iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[matticus008]

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.

So when you buy a table, it should come with furniture wax?

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.

Granted, but superior design doesn't mean it will magically maintain that appearance. Again, if I buy a set of champagne flutes because they're prettier than another set, even a cheaper set, I can't reasonably expect that they will not break just as easily.

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?

So it's because an iPod is "pretty" and not because it doesn't work well. I can't complain because a nice shirt got stained while ignoring the crappy shirt that also got stained.

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.

So how does Saturn fit in? Their cars are harder to dent than others many times their price. Wouldn't I then be required to think Audi flawed to have sold me an inferior car?

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.

Not always. BMW and Mercedes are marketed more as a status symbol because of the brand, but they do tend to be aesthetically superior. That status symbol and the price it commands over competitors is usually double or more that of a comparable product from a competing manufacturer. In the case of the iPod, the "premium" for the Apple name is minimal. The cheapest 20GB music player is somewhere around $250 last time I checked. More specifically, for the nano, the product is actually cheaper and has more features than any of its competitors.

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

Do you mean the buying habits of nano customers? If so, "shooting first" is a bad idea in product selection. Research before making an important purchase.

I'll say it again...aesthetics (a subjective field by nature) have varying opinions. Your opinion on the appearance of the iPod is certainly valid, whatever it may be. But since the iPod continues to function perfectly in its intended use as a personal music player and portable data storage device, irrespective of any cosmetic damage, your rational action would be to a) not buy the nano or b) return the nano. You can even go so far as to complain to Apple. But you can't accuse them of foul play or fault because you don't agree with their aesthetic decisions. I'd love to sue Honda for the Element and Pontiac for the Aztec. I think they're just that ugly. I'd love to get on the internet and complain dinner plate manufacturers because I don't think they hold up very well with heavy use--but I don't expect Crate and Barrel to give me money or bend to my preferences when I can just as easily buy something else. They'll change when they lose sales...that's the market indicator.

 

[ksz]

So when you buy a table, it should come with furniture wax?

Only if the table scratches disproportionately to other tables. If the table's surface is extremely and abnormally prone to scratching under normal use, then yes, absolutely yes. This is why, in my view, Apple is now including a carrying sleeve with every new iPod (video) -- they are shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

Granted, but superior design doesn't mean it will magically maintain that appearance. Again, if I buy a set of champagne flutes because they're prettier than another set, even a cheaper set, I can't reasonably expect that they will not break just as easily.

You have ignored the issue of disproportionate accumulation of scratches. If the champagne flutes had a propensity to break under the normal holding force of your hands, you would consider them to be defective because they are not designed for the rigors of their intended use.

So it's because an iPod is "pretty" and not because it doesn't work well. I can't complain because a nice shirt got stained while ignoring the crappy shirt that also got stained.

You again ignored the point about other portable consumer items. If your crappy shirt accumulates stains VERY slowly, but your nice shirt accumulates stains after 2 days under normal use (i.e. you never spilled any coffee or ketcup on it), you would consider the nice shirt to be defective.

So how does Saturn fit in? Their cars are harder to dent than others many times their price. Wouldn't I then be required to think Audi flawed to have sold me an inferior car?

This is not even an issue. If my BMW accumulates scratches at a slow rate that is comparable to other cars, then no problem. If the Saturn is designed for extra resilience, great, but that does not produce an argument in your favor. I cannot accept a car whose appearance is tarnished with scratches after less than a week of normal use whereas other cars remain flawless. This is the issue of disproportionate rate of decay which you are conveniently ignoring.

Not always. BMW and Mercedes are marketed more as a status symbol because of the brand, but they do tend to be aesthetically superior. That status symbol and the price it commands over competitors is usually double or more that of a comparable product from a competing manufacturer. In the case of the iPod, the "premium" for the Apple name is minimal. The cheapest 20GB music player is somewhere around $250 last time I checked. More specifically, for the nano, the product is actually cheaper and has more features than any of its competitors.

Regardless of price, the fact that the iPod has outsold all other models is not due to its technical merits alone, but also to its aesthetic appeal. Consumer products sell in large part on the basis of their aesthetic appeal. It is this aesthetic appeal that gets destroyed after 2 days of use. It is this aesthetic appeal that factored into my decision to purchase a nano. The aesthetic design is a feature of the product. It is this aesthetic design that decays far too quickly and disproportionately. While all products -- and features of the products -- decay over time, they must not decay at an alarming rate.

Do you mean the buying habits of nano customers? If so, "shooting first" is a bad idea in product selection. Research before making an important purchase.

What research? The nano is a new product. There was no prior warning.

I'll say it again...aesthetics (a subjective field by nature) have varying opinions. Your opinion on the appearance of the iPod is certainly valid, whatever it may be. But since the iPod continues to function perfectly in its intended use as a personal music player and portable data storage device, irrespective of any cosmetic damage, your rational action would be to a) not buy the nano or b) return the nano. You can even go so far as to complain to Apple. But you can't accuse them of foul play or fault because you don't agree with their aesthetic decisions.

If mine was an isolated case, that is one thing. But there seems to be a systematic issue with nanos. How widespread is that issue, I do not know. But the issue is more prevalent than one or two isolated cases. If a few early batches of the nano had a manufacturing problem that has since been corrected, great. But Apple should acknowledge the problem, NOT CHARGE A FEE for restocking, perhaps issue a RECALL on selected serial numbers, and replace them with known GOOD UNITS.

I'd love to sue Honda for the Element and Pontiac for the Aztec. I think they're just that ugly. I'd love to get on the internet and complain dinner plate manufacturers because I don't think they hold up very well with heavy use--but I don't expect Crate and Barrel to give me money or bend to my preferences when I can just as easily buy something else. They'll change when they lose sales...that's the market indicator.

Huh? I don't get it. Irrelevant, digressive, and argumentative.

