iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[matticus008]

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?

Normal use includes carrying it around, listening to music, connecting it to a computer or home stereo, and storing it in a clean, dry, and reasonable environment. But there is no express or implied guarantee that it will remain free from scratches in normal use...only that it will remain functional, which it does perfectly well. Everything scratches in the course of normal use and everything becomes dirty as well. Normal use includes the responsibility for general cleaning and care, including polishing of scratches.

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.

The attorney had the reasonable onus to include that evidence in the original filing. You simply cannot wait until something goes to trial to procure evidence. He has brought none to the table.

Attract as much publicity? This is merely supposition.

Granted. But how many lawsuits are covered by media sources with prominent placement? An extremely small minority. How many of Apple's lawsuits are covered by the media? Certainly more than many other companies, and this isn't necessarily proportional to the number of suits. Microsoft and Apple are two big technology companies that the media knows can stir up trouble just by mentioning. Case in point: did you know about the V710, or even what the suit requested? Probably not, because it didn't get that much coverage. But it exposed a major problem in the industry: locking down of phones by service providers in order to prevent customers from using their devices as they are meant to and without extra charge. That's a much more important issue than any light cosmetic scratching.

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.

Yet coverage is sporadic, and there are numerous complaints on relevant forums about reception, audio quality, and reliability of network connections. HowardForums would be a good source to explore the many thousands of complaints against cell phones, all equally valid to any nano complaints currently filed. Do phones work in elevators or in many of California's seismically-retrofitted buildings? Not a chance. Should they? I think they should, since the quality of the reception is prohibiting me from normal use in my own home to the point where I have to step outside. But I'm not suing anybody, because I know the limitation of the technology means that the radio waves are inherently limited by not being able to pass through some kinds of materials, and some cash isn't going to change that.

But the point remains that the suit should have been filed WITH evidence (there's not even so much as an IOU slipped in, not that that would be acceptable), and if the problem is as widespread as claimed, there should be at least one picture on the internet worse than Ars Technica's showing a loss of functionality. That distinct lack of evidence and factual support is my problem. Until then, it's just endless and unsubstantiated whining.

 

[ksz]

Normal use includes carrying it around, listening to music, connecting it to a computer or home stereo, and storing it in a clean, dry, and reasonable environment.

Does "carrying it around" include putting it into your pocket? Front pocket? Rear pocket? Denim pocket? Non-denim only? Can you carry currency in the same pocket? Or credit cards?

But there is no express or implied guarantee that it will remain free from scratches in normal use...only that it will remain functional, which it does perfectly well. Everything scratches in the course of normal use and everything becomes dirty as well. Normal use includes the responsibility for general cleaning and care, including polishing of scratches.

Not everything is as intolerant to scratches. The degree of impact or degree of abrasion needed to forge a scratch on the nano is, in my view, greatly disproportionate to most other portable consumer items.

Case in point: did you know about the V710, or even what the suit requested? Probably not, because it didn't get that much coverage. But it exposed a major problem in the industry: locking down of phones by service providers in order to prevent customers from using their devices as they are meant to and without extra charge. That's a much more important issue than any light cosmetic scratching.

This may be true, but it's not really relevant. The amount of media coverage is beyond our control. The media is not, in my view, providing excess coverage to the iPod scratch case. They are providing coverage, but it is not beyond a reasonable level. We are tending to exaggerate media coverage in this thread.

Do phones work in elevators or in many of California's seismically-retrofitted buildings? Not a chance. Should they? I think they should, since the quality of the reception is prohibiting me from normal use in my own home to the point where I have to step outside.

Most mobile carriers inform you of the conditions under which reception will be poor or non-existent. They also provide coverage maps for cities and highways. And they provide you with Analog Roam as a backup.

 

[matticus008]

Does "carrying it around" include putting it into your pocket? Front pocket? Rear pocket? Denim pocket? Non-denim only? Can you carry currency in the same pocket? Or credit cards?

Sure. But like I said, no express or implied warranty asserting it will remain free of scratches has been presented to you.

Not everything is as intolerant to scratches. The degree of impact or degree of abrasion needed to forge a scratch on the nano is, in my view, greatly disproportionate to most other portable consumer items.

But your view still lacks photographic support. Yes, there are scratched nanos. These things happen, and no one's scratches can't be remedied by an inexpensive and commonly available cleaning and polishing agent designed for the care of plastic items.

This may be true, but it's not really relevant. The amount of media coverage is beyond our control. The media is not, in my view, providing excess coverage to the iPod scratch case. They are providing coverage, but it is not beyond a reasonable level. We are tending to exaggerate media coverage in this thread.

I'll agree with you here, but I think they need to do a better job of covering important suits, such as the V710, and not giving high billing to lawsuits with no technical merit and whose reporting journalists are just as guilty of hopping on the internet meme bandwagon as the others. Apple is overrepresented in media coverage, for good and for bad. In this case, no investigative journalism at work...just posting the story because they know it will draw hits.

