iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[ksz]

YET there is still a scratch across the screen that makes the letters and text almost unreadable.

As I said before, sometimes I think that dust in the air will scratch the nano!

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.

Absolutely agree. I have a very similar experience although my screen is still readable, but the backlight must be on. With the backlight off, the scratches are not too obtrusive but at the rate new scratches are developing, I wonder what the screen will look like in a couple more weeks. Of course I have started babying that thing, but then you give up some of the usefulness of the device. It becomes a tradeoff -- you spend extra money and time polishing and protecting, and polishing and protecting again, and again -- and then finally you just give up and let the scratches dominate.

I hope apple loses this because this is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't like the lawsuit, but I hope it compels Apple to make some changes.

 

[matticus008]

Of course it had to be developed at some point...

From the article: "Despite the fact that the surface of a TDK DVD-R disc with protective coating was scratched and smudged with fingerprints, a DVD drive was still able to read the disc's content."

It's not a scratch-resistant coating. An iPod with that would still look just as beat up. If it were an optical disk, though, it would still be readable.

The applications aren't the same at all.

 

[TheMonarch]

From the article: "Despite the fact that the surface of a TDK DVD-R disc with protective coating was scratched and smudged with fingerprints, a DVD drive was still able to read the disc's content."

It's not a scratch-resistant coating. An iPod with that would still look just as beat up. If it were an optical disk, though, it would still be readable.

The applications aren't the same at all.

Ah... Touché... This is an old article, and its late over here... But There's this website that lists the specs for a developed protective coating. They claim 5X more resistance against scratches, which is why they're able to remove the casing from blue ray discs. Someone here posted a url to that site, right now, I must sleep, but as soon as I find it, I'll post.

 

[matticus008]

Ah... Touché... This is an old article, and its late over here... But There's this website that lists the specs for a developed protective coating. They claim 5X more resistance against scratches, which is why they're able to remove the casing from blue ray discs. Someone here posted a url to that site, right now, I must sleep, but as soon as I find it, I'll post.

Hehe. It's late here, too (same time, actually) . I really have no idea why this thread is taking up so much of my time, but I have to see it through to the end (a lot of legal wrangling in my job, so doing it on the internet is just a natural extension, and it ain't over till it's over). I'd be interested to read that article. If that coating works out, I don't doubt that it might show up in some future iPod once it becomes available on the open market.

 

[ksz]

If that coating works out, I don't doubt that it might show up in some future iPod once it becomes available on the open market.

Aha, so you admit that the iPod needs a scratch-resistant coating?

 

[Renegate]

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.

Dear Matticus,

1) I do own a lot of devices which don't scratch at all, i do own some who do so more easily. The shiny finish on the Nano causes scratches to be seen easily in reflected light, the scratching of the screen is not excusable!
2) Usable might be ok for legal purposes but most people buy Apple products for their look and therefore appearance (cosmetics) is part of their expectation. It is important for Apple to learn how to satisfy a broad (and not very sophisticated) consumer base versus their fan-basis which excuses about everything, thats the only way to grow from their niche base into a real consumer brand.
3) Thats ok, i was not talking legal but personal
4) We coat/finish cases for mobiles,PDA's etc and depending on the material use different finishing methods : electro-plating, e-beam plasma/sputtering, UV, radiation curing ....
6) Up to the jury, the pictures to me look awfull that way, will depend on whether usability means just it functions or might include some asthetics. After all if you get cosmetic surgery you cannot claim that for example your nose it fully functional if it looks awfull ... joking.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

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.

I don't know anything about polycarbonate - does that make me an idiot? Knowing whether or not a stove is hot is entirely different from knowing whether or not a lump of technical jargon means that a nano is easily scratched.

Apart from that the screen does lose some functionality from being scratched - part of the "product" is style. The ipod nano isn't just a music player. It's almost a fashion accessory. People buy it to listen music, and to have a player that looks good. Customers have paid for a product that carries its value in function and in looks - nearly $300 for their beautiful music player. To have the average uninitiated customer buy a fashionable gadget that scratches unreasonably quickly without warning is wrong. If I had warning about the nano's scratches, I would have bought a case immediately. As it stands, my nano's lost much of its resale value.

Much of the argument just lies in what's reasonable or not reasonable. And I don't think that it's reasonable, for reasons stated dozens of times by other people.

I'm getting some of the Brasso... It's like 3:15AM, and I don't know if I'm making complete sentences.

 

[matticus008]

Dear Matticus,

1) I do own a lot of devices which don't scratch at all, i do own some who do so more easily. The shiny finish on the Nano causes scratches to be seen easily in reflected light, the scratching of the screen is not excusable!
2) Usable might be ok for legal purposes but most people buy Apple products for their look and therefore appearance (cosmetics) is part of their expectation. It is important for Apple to learn how to satisfy a broad (and not very sophisticated) consumer base versus their fan-basis which excuses about everything, thats the only way to grow from their niche base into a real consumer brand.

I buy many things based on their aesthetics, but I'm also aware that all of them require maintenance, which includes having to polish them from time to time, whether it be furniture, a car, or an iPod. Glare is going to be a problem on any material (magazines, TV screens, and iPods) and the fact that it exposes scratches is secondary to the problem of the glare itself causing visibility to drop to near-zero. Without that bright light source, the scratches would not even be visible in most cases.

4) We coat/finish cases for mobiles,PDA's etc and depending on the material use different finishing methods : electro-plating, e-beam plasma/sputtering, UV, radiation curing ....

Well I am certainly curious how you do it for less than a cent and what coatings you use that are that inexpensive. The application process itself costs more than that, materials and labor notwithstanding. Materials cost alone is much higher, even for recycled matter. Scotch taping pennies is a rather expensive process, and nowhere near what it's like to coat a transparent material with a scratch-resistant material. DLC used on sunglasses, for example, is quite expensive just for the material.

6) Up to the jury, the pictures to me look awfull that way, will depend on whether usability means just it functions or might include some asthetics. After all if you get cosmetic surgery you cannot claim that for example your nose it fully functional if it looks awfull ... joking.

Class action suits are usually not handled by juries, and I don't think anyone can honestly say that they suffer any problems using the iPod based on those pictures. That's the only criterion for the suit to be valid. Aesthetics are simply not a factor when alleging a technical, material, or process-based deficiency.

I don't know anything about polycarbonate - does that make me an idiot? Knowing whether or not a stove is hot is entirely different from knowing whether or not a lump of technical jargon means that a nano is easily scratched.

You don't need to know anything about polycarbonate specifically. All you need to know is that it's made of plastic, and things that are plastic scratch. People don't know why metal things don't belong in microwaves, but they know not to put metal objects in them. People don't even really know why ice is cold, but they know that it is.

The problem is when people who don't know anything make blind demands. Like that airfare should be $100 roundtrip to anywhere, or that iPods should use "something else." They don't take into account the fact that planes cost $150 million, they carry tens of thousands of gallons of expensive fuel, the amount of coordination and logistics is mind-boggling, and that maintenance costs are astronomical, even for a plane in good shape. They don't take into account the cost of materials relative to the retail price or the availability of a more suitable material.

All of this is fine. Asking for more is what drives innovation forward. But you can't always get what you want when you snap your fingers. I'm still waiting for my hovercar or a colony on the moon.

Apart from that the screen does lose some functionality from being scratched - part of the "product" is style. The ipod nano isn't just a music player. It's almost a fashion accessory.

I agree with you there. But that's not relevant to the lawsuit. If I buy stylish shoes, they get dirty just like other shoes and I have to clean them just like totally un-stylish shoes. An Audi scratches just as much as a Honda. In any case, "style" does not affect functionality, which is the premise of the lawsuit and by extension, this thread.

 

[s10]

sony beans

I wonder how these Sony Beans resist to scratches, if they do..

 

[Renegate]

I buy many things based on their aesthetics, but I'm also aware that all of them require maintenance, which includes having to polish them from time to time, whether it be furniture, a car, or an iPod. Glare is going to be a problem on any material (magazines, TV screens, and iPods) and the fact that it exposes scratches is secondary to the problem of the glare itself causing visibility to drop to near-zero. Without that bright light source, the scratches would not even be visible in most cases.


Well I am certainly curious how you do it for less than a cent and what coatings you use that are that inexpensive. The application process itself costs more than that, materials and labor notwithstanding. Materials cost alone is much higher, even for recycled matter. Scotch taping pennies is a rather expensive process, and nowhere near what it's like to coat a transparent material with a scratch-resistant material. DLC used on sunglasses, for example, is quite expensive just for the material.


Class action suits are usually not handled by juries, and I don't think anyone can honestly say that they suffer any problems using the iPod based on those pictures. That's the only criterion for the suit to be valid. Aesthetics are simply not a factor when alleging a technical, material, or process-based deficiency.

Dear Matticus,

Don't know why you think coating materials are so expensive as with a coating thickness off 200nm-1000nm you really don't use any substantial amount of material. The rest is just depreciation and manpower which is a matter of how much units you process. 1-2 cents is actually our manufacturing cost, a bit more if you do customized small batches.
We also do hardening of plastics as i mentioned by crosslinking thru UV and radiation. I suspect that the Nanos use a black coating/lacquer which is generally softer than white lacquers and might be the cause of the problem. In addition as black obviously does not reflect light anything you put on the surface or do to it will create refelctions which then are easily visible against a non-reflective background. If you want to do black it is generally advisable to use matte rather than shiny. As i said i am not to concerned about the case but do have a problem with the screen scratching which should be easily avoidable. As proven putting a cheap plastic film on it solves the scratching so a coating would do the same.

 

[matticus008]

Dear Matticus,

Don't know why you think coating materials are so expensive as with a coating thickness off 200nm-1000nm you really don't use any substantial amount of material. The rest is just depreciation and manpower which is a matter of how much units you process. 1-2 cents is actually our manufacturing cost, a bit more if you do customized small batches.

I'm curious then if you happen to know anything about DLC and why it adds such a substantial amount to the cost of polycarbonate lenses. A DLC-coated substrate is dramatically more expensive than a standard coated polycarbonate sheet. Ostensibly, even if you're using less than a tenth of a gram of something, the expense adds up quickly when the material costs over a hundred dollars a gram. Do you have any experience with DLC or related coatings to shed some light on this? It's also important whether you're referring to a primarily acrylic-oriented environment, because the processes you mentioned and then also hardening in general are often rather bad ideas for polycarbonate beyond what is applied in fabrication. UV processes, for example, discolor polycarbonate.

You must really do an impressive volume to keep costs that low, but I suppose if that's what your company does, that's attainable. And from a materials standpoint, you're absolutely right that a matte finish would be superior. But that would never fly among the "trendy" crowd. That's why the scratch-resistant layer of sunglasses is beneath the shiny mirror layer--so it can be more effective. It's unfortunate that doing so on an iPod would be detrimental to its lustrous finish.

 

[Renegate]

I'm curious then if you happen to know anything about DLC and why it adds such a substantial amount to the cost of polycarbonate lenses. A DLC-coated substrate is dramatically more expensive than a standard coated polycarbonate sheet. Ostensibly, even if you're using less than a tenth of a gram of something, the expense adds up quickly when the material costs over a hundred dollars a gram. Do you have any experience with DLC or related coatings to shed some light on this? It's also important whether you're referring to a primarily acrylic-oriented environment, because the processes you mentioned and then also hardening in general are often rather bad ideas for polycarbonate beyond what is applied in fabrication. UV processes, for example, discolor polycarbonate.

You must really do an impressive volume to keep costs that low, but I suppose if that's what your company does, that's attainable. And from a materials standpoint, you're absolutely right that a matte finish would be superior. But that would never fly among the "trendy" crowd. That's why the scratch-resistant layer of sunglasses is beneath the shiny mirror layer--so it can be more effective. It's unfortunate that doing so on an iPod would be detrimental to its lustrous finish.

DLC coatings are expensive not because of the material (which is carbon or methane gas...) but because of the process (PVD/CVD) which is generally a batch process and mostly not optimized for high thruput, there are other coatings around like cured silicon , Si-Ox which work well and can be applied by more of a continous process (although still mostly batch as few people want to invest into multiple chamber vaccuum type of machines with automatic feeding but there are some!). I wouldn't obviously treat polycarbonate with UV, thats for acrylic coatings.

 

[ckinyc]

i like Apple and the iPod. I just got my 5G iPod yesterday and its awesome... one awesome thing about the incluided pouch is that you can still scroll and click through it without taking it out.

I currently own 3 iPods (1G, Photo and Nano and I will get the Video soon). I have zero protection for the 1G. Screen Guards for the Nano and Photo. I only have a leather case for my Photo because it goes in my photography bag with other stuff.

I LOVE the feel of the naked iPod and covering it up with an ugly case is a crime! Especially for the Nano. Just make sure there is no sharp object in your pocket and your iPod should be somewhat scratch free.

BTW, you can control your clickwheel over jeans and even leather without taking it out of your pocket. Just make sure you know where the clickwheel is. Otherwise, people might think you are doing somethingelse! ; )

 

[danamania]

My nano's photos.

Apologies to anyone who has seen these photos before, I've posted in a few places. Always worth showing examples

http://www.danamania.com/temp/nano2.jpg

through to

http://www.danamania.com/temp/nano18.jpg

Photos of my iPod nano from one week old (nano2.jpg) up to one month old (nano18.jpg) and various ages in between, as a record of how badly scratched it's getting... or isn't, in my case.

I don't keep it in a case, I carry it in pockets, sit it on the car seat, I've slammed it in my car door accidentally (hence the shot with the dent on the rear, caused by a rather hefty 1969 futura door), I've dropped it in a mug of tea, I end up sleeping on top of it almost every night as I listen to it to doze off, I walk with it in my pocket nightly, it's been dropped on carpet, momentarily lost down between the cushions of the couch, sat on my desk for the first 2 weeks (until I got a nano dock while it was charging, and has generally not been protected in any way. If it gets grotty (which it does, mostly cos the front is so smooth it picks up any oils) I wipe it off with the palm of my hand.

However, I do not carry it around in pockets full of crushed granite, clean its screen with 50-grit sandpaper or tow it behind my car.

 

[Jesus]

The profit thing is 100% B... S... but a refund would not be crazy apple should make a product with some scratch resistance.

Sure, thats fine. As long as it isn't for millions of $s then its ok. It it is sueing for the sake of product improvement, good.

Jesus

 

[djdrah]

I've got the solution to the nano scratch!

Alright, ready?! Don't put your f'n iPod in your f'n pocket, along with your f'n keys you morons! Don't set it on your damn dashboard, face down, and rush off to work in your Porsche, er Toyota hatchback. Buy a damn case for your iPod, and stop buying things and expecting them to look the same as the day you bought them. If you sill want to do that, buy two, and have one framed and mounted on your wall and get a case for the second iPod nano n’ hope for the best. At least this time the second iPod will last a bit longer now that I told you to buy a case for it! That other iPod will stay pristine because it will be incased inside a beautiful frame on your wall! Imagine how much you'd enjoy coming home from work, after zipping around in either your Porsche or Toyota (whichever you drive) with your other iPod bouncing around in it's new case, and seeing your other iPod on the wall, safe and sound, the same as the day you bought it! Wow! Here's how to order....

You class-acts suck! Get a life.

-The guy from whom you bought the iPod nano.

you still suck.

 

[trose]

Apologies to anyone who has seen these photos before, I've posted in a few places. Always worth showing examples

http://www.danamania.com/temp/nano2.jpg

through to

http://www.danamania.com/temp/nano18.jpg

Photos of my iPod nano from one week old (nano2.jpg) up to one month old (nano18.jpg) and various ages in between, as a record of how badly scratched it's getting... or isn't, in my case.

I don't keep it in a case, I carry it in pockets, sit it on the car seat, I've slammed it in my car door accidentally (hence the shot with the dent on the rear, caused by a rather hefty 1969 futura door), I've dropped it in a mug of tea, I end up sleeping on top of it almost every night as I listen to it to doze off, I walk with it in my pocket nightly, it's been dropped on carpet, momentarily lost down between the cushions of the couch, sat on my desk for the first 2 weeks (until I got a nano dock while it was charging, and has generally not been protected in any way. If it gets grotty (which it does, mostly cos the front is so smooth it picks up any oils) I wipe it off with the palm of my hand.