 

[matticus008]

Only if the table scratches disproportionately to other tables. If the table's surface is extremely and abnormally prone to scratching under normal use, then yes, absolutely yes. This is why, in my view, Apple is now including a carrying sleeve with every new iPod (video) -- they are shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

No table would come with such a product, even under that circumstance. What you've ignored throughout your entire reply is that there is no proof that the nano scratches in a manner which is inconsistent with the materials used. Nor have you demonstrated a functional harm in the choice of materials. Black is notorious for showing dirt, but it doesn't mean that it's a flawed color. It's a natural property, and you could always choose a different product that wasn't black. Wine glasses are breakable, but that doesn't make them flawed, because they also make plastic wine glasses which you're free to buy. You're free to buy another product if you don't like the nano's qualities.

You have ignored the issue of disproportionate accumulation of scratches. If the champagne flutes had a propensity to break under the normal holding force of your hands, you would consider them to be defective because they are not designed for the rigors of their intended use.

You're equating functional damage to cosmetic damage where no correlation exists. If nano scratching had a propensity to break the iPod, you'd be making a valid point. In making analogies, both analogous examples should be either functional or cosmetic, not one of each. You can't tie "breaking" with "normal use" for one and not the other. The iPod functionally withstands all rigors of intended use, just like a scratched up dinner plate and a not scratched dinner plate both being structurally sound, and just like the champagne flutes both break when dropped.

You again ignored the point about other portable consumer items. If your crappy shirt accumulates stains VERY slowly, but your nice shirt accumulates stains after 2 days under normal use (i.e. you never spilled any coffee or ketcup on it), you would consider the nice shirt to be defective.

Me spilling coffee on a shirt will stain it. There is no time-based variable in cosmetic damage. I can spill coffee on it after one day or after three years. It will stain the shirt the same either way. You might have the logical assumption that an older shirt might be more likely to be stained, but that assumption does not rule out the very likely possibility that the new shirt was stained and the older shirt has no stains. And unless that shirt (or my iPod) was sold to me with a claim of "spillproof" (or "scratchless"), I have no right to accuse the company of anything. Your example very clearly demonstrates the lack of time as a variable. Staining, scratching, and denting are all caused purely by incidental conditions which can and do occur at any time. It's a simple reality and shouldn't even be a point of contention.

This is the issue of disproportionate rate of decay which you are conveniently ignoring.

"Rate of decay" does not apply to scratching, because if the nano never comes in contact with anything, it will not scratch. The incidence of scratching does not have a time line. The longer you have it, the more likely it is that it will be scratched. But it's not time that is causing this, it's the fact that you've used it on several occasions and have exposed it to a higher total number of events. A scratch is a random event. Rolling a die 10 times means that you're more likely to have rolled a five than if you'd only rolled the die 3 times. It's not that you've been sitting there rolling the die for three times as long, it's that you've had multiple events.

Regardless of price, the fact that the iPod has outsold all other models is not due to its technical merits alone, but also to its aesthetic appeal. Consumer products sell in large part on the basis of their aesthetic appeal. It is this aesthetic appeal that gets destroyed after 2 days of use. It is this aesthetic appeal that factored into my decision to purchase a nano.

Then return the nano, as it does not live up to your expectations. (I understand you specifically can't, but that situation is of your own creation.) Buy something that does meet your criteria. It's not like Apple is refusing to take returns. They have a published return policy, and you agree to those terms implicitly when you make a purchase. If, truly after two days, you find its cosmetic value less than you find appropriate, you return it. If you don't currently own one and you've convinced yourself that it scratches too easily, don't buy one. Either way, they're not forcing you to keep or buy a product you don't like.

What research? The nano is a new product. There was no prior warning.

Any prior research into iPods. When a new model year comes out for a car, you turn to the previous model's reviews to look for any particular complaints or issues. If you find them, you then look at the reviews of the new product to see whether or not these are mentioned as having been addressed. No prior warning? Have you never heard complaints about iPod scratches in the past? And, if this "problem" is apparent after just two days, wouldn't there then be complaints to be found rather quickly? Certainly by three weeks after its release, those complaints were there. Any research into iPods before purchase would have revealed not only the huge case/skin market, but also prior complaints.

But Apple should acknowledge the problem, NOT CHARGE A FEE for restocking

They have a published return policy that applies to all fully functional hardware products. Apple did not conceal this and they did not create it just for the iPod to keep you from returning it. You agree to those terms by purchasing through Apple. If you have a problem with the RESTOCKING FEE, you should direct your complaint's at Apple's RESTOCKING FEE policy. If $25 (or however much the restocking fee is) is more important to you than the principle of its aesthetics, then you've just put a price on the value of design, and it's not a high one.

It's not irrelevant or digressive. You could buy something else. You could have returned the nano if it was disappointing. You could even complain about the restocking fee you had to pay. But you have no grounds for legal action because legal action is a last resort, not a front line weapon. Go through the ALL of the proper channels, and only then if they fail you, pursue appropriate legal action. This has not been done.

 

[ksz]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1344

Introduced just last month, the nano is available in 2GB and 4GB capacities for $199 and $249, but does not ship standard with any protective casing. While Apple offers a set of iPod nano protective tubes for $29, the accessory was on backorder during the first month the player was available.

As a result of problems with the nano, Apple now ships a standard soft protective sleeve with each fifth-generation iPod video player that it sells. The company is also expected to include a standard protective casing with future revisions to the iPod nano.

This is wonderful news for iPod (video) owners and prospective buyers of both the 5G iPod and iPod nano. Now Apple will be shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

 

[ksz]

What you've ignored throughout your entire reply is that there is no proof that the nano scratches in a manner which is inconsistent with the materials used.