Most mobile carriers inform you of the conditions under which reception will be poor or non-existent. They also provide coverage maps for cities and highways. And they provide you with Analog Roam as a backup.

I don't think so. If I'm in a defined coverage area, I should get service in my own home, but I do not. I don't recall reading a notice that says "cell phones may not work in your home or in your two-floor office building." Nevermind the dropped calls that happen when I walk under a bridge or between two tall buildings. Cellular service leaves a lot to be desired in quality and range of service, in my opinion. And none of the GSM networks I've used have any sort of analog support, nor have my past two cell phones had analog tranceivers. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to have cellular service inside my own home within plain sight of the city skyline. But nonetheless, that's the way it is and I'm not the only one. The number of people screaming into their phones in public is a fair enough indication for me. But I'm not collecting evidence for a lawsuit.

 

[ksz]

Sure. But like I said, no express or implied warranty asserting it will remain free of scratches has been presented to you.

Yes I know. Apple's standard disclaimer as far back as I can remember offers no warranties whether express or implied unless required by local laws. But if placing the unprotected nano in the front pocket, back pocket, in denim pants, with paper currency, and with credit cards is all considered *normal* then the nano should offer even a modicum of scratch protection from this, but it does not. If I subject my mobile phone to the same rigors, it comes away totally unscathed, but the appearance of the nano is tarnished in as little as 2 days.

But your view still lacks photographic support.

This is merely your opinion. My nano has developed more than 100 scratches from "normal use" and in very short time. This is greatly disproportionate to all other portable devices I own or that I have owned in the past.

Yes, there are scratched nanos. These things happen, and no one's scratches can't be remedied by an inexpensive and commonly available cleaning and polishing agent designed for the care of plastic items.

I have tried polishing agents on my 30GB iPod...many times. These agents do *NOT* clear away all scratches. They can improve the look, but they cannot restore it. The best you can do is treat the device more delicately than a wilting flower to prevent any further outbreaks, but where's the fun in the iPod when you become so obsessed with keeping it scratch-free? You should be able to use it more freely, to expose it to the air, to show it off. Instead, we are put into a state of constant fear over the outbreak of unwanted scratches.

 

[Kid Red]

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.

Where is this bundle of people? I mean 1 million nanos were sold in what, the first month? And other then yourself and maybe 2-3 people here and the idiot that filed the law suit, that's 4 people out of 1 million? I'm a shareholder AND I have a 4g photo and my wife has a Nano. Her Nano is in EXCELLENT shape, know why? She has the arm band sleeve. Mine has some scratches. Know why? I keep mine in my pocket. Her Nano is flawless, mine has scratches. If I wanted mine pristine, I would keep it in a sleeve. But I don't and I understand by me not protecting it, it will develop scratches because it's a soft plastic. The 'tiny' 'surface' 'scratches' mine has are 'only' 'visible' when holding the unit at an angle and looking for the light to refract off the valley. That's normal use and I don't see why a few people feel the need to whine about some scratches AND NONE HAVE USED A SLEEVE.

There is no argument. If you want something to remain in perfect condition, then you treat it as such. Normal use will result in normal ware, in this case, minor scuffs and surface scratches.

In no such example have I seen a SCREEN UNUSABLE as noted in the lawsuit. He's a bitter PC user looking to take it to Apple and isn't smart enough to buy a sleeve. Or maybe he's too cheap and now he's just whining.

 

[Maxx Power]

Where is this bundle of people? I mean 1 million nanos were sold in what, the first month? And other then yourself and maybe 2-3 people here and the idiot that filed the law suit, that's 4 people out of 1 million? I'm a shareholder AND I have a 4g photo and my wife has a Nano. Her Nano is in EXCELLENT shape, know why? She has the arm band sleeve. Mine has some scratches. Know why? I keep mine in my pocket. Her Nano is flawless, mine has scratches. If I wanted mine pristine, I would keep it in a sleeve. But I don't and I understand by me not protecting it, it will develop scratches because it's a soft plastic. The 'tiny' 'surface' 'scratches' mine has are 'only' 'visible' when holding the unit at an angle and looking for the light to refract off the valley. That's normal use and I don't see why a few people feel the need to whine about some scratches AND NONE HAVE USED A SLEEVE.

There is no argument. If you want something to remain in perfect condition, then you treat it as such. Normal use will result in normal ware, in this case, minor scuffs and surface scratches.

In no such example have I seen a SCREEN UNUSABLE as noted in the lawsuit. He's a bitter PC user looking to take it to Apple and isn't smart enough to buy a sleeve. Or maybe he's too cheap and now he's just whining.

And what does your testimony offer ? Just on this thread there are plenty of people claiming that they have seen or owned a nano that was excessively scratched by normal use. So your gadget is not scratched, and you belong to the pile of people whose Nano is still fairly pristine, other than that, there is nothing more your evidence offers. The small scratches you mentino of, will overtime develop more and more, and along with bigger scratches over time, if you really baby your Nano, you'll delay this perhaps indefinitely, but the whole point was that this was a product that was designed and marketed to people who wanted its durability and compactness to use in any pocket or put into a purse, or whatever.

 

[Maxx Power]

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.
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.

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.

Its asthestics is not what makes it valuable to, what I hope, most people, however, the reason why people choose apple products in a seeminly free market is inarguably biased toward its asthetism either in its design, physical shape, or ease of use. If you compromise that by a flawed design, yet you continue to claim to offer any of the asthetism people associate your products and choose your products by, then you are misleading people and commiting fraud.
This statement "practically indestructable" is overstated everytime. Who's to define practical use ? Should I have to take Apple's definition of practical use and understand it fully before I'm about to buy an item ? If so was required, a lot less products will be sold. If i'm using it for my purposes that I think are practical, why shouldn't they be ? Besides, if apple execs use this player in their jeans pockets as they have, why shouldn't I ? And it this causes premature wear and accelerated marring of the surface until it is ridden with scratches, then maybe people have a case to fight for.
Perhaps this is an industry-wide phenomenon, but where else do you see polycarbonate covering half of the music player, namely the side that will come into contact with your pants ? And who else makes a small and stylish product to compete with Apple ? That's why apple is reaping in loads of profit, they jumped to the market early with a form factor that, from the perspective of corporate media, they created.

 

[Maxx Power]

Yet coverage is sporadic, and there are numerous complaints on relevant forums about reception, audio quality, and reliability of network connections. HowardForums would be a good source to explore the many thousands of complaints against cell phones, all equally valid to any nano complaints currently filed. Do phones work in elevators or in many of California's seismically-retrofitted buildings? Not a chance. Should they? I think they should, since the quality of the reception is prohibiting me from normal use in my own home to the point where I have to step outside. But I'm not suing anybody, because I know the limitation of the technology means that the radio waves are inherently limited by not being able to pass through some kinds of materials, and some cash isn't going to change that.

Cellphone technology uses Electromagnetic waves to communicate, to which, metallic materials are inherently opaque in frequency. That is not a design flaw of the cellphone, or cellphones as you said. There is no way to get around this, its just standard physics. But if i designed a cellphone with intentionally poor reception since designing the antenna properly would take more time because I have to rush it to the market before anyone else can, then that's something that deserves a class action lawsuit.

 

[Kid Red]

And what does your testimony offer ? Just on this thread there are plenty of people claiming that they have seen or owned a nano that was excessively scratched by normal use. So your gadget is not scratched, and you belong to the pile of people whose Nano is still fairly pristine, other than that, there is nothing more your evidence offers. The small scratches you mentino of, will overtime develop more and more, and along with bigger scratches over time, if you really baby your Nano, you'll delay this perhaps indefinitely, but the whole point was that this was a product that was designed and marketed to people who wanted its durability and compactness to use in any pocket or put into a purse, or whatever.

Wow, my point flew over your head? I'll try to dumb it down some.

You have scratches. You are complaining. Yet, you didn't put your Nano in a sleeve to protect it. During normal use it developed scratches. You complain. Normal use will result in normal scratches. Those scratches DO NOT impair the device ability to function. Those scratches DO NOT result in a lack of functionality. Those scratches do not render the screen unusable. Those scratches are well, normal. You are complaining.

Just to recap my conclusions-

-The lawsuit is crap because such scratches do not impair function.
-Scratches are normal and have happened since the iBook/pBook plastics
-Such scratches do NOT impair functionality
-Scratches are in no way related to or lead to non functional screens
-Scratches are only cosmetic
-Normal use may result in cosmetic imperfections
-To avoid such imperfection, buy a $20 sleeve

I hope that delivered a bit more to this topic for you. I'm not sure what more evidence you could want because there isn't any to support the lawsuit's claim and therefore burden of proof does not lie with Apple or myself.

 

[Maxx Power]

Wow, my point flew over your head? I'll try to dumb it down some.

You have scratches. You are complaining. Yet, you didn't put your Nano in a sleeve to protect it. During normal use it developed scratches. You complain. Normal use will result in normal scratches. Those scratches DO NOT impair the device ability to function. Those scratches DO NOT result in a lack of functionality. Those scratches do not render the screen unusable. Those scratches are well, normal. You are complaining.

Just to recap my conclusions-

-The lawsuit is crap because such scratches do not impair function.
-Scratches are normal and have happened since the iBook/pBook plastics
-Such scratches do NOT impair functionality
-Scratches are in no way related to or lead to non functional screens
-Scratches are only cosmetic
-Normal use may result in cosmetic imperfections
-To avoid such imperfection, buy a $20 sleeve

I hope that delivered a bit more to this topic for you. I'm not sure what more evidence you could want because there isn't any to support the lawsuit's claim and therefore burden of proof does not lie with Apple or myself.

Settle down there, I never said I owned a Nano, i just saw some nanos and their scratches and saw how everyone was using a Nano around me, believe me, I'd never shell out 300 dollars for something that just plays music, and mostly distracting corporate music.
I'm just supporting the lawsuit, which as someone else posted before, and I hope this is clear to you, is the only way to receive Apple's attention in designing better products since you directly appeal to the shareholders this way.
I don't agree with your "just cosmetic" claim, for I have said that many people who bought this product over competitive products in this or other sectors of the market is based on the "cosmetic" and "ease of use" factor. If Apple misleads people on the cosmetics because it doesn't hold up to normal use the way they intended it to be used, then a lawsuit will remind apple to pick up the slack, the lawsuit is intended for those who have been inconvenienced by, or felt they were cheated by apple's easily scratchable screens on the Nano, if you are not part of that group, then please do not prejudice against that group because you can not comprehend their perceived loss.

 

[ack_mac]

To all the people in this forum who have scratched Nano's what have you done to date to resolve this? Specifically:
- After you noticed the first few scratches did you attempt to buy a sleeve or maybe change the way that you are handling the device?
- Call Apple to discuss the issue and whether or not you could refund the product for either a new one, or a refund?

KSV, the pictures you posted obviously show some serious scratching and I am curious what you have attempted to do to help prevent or mitigate future scratching.

Finally, if cosmetic scratches are such a major issue that individuals feel the need to sue Apple, did they ever think to simply return the product (Apple has a pretty good return policy) and buy either a different iPod, or perhaps another product altogether?

If it were me, and I was that upset about it, I would talk to Apple. If they could not make me happy then Iwould return it and buy something else. I would not even think to sue them over some cosmetic scratches.

Not this is even close to being an accurate analogy, but I bought a brand new, and fairly expenseive, car a few years ago. Within about 48 houts I had a big scratch on the passenger side right front panel (the joys of living near DC). Was I pissed. You bet. Did I go back to the Nissan/Infiniti dealer demanding a new car or new paint job because the car was scratched? No. Did I sue. No. I understood that living in the area that I live in, these things happen. It is no fault of the paint, nor the manufacturer. This is what happens when you park your car in a crowded parking lot..

Anyway, life is too short to get yourselves so built up over this that you feel the need to sue.. At some point, just take the friggin thing back to Apple and buy a crappy Creative MP3 player...

 

[gunnz]

Settle down there, I never said I owned a Nano, i just saw some nanos and their scratches and saw how everyone was using a Nano around me, believe me, I'd never shell out 300 dollars for something that just plays music, and mostly distracting corporate music.
I'm just supporting the lawsuit, which as someone else posted before, and I hope this is clear to you, is the only way to receive Apple's attention in designing better products since you directly appeal to the shareholders this way.
I don't agree with your "just cosmetic" claim, for I have said that many people who bought this product over competitive products in this or other sectors of the market is based on the "cosmetic" and "ease of use" factor. If Apple misleads people on the cosmetics because it doesn't hold up to normal use the way they intended it to be used, then a lawsuit will remind apple to pick up the slack, the lawsuit is intended for those who have been inconvenienced by, or felt they were cheated by apple's easily scratchable screens on the Nano, if you are not part of that group, then please do not prejudice against that group because you can not comprehend their perceived loss.

No offense, but it's funny how so many people don't own a nano, yet talk about them all the time. I think if you owned one, you'd understand. You can return the thing and get a brand new one. On the other hand, we have to admit that they are fragile in comparison to other iPods. It's mainly because:
A) The normal scratch will look bigger on the nano.
B) The nano comes in black.
C) Instead of the rounded edges and corners of the ipod, it has a squared-off edge. Somehow, I think it makes the scratches easier to see in the light.
By the way, I throw my nano in with my keys ALL the time. Not a scratch.

 

[Sdashiki]

LOUD NOISES

sheesh get a chat room and go at it.

500+ posts and no one has ever gotten anywhere, I can see this going on forever.

 

[matticus008]

Yes I know. Apple's standard disclaimer as far back as I can remember offers no warranties whether express or implied unless required by local laws. But if placing the unprotected nano in the front pocket, back pocket, in denim pants, with paper currency, and with credit cards is all considered *normal* then the nano should offer even a modicum of scratch protection from this, but it does not. If I subject my mobile phone to the same rigors, it comes away totally unscathed, but the appearance of the nano is tarnished in as little as 2 days.

