iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[Maxx Power]

I have no problem with people of the opinion that the nano scratches easily or being disappointed that their recent purchase is no longer in a museum-quality condition. I have a problem with people taking such an opinion as the sole platform to make a serious legal accusation against an individual or a company for the purposes of monetary gain.

Scratching easily is not an opinion. If you have been using inferior products and polycarbonates all your life then that's different. For the most people, including people who use cellphones, knows the screens are more durable than the Nano, my old Siemens c56 for one, I barely spent a cent on it, and I treat it like I didn't spend any money on it, it's been dropped from countertops onto hard floors when it vibrates itself off the surface, it has been together with coins, keys, and whatever in my pocket including tissue paper I clean it with, for two whole years while I was on the contract. Are there scratches ? Of course, but are they excessive ? NO. The surface stood up to beatings the way it was meant to be anyway. Nano, on the other hand, scratches with a lint-free lens cleaner. Thats clearly an inferior polycarbonate formulation.

 

[snowmoon]

Scratching easily is not an opinion. If you have been using inferior products and polycarbonates all your life then that's different.

There is no evidence that apple has changed it's case formulation for the nano or the ipod with video besides wild specualtion.

 

[Azbola]

Then

There is no evidence that apple has changed it's case formulation for the nano or the ipod with video besides wild specualtion.

If thats true then the ipod product line has always been shoddily made and they have only just been rumbled due to the new wave of people buying into the nano.

 

[gunnz]

there must be at least four lawyers in here, because it's getting crazy!

 

[gugy]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!
Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.
Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go!

 

[matticus008]

The change you made is not for good will, but for a real error correction. Your original sentence as quoted in my previous reply clearly states that all who make the scratch claim do not return the nano, pay the restocking fee, or otherwise file a complaint. You therefore corrected an error in your statement -- your claim of good will is wrong and is just a face-saving statement. As I stated, your arguments now are increasingly academic.

No, as per the rules of parallelism, you may not carry a modifier across a comma. To be strictly parallel, in order for your claim to be true, it would have to read "all claim," "all failed," and so on. Otherwise, you cannot assume that your interpretation is correct.

Furthermore, if you REALLY want to get into the fine detail, nobody HAS followed all four steps outlined therein, because there is no lawsuit against the restocking fee and no one has mentioned Apple's response to a formal complaint (that is, a written complaint). So no one has followed the steps to appropriate remedy through to their conclusion. Your arguments are increasingly confined to the periphery of the supposed issue, and particularly in attempting to find faults in minor points just to find some sort of foothold.

Horribly disfigured and destroyed by scratches? How do you define "horribly disfigured" and "destroyed by scratches"? Do you mean the nano is warped into a figure-8, hence "disfigured"? Do you mean the nano is torn to shreds, hence "destroyed" by scratches? You are using extreme terms in an argumentative manner which serves only to digress.

No, a fault of defect requires something beyond minor cosmetic damage. Hence, the nano must be seriously marred in such a way as to affect functionality. We've been through this point.

So just because your nano has not suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune it must mean that no one else has any legitimate reason to think that the nano is highly prone to scratching and that such scratching tarnishes its surface within days? If what happened to my nano happened to yours, I suspect you would be playing a different tune.

As I said, the opinion is valid. That unproved opinion is not a factual basis to make a serious legal accusation. The end.

You can believe whatever you want, but if FACTS are what you're interested in, you need to consider that the nano may not have the level of scratch protection you seem to think it does...or at least NOT ALL of them.

Okay, but then I need to see FACTS that demonstrate this.

And what if you got stuck with an iPod nano that got scratched up in 2 days whereas nothing else you ever owned decayed as badly and as quickly? Would you characterize that nano as having defective workmanship?

No. I don't characterize my car for defective workmanship for scratching on the way home. I don't claim my sunglasses had defective workmanship for scratching out of nowhere. These things happen to everyone, and they always have. If it becomes damaged in the return period, and you find it unreasonable, return it. You must follow policy.