Exactly, the materials used are inappropriate for the rigors of its intended use, hence "design flaw". Different materials should have been used or existing ones reinforced against scratches. Capiche?

Nor have you demonstrated a functional harm in the choice of materials.

If my BMW scratches more than any other car under the same normal use conditions, I would consider the BMW's surface to be made of inappropriate materials that tarnish its appearance. Functional harm is irrelevant because aesthetic appeal is a feature of the product. That appeal will decay over time, but it must be a gradual decay. My iPod nano looks 3 years old after less than 3 weeks. That's a problem. Capiche?

Black is notorious for showing dirt, but it doesn't mean that it's a flawed color.

Who said anything about a flawed color?

Wine glasses are breakable, but that doesn't make them flawed, because they also make plastic wine glasses which you're free to buy. You're free to buy another product if you don't like the nano's qualities.

If the wine glasses broke simply by put your hands around them and lifting them, then the strength of the glass would be inappropriate for the intended rigors of its use, and the glasses would be defective -- in fact the breakage would lead to a catastrophic functional failure.

You're equating functional damage to cosmetic damage where no correlation exists.

No I am not. I made it clear that the aesthetic appeal of the iPod is a feature of the product. The aesthetic appeal is marketed and people factor their purchasing decision on that aesthetic. When that same aesthetic is tarnished after only 2 days, I consider that to be a problem, a legitimate problem. Capiche?

If nano scratching had a propensity to break the iPod, you'd be making a valid point. In making analogies, both analogous examples should be either functional or cosmetic, not one of each.

I made a clear distinction between aesthetics and functionality. Reread my BMW analogy. Capiche?

You can't tie "breaking" with "normal use" for one and not the other. The iPod functionally withstands all rigors of intended use, just like a scratched up dinner plate and a not scratched dinner plate both being structurally sound, and just like the champagne flutes both break when dropped.

Wrong. A dinner plate that becomes grossly scratched up after 2 days whereas other dinner plates do not, indicates that one of them is flawed in design. It is once again a matter of disproportionate rate of decay.

Me spilling coffee on a shirt will stain it. There is no time-based variable in cosmetic damage. I can spill coffee on it after one day or after three years. It will stain the shirt the same either way. You might have the logical assumption that an older shirt might be more likely to be stained, but that assumption does not rule out the very likely possibility that the new shirt was stained and the older shirt has no stains. And unless that shirt (or my iPod) was sold to me with a claim of "spillproof" (or "scratchless"), I have no right to accuse the company of anything.

Stained shirts are a bad example. Try this: If shirt #1 develops loose threads whereas shirt #2, under the same wearing conditions remains fully intact, would you consider shirt #1 to be defective? I certainly would.

Your example very clearly demonstrates the lack of time as a variable. Staining, scratching, and denting are all caused purely by incidental conditions which can and do occur at any time. It's a simple reality and shouldn't even be a point of contention.

Wrong again and again. Reread my analogy of loose threads. Capiche?

"Rate of decay" does not apply to scratching, because if the nano never comes in contact with anything, it will not scratch.

If the nano never came into contact with anything, it means I could not even put my finger on it to turn it on. It would just sit on the shelf. Your point here is again bogus. Not coming into contact with anything is not a normal use condition; it is, instead, a zero-use condition. Bogus.

The incidence of scratching does not have a time line. The longer you have it, the more likely it is that it will be scratched. But it's not time that is causing this, it's the fact that you've used it on several occasions and have exposed it to a higher total number of events.

Yes I have exposed it to a higher total number of "events" because I actually use it! I do not put it inside a glass cage and admire it from a distance! From normal use its surface has become tarnished after 2 days.

A scratch is a random event. Rolling a die 10 times means that you're more likely to have rolled a five than if you'd only rolled the die 3 times. It's not that you've been sitting there rolling the die for three times as long, it's that you've had multiple events.

Purely and utterly academic.

Then return the nano, as it does not live up to your expectations. (I understand you specifically can't, but that situation is of your own creation.) Buy something that does meet your criteria.

So it is once again down to, "take it or leave it." No thanks. I want Apple to FIX it. I want Apple to produce a wonderful iPod nano that does withstand the rigors of its intended use. I am NOT SUING Apple, but I hope they are listening to customers...customers like me. You would rather suppress the voice of the customer and tell them to just return the product and go away.

It's not like Apple is refusing to take returns. They have a published return policy, and you agree to those terms implicitly when you make a purchase. If, truly after two days, you find its cosmetic value less than you find appropriate, you return it. If you don't currently own one and you've convinced yourself that it scratches too easily, don't buy one. Either way, they're not forcing you to keep or buy a product you don't like.

I am keeping my nano and I will polish it. I will live with the tarnished surface. But I want to make it very clear that Apple is doing a disservice to its customers by not making the iPod nano resistant to scratches. The aesthetic appeal of the nano factored heavily in my decision to buy it, and I am dissatisfied that that aesthetic which I admired so much has been lost. I want to purchase future iPods, but I want Apple to make them right.

Any prior research into iPods. When a new model year comes out for a car, you turn to the previous model's reviews to look for any particular complaints or issues. If you find them, you then look at the reviews of the new product to see whether or not these are mentioned as having been addressed.

I purchased 5 iPods prior to the two nanos...or was it 6 prior iPods...checking...yes it was 6 (four 30GB models and 2 shuffles). None of them accumulated so many scratches so quickly. I expected the nano to have the same resilience and purchased two units the day after the announcement.

No prior warning? Have you never heard complaints about iPod scratches in the past? And, if this "problem" is apparent after just two days, wouldn't there then be complaints to be found rather quickly? Certainly by three weeks after its release, those complaints were there. Any research into iPods before purchase would have revealed not only the huge case/skin market, but also prior complaints.

So what does this "huge market" for iPod protection tell you? Is there a similar huge market to protect your other portable electronics devices? Seem to me it is quite clear that the iPod's scratchability is beyond normal and is a problem that Apple would be wise to address.