That's your opinion. All polycarbonate sheeting is coated for scratch resistance. It's not like Apple strips this off, and it's not as high quality a coating as expensive eyeglass lenses for a number of reasons. However, "normal use" does NOT mean that a product should be invulnerable to normal wear and tear, which is exactly what you are asking for. Unless your nano doesn't work, you've got no cause for compensation. You can be unhappy about it, fine, but it's not Apple's job to give you money for it. Otherwise, why even have a concept of "wear and tear?" Why have a polish and cleaning market for plastics that existed long before the nano and will exist long after it's gone?

This is merely your opinion. My nano has developed more than 100 scratches from "normal use" and in very short time. This is greatly disproportionate to all other portable devices I own or that I have owned in the past.

No, it's not just opinion. No scratch has yet to interfere with the function of the music player, and therefore there has yet to be a warranted claim against the functionality or durability of the device. You say the scratching is disproportionate to everything in YOUR experience, which is YOUR opinion and may be true in your experience, but no nano has yet been demonstrated to have an outrageous number of scratches for being made of plastic. I'm sorry, but your scratches, highly exaggerated by your images, are still not severe enough that you can claim to have a problem. Use one of the available polishing products, and your nano will look great again.

I have tried polishing agents on my 30GB iPod...many times. These agents do *NOT* clear away all scratches. They can improve the look, but they cannot restore it.

Nothing's perfect. As you said, they can improve the look. For a cost per application of a few cents, expecting more is unrealistic.

The best you can do is treat the device more delicately than a wilting flower to prevent any further outbreaks, but where's the fun in the iPod when you become so obsessed with keeping it scratch-free? You should be able to use it more freely, to expose it to the air, to show it off. Instead, we are put into a state of constant fear over the outbreak of unwanted scratches.

You can stop worrying about minor cosmetic problems and actually enjoy the device at any point. Polish it every few months, and it will continue to work perfectly well for a long time to come. If you're obsessive about scratches, you should use a case, period. You can't expect it to remain free of scratches if you actually use it. That like expecting the soles of your shoes not to wear down if you walk in them. It happens, it's manageable, there is a longstanding line of products to remedy it, and it has zero affect on the durability or usability of the product.

Cellphone technology uses Electromagnetic waves to communicate, to which, metallic materials are inherently opaque in frequency. That is not a design flaw of the cellphone, or cellphones as you said. There is no way to get around this, its just standard physics.

And there you have it! That's exactly right at the consumer level. Now replace "cellphone" with "iPod", "electromagnetic waves to communicate" with "polycarbonate," "metallic" with "harder," and "opaque in frequency" with "capable of scratching."

I'll do it for you. iPod technology uses polycarbonate, to/against which harder materials are inherently capable of scratching. There is no way to get around this, it's just standard physics.

Cell phones could use stronger signals, but they don't. They could use a lower frequency for better range, but they don't. But you're willing to accept that as a technical limitation. My radio works inside my house, so should my cell phone. You can't take opposite sides.

 

[Azbola]

2 pennies worth

I have been reading this thread as my girlfriends nano has the same problem as everyone elses:

1) It is kept in a cotton shirt breast pocket or sealed pocket in a handbag with nothing else.
2) 4 weeks old now
3) It is scratched to bits
5) No other device I or she have ever had does this - mobile, watch, mini disk, walkman, glasses etc etc.

It really is that simple - this product is not made well enough.

People say if you don't like it, don't buy one
- Too late it's already been bought

People say if you don't like it, take it back
- Apple store says "Tough luck not our problem"

 

[gugy]

Ok, Here is what I think are the good and bad about the lawsuit.

THE BAD:

• Lawsuit is frivolous
• Lawyers will make big money
• Responsibility and ethics: people will take advantage of it. Consumers who did not take care of their Nanos will take advantage of it
• Consumers/lawyers asking for share of Apple profits should be shot in the head.
• More than a small percentage of Nanos were defective or were manufactured with bad materials/products. Making very prone to scratches. Even when consumers were careful.
• Bad press for Apple
• Some people will not buy the Nano because of it.

THE GOOD

• Apple might drop the refund/exchange fees for defective Nanos.
• Apple might take action and fixed/change the materials used on the Nanos, making more durable
• Case manufactures will make more money
• Apple might refund fees for consumers who return/exchange their Nanos. (please remember: responsibility / ethics above)
• Apple might come with a better explanation of the Nano problem.
• Hopefully consumers will be more careful handling their Nanos.
• Consumers will feel more confident in buying Nanos if Apple take the steps above.

 

[ack_mac]

I have been reading this thread as my girlfriends nano has the same problem as everyone elses:

1) It is kept in a cotton shirt breast pocket or sealed pocket in a handbag with nothing else.
2) 4 weeks old now
3) It is scratched to bits
5) No other device I or she have ever had does this - mobile, watch, mini disk, walkman, glasses etc etc.

It really is that simple - this product is not made well enough.

