iPod nano owners sue Apple over screen issues

[AppleInsider]

Consumers upset about their iPod nano screen becoming easily scratched or marred have filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple Computer, demanding their money back plus a share of the company’s profits.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California in San Jose on Wednesday, will bring before the courts the same complaints recently voiced by nano adopters on websites and online message boards.

According to the Red Herring, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of nano owner Jason Tomczak and others who have purchased the relatively new device. The lawsuit alleges Tomczak rubbed a paper towel on the face of his nano and “that alone left significant scratches.”

In the suit, lawyers for the plaintiffs charge that screens on the nano “scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable, and violating state consumer protection statutes [...] and causing Plaintiff class members to incur loss of use and monetary damages.”

The suit goes on to allege that the player's screen "scratches so excessively that the items shown on the screen can no longer be viewed by the user. In fact, if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card, or even the earphones that accompany the nano, the devices would likely scratch so badly that viewing the screens would be extremely difficult, if not impossible."

Tomczak and class action members are being represented by law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and David P. Meyer & Associates.

The lawsuit follows an abundance of nano complaints around the Web, media reports about its increased susceptibility to scratches, and Apple's own acknowledgment of an LCD flaw with a small number of the players.

Last month, scratching issues related to the nano spurred a flurry of first-hand reports from disgruntled customers and also fueled the creation of websites like www.flawedmusicplayer.com, which urged Apple recall the product.

Apple responded by acknowledging a "vendor quality problem in a small number of units" that could cause the nano's LCD screen to fail or crack, but downplayed concerns that the screen was more prone to scratches than previous iPod models.

"A few vocal customers are saying that their iPod nano is more susceptible to scratching than prior iPods. We have received very few calls from customers reporting this problem, and do not believe this is a widespread issue," the company said.

Apple added: "The iPod nano is made with the same high-quality polycarbonate plastic as the fourth-generation iPod. We suggest concerned customers use one of the iPod nano cases that are coming to market to protect the music player."

In the 31-page suit obtained by AppleInsider, Tomczak and his lawyers oppose Apple's response, arguing: "Although it was clear that the nano was defective, with the fierce competition in the digital music industry, Apple decided not to delay the release of the Nano, but to pass off the cost of replacing the defective product along to class members."

"Moreover," the plaintiffs said, "rather than admit the design flaw when consumers began to express widespread complaints about the screen's propensity to scratch easily and excessively, Apple concealed the defect and advised class members that they would need to purchase additional equipment to prevent the screen from scratching excessively."

The plaintiffs are asking for a trial by jury. They seek damages including reimbursement for the cost of the nanos, statutory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. They are also asking for a share of the "unlawful or illegal profits" Apple has made from sales of the players.

Apple introduced the iPod nano on September 6th and has since sold over 1 million of the players. However, recent analysis suggest Apple is gearing up to sell as many as 10 million nanos in the three-month period ending December 31st.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1340)

[SoopaDrive]

:rolleyes:

Didn't we have several cases like this before?

[JeffDM]

Does anyone have photos of the scuffed devices? Of all the stories I've seen, with all the posts and claims made, I have yet to see a photo of the damage. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'd like to see what it does look like, not someone's written or verbal description of the problem.

If they get money back from Apple, I don't see why they'd get more than that other than to cover legal expenses. A share of the company's profits are already in the sale price of the nano, plus some if the device was bought through a third party.

[syno]

God Bless America

[Anders]

Originally posted by AppleInsider

[...]demanding their money back plus a share of the company’s profits

[...]

Tomczak rubbed a paper towel on the face of his nano and “that alone left significant scratches.”

[...]

In fact, if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card, or even the earphones that accompany the nano, the devices would likely scratch so badly that viewing the screens would be extremely difficult, if not impossible."[...]



I dislike Apple, the company, as much as the next guy. But these people should have their assses handed to themselves. Why not just stick with the truth instead of exaggerating and claim a replacement insted of this junk?

[hmurchison]

Sorry folks. As much as I hate to admit it ..it's totally true.

I went into the Apple Store with my gf not long after the Nano was out. Every single floor model was scratched to a point were legibility was hampered.

I will not buy a Nano because of this and I'll be watching to make sure the issue doesn't affect the larger iPod either.

Apple has laid another PR turd here and frankly I think they should lose the class action lawsuite. It's reasonable to expect a certain amount of durability in a portable product. The Nano does not have that durability IMO.

[zang]

Damn, my Honda has scratches. Perhaps I should sue them for a new Civic, huh?

F-ing ridiculous.

[Mike Moscow]

Somebody should sue apple for releasing those F-ing ridiculous powerbooks

[AppleMatt]

What gives them the right to demand a share of the profits? That alone just proves the motive.

Let's say that they were illegally gained profits, why should these people have a share? That's the pot calling the kettle black. If I bought one and so did James, but James gets a refund plus cash from Apple, aren't I going to be annoyed that I just gave a load of money to James? What did James do to deserve that money? I'd rather it was kept by the court and given back to me as a refund.

James is basically saying "I'm not happy with this, you took my money for an inferior product. Therefore I'd like my money back, and I'd like to take someone else's money for the hassle it caused me. Sod them, I'm more important."

Matt

[Anders]

Originally posted by Mike Moscow
Somebody should sue apple for releasing those F-ing ridiculous powerbooks

If they had released anything better someone would dig up 100 recent PB buyers and made a class action against Apple over the resell value of their machines.

[aestival]

It's true! Not only are nanos susceptible to being shoved in a coin & key filled pocket and sat on, but aluminum PowerBooks are susceptible to damage from nails that are pounded clear through the case, and I have noticed that Apple's install DVDs are much more flammable than their competitors'. For shame.

[Guartho]

Hmm.. rather than taking half an hour and a $20 bill to buy a PDA style screen protector, I'll just get an attorney and spend months in a law suit.

"Oh my god... The flaw in my totally unnecessary luxury item has caused me so much woe and grief. I had to take out two loans to buy this music player and now it's hard to read. My life as I knew it is over. Damn you Apple! Damn your corporate greed and what it's done to my life! I must be compensated!

:no: and a thousand times :rolleyes:

[Robin Hood]

My new Nokia phone's screen is already all scratched up after just a few weeks use. I want my money back and I want part of Nokia's profits!

Oh and my old Nokia phone, after I had it for a few months dust got behind the screen, and it was very hard to make out the text. I want my money back for that one too!

Get real folks, if you don't want it to be scratched, put it in a case. Take my Palm Tungsten T3 for example. It's important to me, so I put it in a case, and it doesn't get scratched that way. If I just dumped it in my pocket, it sure would.

[sillycybin]

wow-
the most riduculus thing that i've heard in a while. How do they expect their money back PLUS a cut of Nano profits. WTF is that about? How do they expect to get a cut of Nano profits?

{The suit goes on to allege that the player's screen "scratches so excessively that the items shown on the screen can no longer be viewed by the user. In fact, if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card, or even the earphones that accompany the nano, the devices would likely scratch so badly that viewing the screens would be extremely difficult, if not impossible."}

Who in their correctly sane mind would put an unprotected iPod in a pocket with coins and keys?

didn't your mommy teach you that if you want to keep your toys, you had to take care of them. Mr. Tomczak should be arrested and convicted of iPod abuse.

[Matthew Yohe]

"The lawsuit alleges Tomczak rubbed a paper towel on the face of his nano and “that alone left significant scratches."

That explains why it's scratched! Case closed.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by AppleInsider
The lawsuit alleges Tomczak rubbed a paper towel on the face of his nano and “that alone left significant scratches.”
I hope this shit for brains doesnt have eye glasses...you do NOT use paper towels or any wood-baced product to clean clear polimers...you use microfiber cloth, anyone who has bought eyeglasses with advanced plastic lenses in the last ~4 years knows that!(I have been using microfiber for ~10 years!) it aint rocket science!


Wanna polish/buff the iPod? use microfiber

[bergz]

Originally posted by JeffDM
Does anyone have photos of the scuffed devices? Of all the stories I've seen, with all the posts and claims made, I have yet to see a photo of the damage.

Open your eyes, man.

This is the mini that spent the entire keynote in Steve's pocket.

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/2199/miniscratch3yt.jpg

--B

[mike518]

The lawsuit alleges Tomczak rubbed a paper towel on the face of his nano and “that alone left significant scratches.”

wow what an idiot. maybe someone should inform this retard that lcd screens are usually made of polycarbonate... and even the strongest polycarbonate, take glasses for example, are VERY susceptable to being scratched from wood fiber. furthermore just because paper towels sometimes seem very soft, they usually have at least some wood fibers... i guess when i scratch my glasses with a paper towel, rather than trying to get lens crafters to replace them under warranty (which they wont btw) i should just sue them... goodluck with your lawsuit, unfortnately you cant sue for not understanding how things work. Hey Jason, next time try using something soft, light and cotton, like your brain for example :-)

[notaclone]

It's just plastic casing, obviously softer than a regular LCD screen. Not obvious of course, if you bought it sight unseen, so I feel a little sorry for those who didn't go to there local store and beat up the store model. Has anyone seen the new video ipod?

The first thing I do when I get anything with an LCD screen is cover it. You can spend $5 for a PDA screen protector,
or the next time you buy an electronic devices of any kind save the sticky plastic film protector and cut sheets out to protect all your toys.
I was happily living off the sheet of plastic on the side of my G4 for years, keeping my min ipod (click wheel too), camera, phone and palm coddled like babies.
I just unwrapped a bunch of keyboards and saved the plastic for...
my new Nano. I'll wrap it lengthwise, tape it in the back and enjoy my lighter than air new toy.

(Funny I'm readingh this article exactly ONE minute after deciding to buy the Nano. I was going for the video iPod, but decided on a Palm TX instead. I called Palm and asked them to please get on the horn to Steve so I can watch Lost on my TX. Jeeze it's tiny!).

Can I sue because I think the skinny format is going to cause Blackberry Thumb syndrome? THAT is my reservation over the new design.

[Ringo]

Originally posted by bergz
Open your eyes, man.

This is the mini that spent the entire keynote in Steve's pocket.

(image)

--B
Try adding some white blurring to the screen. Scratches scatter light, not refract it.

[hmurchison]

You all are being silly and unrealistic. The facts are the Nano is a portable device that will indeed be put into pockets and bookbags and whatnot.

The reality is it scratches far too easy. I've seen it with my own eyes. It mars bad enough to obscure the screen.

Asking for a portion of the profits is frankly ridiculous but lawyers will always ask for the moon and hope to get close.

Apple should have spent the extra money on higher quality plastic. Looking at the bill of goods thread they are making excellent margin. They did'nt have to take the uncessary risk and use cheaper plastic.

[a_greer]

It is a classic case of duche bag sues deep pocket looking for a fast pay day.

But then the lawyers make it a class action, they get a fat paycheck and the class members get a $2 cupon to the iTms...happens all the time to other companies the same way.

Class action reform is needed now, its purpose has been soarly abused by fucktard lawyers! (pardon the redundency)

[FireEmblemPride]

I saw this coming when the first widespread cases of scratching occurred. I think if it is indeed trial by jury, Apple is going to lose.

As for the case itself, I don't think suing because of the scratches is wrong, but I think wanting a cut out of the nano's profits is very unrealistic and isn't going to happen.

In the very end, I hope it means a free case like the one that came with the iPod video or something like that.

[revs]

if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card

find me anything with a screen tat doesnt scratch when you stick it in your pocket with sharp and blunt metal items....

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by revs
find me anything with a screen tat doesnt scratch when you stick it in your pocket with sharp and blunt metal items....

I think this is an excellent point.

I plan to use thin sheets if I ever get a nano, sheets of what, I don't know. I have a pack of Fellowes WriteRight PDA screen protectors that might cover the entire front.

Personally, I hadn't seen any nanos in the store with unreadable screens, they have minor scratches, but nothing that hindered my ability to see the screen in full detail.

I think it was JVC that supposedly has an outstanding scratch protector coating for plastic, I'd like to see portable devices use that.

[Bancho]

I've had mine for a month and no noticeable scratches so far. I don't put it in my pant's pocket though. I put it in my shirt pocket. Why on earth would I put it somewhere that a bunch of metal objects are just waiting to chew it up.

As for the materials it made of, it seems to be the same exact plastic my 30GB iPod is made of so I see no real problem.

ps - I cut up a PDA screen protector to put over the screen of the nano but it has too many bubbles for my liking so I've been using it without the screen protector.

[macFanDave]

rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable

These people's illiteracy is not Apple's fault! Perhaps these dumb bastards ought to sue their parents or their former teachers for letting them out of the school system without being able to read.

[JamesG]

I agree this is a bit silly.

I have a Treo 650. The very first thing I did to after taking it out of the box was apply a screen protector. It's a fragile electronic device, not a rock or a block of wood.

Apple should (if they don't already) ship it with a basic plastic screen protector.

The only problem I can see pursuable by a court of law is the case of the screen actually cracking with normal usage. If you've got something with a delicate LCD screen rattling around in your pocket along with your keys and other garbage, then you should take a few seconds to pause and reflect upon your actions.

Yet another frivolous lawsuit. Meanwhile, we continue to fight a war in another country under false pretenses. :P

[BRussell]

I found a human finger in my nano.

[hmurchison]

Originally posted by revs
find me anything with a screen tat doesnt scratch when you stick it in your pocket with sharp and blunt metal items....

That's rather obvious but what's happening is that even a person's cotton clothing is scratching the surface. There have been too numerous complaints about the scratched up Nanos to write this off as an isolated incident.