And now it seems Apple may be beginning to address the problem by offering a "generous" exchange policy to 5G iPod buyers and planning to ship every future nano with a protective sleeve. This is a good start, and more needs to be done.

 

[Azbola]

Bad choice

Nothing to do with the legal case itself really, but I believe Apple made a poor decision with the construction of this device.

It's all very impressive that it can be run over by a car or dropped from a helicopter or whatever and still work, but this isn't going to happen in reality.
It is however going to be in and out of pockets with the headphones attached and within weeks will look like crap.

A real shame as it is a really nice piece of equipment but I won't be buying another ipod product after this unless Apple change the construction, and more importantly change their attitude to their (new) customers.

As someone else has said, the nano took Apple mass market and they have to realise that all sorts of average people are going to buy this thing and don't care what it is made of, they just want it to work and look good. They will not look after it like some people here suggest because they are not used to doing this. They will however blame Apple when it looks like crap after a few weeks and not buy anything else from them.

Apple could so easily have avoided all this bad press and customer experience buy admitting the product was not quite right, changing the construction and fixing/replacing existing ones.

 

[matticus008]

Exactly, the materials used are inappropriate for the rigors of its intended use, hence "design flaw". Different materials should have been used or existing ones reinforced against scratches. Capiche?

No they are not inappropriate. They are structurally sound and functionally superior. Any plastic will scratch. Other plastics have other vulnerabilities as well that polycarbonate does not share. Again, you have an opinion that the iPod should be made of something different, but are unable to say WHAT it should be made of.

Functional harm is irrelevant because aesthetic appeal is a feature of the product. That appeal will decay over time, but it must be a gradual decay. My iPod nano looks 3 years old after less than 3 weeks. That's a problem. Capiche?

Oh, that is hilarious. "Functional harm is irrelevant." Indeed! Actually, it is the ONLY RELEVANT CONCERN in an accusation of product fault. Period. Give me a legal precedent where aesthetics have ever been considered in a claim of defect. I'll save you some trouble by telling you that you won't find any.

If the wine glasses broke simply by put your hands around them and lifting them, then the strength of the glass would be inappropriate for the intended rigors of its use, and the glasses would be defective -- in fact the breakage would lead to a catastrophic functional failure.

It would be defective because it failed to perform its function. It would not be defective because it didn't look as nice anymore. Again, think carefully about the issue of functional vs. aesthetic harm. There is a difference, and one is valid while the other is not.

No I am not. I made it clear that the aesthetic appeal of the iPod is a feature of the product. The aesthetic appeal is marketed and people factor their purchasing decision on that aesthetic. When that same aesthetic is tarnished after only 2 days, I consider that to be a problem, a legitimate problem. Capiche?

No. Aesthetics are not relevant in a claim of defect. Period. Not applicable. The end. A defect must be a structural, safety, mechanical, or otherwise functional deficiency. Something cannot be defective because it is ugly in any condition beyond personal opinion.

I made a clear distinction between aesthetics and functionality. Reread my BMW analogy. Capiche?

No you did not. Your BMW would not be defective if it happened to have more scratches on it after a week than another car one week old. The conditions of its use were different and uncontrollable. Even two BMWs of the same model would not look exactly the same after a week of normal use.

Wrong. A dinner plate that becomes grossly scratched up after 2 days whereas other dinner plates do not, indicates that one of them is flawed in design. It is once again a matter of disproportionate rate of decay.

No it doesn't. A clear glass plate will have highly visible scratches after the first few uses. An opaque, neutral color plate will not show those scratches to the same extent. This does not make the clear plate defective. That, good sir, is a ludicrous argument.

Stained shirts are a bad example. Try this: If shirt #1 develops loose threads whereas shirt #2, under the same wearing conditions remains fully intact, would you consider shirt #1 to be defective? I certainly would.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you must distinguish between aesthetic and functional. A stained shirt is an aesthetic problem, like a scratched nano. A shirt whose threads are wearing or losing their weaving is a functional problem. You have yet again taken an analogy and presented an invalid response.

Purely and utterly academic.

Absolutely not! It's very clear and salient. You've had a higher number of times to potentially scratch your iPod the longer you've had it. The fact that you've had it for a long time doesn't create scratches. Let's say you put it in a drawer and lost it for two years. It wouldn't magically have two years' worth of scratches on it when you found it. But let's say that instead you carry it with you every day. That's exposing it to a high number of possible scratching events.

It only takes one small movement against one particle to cause a scratch. That particle might be a bit of metal dust or it might be a Ford F150. The more total movements that the iPod makes, the higher the likelihood of scratching. That is the only measure. Time is NOT a relevant consideration. Time itself does not tell you anything useful. You need number of movements regardless of any other data you consider, so the dominant consideration is indeed number of events. This is not hard to see. The die-rolling example is fairly self-explanatory and exactly spot on. Have you ever looked at abrasion testing results? They are all listed in units of number. Even when the report says "several minutes in the tumbler lined with x grit of y type of sandpaper," it reports the observed number of strikes to plot against abrasion. Scratching is number of successful scratches / number of total impacts.

So it is once again down to, "take it or leave it." No thanks.

No, it's not. It's down to "play by the rules or quit your whining." You can't skip the rational steps and then complain about the exactly WRONG issue and expect to have any validity. It seems that the REAL complaint here is that returning the nano means a loss of some money. Everything else is an attempt to rationalize and irrational behavior and to force blame on Apple for "bad materials" when really the issue is restocking fees. It's a load of crap, and you know it.

You would rather suppress the voice of the customer and tell them to just return the product and go away.

The voice of the dollar is the most important. If people returned their nanos and sales fell, that would have a much greater effect on Apple than people throwing pointless and baseless lawsuits at them. The voice of the customer, in this case, is not one of being stuck with a defective product, but rather of one that they've decided is disappointing and they're being opportunistic corner-cutters. Again, the appropriate steps are (in this order, no skipping, no redirection):

1. Return the nano that is disappointing
2. Ask that you not be charged a restocking fee because you feel the product didn't meet your expectations. Because the product was working perfectly, unless they are sympathetic, you'll have to pay the restocking fee.
3. Make a formal complaint against Apple by sending them an email or preferably, a letter outlining your disappointment with the nano and the restocking fee.
4. Wait for Apple's response. Two weeks is a normal period.
5. If Apple tells you that you're not entitled to a refund of the restocking fee because you returned a working product, and their return policy clearly states that working products will be charged a restocking fee, then you may look into restocking fees and legal action.
6. File legal action against Apple for breaking a law protecting you from restocking fees. Do NOT file a suit that claims the product is defective for aesthetic imperfection, because in your research you will have discovered that the legal definition for a suit of defect requires "a flaw or deficiency in a product that creates a significant risk of harm or interferes with the normal function of that product." (emphasis added)

So what does this "huge market" for iPod protection tell you? Is there a similar huge market to protect your other portable electronics devices?

Yes. PDA screen protectors, keyboard protectors, laptop sleeves, padded laptop cases, portable game console cases, PDA cases, cell phone cases and screen protectors, other music player cases, camera cases and lens covers, and I'm sure I'm forgetting several.

All in all, the complaints against durability or strength are just flat out wrong, given the extremely high durability and strength of polycarbonate and the nano. Complaints of the use of inferior materials have not been backed by the suggestion of a superior material, so there's nothing to that. Complaints of the law suit's type that allege functional failure because of scratching have not been demonstrated by evidence. The suit's abuse of the legal system to use brute force and media intimidation against Apple certainly isn't going to work.

And yet the one complaint that is not an aggressive accusation against Apple--that the iPod just scratches a lot, like (and not more than) everything else--is the one Apple responds to. It's the one Apple has been working on in its design and engineering labs for a long time. And it's one the industry has been fighting for a long time. They've made progress, but they haven't found the answer. The discussion of how to handle complaints and what to do at Apple started before the lawsuit and was ongoing at least shortly prior to the 5G launch. That case they threw in was not an admission of fault or inferiority. It is just an attempt to placate customers while they continue to work.

But of course one might say that it's just a band aid and continue trumpeting your "defective materials" argument. If one truly believes that the materials are faulty...nothing has changed. But I'll say again, material fault has not been demonstrated, and I think that the real impetus here is that restocking fee and nothing else.

 

[snowmoon]

The two of you. Before you make a new post.... think... will you add anything to the discussion? If not DON'T POST ANYMORE!


Since some people keep dancing around the issue. While scratches are cosmetic, because the nano is sold as a way to view pictures as well a badly scratched screen could prevent one of it's functions from working properly. OTOH, I have yet to see a legitimate picture of a nano that is SO BADLY SCRATCHED as to prevent normal ( backlight on ) viewing of pictures and ( backlight off ) operation of menus. While I understand that cosmetics can, in theory, be the basis of an action I have yet to see ONE DEVICE that is marred in such a way as to prevent operation.

As for the materal choice. The plasic used may scratch easier, but is designed ( as ars technica found out ) to take a lot of abuse. It is more resiliant to shattering from a drop and other types of abuse that is common on electronics devices. Would you prefer they use a type of plastic that a) made them unable to design is such a small form factor or b) cracked and fractured easly?

So people, please THINK before you post! If you are not adding anything reasonable, let this thread die.

 

[~Shard~]

The two of you. Before you make a new post.... think... will you add anything to the discussion? If not DON'T POST ANYMORE!

Ah. but which one of them will be content with letting the other one have the last word?

I'm enjoying the debate - I say let it continue until they tire out, it's all good....

 

[ksz]

No they are not inappropriate. They are structurally sound and functionally superior.

Yes the materials are inappropriate because they tarnish the aesthetic value of the device and precipitate its surface decay. The look of the nano factored highly in my purchase decision and I have been robbed of that "feature" after 2 days.

Any plastic will scratch. Other plastics have other vulnerabilities as well that polycarbonate does not share. Again, you have an opinion that the iPod should be made of something different, but are unable to say WHAT it should be made of.

It can be made more scratch resistant. It can be made of anodized aluminum. It can be made of a magnesium-titanium shell. It can even be made of thick plastic. It can be accompanied by clear warnings on the package. It can be accompanied by a protective sleeve.

Oh, that is hilarious. "Functional harm is irrelevant." Indeed! Actually, it is the ONLY RELEVANT CONCERN in an accusation of product fault. Period. Give me a legal precedent where aesthetics have ever been considered in a claim of defect. I'll save you some trouble by telling you that you won't find any.

Sorry, you are demonstrating your ignorance again. I asked if you understood my arguments -- "capiche" -- but you don't. Functional harm is not relevant in this case because we're talking about aesthetic degradation, but if allowed to continue unabated, that aesthetic degradation can lead to functional failure. Because the aesthetics of the nano are a feature of the product, premature aesthetic degradation under normal use conditions is most certainly an impairment.

It would be defective because it failed to perform its function. It would not be defective because it didn't look as nice anymore. Again, think carefully about the issue of functional vs. aesthetic harm. There is a difference, and one is valid while the other is not.

Wrong. Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay is a product impairment. It is the use of inappropriate materials for the rigors of its intended use.

No. Aesthetics are not relevant in a claim of defect. Period. Not applicable. The end. A defect must be a structural, safety, mechanical, or otherwise functional deficiency. Something cannot be defective because it is ugly in any condition beyond personal opinion.

I think your comprehension of English is rapidly decaying as demonstrated once again by an ignorant statement. Who said anything about ugly? We're not talking about ugly. We're talking about a premature degradation of a product's appearance due to an inappropriate choice of materials. That choice of materials might provide structural strength, but it compromises aesthetic durability.

No you did not. Your BMW would not be defective if it happened to have more scratches on it after a week than another car one week old. The conditions of its use were different and uncontrollable. Even two BMWs of the same model would not look exactly the same after a week of normal use.

Wrong again. I said it before and I'll say it again because you're losing control: If my BMW accumulated disproportionately more scratches than any other car under the same use conditions, I would conclude that the materials of my car's shell are defective and not suited to the rigors of its intended use, and that more resilient materials are available, but aren't being used by BMW. Capiche?

No it doesn't. A clear glass plate will have highly visible scratches after the first few uses. An opaque, neutral color plate will not show those scratches to the same extent. This does not make the clear plate defective. That, good sir, is a ludicrous argument.

I have many clear glass plates that have no scratches. Glass is brittle, but it's hardened and resilient to scratching. Go to a window right now and try to scratch it. How much force and what type of blunt object will you need? You are really beginning to lose it.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you must distinguish between aesthetic and functional. A stained shirt is an aesthetic problem, like a scratched nano. A shirt whose threads are wearing or losing their weaving is a functional problem. You have yet again taken an analogy and presented an invalid response.

Wrong again. A few threads will loosen here and there, but you can still wear the shirt perfectly. A few people will stare at you, but who cares, it is just a few loose threads. Over time, more of those threads will become loose until such a time when it would no longer be a good idea to wear the shirt. The same is true with the accumulation of scratches on the nano. A few more weeks and I may not be able to see the screen. A shirt whose threads loosen far more precipitously than another would be considered defective.

Absolutely not! It's very clear and salient. You've had a higher number of times to potentially scratch your iPod the longer you've had it. The fact that you've had it for a long time doesn't create scratches. Let's say you put it in a drawer and lost it for two years. It wouldn't magically have two years' worth of scratches on it when you found it.

Did you not read my reply? Maybe you did but could not remember...short term memory loss. If I put the nano in a drawer or glass cage for 2 years, do you think that is considered to be normal use? You are describing a ZERO-USE condition. Sure I can subject the nano to a zero-use condition; in this case I would not have bothered to purchase it. But the moment I start to use it, it breaks out into a hive of scratches. This is NOT normal and indicates a problem. Capiche this time?

But let's say that instead you carry it with you every day. That's exposing it to a high number of possible scratching events.

Okay, so now Apple should publish guidelines for how often you are supposed to use the nano? Ridiculous.

It only takes one small movement against one particle to cause a scratch. That particle might be a bit of metal dust or it might be a Ford F150. The more total movements that the iPod makes, the higher the likelihood of scratching. That is the only measure. Time is NOT a relevant consideration. Time itself does not tell you anything useful.

Completely wrong to the point of hilarity. I buy a nano and I use it every day. In 2 days it is covered in a hive of scratches. The rate of aesthetic decay on the nano is greatly disproportionate to any other portable consumer device I own or have ever owned. That is a problem. Capiche this time?

You need number of movements regardless of any other data you consider, so the dominant consideration is indeed number of events.

Number of movements? Get real, man.

This is not hard to see. The die-rolling example is fairly self-explanatory and exactly spot on.

Exactly spot on? Self-proclaimed truism if ever there was one.

Have you ever looked at abrasion testing results? They are all listed in units of number. Even when the report says "several minutes in the tumbler lined with x grit of y type of sandpaper," it reports the observed number of strikes to plot against abrasion. Scratching is number of successful scratches / number of total impacts.

You want consumers to compute this formula for you? Ridiculous.

No, it's not. It's down to "play by the rules or quit your whining."

What whining? You are so content with the status-quo that you have abandoned all desire for change. I want Apple to make the product better; you want Apple to forget anything is wrong.

 

[ksz]

You can't skip the rational steps and then complain about the exactly WRONG issue and expect to have any validity. It seems that the REAL complaint here is that returning the nano means a loss of some money.

Do you think $250 makes a difference to me? I am not suing Apple. I want Apple to make a better product for all its customers because the current one is sub-par in the accumulation of aesthetic damage. You would not know what a problem is if it smacked you upside down because you spend your time convincing people that no problem can possibly exist.

Everything else is an attempt to rationalize and irrational behavior and to force blame on Apple for "bad materials" when really the issue is restocking fees. It's a load of crap, and you know it.

Completely wrong once again. You seem to be exhibiting a whole string of wrong answers. The rate of aesthetic decay on the nano is disproportionate to all other consumer portable devices I have owned. Therein lies a problem because it tarnishes the aesthetics of the device very prematurely. Stop and think about it.

The voice of the dollar is the most important. If people returned their nanos and sales fell, that would have a much greater effect on Apple than people throwing pointless and baseless lawsuits at them.

Wrong again. This means Apple will wait until Apple gets a larger and larger set of angry customers. Then and only then will Apple begin to make changes and attempt to regain their lost credibility. Do you really want Apple to wait until they have 1 million angry customers? If you want to run a company that way, be my guest, but make sure you tell me the name of that company so I make it a point NOT to invest there.

The voice of the customer, in this case, is not one of being stuck with a defective product, but rather of one that they've decided is disappointing and they're being opportunistic corner-cutters. Again, the appropriate steps are (in this order, no skipping, no redirection):

Once again: I want Apple to make the nano more scratch-resistant.

...6. File legal action against Apple for breaking a law protecting you from restocking fees. Do NOT file a suit that claims the product is defective for aesthetic imperfection, because in your research you will have discovered that the legal definition for a suit of defect requires "a flaw or deficiency in a product that creates a significant risk of harm or interferes with the normal function of that product." (emphasis added)

I haven't filed any lawsuit at all.

Yes. PDA screen protectors, keyboard protectors, laptop sleeves, padded laptop cases, portable game console cases, PDA cases, cell phone cases and screen protectors, other music player cases, camera cases and lens covers, and I'm sure I'm forgetting several.

The difference is that the "huge market" for iPod protectants and polishers is ONLY for the iPod -- one specific brand from one specific manufacturer. What you have listed above services hundreds of brands from many many manufacturers. And those devices, by your own admission, do NOT accumulate scratches at any abnormal rate.

My Dell Axim 50v, for example, has NO screen protectant. Never had it. I write with the Dell stylus all the time and there is not a single scratch of any kind after a year of ownership. While I could purchase a screen protectant, there is no NEED for one under normal use conditions. If someone hits it with a blunt object, a screen protector might help, but that would not be a "normal use" condition.

All in all, the complaints against durability or strength are just flat out wrong, given the extremely high durability and strength of polycarbonate and the nano.

Hogwash and merely opinion.

Complaints of the use of inferior materials have not been backed by the suggestion of a superior material, so there's nothing to that.

Wrong again. See opening statements.

Complaints of the law suit's type that allege functional failure because of scratching have not been demonstrated by evidence. The suit's abuse of the legal system to use brute force and media intimidation against Apple certainly isn't going to work.

Fine, but I am not suing so what are you talking about? You are addressing the entire response to me, but I am not part of the lawsuit. You are off the mark yet again.

And yet the one complaint that is not an aggressive accusation against Apple--that the iPod just scratches a lot, like (and not more than) everything else--is the one Apple responds to.

Wrong again. The nano scratches at a disproportionate rate.

It's the one Apple has been working on in its design and engineering labs for a long time. And it's one the industry has been fighting for a long time. They've made progress, but they haven't found the answer.

Name another portable consumer device with a soft polycarbonate layer similar to the nano's exterior construction. Then tell me how many such devices are there in relation to devices NOT made of that material.

But of course one might say that it's just a band aid and continue trumpeting your "defective materials" argument. If one truly believes that the materials are faulty...nothing has changed. But I'll say again, material fault has not been demonstrated, and I think that the real impetus here is that restocking fee and nothing else.

Wrong again. Since you are responding to my post I must again inform you that I am not part of the lawsuit and my impetus here is to raise awareness of an issue that Apple needs to correct.

And I am glad that Apple is starting to correct the problem:

1. 5G iPod owners can exchange the product for any hardware defect (any).
2. Future nanos will come with a protective sleeve.

Now why would Apple do this, particularly #2, if there was no problem? Why would they increase their COGS for no reason?

 

[devilot]

I wouldn't be surprised if my little post gets lost amidst the er, longer posts...
But I must mention one thing that's been bugging me about this debate.

As for the car paint issue, BMW's MINI had to 'recall' in effect, and re-paint a whole slew of 2002 and some 2003 black MINIs because the black paint was showing a propensity for peeling/cracking/scratching more so than all the other colors.

This was ignored for quite awhile w/ MINI USA passing off all responsibility to BMW USA who would then pass it off as owner negligence or abuse.

Eventually, the few vocal owners won out and did get new paint jobs.

 

[snowmoon]

And I am glad that Apple is starting to correct the problem:

1. 5G iPod owners can exchange the product for any hardware defect (any).
2. Future nanos will come with a protective sleeve.

Now why would Apple do this, particularly #2, if there was no problem? Why would they increase their COGS for no reason?

To prevent whiney people with buyers remorse from creating a harmful negative spin on the item. The cost of a sleeve is far less than the cost it will take apple to even respond to such a disgraseful class action lawsuit.

I understand the complaint, but have yet to see one nano or iPod with video that has a FUNCTIONAL defect because of non-abusive scratching ( not using harsh cleaners, not carring in your pocket with keys, not using paper towels and other abrasive cleaning products ).

I have owned several PDA's over the years and ALL screens would scratch under NORMAL use, and many people reported as much, had I not used a simple screen protector. Plastic PDA screen WILL scratch, just some will scratch sooner than others. Generally though they use a product that will scratch less easly that the iPod becuase it does not have to be structurally sound like the iPod.

 

[Maxx Power]

This is wonderful news for iPod (video) owners and prospective buyers of both the 5G iPod and iPod nano. Now Apple will be shipping a "tablecloth" with every table.

Bingo.

 

[Maxx Power]

64Bytes is utterly right. And matticus, the judging criteria for who has the best customer support can be greatly biased, they have to be consistent from customer to customer, and from what I have experienced for paying 60 bucks for a "technical" call, I wouldn't say they are in number 1. In my opinion, IBM was better for at least laptops (now Lenovo).

 

[ksz]

I wouldn't be surprised if my little post gets lost amidst the er, longer posts...
But I must mention one thing that's been bugging me about this debate.

As for the car paint issue, BMW's MINI had to 'recall' in effect, and re-paint a whole slew of 2002 and some 2003 black MINIs because the black paint was showing a propensity for peeling/cracking/scratching more so than all the other colors.

This was ignored for quite awhile w/ MINI USA passing off all responsibility to BMW USA who would then pass it off as owner negligence or abuse.

Eventually, the few vocal owners won out and did get new paint jobs.

Your post is not lost.

Wow, what a nice case in point!

 

[ksz]

To prevent whiney people with buyers remorse from creating a harmful negative spin on the item. The cost of a sleeve is far less than the cost it will take apple to even respond to such a disgraseful class action lawsuit.

I understand the complaint, but have yet to see one nano or iPod with video that has a FUNCTIONAL defect because of non-abusive scratching ( not using harsh cleaners, not carring in your pocket with keys, not using paper towels and other abrasive cleaning products ).

I have owned several PDA's over the years and ALL screens would scratch under NORMAL use, and many people reported as much, had I not used a simple screen protector. Plastic PDA screen WILL scratch, just some will scratch sooner than others. Generally though they use a product that will scratch less easly that the iPod becuase it does not have to be structurally sound like the iPod.

Snowmoon, I have already addressed all of these points in my varied responses to matticus008. I will not start a new debate with you. I will say that Apple is taking this action in order to prevent having 1 million angry customers because Apple believes that without this action, they would get 1 million angry customers. Now why would they think that?

Your points are noted, though.

 

[Maxx Power]

To prevent whiney people with buyers remorse from creating a harmful negative spin on the item. The cost of a sleeve is far less than the cost it will take apple to even respond to such a disgraseful class action lawsuit.

Yeah, this is the samething the corps tried to do with asbestos and other harmful products, tried to divert the responsibility to the workers and buyers by issuing posters stating how you can avoid contact or how harmful the substance is, and hence if you still choose to get in contact with the substance, it is supposed to be your own fault. Of course, this was in place of otherwise expensive action taking to rectify the problem.

 

[Maxx Power]

Your post is not lost.

Wow, what a nice case in point!

Exactly, precedence has been set, actually there have been plenty of lawsuits like this one.

 

[Azbola]

I understand the complaint, but have yet to see one nano or iPod with video that has a FUNCTIONAL defect because of non-abusive scratching ( not using harsh cleaners, not carring in your pocket with keys, not using paper towels and other abrasive cleaning products ).
.

Its only been out a few weeks, if they are like they are already what will they be like in a few months? Years?

And it scratches worse than any other portable electronic device I have ever owned.

Oh and another car paint legal example:
"Even though CAS forwarded numerous complaints of fires to NHTSA, the Tempo/Topaz was the only model not included in the 1987 recall of 3.6 million 1986-87 Ford vehicles for faulty fuel line couplings that caused engine compartment fires. A common and expensive defect is paint peeling on all 1985-93 models. Ford attempts to cover up paint problems by buying off aggressive consumers under a secret warranty and ignoring consumers who don't complain loudly."

 

[devilot]

Your post is not lost.

Wow, what a nice case in point!

I just thought of a slight spin from the same company, BMW's MINI... Because of the stink raised over those black-paint job MINIs, other owners became much more aware of their cars' coats.

To ease owners, MINI has since extended the warranty coverage for rust damage to a full 10 years (I suppose in case the paint peels and exposes the underlying metal and allowing oxidation).

So that is one such instance where first of all, cosmetics allowed for a recall and second of all... a cosmetic issue could develop into a functional issue. Luckily, BMW has stepped up to meet these issues (but not w/out a lot of effort on the part of a very few owners-- and yet so many of us have benefited from their vocal fight and initiative). It is because of this that although I am not currently involved w/ this nano lawsuit, I have no qualms w/ people who choose to fight it because if the courts prove it to have merit, then all of us w/ affected nanos could/would benefit from those few, similar to the iPod battery lawsuit.

 

[~Shard~]

I just thought of a slight spin from the same company, BMW's MINI... Because of the stink raised over those black-paint job MINIs, other owners became much more aware of their cars' coats.

To ease owners, MINI has since extended the warranty coverage for rust damage to a full 10 years (I suppose in case the paint peels and exposes the underlying metal and allowing oxidation).

So that is one such instance where first of all, cosmetics allowed for a recall and second of all... a cosmetic issue could develop into a functional issue. Luckily, BMW has stepped up to meet these issues (but not w/out a lot of effort on the part of a very few owners-- and yet so many of us have benefited from their vocal fight and initiative). It is because of this that although I am not currently involved w/ this nano lawsuit, I have no qualms w/ people who choose to fight it because if the courts prove it to have merit, then all of us w/ affected nanos could/would benefit from those few, similar to the iPod battery lawsuit.

Very fascinating thanks for pointing this out. I've been reading this whole debate, and this sets a bit of a precedent, and as you say, shows that "cosmetic" issues can essentially lead to functional issues which can rightfully be acted upon in the form of recall/lawsuit/what have you.

Thanks for adding this to the discussion.

 

[snowmoon]

Yeah, this is the samething the corps tried to do with asbestos and other harmful products, tried to divert the responsibility to the workers and buyers by issuing posters stating how you can avoid contact or how harmful the substance is, and hence if you still choose to get in contact with the substance, it is supposed to be your own fault. Of course, this was in place of otherwise expensive action taking to rectify the problem.

Asbestos related health problems are VERY HARD TO CONTRACT! I have asbestos in my own home. It takes repeated airborne exposuse to actually show any signs of health problems. As a side note, asbestos also saves more lives and energy over the years that could ever have been harmed by this substance!

Please don't use an example of life and death when comparing it to a frigging peice of personal and completly unnecessary electronics.

 

[snowmoon]

Very fascinating thanks for pointing this out. I've been reading this whole debate, and this sets a bit of a precedent, and as you say, shows that "cosmetic" issues can essentially lead to functional issues which can rightfully be acted upon in the form of recall/lawsuit/what have you.

Thanks for adding this to the discussion.

Paint peeling -> RUST if not repainted.

iPod micro-scratching -> Nothing

Not equivilent.

 

[devilot]

Paint peeling -> RUST if not repainted.

iPod micro-scratching -> Nothing

Not equivilent.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough-- even those of us MINI owners w/out the problematic black coats have still received extended warranties (I mean from Chili Red to Dark silver). And not all of the paint issues were peeling... some of them had paint bubbles, some of them scratched more, some coats got a cracked look but w/out exposure to air (yet). That's my point-- MINI recognized a potential issue; rectified the affected vehicles, and then extended coverage to all of their customers w/in a time bracket (generous really from 2002-2004 vehicles, that is a good # of cars by the way) to ward off more BBB complaints and/or lawsuits.