People say if you don't like it, don't buy one
- Too late it's already been bought

People say if you don't like it, take it back
- Apple store says "Tough luck not our problem"

Wow, I am really glad I have an iPod mini vs. a Nano..
Let me ask you something (and I am not doubting that your gf's Nano is scratched). Since it is "scratched to bits", at one point during Apple's return policy did you not think to take it back? Or did all of the scratches occur after the return policy had expired? Just curious..

 

[Eniregnat]

There are a lot of pages here, so perhaps I missed somebody else posting this. This set of "tests" was done with the first week of the Nano's release.

Link to the first page of the article about the "Nano destruction tests".

It seems that in normal use would cause scratches. This is just my view, but when I get a cool anodized keychain or key, I expect it to get damaged with normal use. Plastic is never scratch free. Clear plastic on a dark background with tangental light shinning on it highlights scratches.

So far it looks like it takes a lot for a Nano's screen to become unreadable scratchy. Using Google, I haven’t found any images of Nano's badly scratched in normal use. This is a little telling, though a lawyer would note that this is just prudent.

In any case, it's a boon to other music outlets, services, and playback manufacturers. Even if it is unsubstantiated, it will damage sales.

It took a lot of work to scratch the Nano below (left). The photo to the right (biologic left) is after Sitting, dropping it while jogging, bicycling, and dropping it out a car going 30mph (48kph for the rest of the sane world or for our graphic artists 11400000 picas per hour-postscript)

 

[matticus008]

There are a lot of pages here, so perhaps I missed somebody else posting this. This set of "tests" was done with the first week of the Nano's release.

Link to the first page of the article about the "Nano destruction tests".

It seems that in normal use would cause scratches. This is just my view, but when I get a cool anodized keychain or key, I expect it to get damaged with normal use. Plastic is never scratch free. Clear plastic on a dark background with tangental light shinning on it highlights scratches.

Exactly right. The Ars link and pictures have been in this thread, but it bears repeating since it's conveniently skipped over frequently, it seems. What they did to the nano is far above and beyond normal use, and even then, the screen and controls were still functional (until being run over by a car, which caused the LCD to stop responding, but the controls and music playing ability continued to work). This is one tough player.

I don't know any reasonable person that expects something they carry around and use daily to remain scratchless, unless that something is a quality watch, scratchproof lenses, or sapphire or diamond jewelry. All of these are far more expensive relative to their markets (a minimum of five times the price of entry-level matching merchandise) than any iPod. The only Archos I've seen (an $850 portable movie player) has had some scratches on it, too.

 

[phd]

maybe a little off topic

A Charlotte, North Carolina lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and WON! (Stay with me.)


In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer "held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".


NOW FOR THE BEST PART


After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.


This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.

 

[ack_mac]

Black vs. White...

Just a point of clarification, is it mostly the black Nanos that are showing the scratches the worst? Every picture I have seen shows a black nano.. If that is the case then I would think that if someone were worried about the cosmetic features of the nano, they should think to purchase the white one...

 

[Maxx Power]

And there you have it! That's exactly right at the consumer level. Now replace "cellphone" with "iPod", "electromagnetic waves to communicate" with "polycarbonate," "metallic" with "harder," and "opaque in frequency" with "capable of scratching."

I'll do it for you. iPod technology uses polycarbonate, to/against which harder materials are inherently capable of scratching. There is no way to get around this, it's just standard physics.

Cell phones could use stronger signals, but they don't. They could use a lower frequency for better range, but they don't. But you're willing to accept that as a technical limitation. My radio works inside my house, so should my cell phone. You can't take opposite sides.

You are a pro at twisting words my friend. There are many other types of plastic that are much harder and can be used as casing material, I don't hear everyone else complaining about any other object made of plastic that we use which suffers from excessive scratch. The keyboard keys are made of plastic, I type on it all the time and very frequently strike my nails against the keys, they don't scratch, i can scratch the ipod surface with my nails and copper coins which has a hardness of 3, finger nails has a hardness of 2.5. There is no reason why they can't harden the polycarbonate plastic with some minerals or additives, many other kinds of plastics used has a hardness beyond copper, a very soft mineral. Cellphones can't use stronger signals, it's per FTC regulation for public interference and human health, there is a limitation that we decided upon when the health board and communications board decided what was acceptable. It's not a technical limitation, but not being able to transmit in certain houses is due to a physical limitation, the iPod being easily scratchable is due to a corporate decision to use last-minute materials for cost cutting, rush to the market, whatever their reason is, its nature is inherently different. SO of course there is a way to get around using polycarbonate, DON"T USE IT, or harden it with a coating. Is that so hard ?