I think you are very very wrong here. A time factor is relevant. A time factor is in fact extremely relevant. Why do warranties expire after 90 days?

They expire because after some length of time it becomes too difficult to prove the cause of mechanical or functional defects. There is no warranty on cosmetic appearance AT ALL, so that warranty expires about 5 seconds after you swipe your credit card.

No no, the point is this: If even a Camry at half the price (actually closer to 1/3 the price) of the BMW scratched MUCH LESS, then I would consider the BMW shell to be flawed and/or defective.

You might consider it to be so. BMW, most customers, and the courts would disagree.

Disagree. Entitled to a replacement or full money back with NO RESTOCKING FEE.

Let me clarify something about restocking fees. With stores that have such a policy, when you return a fully functional item to stock, you are charged a fee that covers refurbishing and resale of that item at a reduced price. Apple did not create the restocking fee recently or introduce it just against the iPod to prevent dissatisfied customers from returning it. If your primary complaint is against the restocking fee, why stop at the nano? Apple charges a restocking fee on everything, and is not the only company to do so.

Disagree again. Word of mouth would travel and soon BMW would be facing a bewildering reduction in sales.

Only if most people agreed with you, and only even then if that affected sales. For the nano, it obviously has not.

You are once again basing your argument only on your own immediate experience. What of the postings by all those in this and similar threads who are long time Apple customers, love the iPod, own several iPods, and yet find this particular one to be highly scratch-prone? You do think they suffer from mass delusion?

Strictly speaking, as a representative of the status quo, I don't need to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative...that is...your side. You must prove a harm and prove damages, otherwise one must assume that there is no problem.

Because I am in Taiwan on a long business trip.

So that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? You made unusual purchase arrangements which meant that you lost the ability to return or exchange your purchase. What if you'd decided you simply didn't like the nano? What if it had actually been functionally or mechanically defective? You took a gamble, and you're disappointed with the outcome. I would try local resellers in Taiwan and see if they can help you out.

I am not upset. I am dissatisfied with the nano's scratchability and disappointed with Apple in this regard. I think you are upset at people who dare claim there might be a flaw in the nano

Claim without hard evidence, yes, absolutely I am upset at them. Whether or not the problem affects me, it still must be proved before you have the right to blame a person or company and to make serious legal accusations.

This limits the range of acceptable frequencies.

Yes and a myriad of factors limits the choice of materials for the iPod's construction. Like cell phones, they selected the BEST of a short list of qualified candidates. It seems we're in agreement on this.

Ok, you're making sense here. And again, I am not upset, merely dissatisfied with my nano's fragility and disappointed with Apple in their refusal to acknowledge a problem. Charging a restocking fee is ludicrous. Would I pay Apple another $25 or $35 (I don't recall what it is since I'm not in the US now) to take back what I consider to be a flawed unit? No way.

Good, I'm glad I'm getting through. I understand and empathize with your disappointment, and I share your dislike of restocking fees. If anyone wants to challenge Apple or any/all other companies on those grounds and finds a legal standing to do so, I'm all for it. But many people supportive of the existing suit's claims seem to be redirecting their frustration at the loss of $25 or so, or their misfortune with the environment, rather than constructively pursuing a rational response.

And maxx_power, the lawsuit's filing is available on the internet, and is even linked at least twice in this thread. You continue making broadly imprecise statements while failing to engage the discussion in a meaningful way. You're making statements even people who share your opinion wouldn't support. And for the umpteenth time, (read this several times) a fact is a statement, supported by veritable and consistently reproducible evidence, which conclusively proves that statement, beyond any reasonable doubt. So far, the "facts" you've mentioned are inconclusive statements. They're opinions, in other words, and it's fine to have them. It's not fine to make a public, major, serious legal accusation based on them.

 

[gunnz]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!