Consumers have the right to petition the governement for a redress whether it be frivolous or not.

[aegisdesign]

The class action IS stupid but then I kind of agree with the complaint. The Nano is a pretty piece of design aesthetically but design is more than just looks and for something that has to go in your pocket the materials used and design are just unsuitable.

The screen needs protection. That's an obvious requirement and should be accommodated in the design, not after the fact with 3rd party cases and clear film.

I've not seen the scratches personally but I'm not surprised. My iBook scratches really easy too. Polycarbonate is just too soft. I don't know what the difference is between my Sony Ericsson T610 and the iBook materials wise but I've had that phone for 3 years+ and it's got almost no scratches on it despite it being chucked in bags, in my pocket, the bottom of a bag whilst mountain biking or rolling around the dash in the car. SE can do it, why not Apple? For that matter, my lenses on my glasses don't scratch that easily either.

So, I still think there's something in the complaints, regardless of the stupid lawsuits.

[Bancho]

Originally posted by hmurchison
That's rather obvious but what's happening is that even a person's cotton clothing is scratching the surface. There have been too numerous complaints about the scratched up Nanos to write this off as an isolated incident.

Consumers have the right to petition the governement for a redress whether it be frivolous or not.

I disagree, the cotton is most likely not the culprit, but the grit, and debris that gets caught in there. (in addition to whatever other seeming inoocent objects the people have in there)

ps - I've got an old iBook (the icebook not thee opaque one) and 2 iPods. All of them see regular use and are a few yers old. They have some scratches but nothing as severe as the ones some people claim they've gotten from "normal" use and storage. I'm a bit surprised at how some poeple treat their stuff...

[Ringo]

I like how they cite the screen cracking issue (which is something Apple should completely be held accountable for). Sure, it's a completely unrelated issue, but who cares!?

Then again, I have a Sony Ericsson T610 phone which I have been keeping in my pockets for two years. It has a few scratches, but nothing nearly as bad as what I've seen on iPods (I've had a 1st, 3rd and now 4th gen). There are clear coatings out there that are insanely durable, but for whatever unknown reason, Apple doesn't use them.

If you think polycarbonate is scratch-resistant, take a look at the security glass at a convenience store in a bad neighborhood some time.

No skin off my back, though, my friend gave me one of the socks he bought and, so far, no scratches on my 4G.

[theapplegenius]

Originally posted by BRussell
I found a human finger in my nano.

:lol: only in the good ol' US of A!

[bergz]

Originally posted by BRussell
I found a human finger in my nano.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ajmas]

While I would like to defend Apple, I will not. On the other hand these people are asking a bit much. If they still like their iPod on principle then should ask Apple to exchange their iPod nanos, along with making a slip cover standard, as they now have with new iPod video. Remember that if the suit is to outrageous then it is more likely to fail. I reckon that the 'share of the profits' element is to pay for lawyer's fees, so that the plaintiffs don't have to shell out themselves.

I put my cell phone in my pocket all the time, yes it does scratch, but not to the extent of making these screen unreadable. This shows a lack of testing of the durability, based on the use of the product. The Ars Technica tests of the iPod nano showed that it stood up to the most severe tests, but what this shows is that normal uses cause more issues. Apple should either change the plastic used, so that when it does scratch (since they will) they aren't so noticeable or provide a slip case standard.

I will that I bought a cover for my iPod, but then again it was more because I hold more value to it that my cell phone.

[Anders]

Originally posted by BRussell
I found a human finger in my nano.

And we all know how that ended.

[BAD TASTE WARNING]

If you are right, taking the size of the Nano into account, Apple is also breaking the laws against embryo research.

[/BAD TASTE WARNING]

[JustDoIt]

Unless Apple claims that it is scratch resistant or that is doesn't scratch, they don't have a case. It's all user fault. Plus the Nano comes with a protective plastic film.
When you are the size of Apple, things like this will happen. People in the U.S. will sue for anything they can. Sad.

[CosmoNut]

I just cannot understand how, if the nanos use the same plastics as the 4Gs AND we've never heard about scratch problems on the 4Gs how this could possibly be a legitimate problem nano-wide. Maybe in the process of making the plastics some didn't cure correctly or something, but I want to see one of these unreadable iPod nanos. I want to see it in person or a very good picture with the backlight on of this undreadable nano. I'd imagine you'd need SIGNIFICANT damage to the screen to make it unreadable. If you manage to scratch it that badly, maybe you need to re-evaluate how you use your nano?

All comments from hmuchison considered and other complaints duly noted, I just don't see how this is as big of a problem or significant amount of damage as the lawsuit has made it out to be.

[mike518]

Originally posted by hmurchison
You all are being silly and unrealistic. The facts are the Nano is a portable device that will indeed be put into pockets and bookbags and whatnot.

The reality is it scratches far too easy. I've seen it with my own eyes. It mars bad enough to obscure the screen.

Asking for a portion of the profits is frankly ridiculous but lawyers will always ask for the moon and hope to get close.

Apple should have spent the extra money on higher quality plastic. Looking at the bill of goods thread they are making excellent margin. They did'nt have to take the uncessary risk and use cheaper plastic.

idk, back when i had my 20GB, id always keep change and keys in the other pocket... kindda common sense right? i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk... why? because crumbs dont taste as good as cookies. maybe this guy should get the money, afterall gotta feel bad for him since he obviously must have a shitty life with his lack of common sense.

[nathan22t]

hahahaha

silly idiots need to chill

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
I just cannot understand how, if the nanos use the same plastics as the 4Gs AND we've never heard about scratch problems on the 4Gs how this could possibly be a legitimate problem nano-wide.

I think it's also possible that the much-decreased size of the nano compared to the 4G encourages different use, a pocket with a 4G would probably stay alone in a pocket due to its size, but with a nano, stupid people could be more likely to shove other objects besides the nano into the same pocket without protection.

[hmurchison]

afterall gotta feel bad for him since he obviously must have a shitty life with his lack of common sense.

Is this quote aimed at me?

Hell I'd be defending Apple if I hadn't walked into store and saw exactly what people are talking about. The screen isn't recessed a tad bit like the iPod mini and iPods are so it really takes a beating.

Does Apple really need to endanger their iPod reputation even a little bit by using inferior plastics? Class Action lawsuits come and go but I won't doubt their validity. People work hard for their money and portable devices should be built to handle the rigors of portability.

[hankx32]

Generally, I don't take good care of my things. I notoriously will throw my Ipod (4th generation) into a pocket or a a backpack with all sorts of dangerous other crap, keys, microphones, change, wires, screws . . .
So my Ipod is pretty scratched up, but I don't cry about it. I treat my Samsung picture-phone the same way if not much worse, I have dropped on concrete many times, and there is not one scratch on it. To make sure what I'm saying is true, I just purposely tried to scratch it with a car key, and it left no mark.

I think what some of us want is an Ipod that you don't have to worry about so much. It would be cool if keys and coins had no effect on the Ipod like my cellphone. Samsung is using some wonderful plastic. I love plastic.

[aegisdesign]

Originally posted by JustDoIt
Unless Apple claims that it is scratch resistant or that is doesn't scratch, they don't have a case. It's all user fault. Plus the Nano comes with a protective plastic film.
When you are the size of Apple, things like this will happen. People in the U.S. will sue for anything they can. Sad.

In the UK we have consumer laws which state something has to be 'fit for purpose'. If it scratches really easy in your pocket, it could be argued that it's not 'fit for purpose'. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to keep it in your pocket and expect it to survive unscratched.

That plastic film is just packing. It's definitely not fit for the purpose of protecting it in daily use.

[nagromme]

If Apple knowingly used a DIFFERENT material from past iPods, and then LIED and said it was the SAME, then they should be sued (for a refund, not a share of profits).

If that's not the case, then Apple can EASILY prove that the material is the same. End of case. Nice try.

In the middle is a situation where Apple has been TOLD the material is the same, but the manufacturing contractor is doing the lying, and using a different material. Then Apple might be sued, but then in turn could sue the company that carried out the fraud. Or, upon discovering this, just make it right on their own and then dump that manufacturer.

My iPod was caseless in my pocket for a couple weeks before my PodSleevz arrived. A year later and it's still nearly scratchless. And made of the same material, according to Apple, as the nano.

[akhomerun]

the people filing this lawsuit could EASILY win it especially if apple is collecting any royalties from ipod accessory makers.

im not sure, but i thought that apple had some kind of royalty they collect from sales of accessories (or maybe i'm just thinking of the dock connector royalty)

even if not, just the fact that apple sells nano cases means that it could easily be argued that they are trying to capatalize on this.

[macslut]

I have a black 4GB Nano that I got about 1 week after release. I've used it pretty much every day and usually plop it into my coin pocket or main pocket.

I've seen no scratch issues on mine.

[dacloo]

sue the bastards!!!!!

[nagromme]

Originally posted by hmurchison
I went into the Apple Store with my gf not long after the Nano was out. Every single floor model was scratched to a point were legibility was hampered.
Yes, because, half a dozen people (or maybe fifty) went and TRIED to scratch the screen to test it! Seriously. Don't judge wear and tear by those display models.


Originally posted by CosmoNut
I just cannot understand how, if the nanos use the same plastics as the 4Gs AND we've never heard about scratch problems on the 4Gs how this could possibly be a legitimate problem nano-wide.

Some technical error by the manufacturing company may emerge. But I think it's probably just a social phenomenon: the Bandwagon Effect. People making each other look for scratches, and it snowballs. Plus--only possibly--a lot of fake posts by people who hate Apple and were driven over the edge by how cool the nano is :p

[vormkrijger]

its scratchy very very scratchy

i have it for 3 weeks now
used it 3 times (waiting for protectionfilm)
every time nice in a emty soft pocket
and its .... wel mmmmm scratchy

i even made a scratch with my finger

:\

[hkbaq]

I used to work in a lab whre they manufactured lenses.
Plastic ones (CR-39 is the officila name) is more scratch resitant to scratches than polycarbonate, which is in fact a much stronger material, capable of sustaining large amounts of force, which is probably why they choose it. to protect the lcd, if you didn't figure it out!
material choosing is hard, you never et everything you want. and i understand their choice for this material. Proctecting the lcd is the most important thing, otherwise you just lost everything.


This moron who is sueing apple should get up from his azz and get a life. This is absurd.....if you don't like the fact that it might scratch, DON'T BUY IT! get an iRiver, Dell or something stoopid like that...

[Bmaier]

This argument is kind of silly. I CAN talk because I actually own a nano. I admit, these products do scratch somewhat easily, but I should've done the homework and gone to the store to find that out. Im a perfectionist, so yes, this scratching does bother me.

However, to say that the scratches make the product illegible/unusable is absurd. Know what you are getting yourself in to. Apple didn't lie about the ability to use the product, and they made no claims about how easily it scratched. You'll notice scuffs and light abrasions indicating motion. Big deal. If you wish, buy a case and protect your investment. But sue Apple? Give me a break!

[Bmaier]

Originally posted by akhomerun
the people filing this lawsuit could EASILY win it especially if apple is collecting any royalties from ipod accessory makers.

im not sure, but i thought that apple had some kind of royalty they collect from sales of accessories (or maybe i'm just thinking of the dock connector royalty)

even if not, just the fact that apple sells nano cases means that it could easily be argued that they are trying to capatalize on this.

So are cell phone makers capitalizing on the ability to scuff a cell phone? What about laptop makers, are they capitalizing on the ability to scratch the computer? Wallet makers! For years they have been capitalizing on the ability to abraise my credit cards!

You know, this brings up a good point: the mini store floors look terrible from scuffs. IBooks look terrible from scuffs. See a trend here?

[iShawn]

Cases or iPodCleaner (http://www.ipodcleaner.com/). Simply enough. I hate stupid fools. In fact, I wrote a blog entry when this first went down (http://shawnstrickland.blogspot.com/2005/09/now-that-billy-bob-can-afford-nano.html).

Simply buy this and charge $1-$5 a pop to your friend's with scratches. It's what I plan to do. You'll make more money doing that than it actually cost you, and make more money than trying to sue Apple over a scratched iPod.

There are enough analogies so I'll spare you.

[ZO]

i've seen a Nano of a friend THE DAY AFTER he bought it and it looked like coarse sandpaper was run across it... and he ONLY had it in an empty suit internal pocket. Bought in evening, went to office next day, saw him that same evening.

I didnt believe him in beginning, but I had seen him when he bought it the day before... and he's generally a person who will keep gadgets pristine for years to then try and sell 2nd hand for as much as possible...

Boh... you gotta have a few that are bad bunch.

Anyway, he is sending the fokker back and is waiting for a new one. No questions asked. The guy at store (in Italy, through telephone) didnt even flinch, just said "we're sending you a prepaid box, instructions within..."

I really hope my iPod Video (black) will not suffer in the same way...

[rain]

My iShuffle doesn't scratch at all. I feel left out.
I would imagine these feeling of inadequacy and abandonment will fester in my mind, eventually resulting in a complete mental breakdown.
My life will be torn from me as a result.
Why .... oh why, didn't I buy a Nano? I could have sued and belonged. I could have been somebody.

Now i'm left, looking at my unscratchable mp3 player, alone in the dark.
Whats that mother... no... they had no idea mother... leave them alone.....

[jdbartlett]

Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple should have spent the extra money on higher quality plastic. Looking at the bill of goods thread they are making excellent margin. They did'nt have to take the uncessary risk and use cheaper plastic.It's not the quality, it's the durability. I agree that this is a very silly lawsuit (right up there with suing Nike for untied laces and Starbucks for hot coffee), but it's the durability and not the quality of the casing material that's causing a problem.

iPods are encased in an extremely high quality plastic. That's not to say that they're encased in an extremely durable plastic. It's like making battle armour out of velvet: very fine stuff, nice to see, nice to touch, not exactly durable.

[audiopollution]

Mine looks like hell.

I keep it in my shirt pocket, or the inside pocket of my jacket - never in a pocket with keys, etc.

Two days after I got it I put the supplied headphones in the pocket with the nano. In the 5 minutes it took to get from the bus to my house i ended up with 3 very noticable marks on the iPod. Since then I haven't dared to put anything else in a pocket with it.

In the weeks since then it had accumulated so many swirl marks it looks like it's time to send out the Zamboni.

I'm sorely disappointed with the aesthetics, but not the product as a whole.

[mdriftmeyer]

Do folks who wear glasses clean their lenses with rough cotton based papertowels?

No. If they do they immediately see scratches. You won't get anywhere suing the Optics industry on that one.

This is a frivolous lawsuit.

If there are scratch covers that can be purchased for this like there are for past models I'd purchase that immediately when I bought the nano.

Perhaps when a polymer based, translucent material that resists hard scratches is made available at affordable prices Apple will probably be the first to use them.

But I bet someone will take a knife and test it and then proclaim the surface isn't scratch proof.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally posted by jdbartlett
It's not the quality, it's the durability. I agree that this is a very silly lawsuit (right up there with suing Nike for untied laces and Starbucks for hot coffee), but it's the durability and not the quality of the casing material that's causing a problem.

iPods are encased in an extremely high quality plastic. That's not to say that they're encased in an extremely durable plastic. It's like making battle armour out of velvet: very fine stuff, nice to see, nice to touch, not exactly durable.

Perhaps Apple should come out with the Carbon Fiber, high impact proof model called the JARHEAD.

[macspirit]

Isn't the first question whether or not the consumer/plaintiff exercised reasonable care in preventing the alleged scratches? All Apple has to show is that the nano is made of exactly the same material as the 4th generation iPod (as well as the new video iPod, btw). So they should have been just as susceptible to the alleged scratching problem as the nano...but, absent their inclusion in the suit, we must assume they weren't. As others have pointed out, use of improper materials to clean the polycarbonate face of the nano does not show reasonable care on the part of the owner. Nor does placing the nano into an environment where it will come into contact with materials of sufficient hardness at sufficient pressure to mar the nano's plastic face. This suit is without merit. Class action lawsuits are just the sleazy legal profession's way of using legalistic BS to make a fast buck. The big winners in these things are ALWAYS the attorneys, not the class participants. So what should be done? Personally, I would suggest looking to Mr. Shakespeare in 'Henry VI' for inspiration: "The first thing we do, let's ... all the lawyers."

[hmurchison]

It's not the quality, it's the durability.

Quality and Durability a two seperate issues. If I was to say the iPod nano was a quality but non-durable product would many agree with me that it was quality at all? Or does a durable but crappy product suddenly become quality?

Consumers are paying for both. Apple charges a premium and they expect premium performance.

This is a frivolous lawsuit.

It is no such thing. The defects that have come with the Nano are flat out unacceptable. Who ever heard of a portable device that you have to baby. At the very least Apple should be forced to put a warning on the outside of the box stating that Nanos will scratch easy and precautions need to be made to protect it. Obviously the unit is more picky than normal.

Apple sticking it's head in the sand like an Ostrich isn't going to change the fact that enough consumers are unhappy about the Nano's durability.

[hmurchison]

This suit is without merit. Class action lawsuits are just the sleazy legal profession's way of using legalistic BS to make a fast buck. The big winners in these things are ALWAYS the attorneys, not the class participants. So what should be done? Personally, I would suggest looking to Mr. Shakespeare in 'Henry VI' for inspiration: "The first thing we do, let's ... all the lawyers."


Point to where Apple clearly stated your aformentioned warning/tips in Nano packaging. Unless the consumer know they were buying into a portable device that would degrade easily they have every right to seek a legal redress. Whether the case is of merit is up to each individual but only the presiding judge has the final call.

Lawyers are like policemen/women everyone hates them until they need one.

[SteveGTA]

hmurchison,

im thinking one of the reasons that the display ipod nano may be scratched is because people who hear about the nano scratching rumors might test it to see just how easily it scratches. just a thought.

on another note, my friend has a nano and it is perfectly fine but he takes care of his stuff. but on the other hand i see a ton of people take care of their stuff like it has absolutely no value to them. i take care of all of my electronics with a lot of care such as my PDA, computer, cell, etc. i can see where people are expieriencing scratches on nanos, it is bound to happen, but with "normal" usage i find it hard to believe that the screens become unreadable.

trust my i have run into some pretty stupid people... for example some guy on tech-forums.net bought an FX-53 (at the time 1000+) which was skt939. he then proceeded to attempt to install it into a sktA motherboard. when he discovered that it didnt fit.. he decided to take out the trusty old hammer. when the pins on the bottom all of the sudden fell out(WTF?!?!) he decided some vice grips and a little bit of elbow grease would fix the problem. in the process of "fixing" the CPU he knocked out all of the other pins.. he then goes on to call AMD for a refund.. america is full of dumbasses that do stupid things and then get pissed off at the consequences(no offense to anyone).

[macspirit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hmurchison
[B]Point to where Apple clearly stated your aformentioned warning/tips in Nano packaging. Unless the consumer know they were buying into a portable device that would degrade easily they have every right to seek a legal redress.

It isn't incumbent upon Apple to educate the consumer as to the ability of a harder substance to scratch a softer substance. Since the use of identical materials in an almost identical product precedes the release of the nano, one has to wonder how the plaintiffs in this case will be able to prove the nano defective...at least with respect to the alleged 'much greater susceptibility to scratching' issue. Apple has acknowledged the cracked screen problem, so that is a non-issue. It affected a limited number of items, and Apple has made good on fixing the problem for all concerned. Going back to the scratching issue, if the materials used (polycarbonate) are identical, then the difference has to be in how the devices were handled. And that is most definitely the user's responsibility, not Apple's.

[ecking]

Originally posted by mike518
i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk...

I don't. I got home got pissed off sued the grocery store chain for 10mil and for an additional $20,000 each month, that is delivered to me by direct deposit into my bank account. Why? Because I had to suffer through eating 600 tiny cookies instead of 12 real ones. :D

[ecking]

But really, if the screen is crap people should be re-embursed and future models should be fixed. But money from the profits is kinda crazy but lawyers are known to ask for more so they can bargain down if they have to.

[davey-nb]

Originally posted by hmurchison


Consumers are paying for both. Apple charges a premium and they expect premium performance.



Last time I looked, the nano was the cheapest 4GB flash, colour screen mp3 player on the market. Just where's the premium???

[1984]

Originally posted by AppleInsider
"In fact, if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card, or even the earphones that accompany the nano, the devices would likely scratch so badly that viewing the screens would be extremely difficult, if not impossible."

I rubbed my iPod nano with sandpaper and it scratched! How could I know this would happen?

[fng]

After reading the reports of screens scratched so horrible they could not be ready anymore (oh the drama) I bought a pack of screen protectors and put one on. It looks pretty good and sticks better than I thought it would.

[CosmoNut]

1) This is obviously an isolated problem. When you have two different people here posting that they both treated their nano essentially the same way and only one had problems, something is awry.

2) I still want to see pictures of an unreadable or terribly scratched nano. Audiopollution? Anybody?

3) Right now I have my 4G photo alone in the left cargo pocket of my pants. If this is such a widespread problem, I will find my iPod severely scratched in just a little while.

4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
2) I still want to see pictures of an unreadable or terribly scratched nano. Audiopollution? Anybody?

I will attempt to get my hands on a camera that will do macro shots ... my shitty casio will not.

3) Right now I have my 4G photo alone in the left cargo pocket of my pants. If this is such a widespread problem, I will find my iPod severely scratched in just a little while.

I believe that the problem is entirely more visible on the black nano. Since the black undercoat acts as a mirror, the scratches stand out much more. I've treated the nano with kid gloves compared to the treatment that my old, white, 30 Gig iPod was subjected to. Whereas I really need to look hard and tilt the white ipod all over the place to see them, the nano makes scratch spotting easy.

4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.

I never claimed that the nano was unreadable. With the backlight on I agree that most people would look past the scratches. What concerns me, on a purely aethestic level, is that my nano looks terrible. The scratches do not affect the functionality for me.

If I were to do it again, I'd buy a white one.

[hmurchison]

It isn't incumbent upon Apple to educate the consumer as to the ability of a harder substance to scratch a softer substance.

That's fair and it's fair enough for the consumer to question why Apple "hasn't" educated them on the proper upkeep. Thus we in fact do have merit to have this judged in a court of law as both sides have a communcation issue that needs to be resolved.

I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.

Truth is class action lawsuits don't just happen from isolated incidents. Lawyers need to see if there are a sufficient amount of plaintiffs before proceeding.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I believe that the problem is entirely more visible on the black nano. Since the black undercoat acts as a mirror, the scratches stand out much more.
Interesting. That got me thinking: Maybe that's why Apple waited SO LONG to release black iPods when people were asking for them left and right. They might have known that a black iPod would show the scratches much more than the white models. It could be they decided to take the chance and release black iPods anyway.

But the U2 iPod never had complaints about this. What changed?

[wilco]

Originally posted by a_greer
duche bag :rolleyes:

a $2 cupon :no:

soarly abused
:err:

[fng]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
snip

4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.

This is what happened when a nano was used to gently caress the bare ass of a new born baby.

http://media.arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.media/ipod_droptest_messedupdisplay.jpg


case closed

[CosmoNut]

If those scratches happened during "normal" use with few sharp objects to scratch it, I can only surmise that there was a manufacturing anomoly of some sort that caused the plastic to not harden enough. The top corners of it look like someone took a nail file to it and parts of the plastic may have chipped off.

What's the deal with the screen? There are a couple of spots that look like the screen is on with no backlight, and the rest of the screen looks like the nano is off.

Finally, it looks like the black nanos are a significant part of the problem. They definitely do show the scratches more.

[VL-Tone]

I'd like to remind people that the photo you are seeing uphere, posted by fng is a joke. The nano on this picture has been tortured (and then killed) in extreme conditions by Ars-Technica, including running over it with a car.

I know it should be obvious, but hey there are people that fell for it :)

[jdbartlett]

Originally posted by hmurchison
Quality and Durability a two seperate issues. If I was to say the iPod nano was a quality but non-durable product would many agree with me that it was quality at all? Or does a durable but crappy product suddenly become quality?The Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is one of the world's most well known and is also considered one of the finest paintings in history. The quality of the painting is quite remarkable. It is not, though, as wall hangings go, especially durable, and at the price it was bought for... well, I'm shocked that the Louvre hasn't sued.

Quality is a buzzword. Quality, excellence, "it's good", "buy it". Most products with a price tag over $20 claim to be of high "quality" somewhere on the label.

However, we're talking about plastic here. If you look at the quote I was commenting on, we were talking about the quality of the plastic, not of the whole device (which I've understood to be as excellent as past iPods). The 'quality' of a plastic is a reflection on the refinement process used to develop the plastic. In this case, we're taling about polycarbonate, one of the finest and most expensive groups of plastic.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by VL-Tone
I'd like to remind people that the photo you are seeing uphere, posted by fng is a joke. The nano on this picture has been tortured (and then killed) in extreme conditions by Ars-Technica, including running over it with a car.

I know it should be obvious, but hey there are people that fell for it :)

I did assume it to be the Ars torture dummy. For the screen to be unreadable due to scratching, the covering plastic would have to be scuffed up to the point that it is very diffuse looking, as such, no reflections allowed.

I hope this prods Apple to seek out either a scratch resistant coating or a different plastic, hopefully one that is reasonably reasonably scratch resistant and still pretty shatter resistant. Polycarbonate is the most shatter resistant of the kinds of plastic that I've used, but least scratch resistant. When thick enough, it can absorb a fired bullet, though be deformed by the heat from stopping said bullet. The problem is, I don't expect any portable electronics to be durable enough to stop a bullet (though the Toughbooks are cool), it would be nice if they didn't scratch so easily.

[someonelse]

Originally posted by SoopaDrive
:rolleyes:

Didn't we have several cases like this before?

There was the "battery problem" suit (demanded no profit-sharing) which was resolved when Apple sent $50 vouchers to all purchasers of that model Pod good toward Apple Care policies on affected Pods or additional Apple purchases...

About the Nano: I was reading all the comments, and I wondered if I was the only woman in this forum! We don't put our most beautiful, functional devices in pants pockets, even when we aren't carrying purses. My Razr cell phone came with a number of different accessories, among them a leatherette case which is designed to protect the phone from scratches... it's silver (the matte black shows oily fingerprints and other foreign substances - like my 1999 PB. Doesn't make me love it any less).

Something tells me the lawyers who filed this Nano suit were of the "personal injury" variety... they aren't impressive as lawyers go, they want publicity and frequently lose the first round... judges don't enjoy wasting their time with cases like this.

Oh well...

[aegisdesign]

Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Do folks who wear glasses clean their lenses with rough cotton based papertowels?

I clean my glasses with my t-shirt and paper towels occasionally - maybe 6 times a week. I don't know about 'cotton based' papertowels. They sound a bit posh.

Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
No. If they do they immediately see scratches. You won't get anywhere suing e Optics industry on that one.

Nope. I never see scratches but then the plastic used in lenses is much more scratch resistant and has a coating to prevent scratches. I'm quite hard on glasses as I mountain bike with them and live in the north west of England where it's usually wet and most of the hills are made of gritstone, the same stone used for mills. If I get scratches it's because I've rubbed a wet, gritty glove across my lens. Glasses last me about 2 years before I have problems seeing through them.

But your argument doesn't stack up. With glasses you put them on your face out of contact with pretty much anything likely to scratch usually. When you take them off you put them in a case when you're not using them. That's their method of operation. The iPod is a product that is usually carried and used in a pocket and as such, using plastic that scratches more easily than the plastic used in a product designed for your face is backwards. It's a nice design aesthetically but not practically.

[ZO]

Apple messed up (or at least one of their suppliers id seeing Apple says "1 out 10 have the problem").. they will remedy. End of discussion.

If I had a Nano that scratched like that, I'd be mad as hell too..

I've had my 3G iPod 40GB on me almost every day for more than 2 YEARS and it still doesnt look like what my friend's Nano looked like after 24h.

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by ZO
Apple messed up (or at least one of their suppliers id seeing Apple says "1 out 10 have the problem").. they will remedy. End of discussion.

One 10th of 1% had the problem with the screen, e.g. 0.1% (1 out of every 1000 sold).

[macspirit]

Originally posted by hmurchison
That's fair and it's fair enough for the consumer to question why Apple "hasn't" educated them on the proper upkeep. Thus we in fact do have merit to have this judged in a court of law as both sides have a communcation issue that needs to be resolved.

Whatever happened to common sense and personal responsibility? Have you looked at a window screen lately? Mine contain a note which reads, "WARNING! Insect screens are intended to provide reasonable insect control and are not intended to provide security or provide for retention of objects or persons within the interior. This screen will not stop a child from falling out the window. Keep children away from open windows." We live in a world where no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions (i.e., expecting a window screen to prevent their home from being burglarized, or expecting a window screen to keep their child from falling out of a window). They need to have someone else to blame, whether it's their mother, their father, the twinkies they ate for lunch, the government, the military or, in this case, Apple Computer.

Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.

Recessing the screen a small fraction of an inch isn't going to change the likelihood of contact between the screen and objects in your pocket to any significant degree. And it will have zero effect on how the polycarbonate material reacts to wiping with some sort of cloth. If Apple can demonstrate that the materials used in the front fascia of the nano are identical to those in the other iPods, then they've won their case.

Originally posted by hmurchison
Truth is class action lawsuits don't just happen from isolated incidents. Lawyers need to see if there are a sufficient amount of plaintiffs before proceeding.

Or place ads in newspapers, magazines, mass emailings, etc. in an effort to solicit large numbers of additional participants in the suit. This they do to increase the amount of money they make by bringing and winning the suit. As a wise man once said: "If you want to know why something happens, follow the money." Or the self-interest.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.


The outer case of the 4G does not have a recess where the LCD is - it is a smooth, flat face on the entire front. The LCD itself might be set back further behind the plastic, but that has nothing to do with preventing the outer plastic from getting scuffed.

I have a U2 iPod, and it does scuff relatively easily, though in no circumstances was the screen made unreadable. In fact, much of my scuffing was from debris that managed to get between my protective case and the iPod.

[i-am-an-elf]

Originally posted by hmurchison
Is this quote aimed at me?

Hell I'd be defending Apple if I hadn't walked into store and saw exactly what people are talking about. The screen isn't recessed a tad bit like the iPod mini and iPods are so it really takes a beating.

Does Apple really need to endanger their iPod reputation even a little bit by using inferior plastics? Class Action lawsuits come and go but I won't doubt their validity. People work hard for their money and portable devices should be built to handle the rigors of portability. all of the screes at comp usa have razor blade slashes through them, only the apples btw, and all the ipods, acutally excapet the nano, it has some wierd case on it, were so scratched, compUSA replaced them with the exact same models. Are those razor blade slashes apples fault too, becuase they don't have a glass protector of the screen? this is bs. What screen in any popular store isn't F-ed up?

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by Anders
[BAD TASTE WARNING]
If you are right, taking the size of the Nano into account, Apple is also breaking the laws against embryo research.
[/BAD TASTE WARNING]


wait... i don't get it.... :???: :???: :???:

[macspirit]

Originally posted by aegisdesign
But your argument doesn't stack up. With glasses you put them on your face out of contact with pretty much anything likely to scratch usually. When you take them off you put them in a case when you're not using them. That's their method of operation. The iPod is a product that is usually carried and used in a pocket and as such, using plastic that scratches more easily than the plastic used in a product designed for your face is backwards. It's a nice design aesthetically but not practically.

The original iPods all came with cases...a pretty basic one, but a case, nonetheless. I believe this case also contained a belt clip, so the intent was for you to place your iPod inside of the protective case, and then clip it to your belt. This inferred that Apple didn't recommend your placing your iPod unprotected in your pocket. Flash forward (no pun intended) to the nano (skipping over later iPods and mini's, which also did not come shipped with cases). In the case of he nano, Apple once again decided not to ship their product with a case. This was obviously a cost-saving move on their part. They realized that most people end up buying some sort of after-market case that appeals to them aesthetically. Half-step forward to the new video iPod, and once again, Apple has decided to ship their product with a protective covering of some sort...in this case, a sleeve, not a rigid case. No doubt this was a reaction on Apple's part to all of the allegations of the scratability of the just previously released nano. Might the plaintiff's attorney's draw attention to this? Perhaps. But since Apple released the very first model with a case, they were implicitly telling the public that this is a device that should be kept in some sort of case to keep it looking as pristine as possible for as long as possible. Should they have continued to supply a case with all iPod models? No, but perhaps the inclusion of a soft, flexible felt-lined protective sleeve would have been a good idea, because, in addition to protecting the customer's investment it would have protected Apple from yet another lawsuit. Keep in mind, though, that most of us carry another very similar device that, when purchased, rarely if ever comes equipped with a case...that being the ubiquitous cell phone. So if some judge rules that Apple should be held liable for not providing some sort of protective case or sleeve for their product, imagine the flood of lawsuits that would inevitably follow against every single maker of a portable product that could potentially find its way into a user's pocket. Pandora's box, anyone?

[Celco]

Originally posted by JamesG
I agree this is a bit silly.

I have a Treo 650. The very first thing I did to after taking it out of the box was apply a screen protector. It's a fragile electronic device, not a rock or a block of wood.

Apple should (if they don't already) ship it with a basic plastic screen protector.

The only problem I can see pursuable by a court of law is the case of the screen actually cracking with normal usage. If you've got something with a delicate LCD screen rattling around in your pocket along with your keys and other garbage, then you should take a few seconds to pause and reflect upon your actions.

Yet another frivolous lawsuit. Meanwhile, we continue to fight a war in another country under false pretenses. :P

Hmm the lawsuit is over the top. But the product quality is not the greatest. The Nano does scratch and comparing it to the treo 650 is a complete joke. I have dropped several time my treo and nothing...(even on concrete oops) My nano has been replaced courtesy of apple 4 times... from scratches. My solution DONT pull off the protective plastic .. the bugger still works...with it on.

[macspirit]

I just had an idea. It's about public safety. When manufacturing lawyers, they should all be shipped in a hermetically-sealed, puncture-proof dry cleaning bag. This would provide maximum protection to the general public, and make our world a much safer, saner place to live.

[killerapp]

A lot of people are disappointed that their Nano didn't stay in a pristine condition after use, and they expected it to. Apple really should find a material that is extremely durable and will keep scratch-free with normal use. Materials science should be able to give us a solution to this problem.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by revs
find me anything with a screen tat doesnt scratch when you stick it in your pocket with sharp and blunt metal items.... Sprint Sanyo PM-8200

[faxmachine11658]

I have that phone, and your right, the outer screen doesn't scratch...ususally.

I have a ? thats kind of off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread...Do you think its okay if I use my old iPod with click wheel dock for my nano? It syncs just fine and stands upright, and I am eventually going to buy the Universal Dock, but for now, should this be okay?

[1984]

The only thing that bothers me about the lawsuit is the "share of the profits" garbage. They want a share of the profits for an item they have deemed defective? That pretty much renders the lawsuit frivilous. If it were not for that...

The iPod nano and iPod 5G do seem to use a different plastic for the case despite what Apple says. They appear to be clear plastic painted white or black on the inside or something. This would explain why scratches are more visible.

[aplnub]

Originally posted by ZO


I really hope my iPod Video (black) will not suffer in the same way...

You and me both. I have a white iPod video coming and a black nano (for a gift).

Is there a protective film for the iPod video yet? How about a good case like my SPECK for my 20 GB iPod?

[aegisdesign]

Originally posted by macspirit
So if some judge rules that Apple should be held liable for not providing some sort of protective case or sleeve for their product, imagine the flood of lawsuits that would inevitably follow against every single maker of a portable product that could potentially find its way into a user's pocket. Pandora's box, anyone? [/B]

Except, almost every portable product I've got can be put in a pocket and doesn't scratch easily. Really. The SE T610 phone has black plastic with an embedded clear window for the screen. It's almost completely scratch free after 3+ years of use without a case. Apple should phone up SE and ask them which plastic they used. The compliant isn't about cases, it's about the materials.

People only buy the cases BECAUSE they scuff up so easily. Personally I find the cases make a good looking product look totally ugly. What's the point of a beautiful design if you've got to encase it in hideousness?

[Kolchak]

Originally posted by macspirit
Recessing the screen a small fraction of an inch isn't going to change the likelihood of contact between the screen and objects in your pocket to any significant degree.

Methinks HMurchison is confusing the scratching issue with the cracking issue. When Apple admitted that the slimmer profile with less clearance between the front and the screen had caused a problem with a small percentage of nanos, it was referring to the complaints about cracking. In point of fact, I have a 3G iPod sitting here and the front of the device is completely flat except for the controls, just like all other iPods. Quite frankly, with the lack of common sense that these whiners are showing, they probably wouldn't be satisfied unless Apple put a diamond hardcoat on the nano, and maybe not even then.

Where is this misconception about polycarbonate being a "premium" polymer coming from? It's a little like the "bulletproof" claim writers tossed around when the first polycarbonate iBook (the "toilet lid" model) came onto the scene. Polycarbonate is all over the place. Check any CD, which costs pennies to make. Also note that carrying bare CDs in one's pocket is not recommended. :D

I think Apple should come out with a Special Edition nano: The Scratchiti (http://www.barrypopik.com/article/571/scratchiti) Edition!

[aegisdesign]

Originally posted by Kolchak
Where is this misconception about polycarbonate being a "premium" polymer coming from? It's a little like the "bulletproof" claim writers tossed around when the first polycarbonate iBook (the "toilet lid" model) came onto the scene. Polycarbonate is all over the place. Check any CD, which costs pennies to make. Also note that carrying bare CDs in one's pocket is not recommended. :D


My favourite example is Oakley sports glasses. They used to provide dealers with lenses that had been peppered by a shotgun showing the glasses could withstand serious impacts.

That's great but

a) they couldn't survive gritty fingers wiping them
b) your face wouldn't survive the shot gun blast 8)

Again, nice design, wrong material choice.

[heinzel]

Originally posted by fng
This is what happened when a nano was used to gently caress the bare ass of a new born baby.

http://media.arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.media/ipod_droptest_messedupdisplay.jpg


case closed

:lol:
LOTSCWTIMEL! (Lying on the sofa, cringing with tears in my eyes lauging...)

Concerning the scratch resistance of a Treo or glasses, these are made to be scratch resistant and their surface/treatment/material costs a lot more than what could be put on the nano for a reasonable price. I have coated glasses (the expensive kind for $150 for each lens) and although they have lasted me 7 years, each one of the scratches (there aren't many) I can trace back to the like 6 times that I wiped them with a) a paper towel or b) my cotton T shirt. And this already *is* the expensive coat, so I guess I'll go to my lawyer and sue the shit out of Rodenstock (the manufacturer). So, power to them, they are right to sue Apple's ass off for making such a shitty overpriced gagdet. Oh, and earth is a disc, right? Seriously, I'd rather have 4 GB and have to make sure that I don't scratch it than have 1 or 2 GB and a somewhat more scratch resistant front plate for the same price.

[slughead]

I didn't buy a nano, but seeing the nano with scratches on it causes me mental anguish.. can I get in on this?

[sunilraman]

(edited out)

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by sunilraman
<edited the rant and made it this meanigless replacement comment>

Whatever.

I'm in a foul enough mood today without having to read some bullshit rant, nevermind qualifying it with any sort of cogent response.

[sunilraman]

okay out of respect for ai i'll edit out my rant.

[fng]

I'm tellin' ya. I got some of plastic protector sheets and my Nano is as happy as an iPod.

[strobe]

They should have sued for a pony

[kaiwai]

Personally, a public flogging is in order for the whiner.

As for the nano; sorry, if I want to be satisfied, I want something big, long and hard, not small, compact, and white <scans around the room for some hot stuff>

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by kaiwai
.....if I want to be satisfied, I want something big, long and hard....

:err: :lol:

[Kendoka]

Some of my music CD's have been badly scratched after being in a soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal). When I bought the CD's nobody told me they would become unreadable so easily.
Q1: Who do I sue - and for how much (I want part of the Record companies profits)?
Q2: Do I have to live in the States in order to do so?
Q3: Shouldn't U.S. lawyers be outlawed?

