And you to yours. Unfortunately, a suit over a technical problem is about facts. And so far the facts are stacked a million to one against the suit. (1 million plus nanos sold, zero pictures of ones destroyed by scratches).ksz said:
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
destroyed by scratches, no. but scratched, yes (see prior post). everybody with half a brain knows this lawsuit is bunk. perhaps the argument is reaching the deeper realms of corporate ethics.... rather than a silly lawsuit.
iPods scratch to easily? YES
I am a happy owner of a 20gb 4g iPod. I was givin' this gem as a reward, and even though I didn't have to lay out $299.00 of my hard earned cash, I ensured I had PDA screen protectors and a case on standby (iSkin) as soon as I broke the seal on the box.
A year later I can proudly say my iPod has not a single scratch. I am a savy user and had the knowledge and willpower to ensure I did everything right from the very beginning to ensure I have a scratch-free iPod.
However, I believe that the fact that I had to put that much effort into ensuring my iPod remains like new was really too much, especially since this is a $300 product.
Apple should include something like a "jam jacket" or similar with the iPod to ensure iPod customers remain happy and satisfied with their purchase. This would at least minimize/eliminate scratches. If the customer wants to (and should) purchase a more elaborate case to better protect their investment then that is their choice.
Apple dropped the ball on this one. All of you Apple apologists can disagree all you want, but the fact that we are even talking about this indicates that apple now has a problem on their hands. A problem that, with a bit of forethought and minimal investment on their part, wouldn't even exist.
I am a happy owner of a 20gb 4g iPod. I was givin' this gem as a reward, and even though I didn't have to lay out $299.00 of my hard earned cash, I ensured I had PDA screen protectors and a case on standby (iSkin) as soon as I broke the seal on the box.
A year later I can proudly say my iPod has not a single scratch. I am a savy user and had the knowledge and willpower to ensure I did everything right from the very beginning to ensure I have a scratch-free iPod.
However, I believe that the fact that I had to put that much effort into ensuring my iPod remains like new was really too much, especially since this is a $300 product.
Apple should include something like a "jam jacket" or similar with the iPod to ensure iPod customers remain happy and satisfied with their purchase. This would at least minimize/eliminate scratches. If the customer wants to (and should) purchase a more elaborate case to better protect their investment then that is their choice.
Apple dropped the ball on this one. All of you Apple apologists can disagree all you want, but the fact that we are even talking about this indicates that apple now has a problem on their hands. A problem that, with a bit of forethought and minimal investment on their part, wouldn't even exist.
America=Dumb Asses
Ok, if anyone really has a problem, why don't you work in the iPod division of Apple, and at one of their meetings you can give your frick'n input. Otherwise, I dont wana hear your whining. Their are already many third party ways to protect your iPod nano, or to even fix your scratches. Also, what did you think you would get when you bought a high gloss BLACK nano??? Hmm.... i wonder if scratches show up on black more than white?? duh! I myself have bought a black nano, and have a Agent 18 protective case on the way. You paid frick'n 200+ bucks, so pay the extra $20 bucks to protect your investment. Why else do you think car owners buy bra's for the front bumber of their car? cuz they know rocks and crap hit it... why do motorcyclist buy tank covers?? cuz they know they can scratch the paint w/ their pance... why would you buy protection for your nano?? cuz YOU PUT IT IN YOUR FRICK'N BAG AND POCKET!!!! even if their is no crap in your pocket.. blue jeens are made to be rough and last..thus they equal a tough material, and guess what..tough material can scratch things. If one dumb person would walk off a cliff maybe the rest would follow..hopefully.
Ok, if anyone really has a problem, why don't you work in the iPod division of Apple, and at one of their meetings you can give your frick'n input. Otherwise, I dont wana hear your whining. Their are already many third party ways to protect your iPod nano, or to even fix your scratches. Also, what did you think you would get when you bought a high gloss BLACK nano??? Hmm.... i wonder if scratches show up on black more than white?? duh! I myself have bought a black nano, and have a Agent 18 protective case on the way. You paid frick'n 200+ bucks, so pay the extra $20 bucks to protect your investment. Why else do you think car owners buy bra's for the front bumber of their car? cuz they know rocks and crap hit it... why do motorcyclist buy tank covers?? cuz they know they can scratch the paint w/ their pance... why would you buy protection for your nano?? cuz YOU PUT IT IN YOUR FRICK'N BAG AND POCKET!!!! even if their is no crap in your pocket.. blue jeens are made to be rough and last..thus they equal a tough material, and guess what..tough material can scratch things. If one dumb person would walk off a cliff maybe the rest would follow..hopefully.
That may be, but it's not an iPod-specific problem and the lawsuit targets ONLY the iPod nano even beyond that. If the lawsuit wanted to complain about propensity for scratching, why wouldn't you sue the people that make and market the plastic? It doesn't scratch any worse than any other application of the same material does. The notion that a "minimal investment" would make this any different has no basis in reality...and I disagree that there was no forethought on Apple's part. They calculated (correctly, based on sales) that people would rather buy an iPod than anything else.remingtonhill said:
It's not that the iPod is perfect. It doesn't support gapless, it uses proprietary connector cables, it's not bulletproof or waterproof, and its battery is difficult to replace. Could it be better? Yes. Is it fundamentally flawed because it's shiny, and not all other music players are? Absolutely not. Furthermore, is the nano more flawed than any other iPod? Nope. Is it a target because it's the most popular, the most profitable, and the easiest to exploit? Yeah.
I've stated several times before that Apple has poor customer service policies. They can be a very unpleasant company to deal with if you have a problem with a product. As long as Apple serviced a niche market composed mainly of fanboys, this didn't seem like a priority. Now that Apple has created a new, large consumer market, providing great customer service must become a top priority.
Yes, I'll make the required disclaimer that I like Apple and their products and have been a booster for many years. Apple is a pioneer in making attractive, innovative, well-designed products.
But Apple can be very slow to admit it when the customer has a legitimate problem. For example, the iPod battery short lifespan problem was not acknowledged until someone filed a lawsuit.
The really great companies have great customer service. Apple still has a way to go in that regard.
Yes, I'll make the required disclaimer that I like Apple and their products and have been a booster for many years. Apple is a pioneer in making attractive, innovative, well-designed products.
But Apple can be very slow to admit it when the customer has a legitimate problem. For example, the iPod battery short lifespan problem was not acknowledged until someone filed a lawsuit.
The really great companies have great customer service. Apple still has a way to go in that regard.
Apple was also slow to acknowledge white-spot LCD problems in the aluminum PowerBooks when that form factor first appeared. There were fanboys claiming there was no evidence for it.
Agreed. A third-party economy has sprung up just to help people polish their scratched-up iPods.remingtonhill said:
Agreed. Apple should make it very clear that the iPod is a scratch magnet and that customers must go to various lengths to keep it safe.
Agreed. The wrong materials are being used or at least a durable thin film protectant is not being applied.
I only see one nano picture there, and it looks to be in pretty damn good shape. I assumed your link was sarcastic, considering that page gave the nano a 17 on a scale of 10.dreamerredeemer said:
Did I miss something? I apologize if I did, but if you point it out, I'd be happy to take a look.
You're just not listening, are you? That "thin film" coating is deceptively expensive, unless you're aware of something the rest of the materials industry doesn't know about. What film do you suggest, and how much does it cost?ksz said:
Yeah, but once it was documented, people admitted their error. People claim lots of things on the internet. The claim itself doesn't make it true. This isn't the same, because there hasn't been any demonstrated evidence at this point in time.
You have got to be kidding me!
I just went and looked at the pictures and if this is what folks are complaining about that's pretty scary.
I mean y'all are a bunch of whiney, cry-baby, spoiled, fantasy world babies.
Good night! A bunch of folks trying to get something for nothing. I concur with all those that say, "Quit treating your $300.00 Nano no better than a Bic pen" or something like that.
I can't for the life of me figure why you think that somehow you deserve some of Apples profit from the Nano. Or even why you think that you should be reimbursed. The most Apple should do is maybe make available a new case for $10 or something.
With that said I bet that Apple will succomb to the growing cries of all these folks who are probably just mad cause they bought a Nano and now they wish they could have a 5G Ipod and are looking for a freebie.
I just went and looked at the pictures and if this is what folks are complaining about that's pretty scary.
I mean y'all are a bunch of whiney, cry-baby, spoiled, fantasy world babies.
Good night! A bunch of folks trying to get something for nothing. I concur with all those that say, "Quit treating your $300.00 Nano no better than a Bic pen" or something like that.
I can't for the life of me figure why you think that somehow you deserve some of Apples profit from the Nano. Or even why you think that you should be reimbursed. The most Apple should do is maybe make available a new case for $10 or something.
With that said I bet that Apple will succomb to the growing cries of all these folks who are probably just mad cause they bought a Nano and now they wish they could have a 5G Ipod and are looking for a freebie.
You are confusing those who support the lawsuit with those who don't but who still find the nano to be a scratch magnate whose beautiful appearance lasts only 2 days and requires extremely delicate care -- which Apple does not warn you about.bbyrdhouse said:
If Apple fully researched this option and found no solution, then they at least realized that the polycarbonate surface was highly prone to scratches and that they should do something about it.matticus008 said:
Conversely if Apple never bothered to research options for making the iPod economically scratch-resistant, then they really did not care about the problem because there is no warning to the unsuspecting buyer. If you did not have prior experience with what it takes to keep an iPod looking good, what makes you think the new buyer will know what to do? They will get a big surprise after 2 days or less. It happened to me despite owning 2 previous iPods.
The scratches do not have to render the screen completely unusable before it becomes a problem. Hundreds of scratches that ruin the appearance easily after 2 days is, in my book, a problem.
This doesn't make sense. If there's no solution, then there's nothing they CAN do about it. They didn't hide the fact that it's made of polycarbonate from anyone. Polycarbonate likewise is an extremely popular and well-known thermoplastic.ksz said:
The law suit has to show damages to be valid. That means impaired functionality caused directly by scratching...i.e. mechanical failure or loss of use of the screen or click wheel. Since that does not happen, the problem is purely cosmetic. Cosmetic damage is not covered by any warranty and there are no legal protections against you scratching something you own. I understand that you think the nano scratches easily, but so do all the other iPods I've seen, so it's not some sudden shock. This thread is about the law suit, and the suit is absolutely ridiculous.
It's like suing the manufacturer of dinner plates claiming that they no longer hold food when scratched. And clearly knives and plates are meant to be used together. Or suing Nalgene because scratches make the bottles leak, when Nalgene bottles are marketed as tough and are used in rough situations. The damages don't live up to the claims of lost functionality. The cosmetic damage isn't the responsibility of the manufacturer.
1. I have never seen any mention of polycarbonate on the product package or in the owner's manual.matticus008 said:
2. Do customers know that polycarbonate equals high scratch factor? Do they know the difference between a thermoplastic and a thermometer?
It may not be their legal responsibility, but it is a flaw and it is irking a lot of customers. Apple can learn a lesson or choose to ignore many customers and a growing number of journalists who are putting the spotlight on this issue.
When Jobs took that Nano from his change pocket, for me, he didn't claim anything, other than demonstrating the size of the Nano. Did anybody see his personal Nano up close later that day. I don't think so.
Also, as far as I know, handheld organizers like palm and in the past Sonys needed screen protectors, due to scratching of the screen from those pointer sticks. Are they responsible too?
Also, as far as I know, handheld organizers like palm and in the past Sonys needed screen protectors, due to scratching of the screen from those pointer sticks. Are they responsible too?
No, but idiot-proofing everything is a waste of time. Do stove burners have warnings that appear when they're hot? Do cars explicitly state that they need to be buffed and waxed every once in awhile? Does your furniture say that it will need to be dusted and polished from time to time? Do lamps say that light bulbs burn out and need to be replaced? You shouldn't need to be told that just about everything that isn't disposable will need some general care. There is an entire market for cleaning or repairing glass, plastic, wood, metal, ceramic, stone, fabric, and just about anything else.ksz said:
Anyone who owns anything plastic knows that it scratches. Whether it's a credit card or a shampoo bottle or a consumer electronics device, it scratches. People also know that shiny things show scratches more than textured things. There's only so much you can tell people if they aren't aware of these basic conditions.
Learn the lesson that people will sue them at every corner while being totally ignorant about materials science, economics, and/or reality? That journalists will jump on anything if it gets them attention? It is not a flaw. Everything made of this material has the same properties, and furthermore every kind of plastic in common use is susceptible to scratching. A flaw is a defect or shortcoming in a particular product. By your logic, everything that is not a diamond or sapphire is flawed because it can scratch easier than something else. It would be a flaw if and only if the iPod had shortcomings different than anything else made of polycarbonate.
weird. i'm sorry the pics don't show up. even if they did, the nano doesn't look too bad, as it's pretty hard to capture the scratches on photo. regardless, it must be the Gonzaga servers. they're Dells. must i say more? and if you (whoever it was) were suggesting that i'm the one who wants a lawsuit, you obviously FAILEd to read anything on that page. i'm suggesting that the problem can be fixed DIY for a few bucks. with buffing compound. and a common bench grinder fitted with the right attachment. and a poster of a neked girl. cause if you got a bench grinder, ya gotta have nudes nearby. that is manly.
matticus008 said:
Dear Matticus, you seem to be ignoring the facts here (by the way do you have a Nano) : 1) some Nanos seem to scratch easily thats a fact (i have one like that) 2) There are enough pictures around 3) People on this forum are generally honest and to be trusted if they say their Nano is scratched 4) It is not very expensive to put a protective coating on a plastic (my company does this routinely and it costs less than a cent per item 5) Class action suits are a pain in the a... due to the US legal system and encourage every dummy to file a suit with lawyers who bet on risk 6) How about organizing a page where you collect evidence from satisfied nano-owners to counter the argument of not fit for use
Renegate said:
Yes, I do own a nano actually, and I'm buying another next week for a friend.
1) Scratching easily is a fact of plastic. The nanos being somehow special in this regard is not the case
2) The pictures on nanoscratch? Those are all perfectly readable and wholly removable with a few dollars and 10 minutes of your time. None of them impair functionality.
3) The fact that people here are generally honest is not permissable as evidence in a lawsuit.
4) Really? What product do you coat, what plastic do you use, and what coating do you use?
5) Agreed.
6) First rule of debate: burden of proof lies with the affirmative(plaintiff). You have to prove a harm before we have to counter it. So far, all of the pictures floating around are just evidence to the fact that there's no problem. Every single photo on nanoscratch not only works perfectly, but its screens are also perfectly legible.
matticus008 said:
Pssst... Guess what? Apple CAN do something about this... You know about blue ray? Guess what they're doing AHEAD of time, BEFORE their [Sony] product is released? Yup, thats right, a cheap, protective coating, that helps it prevent scratches. While they didn't have to do this "Because its not their fault that perfectly working blue ray discs got scratched by consumers", they did it anyways to help avoid this kind of attention that apple is getting... While I disagree with the lawsuit, I suggest Apple do the same...
Good posts by Renegate and blaskillet4; there may well be viable cost-effective solutions.
Rather than spend so much effort to tell people there is no problem, no flaw of any kind, and no poor choice of materials by Apple, we should be thinking about solutions for a problem that really exists.
Rather than spend so much effort to tell people there is no problem, no flaw of any kind, and no poor choice of materials by Apple, we should be thinking about solutions for a problem that really exists.
i haven't read any of the 16 pages but i just wanted to say that my nano has never left the house, never been put in any kind of bag, been treated like a baby, and hasn't been run with or any other kinds of exercises.
YET there is still a scratch across the screen that makes the letters and text almost unreadable.
I took the PSP cloth, which is extremely soft, to try and get the scratch off, yet this just made about 50 new scratches.
This is by far the worst iPod casing i have ever seen.
I hope apple loses this because this is absolutely ridiculous.
YET there is still a scratch across the screen that makes the letters and text almost unreadable.
I took the PSP cloth, which is extremely soft, to try and get the scratch off, yet this just made about 50 new scratches.
This is by far the worst iPod casing i have ever seen.
I hope apple loses this because this is absolutely ridiculous.
The Blu Ray consortium is developing a protective coating to use with its discs to help reduce the likelihood of scratches. Its final expense and how much is helps prevent scratches are not known yet. For now, it's just vaporware. There's no guarantee that the finished product will include it if it ends up being too costly or causing other problems.blaskillet4 said:
Post pictures.Phat_Pat said:
matticus008 said:
Of course it had to be developed at some point...
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10929
Whether or not this is going to be part of the final blue ray specs or not is irrelevant, the point is that a protective coating exists NOW, and Apple could use it.