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
matticus008 said:
CD's are hardly expected to be carried in your pants pocket like apple intended with its launch of the Nano (refer to the video), and they are hardly expensive to replace and isn't expected to be treated as an expensive investment unless you are terribly poor.
matticus008 said:
Do you work for Apple ? If you don't, i suggest you start looking in the perspective of us fellow non-shareholder, regular-money making people. We expect Apple, as well as any other business, whose sole existence on this planet is to satisfy its consumers (including indoctrination to lower people's expectations and to move products, every corp does it). And as such, it's obvious that if there is a bundle of people who PURCHASED the Nano has a problem with it, you can be assured that they are not all stupid, and there is a problem with the product. Your generalistic arguements also apply for just about any other defective product out there, let me give you an exaggerated example that your arguements also cover - the Ford Pinto, it was designed with two 12 inch bolts that mount the back bumper onto the frame, the bolts are within centimeters away from the gas tank, and if you are involved in a rear-ending collision, you'll die from explosive gasoline combustion. By the way of your logic, people are not expected to get involved into accidents, and thus Ford is not responsible. They were responsible and were sued, they didn't take it public by acknowledging the problem and doing a recall, their lawyers estimated it was cheaper just to let everyone to suffered to sue and settle outof court. For the Nano, putting it in your pocket or leaving it in your binder, or on your car dash, or whatever without a included skin is fair and normal use, not even accidental, not covering excessive and premature wear is not acceptable if Apple forseen the "normal" usages of the device, which, judging from their commercials and launch event, would be the situations I said.
Read it again, I said that I have a iPod mini, not a Nano..
Umm. Because I am not the one posting pictures of an iPod that looks like it was hit out of the ballpark by Barry Bonds (after a nice big injection of steriods)..
To the other posters on this forum who have scrathed Nano's do they look like this from normal usage? Just so I get this straight KSV, are you saying that your Nano got this scratched up from normal usage? You never put it in your pocket with keys, cellphone, or anything else that can cause scratches? I am just curious.. If this happened from normal usage you should take it back to Apple and get a replacement, or your money back... And I am not saying that you should sue, but I would be pissed if my Nano was that scratched up just from sitting on my desk, or being exposed to oxygen...
Dude, you are paranoid... When did I ever reference the law suit in my thread? I think you have now written that at least 12 times now in this thread. Just chill... Again, if your Nano was that scratched up because of normal wear and tear than you should contact Apple ASAP. I am sure they will hook you up with a new Nano of give you your money back...
Maxx Power said:
The iPod is a similar investment. I know a lot of companies who no longer replace optical media, or that media is not replaceable, on top of being copy-protected which prevents backups. The cost of the data on that disc can be substantially more than an iPod if it's an expensive application that the company will not replace. CDs are also pretty easily scratched by the cases they're sold in, and by your camp's logic of normal use here, should be expected to stand up to scratching from slot load players in cars and from the occasional drop. Yet they don't.
The iPod, on the other hand, contains a few dollars worth of plastic and metal shell. You're not investing in a plastic casing, you're investing in the contents, which are by and large extremely strong and resilient. Just because what's inside is more expensive than a Nalgene bottle doesn't mean that it's magically better than a Nalgene or that it's not going to look like one after being tossed around like a Nalgene. If the iPod is so expensive an item for you that it causes you financial hardship to purchase, then you need to treat it like it is: a very expensive thing you own (that means gingerly and mildly). If you're not willing to do that, you can't afford an iPod. Seriously. If Adobe Photoshop isn't a serious investment, but an iPod is, where do you draw the line? Photoshop costs more than a nano.
If you draw it where economists do, an iPod falls into that "not a serious investment" side. $200 is not a huge deal for most, and for those where it is substantial, then they need to treat that purchase with matching respect. Calling something particularly expensive and then carrying it around in your pocket or backpack unprotected is a contradiction of terms. It's not a free cell phone or a 20 cent pen, so don't treat it like it is just that. For everyone else, carrying it around in a pocket will cause no damage or great harm.
Just like ksz (evidently) supporting the claim of the lawsuit but not supporting the suit itself. Wrap your mind around that one.
(And hey blaskillet4...thanks for the link! Good (short) read and a promising technology. It doesn't seem to be on the market yet, but we can hope it's as cheap as they say and it doesn't have any problematic limits for use on iPods. EDIT/UPDATE: After a little further reading, it looks like the Durabis coating is referring to scratch resistance in terms of optical transmission, still, and not actual cosmetic scratching--because the evaluation criteria for how resistant to scratches it is is defined as how much "jitter" a reading laser produces. So it's not quite what we need for the iPod, but it certainly would offer at least more physical resistance, which would be good.)