I don't know any reasonable person that expects something they carry around and use daily to remain scratchless, unless that something is a quality watch, scratchproof lenses, or sapphire or diamond jewelry. All of these are far more expensive relative to their markets (a minimum of five times the price of entry-level matching merchandise) than any iPod. The only Archos I've seen (an $850 portable movie player) has had some scratches on it, too.

Nobody expects it to remain pristine through use, but if it starts to hinder the readability of the screen, or if it starts ruining the intended cosmetic design of the unit in such a short time after the Nano's release, then that is different matter at hand.

Wow, I am really glad I have an iPod mini vs. a Nano..
Let me ask you something (and I am not doubting that your gf's Nano is scratched). Since it is "scratched to bits", at one point during Apple's return policy did you not think to take it back? Or did all of the scratches occur after the return policy had expired? Just curious..

the return policy cleverly does not cover this type of damage. Seems like they planned it out doesn't it ?

No offense, but it's funny how so many people don't own a nano, yet talk about them all the time. I think if you owned one, you'd understand. You can return the thing and get a brand new one. On the other hand, we have to admit that they are fragile in comparison to other iPods. It's mainly because:
A) The normal scratch will look bigger on the nano.
B) The nano comes in black.
C) Instead of the rounded edges and corners of the ipod, it has a squared-off edge. Somehow, I think it makes the scratches easier to see in the light.
By the way, I throw my nano in with my keys ALL the time. Not a scratch.

What i think happened is the first batch of the Nanos were rushed, and this polycarbonate resin was not properly fixed with whatever they cure it with. Then they released some nanos that have a better surface. I have seen nanos that were literally scratched to bits by coins and keys, while one of my colleague's friends's nano was still in pretty good shape. Or maybe it was just random deviation in softness across a batch or two of the players. Oh, and you can't just return it, should read the policies. Unless you are in UK, then you have 15 days if you buy it online.

 

[Eniregnat]

URBAN LEGOND

A Charlotte, North Carolina lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and WON! (Stay with me.)


In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer "held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".


NOW FOR THE BEST PART


After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.


This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.

It's an Urban Legond. Though a funny one.

Back on topic. I need to see pictures of the damaged iPods.

 

[matticus008]

Nobody expects it to remain pristine through use, but if it starts to hinder the readability of the screen, or if it starts ruining the intended cosmetic design of the unit in such a short time after the Nano's release, then that is different matter at hand.

Its asthestics is not what makes it valuable to, what I hope, most people, however, the reason why people choose apple products in a seeminly free market is inarguably biased toward its asthetism either in its design, physical shape, or ease of use. If you compromise that by a flawed design, yet you continue to claim to offer any of the asthetism people associate your products and choose your products by, then you are misleading people and commiting fraud.

If you choose one glass dinner plate over another based on aesthetics, do you expect the prettier plate to be less scratched by knives? Let's say that one has an opaque, matte finish and the other is a glossy, clear plate. Is that glossy plate, which is prettier, guilty of a flawed design for looking nicer and showing scratches more than the other plate?

You are claiming that the idea that the nano is sold by looks somehow requires it to have different properties from anything else. There is no precedent for that. Does a Dodge Durango scratch as easily as a Ford Explorer? Pretty much. That the Dodge is ugly doesn't change anything. If you buy something based on appearance, as many people do, and you feel that appearance is important to maintain, then you should treat it with respect and take responsibility for cleaning and maintaining it. That's why people baby cars or kitchen appliances or furniture that look(s) good (whether they're expensive or not)--they take pride in maintaining appearance. The fact that a given object has a nice design doesn't alleviate consumer responsibility for taking care of it and if anything increases that responsibility. If you don't take any active role in preserving that appearance, then it won't stay that way. If you never clean your car or change your oil, it won't be a nice car anymore. It's not the manufacturer's fault.

EDIT: As for "hindering the readability of the screen"...it hasn't been demonstrated. Hypothetically, an unreadable screen would be a problem to address, but since there's no reality to that claim as of yet, it's not a relevant consideration. Well over a million people have had like six weeks now to demonstrate even one case of this claim, and it has not happened. No picture on the internet anywhere has shown any screen usability problem. The nano dropped six times run over twice, and then thrown into the air still had a legible screen (if the screen itself were still working). So stop using that argument unless you can demonstrate it. Not owning a nano yourself, I suspect that will be rather difficult.

Besides, if apple execs use this player in their jeans pockets as they have, why shouldn't I ? And it this causes premature wear and accelerated marring of the surface until it is ridden with scratches, then maybe people have a case to fight for.

You are welcome to use it in your pocket. But it will scratch doing so in normal wear. Surface scratches on plastic are not "premature wear" because there is no time line for cosmetic damage. Whether you've owned it for one day or one hundred, the likelihood of it coming in contact with something that will scratch it is exactly the same. It depends on what comes in contact with the player, not how long you've had it. A painted wall might get scraped the day after it was painted (disappointing but not 'premature') or a two years later (less disappointing). Premature wear is like a fan belt that is guaranteed for 10,000 miles giving out after just 6,000, because it's in constant contact with the pulley and its lifespan can be calculated based on known constant stress. And just because you see Steve Ballmer on stage sweating like a pig and screaming like a monkey doesn't mean that you need to do it, too, or that doing so will make you filthy rich like him. Use some flipping common sense.