[aegisdesign]

Originally posted by Kendoka
Some of my music CD's have been badly scratched after being in a soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal). When I bought the CD's nobody told me they would become unreadable so easily.
Q1: Who do I sue - and for how much (I want part of the Record companies profits)?
Q2: Do I have to live in the States in order to do so?
Q3: Shouldn't U.S. lawyers be outlawed?

CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by aegisdesign
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.

umm... i think you missed the part where the poster mentioned "soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal)"

[franksargent]

:smokey:

As usual, time will tell. It would seem prudent for Apple to upgrade the screen with a more wear resistant plastic (GE's Lexan?) to mitigate a negative outcome. The only way to objectively determine the quality (wear resistance) of the nano screen is to conduct some standardized tests such as ASTM or ISO testing methods. These methods are statistically sound, are inter/intra laboratory repeatable, and would quantify the relative wear properties (to other plastics and/or polycarbonates). If it can be shown by these procedures that the nano is made from "inferior plastics" (relative to either previous iPod screens and/or other pocketed device's screens), Apple will definately lose this one. If something such as a "clean" cotton fabric causes "significantly" greater wear relative to other device's screens, Apple doesn't stand a chance.

On the subject of lawyers, tort reform is desperatly needed, these scumbags (lawyers) should only get a small precentage of the damages awarded (i. e. "reasonable" costs (determined by the judge) necessary to litigate). Nothing more.

In hindsight, it does now seem rather stupid of CIJ to turn on his RDF and pull out the nano from his COIN POCKET, now doesn't it? Apple should have included a sock/tube/jacket with the nano, again to mitigate this Apple should include a certificate with all future shipping nano's for a free protective sheath. They should also refurbish and supply such a sheath to all existing nano owners, or furnish a refund those who do not want the nano anymore. This in the long run may be more beneficial (lower cost) then to pursue a lengthly litigation (i. e. a combination of reduced nano sales and higher costs for failing to rectify the current situation at a much later time (i. e. at the time of settlement)).

:smokey:

[aegisdesign]

Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by aegisdesign
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.

umm... i think you missed the part where the poster mentioned "soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal)"

No, I didn't. Regardless of what you do with it, it's only a couple of bucks down the drain with such an ephemeral product as a CD. You don't expect them to last and so what if they don't, you've probably had your use out of it after a year. Mine last me about how long it takes to go from the postbox to how long it takes to rip them into iTunes. Why would anyone carry bags of unboxed CDs around anyway - it's a strawman argument.

I'd expect a couple of hundred dollars of kit to be more durable than a CD and I regularly stick a phone in a backpack full of sand and scrap metal and it's fine. Whenever I go biking, my muddy camelbak bag is full of tools, puncture kits, pumps, food, keys, mud, grit, old innertubes, muddy clothes. The phone is just slipped into a mesh pocket inside the bag, usually with my keys.

I'd not put a naked iPod Nano in there but that's because they're not durable, not because I don't want to. It's a pain in the arse babying an iPod. Anyone I know using iPods biking uses the shuffle because it's flash based. The advantage of the Nano over the iPod is it's flash storage that doesn't skip when riding. That advantage is completely useless if you've got to baby the thing.

[aegisdesign]

Oh, I'd add that, cases aren't the answer either. The grit gets inside the case and then rubs the surface even more than if you had no case.

I once saw a woman complain quite loudly that the very case she'd bought to protect her iPod from scratches had caused more scuffing than without.

I guess the answer is one of these...

http://www.h2oaudio.com/products/ipodsv_4G.php

$149. Ouch!

[NordicMan]

Originally posted by mike518
idk, back when i had my 20GB, id always keep change and keys in the other pocket... kindda common sense right? i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk... why? because crumbs dont taste as good as cookies. maybe this guy should get the money, afterall gotta feel bad for him since he obviously must have a shitty life with his lack of common sense.

You have a good point there. Actually, if the screens do scratch easily to where things become illegible, there is a problem, Apple should replace the screens. There is a reasonable expectation for some durability. Or Apple will suffer in its credibility.

As for the idea of a share of the profits, the motive is clear, it is entirely unfounded, rather sounds like lawyer talk, or someone looking to try to cash in on the iPod phenomenon. What a crock.

And, it would be common sense to keep the cookies, as you say, separate from the milk or the oranges.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by aegisdesign
I guess the answer is one of these...

http://www.h2oaudio.com/products/ipodsv_4G.php

$149. Ouch!

I guess the real answer is buy some competitor's ugly music player and not worry about scratches, too bad that most of them are a pain to use, I bought an iPod not for its looks, but for its ease of use, although a lot of the competitors did have contrived-looking products.

I agree with your comment on cases. What I did for my U2 was put it in a small plastic bag and then put it in a case. The case I had had a tendency to scratch the iPod and let it slip out if upside down, the bag kept it in and scratch-free, the case then absorbed the shock of accidental drops.

[Kolchak]

Originally posted by franksargent
:smokey:

It would seem prudent for Apple to upgrade the screen with a more wear resistant plastic (GE's Lexan?) to mitigate a negative outcome.

Um, you do realize that Lexan® is nothing more than GE's trade name for its polycarbonate resin, don't you? Nothing special about it that would distinguish it from other polycarbonates. The only abrasion resistant grades of Lexan have hardcoatings on them, and those can be applied to any polycarbonate.

[franksargent]

Originally posted by Kolchak
Um, you do realize that Lexan® is nothing more than GE's trade name for its polycarbonate resin, don't you? Nothing special about it that would distinguish it from other polycarbonates. The only abrasion resistant grades of Lexan have hardcoatings on them, and those can be applied to any polycarbonate.

:smokey:

You do realize that Lexan produces 453 hits at matweb? Do you think ALL THESE 453 hits are for the exact same material (i. e. exact same physical properties (hardness, wear resistance, etcetera))? I know for a FACT that these grades of materials (like ALL metals/plastics) WILL have different wear properties (in addition to dozens of other physical/chemical/thermal properties). I do have just a LITTLE bit of experience in material science, its standard practice to produce multiple grades (hundreds to thousands of different formulations) of a given material (i. e. check out aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, polyurethane, etcetera). How were the DIFFERENT resins (of Lexan) processed and treated, and then coated (IF coated)? Somehow, a polycarbonate from Asia (?) may not meet certain standards versus GE's Lexan. Did Apple specify wear resistance requirements, or forgo them in an effort to save a FEW cents? Sounds like Apple may have been "penny wise and pound foolish." IF Apple did indeed use "inferior plastics" (relative to other similar products/uses), THEN Apple WILL lose this one, it's a given!

And aren't you being presumptuous in assuming that Apple is in fact using a coated polycarbonate? If not, please provide such evidence (i. e. URL(s))? IF it was coated, what is the hardness of the coating AND underlying materials (this makes a BIG difference in the overall material's wear properties since the pressure of the applied load determines its basic resistance properties). What is its thickness? Don't you think that a object (lint, sand grain, dirt, coin, key, etcetera) THICKER than the coating WILL defeat said coating? Thanks, in advance.

:smokey:

[aegisdesign]

I reckon they should use transparent aluminium. :D

[aplnub]

How is it that someone has yet to produce a photograph of a genuine Nano with a scratched up screen caused by subjecting it to normal iPod transportation?

[Kolchak]

Originally posted by franksargent
You do realize that Lexan produces 453 hits at matweb? Do you think ALL THESE 453 hits are for the exact same material (i. e. exact same physical properties (hardness, wear resistance, etcetera))? I know for a FACT that these grades of materials (like ALL metals/plastics) WILL have different wear properties (in addition to dozens of other physical/chemical/thermal properties). I do have just a LITTLE bit of experience in material science, its standard practice to produce multiple grades (hundreds to thousands of different formulations) of a given material (i. e. check out aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, polyurethane, etcetera). How were the DIFFERENT resins (of Lexan) processed and treated, and then coated (IF coated)? Somehow, a polycarbonate from Asia (?) may not meet certain standards versus GE's Lexan. Did Apple specify wear resistance requirements, or forgo them in an effort to save a FEW cents? Sounds like Apple may have been "penny wise and pound foolish."

And what? If there's such a wide range of Lexan characteristics, then why did you simply write something along the lines of "Apple should use Lexan"? Are all grades of Lexan so superior to everything from the Far East? You throw out generic terms like stainless, aluminum, titanium, never bothering to mention that each of those groups of materials do indeed share characteristics. e.g. various alloys of aluminum will indeed have differing strength, but they will all have essentially the same elastic modulus. Also, they will all have similar abrasion resistance, in the absence of surface treatments like hard anodizing. Ditto for titanium. 6-4 alloy would be just as susceptible to scratching as the CP titanium that Apple used on the PB Titanium and no more rigid, despite being much stronger.

I'm always suspicious whenever somebody tosses out a vague sentence like "I do have a LITTLE experience with" such and such. It's very often BS. Sometimes literally true, as in a LITTLE experience.

Originally posted by franksargent
And aren't you being presumptious in assuming that Apple is in fact using a coated polycarbonate? If not, please provide such evidence (i. e. URL(s))? What is its thickness? Don't you think that a object (lint, sand grain, dirt) THICKER than the coating WILL defeat said coating? Thanks, in advance.

I suppose by your argument, nanos should have a 1/16" hardcoat to deal with keys and coins? Polycarbonates are soft and easy to scratch. Any plastics engineer will tell you that. The only way to add abrasion resistance is with a hardcoat. And to answer your question, if the hardcoat is harder than the particles, then it won't matter what the size of the particle is.

[franksargent]

Originally posted by Kolchak
And what? Snip, snip.

:smokey:

Ah, I think I WILL jump all over you on this one, you fell into my trap!

Although specific modulus is a primary characteristic of any material, it's the specific strength (within each class of material) that makes ALL the difference in the world. Specific strength can vary by an order of magnitude (or more), specific modulus can vary somewhat (more so for elastomers (say 200%), less for plastics (say 20%), and even less for metals (say 10%)). It is the strength (specifically yield or allowable) of any material that determines properties such as axial, shear (i. e. puncture AND wear resistance), and torsional properties. Specific modulus only relates to elongation (i. e. stiffness of a material to deflect under load (the "stress-strain" curve (Ever seen one? Do you know the difference between an engineering stress-strain curve and the true stress-strain curve? Do you know the reality of stress-strain curves (rarely truly linear, thus it's VERY misleading (in general) to assign a single value for E (usually defined as the tangent modulus (slope of the stress-strain curve at zero load), in general the secant moduli should be used for the design envelope))))). Metals/plastics are usually characterized with a single value of E, due to the fact that the stress-srain curve is approximately linear within its working range, elastomers however are a different beast altogether (basically how they are confined and their aspect ratio determines the initial modulus, but the modulus also changes substantially with % breaking load). Take a rubber band for example, stretch it, it does get stiffer as you stretch it (in engineering stress-strain terms), now doesn't it? Also, there are different moduli depending on how the load is applied (Bulk modulus (K), shear (G) modulus, tensile (E, i. e. Young's) modulus, and Poisson's (v) ratio define an isotropic material (although you only need 3 of these to determine the 4th), few (if any) materials are TRULY isotropic). Maybe you know this already? Although, by what you have already said thus far, this does not seem to be the case?

I do have a LITTLE experience (33 years in fact, as a physical and numerical modeller, structural engineer, hydraulic engineer, coastal engineer, and naval architect). As an undergrad I was best-of-class in structural and hydraulic engineering, subjects I have pursued vigerously to this very day, and I will continue to do so until I'm dead (notwithstanding you). Everything I have ever designed has worked properly (or in the case of timber/congrete/steel structures is still standing AND functional). I have dealt with all manner of metals/plastics/elastomers in performing my job responsibilities in that time (whether model or prototype or finished product). I have worked for the leading US government civil engineering laboratory. I currently work (as a contractor) for this same laboratory (ERDC) on a military project which will use high strength aluminum, elastomers, and high strength synthetic fibers (Vectran, Kevlar, Twaron, Technora, Spectra, Dyneema, M5, Zylon to name drop, I can't tell you which one of these (or possibly several) we WILL use on this project (although I've already selected the candidate fiber (and/or fibers) after a rigerous testing, analysis, and ranking procedure specific to our design criteria)). We've already used Kevlar 100 on two scale models of our "structure." So you could say I am the plastics engineer on this project, no formal training, but then again I'm self taught in naval architecture, it's no biggie really, it's all engineering afterall, now isn't it? Another hat to wear, I kind of like being a master of all trades. And really, I do know a lot about high strength synthetic fibers, go ahead ask me anything, if anyone can answer it, I believe I can. So I do think I know what I'm talking about, just as certain that I know that you don't know what you're talking about. Ever drive down a concrete highway? Notice the rutting of the road surface, what do you think causes this? RUBBER wheels on the CONCRETE surface perhaps? Which one is HARDER? I'll give you ZERO guesses, seeing as you don't know what you're talking about! True, each surface has a different wear rate but they BOTH wear, how can two materials abrade one another and each not wear, if one wears then both must wear (albeit at DIFFERENT rates).

You do know what anodizing does to the metal, it hardens it, i. e. the STRENGTH (not the modulus) of the surface layer is improved (in addition to corrosion resistance and dying potential due to hexagonal nature of the surface molecules (ah, you gotta like wikipedia (for general info))). In regard to coated polycarbonate, just how thick do you think these layers are? My guess is a few mils. Not a whole lot of protection considering the potential duty cycle, now is it? So there you have it, the underlying plastic will determine the long term durability/usability of the product, given the likely environment the nano will see.

I don't know where this is going, for you really can't win this one, you can try, but you're really starting to BORE me!

Class dismissed!

:smokey:

[aplnub]

Originally posted by franksargent
Notice the rutting of the road surface,

Rutting is the single most dangerous problem with today's roads.
:p :lol:

[sunilraman]

ah, god bless appleinsider. i come for the bitching, i stay for the super-l33t-materials-engineering-smackdown :smokey:

[Kolchak]

You don't sound like a professional engineer to me. More like an engineering student. Always happy to throw around the lingo and trade names in order to impress. Also jumping to conclusions like assuming Apple's contractor used a low-grade polycarbonate and instantly "knowing" that any Lexan would perform better, all without knowing the comparative properties of either plastic. And I have yet to meet any real engineer who would honestly say everything he ever designed worked perfectly, mostly because corporate and government engineering is always done by teams and everybody can't be perfect, even if one engineer claims he is.

I'm not sure I would trust an "engineer" who has to rely on Wikipedia to get details on anodizing. Especially since I was referring to hard anodizing, which can't be dyed.

[EmAn]

All I know is all i do with my Nano is sleep with it and it's gotten scrached from just sitting in my bed. I'd take a pic if I had my camera with me here at school. I just got a new video iPod but I'm not even gonna take it out of the box until I'm ready to use it full time because I'm worried it's gonna scracth as easily as the Nano.

[franksargent]

Originally posted by Kolchak
A BIG SNIP, SNIP!

:smokey:

Actually, I'm a PE, have been for a very long time. Do I sound like a student? Why thank you, I'll take that as a complement, even though I'm sure you didn't mean it as such. Now, why do you think I sound like a student? Maybe because I work for the USACOE Engineering Research and Development Center down here in MISSISSIPPI! Now imagine that! Bunch of crackers in the southland doing 'ngineering. Our job requires that we maintain state-of-the-art knowledge in our fields(s), we write all types of highly technical reports, requiring detailed descriptions of the theories, testing, analyses, results, conclusions, and discussions. I for one have an insatiable thirst for knowledge (ask anyone down here), it is abundantly clear that you lack such knowledge, thus my classroom discussion. You're probably familiar with your standard BS (figuratively AND literally) engineer who virtually stops learning once they are in the workforce. YOU doubted (and undoubtedly will forever more (ask me if I care)) my experience/knowledge. Trust me, no one down here even tries to keep up with me, for I am an engineering Nazi!

You need to reread my previous posts, in regard to standard practice in regards to ASTM/ISO test methods, WRT wearability of plastics, like I said THIS WILL determine IF the nano has "inferior plastics." If you reread my posts, you'll see that I used the word IF in all statments regarding "inferior plastics." Sorry but the asians are NOT world class WRT polymers (excluding the Japanese), do I have to give you a litany of the US and European manufacturers who are? Can they produce excellent plastics? Undoubtably. Did they? TBD. Thus ASTM/ISO wear tests WILL happen if this goes to trial, I'll bet every last red cent on that one, thank you! Case closed!

YOU used the word PERFECT not I, please show me where I ever used that word. Actually most (civil) engineers can point to their body of work and say, "Look it didn't fall down." now can't they? Although I strive to be a perfectionist WRT engineering (you would NOT be the first person to say so), I constantly make mistakes (yes, even in engineering), don't we all? Given that most civil engineering designs have rather large factors of safety, its not too difficult to get by with an adequate design.

WRT, wikipedia, I was fairly certain that anodizing increased the hardness of the surface, I just used it as a reference, since my brain is a marble jar, it's full, so when one marble goes in another one pops out, thus the WWW is my savior, why remember things when their at your fingertips.

Trust me, I won't "engineer" anything for you, I'll leave my work with "real" engineers!

BTW, if you persist in your "ad hominem" attack (no meat to your responses, just 3 text flames), I just might die, seeing as you will have BORED me to DEATH!

:smokey:

[Mac Voyer]

When aesthetics are as big a part of Apple's products as they are, then people have a right to expect the aesthetics to hold up with normal use. This reminds me of the mold cracks in the G4 Cube. The Cube was as much a art deco piece for the upwardly mobile techno-yuppie as it was a computer. It clearly had a problem with cracks in its otherwise ice clean shell. People who bought it for its beauty were rightfully upset that Apple turned a deaf ear to their complaints. Apple cannot sell the beauty and then tell people to get over the ugliness caused by normal use of the product. Those of you who bought the iPod simply to play music and only care about its utility probably overpaid. There plenty of devices that could do that. You probably should have bought something else. Most people buy Apple products, and the iPod is no exception, because they add style, elegant design, and beauty to efficient utility. Apple tells people they can put this beautiful tiny status symbol in their pocket. Now if doing so cancels out half the reason you bought the thing in the first place, then that is a problem with the product, not the purchaser. Apple either has to quit telling people to put it in their pocket, make it durable enough to put it in the pocket without destroying the aesthetic, or make it clear that a case is necessary because the product's finish is fragile even with normal use.

[pyriX]

What do you know, someone suing Apple, not Apple suing someone for once.

Change is as good as a holiday.

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by pyriX
What do you know, someone suing Apple, not Apple suing someone for once.

Change is as good as a holiday.


heh... btw mate, how come the aussies haven't sued apple yet for lack of iTMS AU ?? :D :p

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by Mac Voyer
When aesthetics are as big a part of Apple's products as they are, then people have a right to expect the aesthetics to hold up with normal use. ........

i would have to agree with that sentence, specifically with regard to the iBook G4.

[Brian Green]

If anything positive can come from all of this, I'd like to think Apple will investigate, and subsequently use, far more durable materials for future iPods. While this thread specifically sites the Nano, Apple stated that it's made using the same material as the other iPods. It's one thing to have scratches over the screen when I'm looking at the song title and, on occasion, album art. It's entirely another if they expect us to watch video on a scratched screen with a larger iPod made of the same materials. When we watch television we don't see scratches on our TV's, when we go to the movies, we don't see scratches on the screens, we shouldn't have to tolerate them on our iPods either.

I also dislike hearing people say that if I want a scratch-free screen I need to "baby" it or immediately toss it in a case upon purchase. iPods have a certain estetic appeal that I've enjoyed since the first ones were released. They are thicker in cases and no longer have the Apple look when in cases. While there are some durable plastic wraps that protect the iPod, it's visually as obvious that the iPod is wrapped in a plastic cover as your car would be if someone Saran Wrapped your car.

Build them tough to begin with and no one would have a problem with it. No one can tell me that advanced materials do not exist that would provide significant durability and yet be able to be molded and formed by Apple into beautiful iPods. If iPods are the first step of the "Halo Effect", then they need to be the most resilient and best built. I'd happily pay $20 more for an iPod that can handle what I can throw at it rather than having to baby it because they chose to make it out of easily scratchable plastics.

Asking for a portion of the profits is simply wrong, though I'd expect nothing less from a lawyer.

[pyriX]

Originally posted by sunilraman
heh... btw mate, how come the aussies haven't sued apple yet for lack of iTMS AU ?? :D :p

becuase we dont want the company to crash, forcing us to use the nineMSN music store. This way there is still hope.

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by pyriX
becuase we dont want the company to crash, forcing us to use the nineMSN music store. This way there is still hope.

ohhh... heh.. nineMSN is the tool of the devil! along with telstra :devil:

[NordicMan]

Originally posted by Mac Voyer
When aesthetics are as big a part of Apple's products as they are, then people have a right to expect the aesthetics to hold up with normal use. This reminds me of the mold cracks in the G4 Cube. The Cube was as much a art deco piece for the upwardly mobile techno-yuppie as it was a computer. It clearly had a problem with cracks in its otherwise ice clean shell. People who bought it for its beauty were rightfully upset that Apple turned a deaf ear to their complaints. Apple cannot sell the beauty and then tell people to get over the ugliness caused by normal use of the product. Those of you who bought the iPod simply to play music and only care about its utility probably overpaid. There plenty of devices that could do that. You probably should have bought something else. Most people buy Apple products, and the iPod is no exception, because they add style, elegant design, and beauty to efficient utility. Apple tells people they can put this beautiful tiny status symbol in their pocket. Now if doing so cancels out half the reason you bought the thing in the first place, then that is a problem with the product, not the purchaser. Apple either has to quit telling people to put it in their pocket, make it durable enough to put it in the pocket without destroying the aesthetic, or make it clear that a case is necessary because the product's finish is fragile even with normal use.

You have struck notes of truth here.

[AgNuke1707]

Yay ... now my $0.02 worth...

First off, who hasn't had an iPod and pissed at how easily fingerprints will show up on the metal backing? Maybe I should sue because it takes away from the beauty of the product by showing my dirty fingerprints. Also, the 4G iPod DOES NOT have a recessed screen ... it's flush with the rest if the plastic, poly ... whatever the hell the mystery material is, so yes, it is prone to the elements. It is sad Apple can't win this by saying, "just use common sense when you use the product." The common sense argument fails miserable in court. You have to assume your consumer is absolutely stupid ... I'm sure you'll see warning on the iPod boxes after this. "iPods are not suited for polishing with sandpaper, for use as skis or microwavable."

I was in an Apple store this weekend checking out the new iPod with Video and seeing how small the nano really was ... had not seen the article till I was back at home. None of the display models seemed to be in bad shape, but it appears that the poly coating is clear and underneath there is a white or black plastic card, which explains why the scratches are far more prevalent on a black nano, than the white one. I've had my 4G since the summer and it's got some battle scars, but man, not being able to read the thing. I just don't buy it, sorry guys ... you have to be doing something more than wiping it off with your shirt.

[rwahrens]

Originally posted by aplnub
How is it that someone has yet to produce a photograph of a genuine Nano with a scratched up screen caused by subjecting it to normal iPod transportation?

Probably because of the nature of the scratches.

I own a Nano I bought the week after they were announced. I heard the initial comments about possible scratching from some of the initial buyers.


I got mine, set it up, put it in my pocket to go to work, and when I took it out of my pocket at work, it WAS scratched! Pocket = soft cotten, face of the Nano to the rear, against the soft cotton - no keys, scrap metal, mud or dirty clothes touching it.

Is it still readable? If I hold it at the right angle, I can. In bright sunlight, certain angles reflect enough light that it IS unreadable. It's annoying to buy a $250 item that's esthetically pleasing that isn't manufactured well enough to stand up to normal wear and tear.

My daughter bought one the next week - hers still looks good - and she is harder on her stuff than I am.

So what happened?

I don't know how this stuff is manufactured. Is there a heating phase that is supposed to temper this plastic to make it more durable? Can it be that some subset of Nanos manufactured didn't get properly "finished" in this way to prevent scratches? It could be that there is some manufacturing flaw of this sort at fault here.

Apple has a history of releasing products that, largely, work fine, even elegantly, but often have a small number that 'misfire' some way - like the Nano screens that actually cracked. That turned out to be something at fault with the screens coming from the supplier. Apple fixed it, but it took a couple of weeks of very negative press to make them admit to the problem and offer a fix.

This may turn out the same. Remember the iPod batteries of the (I think) 2nd or 3rd gen iPods? It took a lawsuit to get THAT remedy from them.

I know some people have gotten Nanos replaced just by griping to Apple about it. Obviously, some have not and decided to sue. Asking for the moon at the beginning of the suit is a normal trial tactic. It is often (almost always?) reduced at the end to something more palatable to both the plaintiff and defendant - sometimes in negotiation before trials end. You NEVER start negotiating anything by asking for what you are really willing to settle for! You ask for something outrageous and allow the other party to talk you down through their own couterpoints. At the end of the day, you reach a point where both parties can live with the price. (Hopefully!)

Frankly, I'm glad they sued - if they are successful in forcing Apple to provide a reliable fix to this issue, maybe I can get mine replaced, too. (But, I really don't expect to get any of their profits - THAT is just the prod to get them negotiating in better faith!) ;)

[AgNuke1707]

As far as Apple replacing some nanos and not others is how they were treated. If the moron in the suit wipes his off with a wood fiber product, it's not Apple's problem. He took something hard and fiberous to an LCD. Someone brought up glasses earlier ... the first thing they tell you when you buy glasses is NOT to clean them with paper towels or any other wood based product. You wouldn't buy a brand new digital camera and take the Bounty to the lens right off the bat, would you?

Poor cleaning methods fall under the realm of consumer neglect and SHOULD release Apple from any liability. It's like saying, I like to wear my nano in the shower, but now it doesn't play. The case looks water-tight but I still screwed it up. Damn you Apple, gimme another one of the defective product and the profits you will make selling the defective product. If it smells like a gold-digging rat ... probably is. Some people say they haven't done anything of the sort ... just placed the nano in coat pockets or empty pockets. Those people I would say have a legitimate complaint, and I wonder if those are the people Apple is letting return nanos.

There are several explnations for the huge variation you see in the complaints though, and I would certainly chalk them up to changes in the manufacturing process. A material is a material is a material unless you do something to alter its chemical arrangement. Polycarbonate is a strong, resiliant material, but not difficult to scratch, ESPECIALLY if the people in manufacturing didn't allow it to cure properly after molding it.

I think Apple will probably win the suit, but I do see iPod socks (like are included with the Video iPod) and LCD cleaning cloths (like are included with Cinema LCDs and iMacs) coming standard in the box.

[someonelse]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AgNuke1707
[B]Yay ... now my $0.02 worth...

