Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
griz said:
Yes, we have two set of people. We have people who take care of their of their stuff and expect a little bit of wear and tear. And people who beat the hell out of their stuff thinking it's going to stay new. These two groups can be referred to as educated and idiots respectively.
It's not a quality control issue. It's a simple matter of people using thier device in different ways and having different expectations.
So, the big question is. Do those who fall into the idiot group also own cars with small dings in them or did they sue the dealer for a new one because it gets dings easily. My 1997 saturn doesn't have a single dent in it, if they can make a car that doesn't ding, then why can't everyone else? My god, if you don't own a Saturn, call your LAWYER...NOW!!! You too can be rich!!

I would still like to see a picture of an ipod screen that is unreadble due to scratches. Or better yet, the one that claims that a single scratch rendered it unreadable.

which is why we use $6000 dollar a tub pure wax and ostrich feathers for cleaning supercars......Apple should just send this quote to the court, you can't really argue with and it's basically all they need to say anyway (maybe bump it up to about 3,000,000,000,000 pages so all the lawbrains are happy)
 
swingerofbirch said:
As I mentioned previously, my 4G iPod is generously being replaced by Apple for a 5G model which is on its way. After reading the warnings here about the nano and 5G's increased sensitivity I have decided to take extra measures. I just ordered a pair of white lint free nylon gloves to use when handling my new iPod.

I also bought a beautiful, handcrafted mahogany curio, in which I will display the iPod, never taken from its original packaging of course.

Free iPod: $0
Gloves: $20
Mahogany Curio: $5,000
Security System Surrounding Curio: $30/month
Knowing My iPod Will Never Get a Single Scratch: Priceless

Haha. What the hell are lint free nylon gloves.
 
ksz said:
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?

No, the statements have been that there is no inherent problem with the nano that makes it a candidate for litigation compared to the rest of the iPods or anything else made of the same material. Everything else made from polycarbonate has the same problem. So you can stop setting up your straw man, because it's not gonna work.

Apple's use of polycarbonate IS justified. It is almost unbreakable, incredibly resilient, it insulates against kinetic shock better than most plastics, offers a strong natural resistance to chemical damage, and it is relatively easy to maintain. Everyone who owns an iPod should know that it, like everything else, will need to be properly maintained, which may include the possibility of needing a quick polish now and again if preserving its original appearance is a high priority.

ALL polycarbonate is coated in some way against scratching, even that of the nano and Nalgene bottles. Yet most products that are not eyeglasses are coated to a lesser extent because it's more economical to do so, and the costs of a superior coating do not warrant its use in most applications. CDs are a prime example of this. If it were extremely cheap to dramatically improve scratch resistance, why have they not improved all that much in the past 20 years? Optical clarity is paramount to their function.

Nothing has changed from yesterday to today. There's nothing wrong with making the iPod better, and there never has been. But suing Apple over the nano while neglecting not only all other iPods, or all other polycarbonate products by Apple, or any other polycarbonate consumer product, or any other plastic product is an absolute load of horse ****.

(And that bottom right picture proves that without glare, even your iPod's screen is completely legible, so you've still got nothing. And what do you have to say about the errant grey click wheel?)
 
gunnz said:

thankyou that makes interesting reading! this guy has certainly gone to town with submitting all his "evidence" from the forums.

i'm sure these laws do exist for a reason, and you'd need even more laws to tighten these ones up, but this guy is an idiot, and must actually get off on behaving like this! i wonder how much all this would cost, just because one guy can't treat his new toy properly and decides he must take it out on "the man"

maybe all cases like this should go to online vote, they get thrown out immediatly if they loose :D
 
firebox said:
sorry i don't understand...
:confused:
i'm genuinely interested in whether he would have to pay the legal costs or not?....seem fair to me!?
i don't really know...no man is an island is a quote from hemingway..basically in reference to your point about paying for the upbringing of other people's children....no man is an island, meaning people can say they are completely independent but who has paid for the roads they drive on to get to work? no man exists without the influence and aid of others....


as far as who pays legal costs, in the US system, as far as i know, each party pays to represent itself, wehn suing you can ask for part of the settlement to cover your legal fees, i think it's up to the judge, if apple won the case and wanted the legal fees back....which they wouldn't do it would be a PR nightmare to try to ask consumers to pay their legal fees, i suppose they could counter-sue...i dont really know though
 
swingerofbirch said:
i don't really know...no man is an island is a quote from hemingway..basically in reference to your point about paying for the upbringing of other people's children....no man is an island, meaning people can say they are completely independent but who has paid for the roads they drive on to get to work? no man exists without the influence and aid of others....