You are a pro at twisting words my friend. There are many other types of plastic that are much harder and can be used as casing material, I don't hear everyone else complaining about any other object made of plastic that we use which suffers from excessive scratch. [...]There is no reason why they can't harden the polycarbonate plastic with some minerals or additives, many other kinds of plastics used has a hardness beyond copper, a very soft mineral.

You twist them yourself. As has already been covered, polycarbonate is chosen in this field because of its other salient properties: great strength (25-30 times that of acrylic), high optical transparency, nonreaction to most common chemicals (unlike acrylic), low weight, its ability to cushion against impacts and not transmit kinetic energy (good for a dropped iPod), and its nature which resists cracking and chipping. Using additives negates the uses of the material. Using harder plastics is a bad idea, because it would make the iPod brittle. A crack is a far worse problem to face than some scratches that are easily polished. Please don't say "there is no reason" unless you've done your homework. You've demonstrated a patent lack of understanding of materials.

Cellphones can't use stronger signals, it's per FTC regulation for public interference and human health, there is a limitation that we decided upon when the health board and communications board decided what was acceptable. It's not a technical limitation, but not being able to transmit in certain houses is due to a physical limitation

You missed the point. If a cordless phone, a TV, and a radio work, that proves that it's possible for the cell phone to work as well. They've chosen not to grant that ability. Current cell phone signals are not at or near the legal or FTC-deemed "safe" limits. They were deliberately chosen for other reasons, which are quite complex. Again, think through before spouting off.

the iPod being easily scratchable is due to a corporate decision to use last-minute materials for cost cutting, rush to the market, whatever their reason is, its nature is inherently different. SO of course there is a way to get around using polycarbonate, DON"T USE IT, or harden it with a coating. Is that so hard ?

Polycarbonate is more expensive than acrylics or polyethylenes. There goes cost cutting. Polycarbonate is well established in the industry and was intentionally chosen and introduced in the 4G iPod. There go "rushed to market" and "last minute materials." Not using it would lead to an inferior iPod to what we have today. It wouldn't scratch lightly as easily, but it would chip, crack, gouge, and discolor/deform more readily. It would also be less likely to survive a fall and certainly would not survive being run over by a car. If you prefer to give all those things up for fewer (easily removed on polycarbonate, harder to remove on acrylic) scratches, by all means, cast your vote!

Seriously, your posts show a profound lack of comprehension. If you're going to continue to make assertions, make informed posts grounded in reality. That's the only way to have a discussion.

 

[gunnz]

You are a pro at twisting words my friend. There are many other types of plastic that are much harder and can be used as casing material, I don't hear everyone else complaining about any other object made of plastic that we use which suffers from excessive scratch. The keyboard keys are made of plastic, I type on it all the time and very frequently strike my nails against the keys, they don't scratch, i can scratch the ipod surface with my nails and copper coins which has a hardness of 3, finger nails has a hardness of 2.5. There is no reason why they can't harden the polycarbonate plastic with some minerals or additives, many other kinds of plastics used has a hardness beyond copper, a very soft mineral. Cellphones can't use stronger signals, it's per FTC regulation for public interference and human health, there is a limitation that we decided upon when the health board and communications board decided what was acceptable. It's not a technical limitation, but not being able to transmit in certain houses is due to a physical limitation, the iPod being easily scratchable is due to a corporate decision to use last-minute materials for cost cutting, rush to the market, whatever their reason is, its nature is inherently different. SO of course there is a way to get around using polycarbonate, DON"T USE IT, or harden it with a coating. Is that so hard ?



Nobody expects it to remain pristine through use, but if it starts to hinder the readability of the screen, or if it starts ruining the intended cosmetic design of the unit in such a short time after the Nano's release, then that is different matter at hand.



the return policy cleverly does not cover this type of damage. Seems like they planned it out doesn't it ?


What i think happened is the first batch of the Nanos were rushed, and this polycarbonate resin was not properly fixed with whatever they cure it with. Then they released some nanos that have a better surface. I have seen nanos that were literally scratched to bits by coins and keys, while one of my colleague's friends's nano was still in pretty good shape. Or maybe it was just random deviation in softness across a batch or two of the players. Oh, and you can't just return it, should read the policies. Unless you are in UK, then you have 15 days if you buy it online.

Why can't you return it? If it's really scratched up to the point where it's obviously a defect, you can exchange it (for a price of 25 bucks). People want their 25 bucks back, which is partly the reason for the lawsuit.