However, I do not carry it around in pockets full of crushed granite, clean its screen with 50-grit sandpaper or tow it behind my car.

That's enough proof for me.

I just have a hard time believing all these claims... especially coming from folks ignorant enough to believe they deserve a "share of the profits". Who do they think they're kidding?

 

[Jesus]

i Think what we have here is a quality control problem. I mean, we have two groups here: those with nanos that are bady scratched ; And those with nanos that have not scratched badly or at all. I tink apple has got 5-10 batches out there with bad quality casing, like the 1 batch with bad LCDs + casing. Or maybe (correct me if I am wrong) the LCDs are made in smaller batches than the cases so:

1 nano batch = 1 LCD batch

1 front casing batch = (approx.) 5-10 nano batches = (approx.) 5-10 LCD batches

So you have 1 nano batch with bad LCDs and a bad case, and 4-9 nano batches with just bad cases.


Just a thought.




Jesus

 

[Takeo]

Don't know why you think coating materials are so expensive

Because it's convenient to his arguement perhaps?

To be honest, I don't know if they are expenive or not, but I suspect the cost varies. Scratch-resistant coating are nothing new... they've been around for decades. Perhaps the newer coating for optical discs use an expensive process, but surely there are older, less robust coatings... such as those used for lenses... that would at least improve the scratch resistance of the nano (and presumable the new g5 iPod too). To just say that such an such silicone coating is expensive assumes that this is the only solution. Surely there are dozens of potential solutions out there of at all different levels of cost and effectiveness.

I just have a hard time believing all these claims... especially coming from folks ignorant enough to believe they deserve a "share of the profits". Who do they think they're kidding?

Why do you have a hard time believing these claims? I've seen the nano and it's a fact. Also, I don't think anyone here or on the dozens of other forums complaining about scratching are involved in the lawsuit. People really need to calm down and separate the scratching issue from the lawsuit issue. I don't believe in the suit but I do believe that this scratching thing is a real issue. And can I ask this... wouldn't everyone be happier if Apple made a better product as a result of this? What's wrong with that? I'm sure there are solutions that would make the plastic less scratch-prone without impacting the price. It wouldn't take much.

 

[afterhours]

Yes. It might be the exact same material as the older iPods, but Apple is selling millions more nanos and new iPods now. This only exacerbates the problem ten fold. Running a paper towel over a screen should not scratch it. To have it scratch this easily, is simply ridiculous. I hope Apple wises up and makes the necessary improvements. Go back to the mini form factor and materials. There were very few issues of scratches with the minis.

Not to pick a fight, but you don't know jack about paper. It is cellulose, and its microcrystalline structure is like tiny grains of sand against plastic or glass. That's why your eye doctor told you to use a bandana, NOT paper on your glasses. People would do well to stay awake in science class.

 

[matticus008]

Why do you have a hard time believing these claims? People really need to calm down and separate the scratching issue from the lawsuit issue.

I think that most people agree the lawsuit is groundless and almost offensive to one's sensibilities. And as for why? This thread is about the lawsuit, perhaps. Just a theory. Even still, I don't believe the nano is more scratch-prone than other iPods.

Because it's convenient to his arguement perhaps? Just a theory.

I made a mistake in judging the cost breakdown of the materials, I admit. The price differential in the end is dramatic. It turns out that the process is the more expensive part in coatings, whereas the material itself is the most expensive part in material solutions (i.e. watch faces).

That said, I just got my price quotes back from my friend who has access to wholesaler ordering, with Lexan coming in at $14.09 per square foot and a scratch-coated polycarbonate coming in at $93.22 per square foot. I'm not sure of the details of the coating, other than that it uses a chemical-vapor process and is intended to maintain a smooth, consistent surface and preserve transparency.

DLC coatings are even more expensive per square foot, unless lens manufacturers are dramatically inflating their prices. (DLC is diamond-like carbon, the predominant and superior anti-scratch coating for eyeglass lenses).