as far as who pays legal costs, in the US system, as far as i know, each party pays to represent itself, wehn suing you can ask for part of the settlement to cover your legal fees, i think it's up to the judge, if apple won the case and wanted the legal fees back....which they wouldn't do it would be a PR nightmare to try to ask consumers to pay their legal fees, i suppose they could counter-sue...i dont really know though

thanks, good quote, and quite true i guess. although you must agree there is a limit! with regards to the legal fees it makes sense that apple wouldn't sue, it even looks good on there part if/when they don't, but i hope this guy has to pay, apple could just make it drag on a bit so it costs him a fortune :)
 
Question

I had a quick question:
I know the Nano's battery is non-user replaceable, but is it even Apple replaceable? I noticed on Apple's website that the Nano is not listed in the battery replacement program. It is just quietly left out. Just wondering.....
I just like the thing so damn much, it would be nice to know.
 
firebox said:
i'm sure these laws do exist for a reason, and you'd need even more laws to tighten these ones up, but this guy is an idiot, and must actually get off on behaving like this! i wonder how much all this would cost, just because one guy can't treat his new toy properly and decides he must take it out on "the man"

I'm still at a loss, why aren't people suing Microsoft for a buggy, time losing, non-secure, but expensive operating system? IF there's these supposed scratch issues some people are having with Nano they pale next to having a worthless OS that causes nothing but failure so much. For Nano users there is other options for MP3 players, they could have bought another, it should be buyer beware, and for the dupes and rubes who so foolishly bought a peecee or anything running Microcrap they coulda bought a Mac, or DIY's box with Linux and/or put Linux on any of the computers out there. With the same (twisted, errant, baseless) logic the Nano sue-happy lusers are applying for "justification" (sic) to sue Apple, there should EASILY be a class action suit against Microsoft for it's atrocities caused by Microsoft Windoze!
 
firebox said:
thankyou that makes interesting reading! this guy has certainly gone to town with submitting all his "evidence" from the forums.

Very interesting reading indeed. He's also not particularly thorough, it seems, with his filings. His poor language skills, in the legal arena, reflect poor research and poor attention to detail. One random example of this is on page 9, where he says "sited" instead of the proper "cited." Any lawyer or anyone involved in writing legal documents uses the verb 'to cite' with almost excessive regularity. This is a mistake a high school student shouldn't make. There are other such examples.

At least five of the 11 claims can be proved false by any law student, and the filing lacks any substantial research into the validity of the claim, from photographs to documented witnessing of damage to any sort of reproductive testing. Asking Apple for the relevant MSD sheets for the nano's shell will allow any chemist or materials science professional to reproduce the polishing and to test the result in the courts. The court will also ask for packaged retail nanos and attempt to demonstrate this alleged damage. The inability to reproduce these conditions in any way substantial enough to cause a lose of use or functionality alone would be enough to toss the suit out, but when coupled with outrageous claims, poor factual support, and the generally low quality of the filing, this wouldn't get past any company's legal team. It'll be interesting to see how it fares in the "wild."
 
ksz said:
Some photos of my 4GB nano.

Ok, these photos are farcical. You've clearly positioned lighting just so, in order to accentuate scratches that from a straight-on viewpoint would be all but invisible. You've clearly had your iPod rolling around in your pocket with keys or some other metal object judging by the deepness of some of the scratches. Swirlmarks in polycarbonate are perfectly normal and you need to stop whining before I come to wherever it is that you stay and put my foot in your ass.

legacyb4 said:
Hmm, taking care not to put it face down on a desk, not wiping with paper towels or other abrasive materials, not putting it into a tight jeans pocket with or without items as there is plenty of crap in there that will be abrasive to the surface of any plastic item, and not tossing it carelessly into a bag/purse/backpack, or otherwise things you would do when handling a 1.5 ounce, $300 dollar item.

My Tag cost me a cool grand; do I do the things I list above if not more? Of course I do and that's why it's pretty much in mint condition despite having had it for 7 years...

Did I miss anything?

Your tag is probably mad eof either stainless steel or titanium. The crystal is crystal is going to be very high quality, and I'll bet my last cent that it came with a matte finish, not the highly polished finish of the ipod. Chemically speaking the crystalline structure of the glass in your watch face should be about 5 times as scratch resistant as polycarbonate. In laymans terms, that means that the watch crystal is harder than 80 percent of the things that are harder than polycarbonate. Also, there is nothing directly behind the face of your watch, this will also lead to it 3being more difficult to detect scratches.
 
wow, I just cancelled my order for the Nano. I guess I'll wait and see what happens.
I was at the apple store last week and saw the nano's on displays and sure they were scratched.
well, hopefully Apple will take care of this problem.
 
I just don't get it..

I have had my iPod mini since June, and it has zero scratches on it after carrying it around in backpacks, on my belt, and a few times in a cargo pocket...

I am sorry KSV, but there is no way those scratches occurred during normal wear and tear.. It looks like you dragged the thing across the ground going about 30mph, or across a bed of nails...

I have several friends who own the nano and just do not have these problems with scratches. They have no case, but I'll admit they they also do not carry them around in their pockets with keys, cellphones, change, etc...

I just do not get it.. Is it possible that this is a ploy from other MP3 makers to try and get bad press about the nano since it is crushing their products in the market?
 
they're even scratched at the Apple Store

I ran out to the Apple Store in Plano, TX (willow bend) to finally see a nano. I went to the first one on the table, pushed the menu button to light up the screen, and.... it was all scratched up. Man, I thought the scratched-nano thing was a fluke by a bunch of complainers, but when the Apple Store's demo Nano is all scratched up - forget it. I'll wait for Nano II
 
SPUY767 said:
Your tag is probably mad eof either stainless steel or titanium. The crystal is crystal is going to be very high quality, and I'll bet my last cent that it came with a matte finish, not the highly polished finish of the ipod. Chemically speaking the crystalline structure of the glass in your watch face should be about 5 times as scratch resistant as polycarbonate
Actually a Tag like my Breitling has a saphire crystal because plain old glass crystal scratched to easily. :rolleyes:
 
shoffmueller said:
I ran out to the Apple Store in Plano, TX (willow bend) to finally see a nano. I went to the first one on the table, pushed the menu button to light up the screen, and.... it was all scratched up. Man, I thought the scratched-nano thing was a fluke by a bunch of complainers, but when the Apple Store's demo Nano is all scratched up - forget it. I'll wait for Nano II
Remember that since this story broke a few weeks ago, people have been actively trying to scratch nanos on display. There was an article a week or two ago about Apple Store managers being extremely irritated about how the displays were being handled and the behavior of people coming in to look at them, to the point where many keep them behind locked cases now and supervise handling. And as is typical for retail demo products, they don't last long. They're usually sold at a reduced price or returned to the manufacturer after a few weeks on the sales floor.

rteichman said:
Actually a Tag like my Breitling has a saphire crystal because plain old glass crystal scratched to easily. :rolleyes:
Yup. It's also a $1000 watch and not a $200 iPod, but you made that quite clear in your post :).

EDIT: Just to sort of clarify why that's an important distinction, remember iSupply's assessment of the nano. The said that the total materials price for a nano was $90.18 plus $8 for assembly including about $50 for the flash memory. That means that there was about $40 to cover everything else (screen, battery, other chips, casing) in order to hit Apple's historic 20% net profit. That also implies that 30% goes to R&D, customer support, warranty replacements, software programming, testing, advertising, and documentation. What's the parts cost of that watch? At least $200, and it has no expensive flash memory in it.
 
Yeah, I bet that's what happened

matticus008 said:
Remember that since this story broke a few weeks ago, people have been actively trying to scratch nanos on display.

but still, it did scare me away.
 
shoffmueller said:
but still, it did scare me away.
That's too bad, too. It's one hell of an mp3 player, one of the best I've had the opportunity to use. But maybe you can pick up a mini while they're still around? They're not as nice as a nano, but they don't show scratches as easily.
 
well, I've got to say that after I saw it on the store it did turn me off the fact it had so many scratches. Maybe this problem will be addressed very soon (maybe before xmas) because the bad press is not good for Apple. Even today there is an article at bbc.com about the lawsuit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4370906.stm
and CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/10/24/apple.nano.reut/index.html

Meanwhile my order is canceled. I wonder if the new Ipod video has the same problem?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.