There you go, 51 posts. Every time someone makes another ridiculous claim, there'll be a post to match. People making unsubstantiated claims and accusations is my biggest pet peeve, and when it affects me both as an investor and as someone involved in the legal system and government on top of that, you can bet I'm going to say something about it.
blaskillet4 said:How'd you do that?
Special powers granted to me because I'm of the elite 601 rank.
That's not my argument at all. The Ford Pinto was patently defective. The puncturing of the gas tank was a structural and design flaw. I'd say that explosions affect the functionality of a car. Scratches, however, affect neither the safety nor the use of a nano. You need to read more carefully before responding so basely.Maxx Power said:
Scratches do not cause any appreciable loss of function or safety, unless there is now a problem with exploding iPods, as well.
matticus008 said:
Contradiction of terms ? You are giving an invalid example. If i wore a diamond ring which costs lots of $ and it's not protected from falling off the ring or being incinerated near heat, rest assured it won't be scratched. If i put my Nano in my pants and it gets scratched that's underprotected ?
matticus008 said:
Scratches accumulate, and yes there are plenty of cases where the scratches are starting to, or will eventually render the Nano unreadable on its small screen. But there were battery recalls from apple for the spontaneous combustion of its batteries in powerbooks.
matticus008 said:
I'm not drawing it where an economist do, I'm drawing it where most iPod owners would, it is an expensive piece of equipment with respect to their income. If i spent 300 dollars or so on an iPod (canadian), i'd expect it to have the functionality or the durability of another unit costing only 70 dollars that doesn't get scratched so easily. That is not an unrealistic expectation, even apple endorses the use of ipod bare in your jeans pockets and advertises it as being "strong", which clearly misleads the consumers for the top half of the ipod which is not strong enough to withstand fair use scratches, which accumulate to dull and eventually cause the screen to be unreadable without backlight. Actually, intentionally deceiving or misleading consumers is considered fraud, but have a good time proving that to apple in court, people with Nanos will have to settle for cash instead.
Yes you're right. But the mini is wrapped around a brushed aluminum shell so it's not the same thing. It's understandably resilient.ack_mac said:
Nope. Barry was nowhere in sight.
Define NORMAL USAGE for the iPod. And then tell me where is this information provided. Does Apple define Normal Usage? Your definition of Normal Usage may be very different from mine or Joe iPod Buyer.
This sentence triggered my response:
ack_mac said:
922 said:
Rubbing a Nano with a paper towel doesn't strike me as wise -- and it's for the same reason that you don't rub a pair of eyeglasses with tissue or paper towel -- it scratches the thing.
The lawsuit should be dismissed. You wouldn't clean your iBook or PowerBook screen with a paper towel, would you? Of course not -- it's the wrong thing to use. Like putting leaded gas in the diesel engine of your Mercedes.
1. If it's so expensive, and its aesthetics are what make it valuable to you, why in the world would you toss it around in pockets and backpacks unprotected? Nowhere does Apple say it won't scratch if you use it.Maxx Power said:
2. iPods ARE strong. They are practically indestructible. Scratches do not reflect a lack of strength. iPods have both the functionality and durability of other players. So no, it's not an unrealistic expectation, but it's also one that's been met by the player.
It's actually really simple, yet you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying. The fact that the nano is scratchable is not in dispute. The iPod is not any more or less prone to scratching than anything made of similar plastics, but others are claiming that it is somehow a special case of shoddy workmanship or poor quality. That is not the case. Anyone who makes anything out of shiny plastic has to deal with the reality that it scratches.ksz said:
That doesn't mean it can't improve or that it's not worth improving. All it means is that it's ridiculous to single out the nano, or even iPods in general, since it is an industry-wide phenomenon.
Who exactly are you defending? Are you defending the consumer? Or are you defending your investment in Apple Computer?matticus008 said:
This seems like a conflict of interest. If you own stock in Apple you are no longer qualified to argue with impartiality, and as a lawyer or lawyer-to-be you should know that.
And you continue to misrepresent mine. I can agree with one specific claim of the lawsuit (easy scratchability of the nano and no warnings or cautionary information provided by Apple) without agreeing with the damages they are seeking.matticus008 said:
What is so hard to understand about this?
