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
this is stupid
I have had an ipod (4th generation) now for about a year, along with a good buddy of mine who has the ipod nano. i'll admit that there are scratches on both of them, but that is because neither of us have cases for them, and they get thrown in with our keys. you think i can sue apple for my stupidity and lazyness to buy a case??
I have had an ipod (4th generation) now for about a year, along with a good buddy of mine who has the ipod nano. i'll admit that there are scratches on both of them, but that is because neither of us have cases for them, and they get thrown in with our keys. you think i can sue apple for my stupidity and lazyness to buy a case??
These notes should address most of the comments:
1. The photos are completely untouched.
2. The wheel appears gray because the wheel is gray.
3. Scratches are clearly visible even in dim light, particularly on the screen.
4. With backlight turn off, scratches diminish the clarity of the screen. Compare the view from a clean windshield against the view from a cruddy one.
5. The nano is my 3rd iPod. In fact it's the 7th iPod I've purchased (4 were gifts). I treated it no differently from my 30GB iPod.
6. Nano was in the front pocket of my trousers, never in the back.
7. The trousers are not jeans; they are dockers-type pants with soft pockets.
8. The nano was not encased in a sleeve (I don't encase my 30GB iPod in a sleeve either).
9. The nano was never rubbed with a paper towel. Dust was blown off and surface was cleaned by rubbing with my fingers.
10. Don't confuse me with the class action lawsuit. Go back and re-read my posts in this thread; don't jump in the middle.
1. The photos are completely untouched.
2. The wheel appears gray because the wheel is gray.
3. Scratches are clearly visible even in dim light, particularly on the screen.
4. With backlight turn off, scratches diminish the clarity of the screen. Compare the view from a clean windshield against the view from a cruddy one.
5. The nano is my 3rd iPod. In fact it's the 7th iPod I've purchased (4 were gifts). I treated it no differently from my 30GB iPod.
6. Nano was in the front pocket of my trousers, never in the back.
7. The trousers are not jeans; they are dockers-type pants with soft pockets.
8. The nano was not encased in a sleeve (I don't encase my 30GB iPod in a sleeve either).
9. The nano was never rubbed with a paper towel. Dust was blown off and surface was cleaned by rubbing with my fingers.
10. Don't confuse me with the class action lawsuit. Go back and re-read my posts in this thread; don't jump in the middle.
I agree that the lawsuit is frivolous. I think the problem is that most of the nanos seems to scratch very easily and look so bad that basically affect the aesthetic and appeal of the product.
What piss off people is the fact Apple is charging $25 to replace it or return it. I think Apple should just bite the bullet and exchange nanos without charging anything or accept returns and give full refund to defective and very bad scratchy nanos. No questions asked. This lawsuit would never happened in the first place if they were upfront about this issue.
What piss off people is the fact Apple is charging $25 to replace it or return it. I think Apple should just bite the bullet and exchange nanos without charging anything or accept returns and give full refund to defective and very bad scratchy nanos. No questions asked. This lawsuit would never happened in the first place if they were upfront about this issue.
Why should you get a new anything if you broke it? You can't return sunglasses because you scratched the hell out of them three days later, doubly so if they're not labeled scratch-resistant. And why should the restocking fee, which Apple applies to all returned products, not apply here, most of all because the scratched nanos can't even be restocked? Even if you don't agree with a restocking fee in general, you have to set that aside in this issue. The suit isn't trying to get Apple to do away with restocking fees. That would have been too reasonable of a course of action.gugy said:
Apple has made no claim that the iPod is scratch-resistant or scratchproof, so there is no express or implied warranty to merit a return without their standard restocking fee. One might not like it, but c'est la vie.
I find this very hard to believe, but maybe you got one from a good batch.ack_mac said:
Why would I do that? Maybe it's something you would do, but not me.
Again don't confuse me with the lawsuit. There are enough comments in this thread from people who do have a lot of scratches on the nano.
Again, don't confuse me with the lawsuit.
1. There is no warning from Apple that the nano should always be protected.matticus008 said:
2. Apple does not ship the nano with a protective sleeve.
3. Apple does, however, ship the new iPod (video) with a protective sleeve. Steve Jobs made it a point in his Media Event presentation 2 weeks ago.
4. Not shipping the nano with a sleeve and not informing new customers about its scratchability led to many dissatistied customers.
This has been my experience as well. The screen on my black Moto V620 is flawless and its skin has only very minor scratches. It's a cellphone, after all, and goes everything and gets thrown around, but it's highly resilient. It is well designed for the rigors of its intended use and no dire warnings need to be printed on the box.SonComet said:
1. There doesn't need to be. It works just fine with or without a case. It looks better with a protective case, but that's just common sense.ksz said:
2. So? Windows don't come with Windex. Clothes don't come with stain removers.
3. Yeah. And?
4. They knew it didn't have a sleeve, they knew it was shiny and plastic. They bought it anyway. It didn't catch fire or change colors or fall apart or turn into barbed wire. It got scratched, like anything else would. People will always find something to bitch about.
Lertie32 said:
Ahahahaaa! My hunch on PAGE ONE of this thread now appears to be true.
CNN.com just posted a substantiating and Apple-bashing story relating to this lawsuit. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/10/24/apple.nano.reut/index.html
I will say though that I was unimpressed by scratch damage shown by a select few photos on the nanoscratch website... Hard to tell since any camera flash just accentuates the surface reflections.
I remain straddling the fence and can still see both sides of the issue. If this is true though that Apple deliberately ignored/made difficult this "design flaw," then I think they will understandably get roasted for it. Sad, sad story for the annals of Apple design and Apple fans...
Thanks KSZ,
matticus008 seems to be defending Apple at all costs.
