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.
iPod Nano Class Action Suit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iQuit
macrumors 6502a
matticus008 said:
According to everything I've read about the nano (and first hand experience), you are wrong. That's the point. I agree that the lawsuit is stupid. But that doesn't chance the fact that the product is flawed.
I don't agree with people asking for unfair monetary damages from Apple. I don't agree with trivial lawsuits. I don't encourage this society to sue at the drop of a hat. So while I do not agree with the extremes of the pending class-action lawsuit, I also do not agree with your attempt to justify a faulty or careless design.matticus008 said:
Are you sure?
That's the point; the nano should not be made of a scratch-prone glossy substance. What other device you own gets covered with hundreds of scratches under normal use within 2 days?
You are failing to see the argument. The iPod is a portable device that is subject to wear and tear. It is not, however, designed to tolerate that type of wear and tear. If the degree of impact needed to produce a scratch is high, no problem. But the degree of impact needed to scratch the nano is so very small that it has really no effective tolerance for the type of normal wear and tear that it is subject to.
Resale value is just another reason why consumers are not happy with the scratch-prone iPod. It may not be the primary reason, but it is nevertheless a reason.
Sorry, I never asked you to make me happy.
You are unnecessarily justifying a faulty design.
Which would you rather have: An shiny glossy iPod that scratches with *very little impact* or a shiny glossy iPod that is far more resistant to scratches. I never said scratch-proof, only scratch resistant. Even cheap watches are advertised as being scratch-resistant, but the nano is not.
matticus008
macrumors 68040
According to my first hand experience, the first hand experience of everyone I know with a nano, and the absolute lack of documented evidence and/or photographs, along with the majority of comments here, on other Apple forums, on Slashdot, and even on most news sites...you are wrong. The product is not flawed. It has the same limitations as everything else. People are flawed.Takeo said:
I bought a shiny plastic gadget and it got scratched when I threw it in my pocket/purse with my keys and coins. Waaahhh! It's not my fault, someone should give me money!
Pathetic.
Crikey
Pathetic.
Crikey
matticus008
macrumors 68040
Absolutely positive. And I don't drive a cheap car. It was more scratched when I bought it than my nano is now.ksz said:
So it shouldn't be shiny, and it shouldn't be plastic? Okay. Maybe you'd prefer it to be made of metal. Apple designers thought not. Every device gets scratched. My nano has seen several weeks of unprotected use and is no worse for wear than any other iPod I've ever owned.
You're right, I'm failing to see the argument. Because it doesn't exist. You say it's failing to hold up to wear and tear...but no one has given any evidence of that and indeed, reviews of the device point to the contrary--an extremely durable music player. Don't confuse durability and strength with cosmetic scratching. Normal wear and tear includes cosmetic scratching--there is an expectation that it will scratch. In functionality and usability, the nano has proven to be extremely resilient, and none of the scratches have hindered its performance or usefulness.
You can't sue because a used iPod doesn't make you as much money as you want it to.
You are declaring it a faulty design without supporting that claim. Innocent until proven guilty. The plaintiff has the burden of proof. Prove your position.
Cheap watches are very rarely scratch resistant, and watches and iPods aren't the same. The surface area to protect is much smaller, and the available funds for a scratch resistant watch face are dramatically higher, because a watch really only has three expensive parts. The same is not true of an iPod. The cheapest scratch resistant watches that actually are scratch resistant are about $100. The cheapest watch I've seen is about $5. If someone put out a $1000 iPod, I would expect it to be highly scratch resistant, because then there would be extra money for that purpose. A watch can afford a $20 protective covering. An iPod using that same protective covering would cost ten times that, instead of the $4-8 or so that they currently spend on the iPod face.
It's not about what you'd "rather have" when you can't[/quote] have one of the options at the same price. Would you rather have 5Mbps broadband for $20 or 5Gbps broadband for $20? The second? Oh, me too. Too bad it doesn't exist.
Ladies, Gentlement - boys, girls...
You're all missing the point!
This lawsuit should be thought of as nothing but a badge of honor!
Seriously - without reading all 330+ posts - let me repeat:
This is nothing but a badge of honor!...
...and should be delt with as a true sign of ultimate success. Afterall, how many lawsuits are there pending against the Nomad Jukebox ZEN and Dell's Digital Jukebox, especially over something as trivial and superfluous as a display scratched by the users themselves?
You want a real problem? How about all of the second-generation iPod minis' sluggish click wheel? Never fixed, it sucks, but I still wouldn't have any other 'Pod, 'specially with the 26-hour (when new) battery life. Sometimes ya gotta just take the good, the good, and even more good, along with sometimes the not-so-good with an all-around great product...
Sheesh! A positive vote from me in this regard.
You're all missing the point!
This lawsuit should be thought of as nothing but a badge of honor!
Seriously - without reading all 330+ posts - let me repeat:
This is nothing but a badge of honor!...
...and should be delt with as a true sign of ultimate success. Afterall, how many lawsuits are there pending against the Nomad Jukebox ZEN and Dell's Digital Jukebox, especially over something as trivial and superfluous as a display scratched by the users themselves?
You want a real problem? How about all of the second-generation iPod minis' sluggish click wheel? Never fixed, it sucks, but I still wouldn't have any other 'Pod, 'specially with the 26-hour (when new) battery life. Sometimes ya gotta just take the good, the good, and even more good, along with sometimes the not-so-good with an all-around great product...
Sheesh! A positive vote from me in this regard.
These people are bunch of litigious idiots!! Bottom line. Buy something and take care of it. Don't bitch that Apple owes you a share of the nano's profits because you were a dumb ass and didn't take care of your product. When I buy a pair of eye glasses and I wipe them with a paper tower or with my shirt and they get a scratch I can't go back to the doctor and complain that they scratched. I didn't care for them.
Protect the screen!! It's simple as that!! My 3G ipod screen is still brand new after more than 2 years of use because I put a screen protector on it. I don't understand why Nano owners, especially after people say it scratches easily don't take precations. How many of them bought one, threw it in their pocket and then complained that it's all beat up. If it really means that much to you, protect it from day ONE. Don't wait until it's all beat up and then bitch about it.
This lawsuit will be thrown out. No judge in their tight mind would hear a case like this. It's obvious that these people are gold digging and don't have any case. Even if they did, the judge will only award new ipods, not other damages.
I can hear them all now...
"I've suffered mental anguish that my $199 ipod has a scratch."
Boo Hoo Frickin' Hoo!! Next time, buy it, put it on a shelf and bow to it each morning. You will obviously get more satisfaction out of it that way. I'm also wondering how many people have intentionally treated them roughly to torture test them and now that they are all beat up they want new ones. Just because it has flash memory in it doesn't mean you can beat the snot out of it.
Protect the screen!! It's simple as that!! My 3G ipod screen is still brand new after more than 2 years of use because I put a screen protector on it. I don't understand why Nano owners, especially after people say it scratches easily don't take precations. How many of them bought one, threw it in their pocket and then complained that it's all beat up. If it really means that much to you, protect it from day ONE. Don't wait until it's all beat up and then bitch about it.
This lawsuit will be thrown out. No judge in their tight mind would hear a case like this. It's obvious that these people are gold digging and don't have any case. Even if they did, the judge will only award new ipods, not other damages.
I can hear them all now...
"I've suffered mental anguish that my $199 ipod has a scratch."
Boo Hoo Frickin' Hoo!! Next time, buy it, put it on a shelf and bow to it each morning. You will obviously get more satisfaction out of it that way. I'm also wondering how many people have intentionally treated them roughly to torture test them and now that they are all beat up they want new ones. Just because it has flash memory in it doesn't mean you can beat the snot out of it.
If a scratched display really bothers you, why not spend your money on a couple of iPod Shuffles instead of the Nano?
Problem solved!
Seriously - I intend no sarcasm here, but think about it! The Nano, and the Nano+! Why buy a Mercury when you can get a Ford for less? Cadillac, Chevrolet? Because of perception as well as a few real tweaks here and there...I think we're on to something here...
Problem solved!
Yes, I agree with both of you; perhaps Apple should begin marketing the $550 Nano with: Gold plating, scratch-resistant display, and your specific favorite rock-and-roll/rap/country/opera performer's etched signature...Eevee said:
Seriously - I intend no sarcasm here, but think about it! The Nano, and the Nano+! Why buy a Mercury when you can get a Ford for less? Cadillac, Chevrolet? Because of perception as well as a few real tweaks here and there...I think we're on to something here...
It should be shiny and glossy, but it should be resistant to scratches. Low-impact abrasions smear the surface quite easily. It has no effective resistance to scratches.
No argument? No evidence? Are you listening to what you're saying? Have you read the comments and browsed the links in this thread? The nano is a scratch magnet.
No one is confusing mechanical durability with cosmetic scratchability. The nano could get run over by a car and survive, but it cannot last a week in your pocket without terribly changing its appearance. We are not complaining about mechanical durability.
Resale value is a secondary reason as I made clear. It is nevertheless a reason.
One can run an independent test; ask a group of test subjects to put the nano in their pockets or use the device for a one-week period of time and examine the results. The question is: How much scratchability is too much?
I have owned cheap Casio digital watches that are surprisingly scratch resistant. Unless you bump the watch against a hard surface, it will not scratch.
We're talking about the degree of impact needed to produce a scratch. The nano, it seems, can be scratches by pollutants in the air. Ok, this is an exaggeration, but the point is clear: The nano offers virtually no scratch resistance and the result is a terribly smeared surface after less than a week of ownership. This leads to very unsatisfied customers.
This is a poor example. 5Gbps at $20 is not technically feasible, but a scratch-resistant shiny glossy surface is technically possible at the same price point. Do you seriously think it takes $1000 to make the surface more scratch resistant?
No one is asking for a diamond-laced scratch-proof covering. They are asking for scratch-resistance. Is that really so much to ask? Shouldn't Apple's products be better than this?
Eevee
macrumors 6502a
ksz said:
My wife's iPod has many scratches, but is not detrimental since the screen is still usable. HOWEVER, this is not the case for iPod nano customers who is having problem visualizing through the heavily scratched screen. Yes, the nano is still works, but what's the point if you can't use the screen?
I was about to purchase a used iPod nano from Circuit City. But I noticed that the scratches on it was more visible than my wife's one year old iPod.
Thanks ksz for your sharing.
Eniregnat
macrumors 68000
Despite the law suite, which I find a little silly, I plan to get a Nano in the next year. While I am worried about scratches, I don't really care. I am a Shuffle owner who wants a screen. I am thinking about the grass case by Spec. I have seen some pretty shoddy MP3 players out there, and I havent seen any class action suites against them. Quite likely, by the time I can afford a Nano (later next year) there will improvements, though I have to wonder what kind plastic they would use that would be more scratch resistant. Perhaps some of that new "Transparent Aluminium" that the government is now testing.
Attachments
matticus008
macrumors 68040
How do you propose to do this? Strong, shiny/glossy, resists cosmetic damage. Choose any two. That's basically how it works in materials today. The same thing that makes polycarbonate easier to scratch is what makes it easier to repair, as well. Acrylic scratches and chips are much more difficult to manage.ksz said:
I have. The lawsuit alleges difficulty USING THE NANO with scratches. There have been a grand total of ZERO pictures of this. Some comment made by some random internet person without photographic proof or other documentation is utterly meaningless. "Paper towels scratched my nano!" And the pictures are where? I've heard more credible claims from people in foil hats.
Mechanical durability and usability are exactly what the lawsuit is alleging. If there is no consequence in the use or operation of the iPod, then you can't sue. And since there is no evidence of this eventuality, the lawsuit is unfounded and asinine.
NOT a reason to sue, so it's totally irrelevant.
That's an easy question. Too much is when it interferes with the use of the device. That's the legal precedent. There hasn't been any of this happening with any sort of documentation.
Uh, where? Scratch-resistant materials cost way more than polycarbonate (which is, believe it or not, almost always coated).
As I've pointed out numerous times, Lexan (polycarbonate) is $9-15 per square foot. This is what the iPod uses. Scratch-resistant materials in watches are about $15 per square inch and up (but finding accurate prices for this is more difficult because it's a specialty product). A watch might cost $25-30 for a scratch resistant face. That's okay, because it's one of the most expensive parts of the watch (especially in something like a "higher end" Casio), and the finished product can still be sold for $100 with a very handsome profit. That same material on an iPod would cost several times that amount, because an iPods face is several times the size of a watch.
When Apple is spending $4-8 on the front covering now, going up to $200+ for the same covering would be a bad idea, yes. I'd rather keep a $300 iPod than have to pay $500 or $600 because a couple whiners couldn't be more careful or get over the fact that shiny plastic things invariably scratch and somehow expect Apple to solve a materials science problem that's a century old and to do so for fifty cents.
Eevee
macrumors 6502a
MegaSignal said:
Exactly MegaSignal! The easily scratched screens on the Nano deems it useless and hence the Nano is simply an expensive iPod shuffle, which was not what the customers wanted to purchase. So, it is a flaw that Apple has to fix.
I agree with ALL OF YOU that the lawsuit is from greedy lawyers and those who want to exploit Apple's success on the sale on the Nano. BUT Apple has been avoiding the screen easily scratched issue for a while. It's great that they are willing to replace them, but the problem still exist.
matticus008
macrumors 68040
I think you need to give it a rest. 🙂matticus008 said:
The nano is terribly smeared by scratches in less than a week.
I am not condoning many of the stipulations of the class-action lawsuit so keep that lawsuit separate from my arguments. I would make the same arguments whether or not the lawsuit existed.
You're welcome. 🙂Eevee said:
I'm not part of an angry mob out to get Apple. I have a long-time admiration for the company, but I want to hold a company -- any company -- responsible for poor designs or for not properly informing customers about weaknesses in the materials it uses.
matticus008
macrumors 68040
Believe me, I'd love to see this thread come to an end. But as long as people keep repeating this foolish internet meme about scratches, I can't. So I must repeat, "where are these fabled scratches?"ksz said:
I think we'll find Atlantis sooner.
(And the weakness of the materials Apple uses are freely available and published worldwide. It's called an MSDS. It's not news that polycarbonate is vulnerable to scratches, or that Apple uses polycarbonate.)
Eevee
macrumors 6502a
autrefois said:
Not necessarily hurt Apple, but help Apple to make better products. Who knows, maybe the judge will throw this case out as many MacRumors members pointed out. It is obvious that the laywers and users on this lawsuit want a share of the profit.
But, in the end of all this, Apple (hopefully) will do something about the Nano screen issue. So I see it more as a positive (better future products for us Apple consumers) than negative, though I strongly detest those exploiting Apple's success in the sale of the Nano iPods.
matticus008
macrumors 68040
Eevee said:
The only thing it will do is cause Apple to divert more money into their legal fund and work in a litigation budget into future iPods. There is no screen issue with the nano, beyond the cracked screens which have been dealt with. There isn't a problem, based on the the evidence that's out there right now. If there is a demonstration of this fabled "scratched beyond usability" problem, then maybe it would make sense to file a suit. That has not happened.
I'm sure Apple would love to make better products. But holding Apple to a higher standard than the rest of the industry or expecting them to implement a solution looking for a problem isn't a way to encourage that. Sue polycarbonate manufacturers if you want better plastics, THAT is how you can encourage better Apple products. 340+ comments, zero evidence of fault on Apple's part. There's no story here.
Brasbrrabaagagaaa!!!
where's my pitchfork!? there's gonna be a lynchin tonight! seriously folks, calm we selves, the witch hunt isn't for another couple a days. I have pictures. of a scratched nano. just go here: . you guys argue and argue and argue. here's how it goes: my ipod nano was scratched by putting it in my pocket the very first time. yours may or may not have done the same. i'm not complaining. this lawsuit is silly. can't we all just get along? seriously, it's not the end of the world, it's not witchery, it's just plastic that scratches. experience has taught me that you can buff an ipod just like you can a car. it's cheap. it's easy. all ya need is some buffing compound, and, preferrably, a small air powered buffer. problem solved! hopefully that clears something up, because honestly, in 14 pages, NOTHING has been accomplished.
where's my pitchfork!? there's gonna be a lynchin tonight! seriously folks, calm we selves, the witch hunt isn't for another couple a days. I have pictures. of a scratched nano. just go here: . you guys argue and argue and argue. here's how it goes: my ipod nano was scratched by putting it in my pocket the very first time. yours may or may not have done the same. i'm not complaining. this lawsuit is silly. can't we all just get along? seriously, it's not the end of the world, it's not witchery, it's just plastic that scratches. experience has taught me that you can buff an ipod just like you can a car. it's cheap. it's easy. all ya need is some buffing compound, and, preferrably, a small air powered buffer. problem solved! hopefully that clears something up, because honestly, in 14 pages, NOTHING has been accomplished.