I have a job. Where do you think I am now?

Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.

I think 100 replies is a gross exaggeration. 90?

Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go

Ok. Well....we're debating right? The nano rules.

Just kidding, gugy.

P.S. I just bought another skin off of decalgirl.com. A solid black skin for the front and back, and 4 screen protectors for a little over 10 bucks! I have huge scratches on my current skin, and I just checked the nano's surface......as perfect as the first day I got it!

 

[Maxx Power]

And maxx_power, the lawsuit's filing is available on the internet, and is even linked at least twice in this thread. You continue making broadly imprecise statements while failing to engage the discussion in a meaningful way. You're making statements even people who share your opinion wouldn't support. And for the umpteenth time, (read this several times) a fact is a statement, supported by veritable and consistently reproducible evidence, which conclusively supports that statement, beyond any reasonable doubt. So far, the "facts" you've mentioned are inclusive statements. They're opinions, in other words, and it's fine to have them. It's not fine to make a public, major, serious legal accusation based on them.

My statements are very precise, I have only one stance, and I aim all my statements to support ANY legal allegation against apple in their Nano conducts. Per your definition, I have other people's testimony here for evidence that supports the easy and unmistakable scratching of the iPod Nano, that is sufficient to justify a lawsuit for a ill-designed product, since it is inferior than the norm and hinders its operation in the long run. The scratches will cause the inevitable unreadability of the screen sooner than any of the competition's and thus reduce its effective lifespan. This is enough to guarantee a lawsuit. I support any general lawsuits that push Apple to recongnize publicly the existence of the problem and not just internally (no refunds because of scratches) and thus offer exchange, recall, repair, or whatever and thus pay its share of responsibility to the consumer. Oh, and i forgot to mention, just because you don't recongnize the evidence or refuse to listen to other people here doesn't make my facts inclusive, it makes you exclusive.

 

[Maxx Power]

Furthermore, if you REALLY want to get into the fine detail, nobody HAS followed all four steps outlined therein, because there is no lawsuit against the restocking fee and no one has mentioned Apple's response to a formal complaint (that is, a written complaint). So no one has followed the steps to appropriate remedy through to their conclusion. Your arguments are increasingly confined to the periphery of the supposed issue, and particularly in attempting to find faults in minor points just to find some sort of foothold.

This is ridiculous. suppose someone did file a complaint, and you'd automatically be notified how ? why ? And besides, the way the complaint system works is that the issue has to be settled somehow, then the complaint is gone, if apple supposedly settled the issue by saying the iPod scratches are normal, then they have met their end of the bargain and can end the complaint. If you are not satisfied with this resolution you'll have to prove beyond a doubt that Apple's definition of "normal" is not appriopriate. It is a tedious legal process. I know because I have filed complaints against a few companies for their shoddy services or products. Sometimes even BBB.
He is not confined to the periphery of the issue, you just don't want apple to get sued for some reason beyond my understanding.

 

[Maxx Power]

They expire because after some length of time it becomes too difficult to prove the cause of mechanical or functional defects. There is no warranty on cosmetic appearance AT ALL, so that warranty expires about 5 seconds after you swipe your credit card.

Yes and of course I'll know ahead of the time how easy it is to scratch a Nano, and that it is completely normal despite the fact none of the other devices I had before including iPods didn't scratch this easily, and of course, I'll decide I'll hold onto my precious Nano within five seconds of having it. So much for consumer choice and informed purchases. At the store where the Apple employee was interviewed by the original chap who started all this, she admitted to that the Nanos' are easily scratchable and the sample one was only touched by fingers and it was scratched to the point of barely readable screen, if people can see how easy it is for this thing to be scratched online at apple's website before making their purchase, they'll think twice or won't buy it. Oh, and apple ordered the chap to take down his website (is it still down ?) after issuing the statement of the cracking screens.