Hey, I am Apple number 1 fan. I love them. But if I can see scratches all over the nanos at the Apple store it really concerns me. The product seems to be extremely fragile. I have the first ipod and it doesn't have so many scratches if I compare to the nanos I seem at the store.
So is very possible that the current nanos are not so well manufactured. Maybe Apple needs to revised their materials that they use in manufacturing the nano.
I am not saying that Apple should refund me if I broke my nano or was careless about it. What I am saying that it seems that there is a major problem and Apple should be fair and Address it on the best possible way.
matticus008 seems to be defending Apple at all costs.
Hey, I am Apple number 1 fan. I love them. But if I can see scratches all over the nanos at the Apple store it really concerns me. The product seems to be extremely fragile. I have the first ipod and it doesn't have so many scratches if I compare to the nanos I seem at the store.
So is very possible that the current nanos are not so well manufactured. Maybe Apple needs to revised their materials that they use in manufacturing the nano.
I am not saying that Apple should refund me if I broke my nano or was careless about it. What I am saying that it seems that there is a major problem and Apple should be fair and Address it on the best possible way.
Again, don't confuse me with the lawsuit.matticus008 said:
Yet you admit you would pay an extra $30 for a scratch-resistant iPod. Why would you pay $30 for an improved Apple product if there is no scratching issue? Why not stay content with polishers and protectants?
Again, don't confuse me with the lawsuit. And you again admit that making the iPod better includes making it scratch-resistant.
I have already addressed the grayness issue...my scrollwheel is in fact a shade of gray. The bottom right picture shows less scratches because of the angle of the indent; some scratches reflect light towards you and some reflect light away. The most important angle is head-on, and when viewed as such, the scratches are clearly visible, particularly on the screen.
I'm not defending Apple, I'm defending sensibility against clueless fools with a false sense of entitlement, sometimes better known as "Americans." And I'm not Apple's number 1 fan.gugy said:
gugy,gugy said:
I agree with you. Neither of us has any part in the lawsuit and neither of us wants any part of the lawsuit.
I want a better product and I am a dissatistifed customer because the nano is so easily scratched.
Given a choice between having to cover up the beautiful nano and treat it more delicately than a wilting flower, or to have Apple produce a scratch-resistant nano that I can show off, which would I choose? Always the latter. I find it hard to believe that iPods cannot be made scratch resistant at a cost-effective price.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT. IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT, DON'T POST HERE.ksz said:
Those clueless fools who are precipitating the lawsuit do not live here on this forum.matticus008 said:
If you really want to defend sensibility against clueless fools, I suggest you go talk to the prosecuting attorney or the plaintiffs.
What you are doing here is like delivering Kashmiri quake relief aid to Brazil. Wrong audience.
gugy said:matticus008, you don't get tired!
I think I've seem at least 30 replies by you.
chill man!
Actually it's been 50 posts on the nose. ksz has only had 27 himself.
would glass work I dont that stuff scratches easy and its actually quite durable but i guess if somebody breaks it then theyll sue apple for a dangerous product.
I see these likely consequences- apple invests alot of money in stopping the nano from scartching and thus the price greatly increases and nobody buys them. They keep things the way they are and everyone gets angry because nanos are scratchable, they use a material like glass some morons break it an sue apple for making a dangerous product, I still think that the ipod 3rd gen doesnt scratch nearly as easily as the nano (from first hand expirience) so apple goes back to whatever they were doing then.
I see these likely consequences- apple invests alot of money in stopping the nano from scartching and thus the price greatly increases and nobody buys them. They keep things the way they are and everyone gets angry because nanos are scratchable, they use a material like glass some morons break it an sue apple for making a dangerous product, I still think that the ipod 3rd gen doesnt scratch nearly as easily as the nano (from first hand expirience) so apple goes back to whatever they were doing then.
Clickwheel
Yeah....I love my nano. The sound is incredible, and the design is so damn sleek. I am more careful with it than my 3g ipod, but it is pretty fragile. With the silicone case protecting the bulk of the nano, and the decalgirl shield protecting the clickwheel and screen, I just throw it in my pocket. As long as I don't sit on it, or gouge it with a key, it's completely protected. I think the light blue case looks good with the black underneath. Can't wait for those nano tubes though.
So...when people say that there is a battery problem, what are they talking about? The fact that it doesn't last 16 hours?
I guess there's some variation within the click wheel coloring? I wonder if that's intentional.
ksz said:
Yeah....I love my nano. The sound is incredible, and the design is so damn sleek. I am more careful with it than my 3g ipod, but it is pretty fragile. With the silicone case protecting the bulk of the nano, and the decalgirl shield protecting the clickwheel and screen, I just throw it in my pocket. As long as I don't sit on it, or gouge it with a key, it's completely protected. I think the light blue case looks good with the black underneath. Can't wait for those nano tubes though.
So...when people say that there is a battery problem, what are they talking about? The fact that it doesn't last 16 hours?
I guess there's some variation within the click wheel coloring? I wonder if that's intentional.
matticus008 said:
Hey matticus008, if you're still here. I found it (As promised)
Its been adopted by blue ray... Now we just need to slap Apple in the face, and get them to use this (or similar) for the nano...
Here: http://www.durabis.com/en/tec00200.htm
this is a weird lawsuit...
i didn't know consumers are entitled to a claim on something which isn't a hardware defect
i didn't know consumers are entitled to a claim on something which isn't a hardware defect
Zoowatch said:
Yep - apparently aesthetic defects are fair game nowadays as well!
Maybe I'll sue Apple because my nano is too black...
blaskillet4 said:Hey matticus008, if you're still here. I found it (As promised)
Its been adopted by blue ray... Now we just need to slap Apple in the face, and get them to use this (or similar) for the nano...
Here: http://www.durabis.com/en/tec00200.htm
or they could just use this