Unless there's a viable alternative that is less than double the cost of standard treated polycarbonate that I'm not able to see in any catalogs, anything else would drive the price of the iPod up at least $25-50. I'm sure it's possible to do so, and that the falling prices of such coatings will be appropriate for the iPod in the future. But right now, I see a distinct lack of viable options. From a business perspective, it's a calculation of whether the added expense will increase sales enough to justify it. You and I might pay an extra $30 for a more scratch-resistant iPod, but the lost volume for Apple elsewhere might result in a net loss overall. I'm sure they did the math.

 

[ksz]

...
Unless there's a viable alternative that is less than double the cost of standard treated polycarbonate that I'm not able to see in any catalogs, anything else would drive the price of the iPod up at least $25-50. I'm sure it's possible to do so, and that the falling prices of such coatings will be appropriate for the iPod in the future. But right now, I see a distinct lack of viable options. From a business perspective, it's a calculation of whether the added expense will increase sales enough to justify it. You and I might pay an extra $30 for a more scratch-resistant iPod, but the lost volume for Apple elsewhere might result in a net loss overall. I'm sure they did the math.

But one of your statements all along has been the following:

There is NO flaw in the iPod nano, that the scratchability of the iPod is perfectly okay, that Apple's use of polycarbonate materials for the wear and tear an iPod will experience is justified, that everyone who complains about the scratchability of the iPod is high on something and should be taking lessons from household furniture polishers and Meguire's car kits.

And yet now you are entertaining the possibility of making the iPod scratch resistant. So what has changed between yesterday and today? There is still no scratch problem on the iPod, right?

 

[decksnap]

matticus... i feel ignored. i posted the pictures you asked for. again, here

There is nothing in those pictures, or any of the pictures posted yet, that show a defective product. Those are still just cosmetic scratches, the same as I have posted a picture of on my 2G ipod. It still works fine, and looking at the pictures, so does yours.

 

[Maxx Power]

I think that most people agree the lawsuit is groundless and almost offensive to one's sensibilities. And as for why? This thread is about the lawsuit, perhaps. Just a theory. Even still, I don't believe the nano is more scratch-prone than other iPods.


I made a mistake in judging the cost breakdown of the materials, I admit. The price differential in the end is dramatic. It turns out that the process is the more expensive part in coatings, whereas the material itself is the most expensive part in material solutions (i.e. watch faces).

That said, I just got my price quotes back from my friend who has access to wholesaler ordering, with Lexan coming in at $14.09 per square foot and a scratch-coated polycarbonate coming in at $93.22 per square foot. I'm not sure of the details of the coating, other than that it uses a chemical-vapor process and is intended to maintain a smooth, consistent surface and preserve transparency.

DLC coatings are even more expensive per square foot, unless lens manufacturers are dramatically inflating their prices. (DLC is diamond-like carbon, the predominant and superior anti-scratch coating for eyeglass lenses).

Unless there's a viable alternative that is less than double the cost of standard treated polycarbonate that I'm not able to see in any catalogs, anything else would drive the price of the iPod up at least $25-50. I'm sure it's possible to do so, and that the falling prices of such coatings will be appropriate for the iPod in the future. But right now, I see a distinct lack of viable options. From a business perspective, it's a calculation of whether the added expense will increase sales enough to justify it. You and I might pay an extra $30 for a more scratch-resistant iPod, but the lost volume for Apple elsewhere might result in a net loss overall. I'm sure they did the math.

The coating is done by CVD, chemical vapour deposition, or vacuum vapour deposition, and same way does oakley, and Zellers brand eyeglasses get their coating including those 9.99 gas store sunglasses that are almost disposables. Any pair of glasses you buy these days will have anti-glare and anti-scratch coating, and they work great till you wear them away in years. They are not expensive, that's why its so rampant in the industry. They are used because Polycarbonate as a surface is too soft, it is softer than wood fibre used to make tissue papers, somewhere around 3 on the Moh's scale i suppose, around your finger nails's hardness. If you wear a pair of glasses and inadverdently wipe them with some kind of paper product, you'll eventually ruin the transparency. Oh, and you don't even need optical grade coating for a Nano.

 

[ksz]

Some photos of my 4GB nano.