 

[Maxx Power]

Claim without hard evidence, yes, absolutely I am upset at them. Whether or not the problem affects me, it still must be proved before you have the right to blame a person or company and to make serious legal accusations.

But of course, I am too! Just except for that I have seen scratched up Nanos and have seen how they were used, and am given repeated confirmation from people here who protested apple's Nano's flaw, and how even lint-free lens cleaner would scratch it. He even tried to use polish to get rid of scratches as you suggested but wind up with more problems. What more evidence do you want ? Provided I can't physically fly over to wherever you are and sit down with you with a Nano and scratch it left and right with a clean lint-free cloth, or paper towel, or whatever is normal to clean typical mp3 players with.

 

[matticus008]

My statements are very precise, I have only one stance, and I aim all my statements to support ANY legal allegation against apple in their Nano conducts. Per your definition, I have other people's testimony here for evidence that supports the easy and unmistakable scratching of the iPod Nano, that is sufficient to justify a lawsuit for a ill-designed product, since it is inferior than the norm and hinders its operation in the long run.

Your statements, and the "testimony" of any other comments, are not evidence without documentation. I can find people making statements to support any claim in the world, and it doesn't make them evidence. Read the definition of fact a few hundred more times until you figure it out. This is the last comment I will make in response to you until you start making sense, coherent posts, or factually-supported claims.

 

[Eevee]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!
Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.
Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go!

gugy, I am glad this thread has been going for a while and hope it doesn't stop. I welcome the pros and cons, suggestions, etc.

One of the purposes of MacRumors is to promote the awareness in the quality of products to the Mac community, and I believe this thread has done so whether or not who wins the argument.

 

[Maxx Power]

Your statements, and the "testimony" of any other comments, are not evidence without documentation. I can find people making statements to support any claim in the world, and it doesn't make them evidence. Read the definition of fact a few hundred more times until you figure it out. This is the last comment I will make in response to you until you start making sense, coherent posts, or factually-supported claims.

You are the one who's not being sensical, i'm not trying to intentionally deceive you, nor is anyone else who posted on this thread, i have to provide you proof in documentation, can you be any more ignorant ? Aren't you in support of the durability of the iPod, something I believe Apple did make a claim of (correct me if i'm wrong on this people) when they launched it ? I don't see apple giving me any proof or you giving me any proof of your assertion. How am I supposed to provide to you proof in a blog about a physical object ? You've seen the pictures of that dropped ipod earlier in this thread, now, make the scratches thinner and shallower like you'd get from cleaning it and repeat it 10000 times in your head. I remember a proverb or something like that, I can show you red, but if you don't agree with me that it is red, there is nothing I can do. Or if you are into math or physics, think of the scratches you saw on that picture as differential scratches (dS), and integrate it over 1 year of total normal use over the surface of the Nano, and you'll have a sand paper looking surface. Do some thinking.

 

[64bytes]

What Apple is making nano owners do is to forcibly purchace a 'transparent' warranty for the nano. The 'transparent' warranty is basically just a pod skin. But shouldn't this warranty be included in the product warranty? Well, one of the main reasons apple sell so many ipods is because of their apperances; this is obvious, this is the case with all of their products. Ever since the iMac G3 appeared, apple has been fine tuning the asthetics of their hardware. Many people who bought them did so beacuse of their looks. And I remind you here, it is one of the reasons, there are many others. All of a sudden, along comes the nano, it looks great without any usage. As soon as the slightest bit of friction comes into contact with it, it is no longer desireable because of its abundance of scratches. People like to maintain what they have, but at what cost? And if there is a fault, how are people supposed to maintain what they own without prior knowlegde of that fault? So, basically if a product is regularly damaged in the environment it was intended to function in without external protection, then the design specifications where either ignored or just not taken into account; either one is just negligance. Furthermore, there exists a testing phase in the production phase that exists to catch flaws.

In short, apple did not have a testing phase, knew about the problem and ignored it, or they knew about the flaw before the testing phase; i.e. they designed it to be this way, extremely beautiful, yet 100 miles away from being scratch resistant. The latter is quite possible since the ipod skin market is saturated with skins and skin manufacturers. After every ipod release apple has made, third party skin manufacturers have become increasingly quicker to release new skins to accomodate for the new ipod form factors. Hence, it is no surprise that even though apple knew about the flaw they assumed the majority of the consumers would just buy a skin if they discovered it scratched easily.

Apple has become a large brand name over the past few years, yet their technical support is by far the worst among all pc brands. They consistently refuse to acknowledge faults in their products, and infact, they can afford this since their computer costumer base is so small, comparatively, there are no complaints. Along come the ipod, many people buy the ipod, there are flaws with the ipod, apple can't shut up all of these people. They are not used to having to deal with so many complaints. Apple is a small fish in a bid pond, not willing to make the sacrifices to become a big fish, even though they want to become a big fish.

 

[matticus008]

gugy, I am glad this thread has been going for a while and hope it doesn't stop. I welcome the pros and cons, suggestions, etc.

One of the purpose of MacRumors is to promote an awareness in the quality of product to the Mac community, and I believe this thread has done so whether or not who wins the argument.

Well said, my friend, well said.

Also we should all remember that we're a community of enthusiasts, so the level of debate here is artificially high. The rest of the world rarely cares as much about anything as any thread on any forum. We're also some of the most exacting users with some of the highest standards of any of the world's consumers, and are much more highly aware of subtleties. Who else in the world would have known that Apple switched from Synaptics to using its own in-house click wheel design or cared enough to discuss it? If there can be a few dozen posts on something like that, this thread should come as no surprise.

 

[Maxx Power]

Well said, my friend, well said.

Also we should all remember that we're a community of enthusiasts, so the level of debate here is artificially high. The rest of the world rarely cares as much about anything as any thread on any forum. We're also some of the most exacting users with some of the highest standards of any of the world's consumers, and are much more highly aware of subtleties. Who else in the world would have known that Apple switched from Synaptics to using its own in-house click wheel design or cared enough to discuss it? If there can be a few dozen posts on something like that, this thread should come as no suprise.

Yeah okay, this I completely agree with you. I just want the consumers to receive prompt attention from apple lawsuit or no lawsuit.

 

[bloogersnigen]

Sure, and today after I drove over my iPod with my truck, my ipod was smashed into a million pieces. Apple has clearly made another faulty product.

GET A LIFE AND A JOB!!!!!!!!!!!

John

Acually PC mag ran over a nano twice and it still worked "They sat on the Nano on a wooden chair; dropped it while jogging (4–6 miles per hour); dropped it at slow and fast bicycle speeds (8–10 MPH and 15–20 MPH); dropped it at slow and fast car speeds (30 MPG and 50 MPH); and then dropped it from a variety of heights. They also drove over it in a Volkswagen Jetta. Our friendly Nano passed with flying colors. It showed only scratching when dropped at car speed, and continued to work, in spite of a busted screen, when dropped from 9 feet. So they ran over it twice—and discovered that even still, the scroll wheel and music processing worked just fine. Only launching it 40 feet into the air, and its consequent Icarian descent, brought the poor Nano to its knees once and for all."

 

[Maxx Power]

There is no evidence that apple has changed it's case formulation for the nano or the ipod with video besides wild specualtion.

I had a first gen, second gen, my roomie had a 3rd gen and they were all pretty good against scratches except for the 3rd gen which had thinner plastics and flatter fronts that allowed the face to wear down a bit quicker. Then came the Nano, maybe they didn't intentionally change the formulation, but there is no reason for me to speculate that except that I did see a Store display unit pretty marred (not an apple store) with scratches and when combined with finger residue, it was pretty hard to read with the lights off. Or with the store lights on.