So why is your mobile phone not covered with scratches? Hundreds of millions of those are sold every year but I don't hear about anyone suing over scratches.matticus008 said:
I'm defending the notion that frivolous lawsuits are why nobody can do business without a massive legal defense fund. I'm defending consumers who don't want to pay out, by means of a higher retail price, reparations to people with no viable claim to fault or damage. I'm defending the freedom of the industry to design attractive products without having to make less aesthetically-pleasing products and finishes because a few buffoons refuse to take responsibility for the general maintenance and care of their purchases. I'm not defending my investment in Apple, as I currently have zero shares of AAPL. I have stock in a diversified portfolio of interests, including materials manufacturers, and these sorts of lawsuits are what cause me to have lower returns.ksz said:
What's hard to understand is that the damages sought are secondary concerns, especially in the pre-trial stage. It's the validity of the suit itself that's in question, and you support a claim which has not been demonstrated with photographic evidence. The claim is therefore invalid without qualified evidence...the filing is full of a little thing called hearsay and nothing more. There is not a single shred of evidence in the filing, or on this forum or any other, that supports the claim. Unverified assertions by some members on internet forums is not fact. This problem must be proved conclusively and factually with hard evidence, specifically photographs or testimony with results of a materials analysis test.ksz said:
It's not covered in scratches because I take reasonable precautions with it. It's also made of metal and a black glossy face, which does have a fair number of scratches on it. The scratches are not different in severity or nature than those on my nano. People don't sue as often because the volume is lower (making it harder to find customers to join the suit, and using multiple models in a single suit makes it much more difficult to win), and suing over a particular model doesn't attract as much publicity. But they certainly do sue, and sue often. But none of them has the irresistable media value or potential profit of an Apple lawsuit. Other mp3 players scratch just as easily as iPods...but nobody cares.ksz said:
Most recently, Verizon was sued over its V710 and lost because of its feature-crippling, as they advertised Bluetooth support but only offered a partial implementation. Phones aren't sued over their cosmetic or aesthetic quality because so far, they've all managed to fail just at being quality phones. Once they break through all the quality issues, you might see phones being sued for scratches, too. They won't be any more valid than the iPod suit.
I'm going to Sum up what I think (as it has taken until now to decide what I think).
Apple needs to make the iPods more scratch-resistant. There are too many people out there complaining for it to be an isolated case, and I doubt all of those people were carrying sandpaper in their pockets. However, I'm not sure Apple deserves getting sued over it - but it might just take that for them to realize the changes they need to make.
(and please no one, don't go through my other posts because this does contradict them)
Apple needs to make the iPods more scratch-resistant. There are too many people out there complaining for it to be an isolated case, and I doubt all of those people were carrying sandpaper in their pockets. However, I'm not sure Apple deserves getting sued over it - but it might just take that for them to realize the changes they need to make.
(and please no one, don't go through my other posts because this does contradict them)
and then I witnessed the damage
One of my students handed me his Nano today and I was floored at the damage on the face and back of this electronic device. We must expect that our youth have come to expect better from an electronics company. Apple has let us down with this iteration of the iPod. I am a fan, but to see the damage make me want to handle my latest iPod video, due in Thursday, with cotton gloves. Apple has become complacent with their market share, kind of sounds like another company we despise.
One of my students handed me his Nano today and I was floored at the damage on the face and back of this electronic device. We must expect that our youth have come to expect better from an electronics company. Apple has let us down with this iteration of the iPod. I am a fan, but to see the damage make me want to handle my latest iPod video, due in Thursday, with cotton gloves. Apple has become complacent with their market share, kind of sounds like another company we despise.
You have still not defined "normal use". What constitutes normal use for an iPod nano that does NOT ship with any protective sleeve and no handling information from its manufacturer?matticus008 said:
Again, I am not talking about the merits or demerits of the American legal system. If you want to argue that, go talk to the Department of Justice.
Don't you think the plaintiff's attorney is going to do this? He, she, or they are going to build a case. I hope the judge throws out all punitive damages and recompenses the plaintiff only for the actual cost of the product, but that is not under my control.
Attract as much publicity? This is merely supposition.
This is once again supposition. Where is your evidence?
Completely argumentative. Mobile phones today are fantastic. They have evolved from car phones to bulky portable phones to true handheld mobile phones. In every respect the mobile phone has seen tremendous advances in technology, reduction in size, increase in talk and standby times, and it is now the center of gravity for the convergence of several consumer technologies such as the digital camera, PDA, MP3 player, 3G video player, etc. Some mobile phones even include short-range walkie-talkie functions.
What quality issues?
Pumice powder in current jeans pockets (artificially aged)
Have you ever considered that current jeans are often aged using pumice stones washes?
Most of the times when you put your hands in new jeans you find pumice powder in them, very abrasive.
So the fault with iPod Nanos is that they are really pocketable, and that pockets are filled with abrasive powder these days.
Ciao,
Dino.
Have you ever considered that current jeans are often aged using pumice stones washes?
Most of the times when you put your hands in new jeans you find pumice powder in them, very abrasive.
So the fault with iPod Nanos is that they are really pocketable, and that pockets are filled with abrasive powder these days.
Ciao,
Dino.
Reminds me of the Paper Towels bought from the Dollar Store that these people are using to clean their Nanos.Dinoone said: