it is so rewarding for the person who starts the suit and the lawyers. We need strong laws against nuisance lawsuits like this. People need to take more responsibility for taking care of their own stuff.

 

[matticus008]

When someone buys an expensive item that looks nice, they expect it to be designed to withstand the rigors of *normal* use. For an iPod, "normal use" includes the things mentioned above.

Does your iPod not work? A big part of the reason people choose anything is based on the way it looks. That doesn't mean it's going to stay that way for long if it's out and about in the world. Things that don't move around stay nicer looking for longer. A car looks like crap after a week. My monitor looks great because it's rarely touched. If I carried it around all the time, it'd look pretty bad, just like my cell phone, my keychains, and my sunglasses (which I have to replace every year or so).

Based on normal-use conditions for a portable music device, the nano's scratchability is a design flaw. I simply cannot find any credible argument against this statement. It is a design flaw that tarnishes user satisfaction and diminishes resale value.

I don't see how the nano scratches more than any other glossy plastic item in the world. That design factor should be obvious to you--that shiny things don't just stay shiny. I know my silver watch doesn't. Making something shiny is not a design flaw. Making something out of plastic is not a design flaw. Making something that scratches when abrasive particles contact it is not a design flaw. And resale value is not grounds for complaint against a manufacturer. If it were, PC makers would have been out of business years ago.

If it'd make you happy, I fully support Apple include a disclaimer on every product that it sells made of plastic that states "this product is not made of diamond. If this is a portable product, it will probably get scratched in day to day use. If this is a concern to you, buy a case or look into purchasing diamond-encrusted products from a competing manufacturer."