 

[matticus008]

What Apple is making nano owners do is to forcibly purchace a 'transparent' warranty for the nano. The 'transparent' warranty is basically just a pod skin. But shouldn't this warranty be included in the product warranty? Well, one of the main reasons apple sell so many ipods is because of their apperances; this is obvious, this is the case with all of their products. Ever since the iMac G3 appeared, apple has been fine tuning the asthetics of their hardware.

They're not forcing anyone to do anything. Sleeves and protectors for PDA screens, cases for cell phones or portable gaming units, and laptop sleeves are all separate products. The existence of those products is an acknowledgment that some people choose to protect their investments with some zeal. Sometimes cell phones come with cases in the box, but not always. It's not an admission that their product is inferior to another, it's just an extra feature they chose to include.

As soon as the slightest bit of friction comes into contact with it, it is no longer desireable because of its abundance of scratches.

I would like to point out the continued phenomenal sales of the nano.

People like to maintain what they have, but at what cost? And if there is a fault, how are people supposed to maintain what they own without prior knowlegde of that fault? So, basically if a product is regularly damaged in the environment it was intended to function in without external protection, then the design specifications where either ignored or just not taken into account

It depends on how important maintenance is to you. Some people repaint their houses every two years, others do it every ten years, some only do it if there has been major peeling or weathering. For the iPod, people can buy a skin, a case, or some other protective enclosure, for varying prices, or they can buy polishing products, also for varying prices, but $4 Brasso seems to be a sufficient investment, at a total cost of a few cents per application every month or two.

The iPod is NOT damaged in its intended environments. The Ars Technica review really highlights this innate durability. The iPod is, however, vulnerable to cosmetic wear, just like everything else one buys. If cosmetic wear is a major concern from the outset, use a skin or case (which also means wait to buy until a suitable one to be available if necessary).

In short, apple did not have a testing phase, knew about the problem and ignored it, or they knew about the flaw before the testing phase; i.e. they designed it to be this way, extremely beautiful, yet 100 miles away from being scratch resistant. [...] Hence, it is no surprise that even though apple knew about the flaw they assumed the majority of the consumers would just buy a skin if they discovered it scratched easily.

Of course they had a testing phase. And of course they knew it would scratch. It's a foregone conclusion that plastic scratches, even the better plastics (like polycarbonate and acrylic). Consumers have known that iPod cases and skins exist for years, and that some people find them necessary. The nano isn't the first to have an extensive case market (in which Apple is not a major player).

Apple has become a large brand name over the past few years, yet their technical support is by far the worst among all pc brands.

Then why do customers consistently rank it #1?

 

[gugy]

gugy, I am glad this thread has been going for a while and hope it doesn't stop. I welcome the pros and cons, suggestions, etc.

One of the purposes of MacRumors is to promote the awareness in the quality of products to the Mac community, and I believe this thread has done so whether or not who wins the argument.

I totally agree with you.
The problem is that few indivuduals are fighting to have their point proved no matter what. So the posts keep coming and coming and coming. not that I have a problem with that as long as is something new and not the same issues over and over and over again!

 

[saint.duo]

Gotta comment on this. A scratched iPod is still a working iPod. It is still a working portable music player. Normal usage is AS A MUSIC PLAYER, not as a beautiful centerpiece!

Oh no, my wood desk got a scratch on it when I slid my computer into place in it, I should sue the desk manufacturer.

Im gonna do something quite bold, and NOT comment on the thread topic. HOWEVER: Are you guys, who claim people need to buy a case for their iPod to prevent the screen from scratching badly, for real?

I dont know what its like in America, but here in Norway customers have certain rights and privileges. And one of those rights, is that a device like a portable music player is expected to be carried around in jackets, jeans, purses etc. This is the normal usage! And since this is the normal and expected usage, the device must also be able to handle such conditions without being damaged.

Nowhere did Apple say: "If this device is to be carried around in your pocket, you MUST use a case in order to protect it from being scratced. Warranty void if caseless."

And yet, you guys scream "Buy a CASE, you frikkin' moron!" I mean.. come on.. its a PORTABLE music player, for crying out loud. It should be able to withstand normal and expected usage without deteriorating. It really is that simple.

If the iPod do or do not scratch - I dont know. But you guys who keep yelling "CASE!" needs to wake up and smell the coffee...

 

[ksz]

Dear friends,
could you all get a job!
Seriously matticus008 and KSZ and few others, you guys are just being ridiculous in fighting against each other posting close to 100 replies each to see who's going to win an argument.
Come on, put your priorities straight.
I like to come to this forum to get news and debate ideas. you guys just went to far. let it go!

Come on, we are gainfully employed and we are honing our debating skills for future combat in other areas.

 

[ksz]

Very good comments. Matticus008 has chosen to ignore what I believe are the essential points, so I'll highlight them below...

What Apple is making nano owners do is to forcibly purchace a 'transparent' warranty for the nano. The 'transparent' warranty is basically just a pod skin. But shouldn't this warranty be included in the product warranty?

Agreed. Apple is now including the 'transparent' warranty in every box of the new iPod (video). That measure is an ackowledgement of the fragility of the device even when it is operated under normal conditions.

Well, one of the main reasons apple sell so many ipods is because of their apperances; this is obvious, this is the case with all of their products. Ever since the iMac G3 appeared, apple has been fine tuning the asthetics of their hardware. Many people who bought them did so beacuse of their looks.

Completely agree. A large part of Apple's success in turning around a flagging corporation is due to the aesthetics of its models. Jonathan Ive wins design award after design award, and Jobs continues to tout design and beauty in his stage events. Replay recent Media Events and Expos for a refresher.

If the iPod looked like the Rio or the Zen or the Dell MP3 player, how many of you would raise arms against a sea of troubles? Who cares if it looks like crap; it still works doesn't it? It's still got the same menu, the same clickwheel, and the same iTunes interface. It just looks like crap, so what's the big deal?

And I remind you here, it is one of the reasons, there are many others. All of a sudden, along comes the nano, it looks great without any usage. As soon as the slightest bit of friction comes into contact with it, it is no longer desireable because of its abundance of scratches.

Correct again. Aesthetics and preservation of that aesthetic are important considerations. If my BMW were a scratch magnet that broke out into a hive of scratches after just 2 days (or even a week) whereas no other car regardless of price suffered such an ailment under the same use conditions I would damn well conclude that the BMW was flawed and that the paint job is easily ruined. Would the car continue to drive? Of course it would. Would the fancy gadgets inside continue to work? Of course they would. But I would be extremely dissatisfied because my BMW's appearance makes it look cruddy and 10 years old. Appearance of a product is an important consumer consideration particularly for products that are part fashion. BMW and Mercedes are part fashion -- you pay for the name. Apple is also part fashion -- they market their products on the basis of functionality AND ALSO on the basis of cosmetics.

People like to maintain what they have, but at what cost? And if there is a fault, how are people supposed to maintain what they own without prior knowlegde of that fault?

Exactly. Shoot first and ask questions later. This describes what is happening to many nano buyers.

So, basically if a product is regularly damaged in the environment it was intended to function in without external protection, then the design specifications where either ignored or just not taken into account; either one is just negligance. Furthermore, there exists a testing phase in the production phase that exists to catch flaws.

Right again. Well stated.

In short, apple did not have a testing phase, knew about the problem and ignored it, or they knew about the flaw before the testing phase; i.e. they designed it to be this way, extremely beautiful, yet 100 miles away from being scratch resistant.

While I do not know what Apple knew and did not know, or whether Apple intentionally ignored a problem, or whether some batches of nanos have a manufacturing flaw while others do not, I do know that there is a problem and it needs to be examined.

 

[gugy]

Above, This is the best post.
KSZ and 64bytes you guys are right.
Thanks