First off, who hasn't had an iPod and pissed at how easily fingerprints will show up on the metal backing? Maybe I should sue because it takes away from the beauty of the product by showing my dirty fingerprints.

Oh yes! Let's play the Deep Pockets Boardgame from Hasbro!

Plenty of lawsuits against Apple (not all are class action suits, and few, if any, are frivolously asking for a share of the profits)...

AgNuke, you are "hitting the note" for me this morning.:devil:

[AgNuke1707]

Originally posted by someonelse
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AgNuke1707
[B]Yay ... now my $0.02 worth...

First off, who hasn't had an iPod and pissed at how easily fingerprints will show up on the metal backing? Maybe I should sue because it takes away from the beauty of the product by showing my dirty fingerprints.

Oh yes! Let's play the Deep Pockets Boardgame from Hasbro!

Plenty of lawsuits against Apple (not all are class action suits, and few, if any, are frivolously asking for a share of the profits)...

AgNuke, you are "hitting the note" for me this morning.:devil:

:lol: Haha ... I was being sarcastic someonelse ... I'm as mad as the next guy. I seriously have a problem every time Apple releases a new product, people find the need to sue over it...

[damiansipko]

Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Anders
[BAD TASTE WARNING]
If you are right, taking the size of the Nano into account, Apple is also breaking the laws against embryo research.
[/BAD TASTE WARNING]


wait... i don't get it.... :???: :???: :???:

Unlike the majority of the discussion group members here at AI I will refrain from attacking Anders, but instead clarify what I think he means. A prefix is used to indicate decimal fractions or multiples of various units. Nano- (n) is such a prefix whose meaning is 10^(-9). Unfortunately when when talk about human embryos, they're somewhere on the size of 10^(-3) m; that's a milli- (m) prefix. Even the size of a sperm cell, approximately 30 times smaller than a mature egg, is measured in micro- (lowercase greek letter Mu) meters. Still, that's nowhere near the minuscule size of a nanometer.

It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymous with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by damiansipko
It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymously with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.

I think that's over thinking it, I think the point was that it's an absurd claim that should be proven before it is circulated, just like the claim that the device's screen becomes unreadable by wiping it with a towel or puting it in a pocket repeatedly.

Now, I don't contest that the nano is easy to scratch, but as yet, no one has shown one with plastic so scuffed that it obscures any part of the screen.

I think another thing the lawsuit needs to show is that Apple is unwilling to replace the device, and so far, no one has claimed that, so far the stories are that Apple is willing to replace them.

[GreggWSmith]

The Nano scratches way way too fast. I beat the crap out of my phone and it stays fairly scratch free. My Nano is practically swaddled like the baby Jesus yet it's face looks like a suez chef has prepped veggies on it! WTF? Indeed! Great product but really crappy execution on design.

[someonelse]

Originally posted by GreggWSmith
The Nano scratches way way too fast. I beat the crap out of my phone and it stays fairly scratch free. My Nano is practically swaddled like the baby Jesus yet it's face looks like a suez chef has prepped veggies on it! WTF? Indeed! Great product but really crappy execution on design.

A suez chef?:lol:

I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?

<edit: bringing race into the equation make the Baby... oh crap, here we go again.>

[NordicMan]

Originally posted by AgNuke1707
As far as Apple replacing some nanos and not others is how they were treated. If the moron in the suit wipes his off with a wood fiber product, it's not Apple's problem. He took something hard and fiberous to an LCD. Someone brought up glasses earlier ... the first thing they tell you when you buy glasses is NOT to clean them with paper towels or any other wood based product. You wouldn't buy a brand new digital camera and take the Bounty to the lens right off the bat, would you?

Poor cleaning methods fall under the realm of consumer neglect and SHOULD release Apple from any liability. It's like saying, I like to wear my nano in the shower, but now it doesn't play. The case looks water-tight but I still screwed it up. Damn you Apple, gimme another one of the defective product and the profits you will make selling the defective product. If it smells like a gold-digging rat ... probably is. Some people say they haven't done anything of the sort ... just placed the nano in coat pockets or empty pockets. Those people I would say have a legitimate complaint, and I wonder if those are the people Apple is letting return nanos.

There are several explnations for the huge variation you see in the complaints though, and I would certainly chalk them up to changes in the manufacturing process. A material is a material is a material unless you do something to alter its chemical arrangement. Polycarbonate is a strong, resiliant material, but not difficult to scratch, ESPECIALLY if the people in manufacturing didn't allow it to cure properly after molding it.

I think Apple will probably win the suit, but I do see iPod socks (like are included with the Video iPod) and LCD cleaning cloths (like are included with Cinema LCDs and iMacs) coming standard in the box.

I got a kick out of reading your posts here. You gunned your thoughts right out. For those people who bought the Ipod Nano and it got scratched up from normal careful use, there is a valid complaint, like hmurchison and mac voyer were talking. But that first guy, who wanted to get a portion of the profits, it is like that one other poster said, "why not sue for a pony?"

What I think should happen is for those folks who got one and it became scratched so that it was hard to read from normal use, replace the screen. Like you say, fingerprints show up in normal use.

[GreggWSmith]

Originally posted by someonelse
A suez chef?:lol:

I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?
<edit: Gotta edit the quotes too. It's so hard being a mod>

I was hoping someone would get the "Suez" chef joke!

<Edit: I live to politically correctify specific lines of posts>

[damiansipko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GreggWSmith
<Edit: Sorry, it's a fire sale, it all must go!>

[BushHater]

This is simple. Since the complaint seems to be that these scratch MUCH MORE easily than earlier products, do this. TEST the darn nano case hardness with prior products. If it's substancially softer than before, they win (something but not stock). If it's the same hardness, they lose. Now, is there anything else or do you want to keep wasting your lives talking about this?

[franksargent]

Originally posted by BushHater
This is simple. Since the complaint seems to be that these scratch MUCH MORE easily than earlier products, do this. TEST the darn nano case hardness with prior products. If it's substancially softer than before, they win (something but not stock). If it's the same hardness, they lose. Now, is there anything else or do you want to keep wasting your lives talking about this?

:smokey:

Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?

BTW, do you want to know which ASTM standards (numerical designation(s)) that the plaintiffs WILL use to statistically determine the relative wear performance of the nano sceen?

Or better yet, why don't you go to these links to LEARN more about the ASTM and ISO standards organizations:

http://www.astm.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/ABOUT/aboutASTM.html?L+mystore+zdrv0808+1130249713

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/isoinbrief/isoinbrief.html
<Edit: They used to burn books. I just delete links. Discuss>

[GreggWSmith]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by damiansipko
<Edit: You know, I'm a little too young to remember the rat pack, but I remember it freaking me out a little when I discovered that Sammy's eyepatch wasn't part of a costume. I'm not sure why>

[CosmoNut]

I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.

Wait a minute....

[fng]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.

Wait a minute....

There was the

www.flawedmusicplayer.com

site that had photos of hazed iPods but it seems to be down now.

[franksargent]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.

Wait a minute....

:smokey:

I'll take that as a facetious comment!

On a serious note, how does a 2D image cannote anything other than that plastics scratch?

It doesn't answer the fundamental questions of, who, what, where, when, why, or how, now does it?

Or is it a forgery (i. e. Photochopped)?

A 2D image also doesn't accurately represent what the human eye can see first hand, in 3D real time!

Light refracts, and is subsequently further refracted by the myriad scatches that (appear to) occur over a relatively short time period for the nano.

A 2D static (or 2D dynamic) image cannot reproduce this effect to the same degree as the human eye can see it first hand, that's a given!

Like I've been saying (for the umpteenth time), to determine the RELATIVE wear of the nano screen you must TEST it and TEST other such device's screens!

Not that I would ever be on this jury, but if I were, and the plaintiff didn't present compelling quantitative tests, I'd throw the case out (either as a hung jury or in Apple's favor).

:smokey:

[Mac Voyer]

I don't get the persistent credulity of the scratch skeptics. Every reviewer who has had this thing for more than a week has commented on the unexplained scratches. What follows is from a Q & A with Walt Mossberg.

Q: You and other writers gave the Apple iPod nano a rave review. But my nano is badly scratched up after only a couple of weeks of careful use, and there are lots of similar reports online. What's going on?

A: Based on my own experience of about a month with the product, and emails I've received from readers, I believe the tiny, thin iPod nano is much more prone to scratching than earlier iPods, even though they, too, picked up scratches.

If I were reviewing the nano today, I would still call it "the best combination of beauty and functionality of any music player I've tested," as I did in my review. But I would include a strong, prominent, warning that it scratches too easily in normal usage. This is a real downside to an otherwise excellent product.

My review of the nano ran on Sept. 8, and was based on four days of tests with an evaluation unit lent me by Apple. I bought my own nano the next day. The test nano, a new production model delivered in the box, picked up some scratches in testing, like any iPod, but nothing out of the ordinary or which impacted functionality.

But, after just under a month of daily use, my own nano is badly scratched, and looks beat up when viewed at an angle. Worse, there are several large scratches across the screen that impede functionality by making text and photos slightly harder to see. I have never tested or owned any portable electronic device that picked up as many scratches as quickly as the iPod nano.

Like the previous iPods I've owned, my nano has never been sheathed in a case. Like the others, I carry the nano -- by itself -- in my pants or jacket or shirt pockets; or loosely in a briefcase or carry-on travel bag, in a pocket containing no other hard objects. This is also how I carry my Treo smart phone, whose screen is free of scratches after much longer and harder use than the nano's. My nano hasn't been dropped or scraped. Yet it is badly scratched.

My recommendation now is that nano owners must buy and use a case for the device. That's a shame with a product as beautiful and sleek like this, because it ruins the look and feel of the thing and adds to the cost. But I don't consider it optional.

Apple says it uses exactly the same clear coating on the nano as on some earlier iPods, and that its engineers have conducted tests that show the nano isn't any more vulnerable to scratches than other current iPods. Apple also says it hasn't had a large number of complaints about scratching on the nano.

Company officials speculate that, because cases for the nano aren't being sold in volume yet, early buyers who would normally protect an iPod with a case haven't been able to do so with the nano. They also suggest that, because of its small size, some users may have carried it in places and ways that differ from how they carried larger iPods, and which increased the possibility of scratching.

I can't dispute any of that, but I believe that something about the size and weight of the nano, and therefore the way it is used and behaves when carried, is making the coating Apple applies far less effective than it is with larger iPods.

I believe Apple should include a strong, thin case with every nano, starting as soon as possible. And Apple should research some sort of tougher coating for future nano models.

This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.

This case will not be won or lost based on any legal issue IMO. It will be based on whether the judge and jury own the iPn. If they don't, Apple wins. If they do, Apple loses.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I don't get the persistent credulity of the scratch skeptics.

This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.


I don't have a nano, and I'm not disputing that it's easy to scratch.

That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano? If one in 100 nano owners have severe scratches, and 1 in 100 of them own a digital camera, that means that means there could be pictures of 100 scratched nanos being circulated now, but a lot more people own cameras than my low-ball estimate, so I have to ask, why is it too much to ask for a photograph?

Granted, someone in this thread did have a link to a site that showed what I would consider minor scratching. The claims by the lawsuit that the scratching makes the screen unreadable simply seems bombastic, and THAT is one thing I want to see a photo of.

Personally, I'm tempted to buy one of them and record it on an HDV camcorder.

[rwahrens]

The skeptics I can understand. Since most portable electronic devices DON'T scratch easily, I can understand they'd want proof before blindly believing claims.

However, for those making stupid, insipid comments about the plaintiffs asking for too much (especially part of the profits), I will quote my own post again:

"Asking for the moon at the beginning of the suit is a normal trial tactic. It is often (almost always?) reduced at the end to something more palatable to both the plaintiff and defendant - sometimes in negotiation before trials end. You NEVER start negotiating anything by asking for what you are really willing to settle for! You ask for something outrageous and allow the other party to talk you down through their own counterpoints. At the end of the day, you reach a point where both parties can live with the price. (Hopefully!)"

I will add that trial judges often reduce judgments, too - sometimes arbitrarily. So stop going off the deep end, folks! Remember - if you want to get a major corporation's attention (ESPECIALLY Apple) you've gotta do something outrageous first! (Similar to hitting that donkey with the two-by-four to get his attention!) Then, when they're finally listening, you can argue your case. Once they're at that stage, Apple often gets more reasonable just on their own. If not, losing the suit will make them do something.

[rwahrens]

<That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano?>

Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.

This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.

My own Nano doesn't look as though it's been through a grist mill - but it is harder to see the screen, and much of the print seems blurry because of the scratches. Yes, I can hold it at an angle to read it, but that's very annoying! I paid $250 for this item. If Apple advertises that I can carry it in my pocket, it should be able to withstand the ride! As others have said, I have a phone I carry in my pocket (the other shirt pocket, not the same one), and it isn't scratched at all!

Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?

[BushHater]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by franksargent
[B]:smokey:

Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?

Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by BushHater
Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.

I'm not saying you didn't read the thread, but the wording of your first post left an impression that you didn't read the thread.

Generally, for a thread this long in any forum, anywhere, means that most of the main points are handled in the first two or three pages, from there, it either gets refined or goes circular. Simply jumping into a thread to make a comment without even even reading a little bit of it is just rude, and I think that's what the impression was.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by rwahrens
<That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano?>

Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.

This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.


There is some truth to that, but there are easy ways around that. I think part of the limitations are that most cameras aren't binocular, like one eye would see from a slightly different angle, and another is that with the object in hand, it's easy to change the angle by hand to see the flaws, whereas a still image doesn't give a person that ability. Changing the lighting and the angle should help a lot.


Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?

I too wonder, curing or if the chemistry was off in some batches.

[BushHater]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
[B]I'm not saying you didn't read the thread....

No, you said

"maybe you should READ this thread before posting?"

I think at a whole other level than you do. I read the first few pages and likely more. What all you people did not say is how you quantify your testing of the plastic. I pointed out the simple thing to do is compare it to old iPods that did not receive this scratching concern. If it's the same then the case should go away. You are to dense to get my point.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by BushHater
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
[B]I'm not saying you didn't read the thread....

No, you said

"maybe you should READ this thread before posting?"

Nope. franksargeant said that.

You are to dense to get my point.

I was not making a personal attack against you, I don't see why I should get one from you. Seems another case of mistaken identity here.

[BushHater]

Yeah, I didn't start my quote correctly. Fraknen whatever is dense.

[grahamw]

Gents, Ladies,

I was alerted to some possibly scandalous material on this page of the thread (now the page before, cause y'all yak like a bunch of chickadees) I have not read the tread, I did not check for relevance; I simply put on my MAVAV hat and cleaned house.


Please: no questionable references to race, religion or sex. No naughty words.

Also, try to smile as little as possible, it indicates to outsiders that we may be having a good time and that just increases traffic and makes my job harder.

If you have an iPod put it away. Careful though - I had my keys in my pocket and it scr... er..

Kidding. Yeesh, sensitive aren't we. Take it with a grain of salt folks, and play nice.

Your loving mod,

Graham

[franksargent]

Originally posted by BushHater
Yeah, I didn't start my quote correctly. Fraknen whatever is dense.

:smokey:

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,....., ROTFLMAO!

Yes, you do think on another level, perhaps a LOWER level?

Please refer to post #113 (where I mentioned testing methods (ASTM/ISO)) and relative metrics, then post #128 (where I reiterate post #113), and finally post #150 (where again I mentioned ASTM/ISO standards bodies, provided links to said sites, and posed a question as to my thoughts on the appropriate test(s), and if anyone was interested (asked me), I would pursue it further (I have access to the ASTM specifications)). I also had several other posts going into some (albeit) brief details on modulus, strength, hardness, etcetera. BTW, hardness in and of itself can sometimes be a misleading indicator of the wear and strength properties of a material, seeing as the chemical composition (principally additives) can give misleading results when trying to infer the wearability and strength of said material. It is the specificity of the test method (in this case a relatively low pressure wear/abrasion test with fabric materials (clean and/or impregnated with grit common to the environments under considration), and somewhat more severe tests with discrete objects (i. e. a metal tool with an profile similar to things like coins and keys)) that is most important in doing a relative comparison (i. e. replicating the insitu environmental conditions).

:smokey:

[rwahrens]

Originally posted by JeffDM




I too wonder, curing or if the chemistry was off in some batches. [/B]

Hmmm, I didn't think about the chemistry being off by batches - that could be the issue, too.

Does anybody know if Apple buys the plastic front ready-cast, or if they make it themselves? If ready-cast, it could be a supplier issue, and Apple might need a longer time to investigate that...

[rwahrens]

Originally posted by franksargent
:smokey:

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,....., ROTFLMAO!

:smokey:

Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...:lol:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by grahamw
Gents, Ladies,

I was alerted to some possibly scandalous material on this page of the thread (now the page before, cause y'all yak like a bunch of chickadees) I have not read the tread, I did not check for relevance; I simply put on my MAVAV hat and cleaned house.


Please: no questionable references to race, religion or sex. No naughty words.

Also, try to smile as little as possible, it indicates to outsiders that we may be having a good time and that just increases traffic and makes my job harder.

If you have an iPod put it away. Careful though - I had my keys in my pocket and it scr... er..

Kidding. Yeesh, sensitive aren't we. Take it with a grain of salt folks, and play nice.

Your loving mod,

Graham

:smokey:

Guilty as charged, I didn't mean to incur the wrath of the moderator(s), it won't happen again, I guess my attempt at humor crossed at least two of the three aforementioned subject areas (or is it 3 out of 4)? I guess I'll go reread the AI TOS, Its been a while! BTW, I didn't know we had a mom in the house (I hope I didn't just cross over the last of the aforementioned subject areas, did I)?

:smokey:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by rwahrens
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...:lol:

:smokey:

I don't know, hard to tell, whomever they are, they don't seem to have reached puberty yet?

:smokey:

[BushHater]

Originally posted by rwahrens
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...:lol:

Guys.. I just felt I should point something "constructive" out. But it seems the density of several in here is very high. Maybe you should get the hardness of your heads tested.

After all your talk about this issue (150 posts or whatever), I could not believe the obvious was not stated. To just compare the strength/hardness of the older iPods to the newer one. There are companies that do these sorts of tests, no biggy here. Apple should do it and release the results. You can talk all you want about what material is used, were it could go wrong, how to test it Yadda yadda. Don't matter. What matters is how it compares to what Apple has sold in the market in the past, since that apperently does not have the same issue. If it comes out the same, take your results to court, if not, find out where the problem is and fix it and say sorry as you exhange them. Discusion (should be) is over! That is all I was saying and I don't believe anyone else put it that way.

I'm only pointing out the obvious. Something that I thought would have been brought up in the first few posts because of the genuises in here. Laugh if you want, if you can't understand my points, skip them and read ahead my friend. I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English. What a welcome from ya'll!

As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.

[franksargent]

Originally posted by BushHater
VERY BIG SNIP

:smokey:

Let's see now, the article was posted on a Friday, I was returning home from a business trip at that time (arrived early Saturday morning), so didn't read this thread (and other forums elsewhere) until Saturday afternoon. Also, I'm usually not one for "brain fart" responses, I usually like to "sleep on it" before posting, and I also prefer to read what others are thinking before posting. You also have to consider the frequency of posts (high initially, lower frequency with time). Finally, consider the direction threads take, here it started as mostly pro-Apple (I was also of this opinion initially, but upon some reflection, and reading other forums, I slowly changed my view, to one of (hopefully) objective analysis), I believe the tone has changed somewhat, to perhaps a neutral position. Considering all this, I believe I WAS the first to mention (someone correct me if I'm wrong) ASTM/ISO wear tests on the nano screen (post #113, on Sunday morning (I believe) CDT). You just might try to READ IT! BTW, my last post suggests that hardness testing, in and of itself, may result in a false positive, the test method needs to be specific to the insitu environmental conditions, in this case a wear/abrasion test method is more appropriate. Also, do you really think Apple would release test results into the public domain (they may have to in court, as a matter of public record), seeing as they are currently in litigation?

As for this statement,

I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English.

what can I say, you obviously didn't care to read post #113 OR my reply to one of your brilliant posts (post #166). As for my ability to understand English, what can I say, at least I try to spell my words correctly (which means I tend to edit them several times (afterall, I are a engineer)). It would appear that English is not your native language? Is it French perhaps (considering your last comment, which isn't allowed BTW)?

:smokey:

[CosmoNut]

Call me skeptical, but there are three big factors that make me think this scratching situation can be NO WORSE than isolated to the batch of plastic in the affected nanos:

1) Previous iPods used the SAME material. My little 40Gb-iPod-in-the-cargo-pocket experiment the other night revealed no change from the previous condition. If the iPods have all used the same materials, what other than a manufacturing anomoly could cause this? If it is a manufacturing anomoly, how is that worthy of a class-action lawsuit requesting a portion of the profits?

2) There have been no pictures, videos, charcoal reliefs, crop circles, or anything else that shows me that the scratches -- which I acknowledge look ugly on a black nano -- make the screen specifically difficult to read or completely unreadable. Ugly is one thing. Disfunctional is another. If the nano is scratched so bad you can't read it, you WILL be able to pick that up with a camera.

3) There are people who can put their nano in a cotton pocket and have no problems and others who have significant problems. To me, if the "bad batch" is affected by a soft cotton cloth, the plastic must be so soft that you could imprint your thumb in it and the dent or thumbprint would remain.

[pyriX]

Originally posted by BushHater
Guys.. I just felt I should point something "constructive" out. But it seems the density of several in here is very high. Maybe you should get the hardness of your heads tested.

After all your talk about this issue (150 posts or whatever), I could not believe the obvious was not stated. To just compare the strength/hardness of the older iPods to the newer one. There are companies that do these sorts of tests, no biggy here. Apple should do it and release the results. You can talk all you want about what material is used, were it could go wrong, how to test it Yadda yadda. Don't matter. What matters is how it compares to what Apple has sold in the market in the past, since that apperently does not have the same issue. If it comes out the same, take your results to court, if not, find out where the problem is and fix it and say sorry as you exhange them. Discusion (should be) is over! That is all I was saying and I don't believe anyone else put it that way.

I'm only pointing out the obvious. Something that I thought would have been brought up in the first few posts because of the genuises in here. Laugh if you want, if you can't understand my points, skip them and read ahead my friend. I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English. What a welcome from ya'll!

As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.


Dude. Three words. Breate.

However, you do raise a good point, someone SHOULD test the hardness of the old Mini to a nano, and likewise a 4g? ipod to the 5g.

Anyways, do it without the moronic and dense and disapporoval please. A lot of us dont actually LIVe in america, though our Prime Minister may be so far up G.W ass its coming out the other side, we are still governed by a completly different government.

[franksargent]

:smokey:

Hmm, just a thought, if this already hasn't been mentioned, but perhaps the polycarbonate coating wasn't applied to one (or several) batches of nanos? This would (perhaps) explain the discrepancy in end user reports. Stuff like that does occasionally happen at the factory. Is there any way to detect the coating by eyeballing the nano (it does look rather "shiny" in the Ars Technica photos, or conversely would the underlying plastic have a "duller" appearance)? Or perhaps the thickness of the coating was less than the specifications, or the coating properties themselves were under the specifications, or applied incorrectly? I think I've already alluded to the possibility of substandard plastics themselves (as have others).

:smokey:

[VL-Tone]

There is still no picture showing a nano with a screen rendered unreadable because of "normal" use, people trying to explain that are comming up with somewhat esotheric theories...

First there is this guy saying that since the scratches are 3d and a camera is 2d they wouldn't appear on camera...Oh please... I guess that if you close one of your eye the screen magically becomes readable? If someone makes a picture to show how the screen is unreadable, he will find the right angle and light to show scratches, it shouldn't be hard at all.

You make it sound like the problem is like ghosts or UFO's that cannot be photographed.

On a more concrete side, Steve Berman, which is the attorney leading the nano class-action against Apple, is friend with Microsoft.

Berman defended Microsoft in at least 50 class action suits (that was in 2000, he did more for them since then). He defended MS against the government, and groups of people claiming that MS had a flawed product (Windows). Don't expect this guy to ever lead a suit against MS, as they are his friends.

I'm sure many people and companies are now ready to twist the facts because they've had enough with Apple's success. MS had big plans to shove us TPM down the throat using music DRM as an entry point, and now they can't do that, how sad...

Yes the nano can be scratched because of normal use, like just about every piece of plastic. Yes some people may be pissed off about their iPods eastethics. But no I don't believe the screen can become unreadable after only a few weeks of normal use. Please prove otherwise :)

[someonelse]

Originally posted by VL-Tone


On a more concrete side, Steve Berman, which is the attorney leading the nano class-action against Apple, is friend with Microsoft.

Berman defended Microsoft in at least 50 class action suits (that was in 2000, he did more for them since then). He defended MS against the government, and groups of people claiming that MS had a flawed product (Windows). Don't expect this guy to ever lead a suit against MS, as they are his friends. :)

Is this really true? Because if it is, this "class action" suit will probably get tossed with Xtreme prejudice... and Apple will save 100s of 1,000s of $$ in legal costs. !:lol:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by VL-Tone
First there is this guy saying that since the scratches are 3d and a camera is 2d they wouldn't appear on camera...Oh please... I guess that if you close one of your eye the screen magically becomes readable? If someone makes a picture to show how the screen is unreadable, he will find the right angle and light to show scratches, it shouldn't be hard at all.


:smokey:

No, what I was suggesting was that perhaps, just perhaps, actually SEEING a scratched nano (first hand, up close, in real time), just might, give someone a better understanding of the validity of these claims than a picture would ever convey. But let's say that there were 100's (or 1000's) of images showing various clean and scratched nano's, and let's say that they showed text and images, as an A versus B comparison (i. e. clean versus scratched), granted you probably can see the text reasonably, but the images, I'm not so sure that this would be as esthetically pleasing? Maybe this is what is upsetting certain owners?

On the Berman thing, when I first heard about the suit, the first thing that popped into my mind was the motives of the lawyers. Greed, you bet. Fighting for the consumer, you bet (but I believe that self interest is a greater motivator). But I also was thinking someone who disliked the iPod franchise (i. e. success) might be more willing to pursue litigation. I'm rather surprised it took someone this long to dig up some dirt on the lawyers! I do find it interesting that someone who defended a de facto monopoly, is now prosecuting a de facto monopoly (maybe de facto is too strong a term but I think that you get what I'm driving at), but than again I guess their still defending Microsoft? Can anyone smell bias?

:smokey:

[Mac Voyer]

It seems to me that if some pods had a problem with exploding screens, not all of the screens would shatter. Some would crack somewhat but not shatter. Some cracks would appear as tiny scratches. It all depends on how careful a person was with their iPod nano. Apple has already admitted a defect. But they were careful to minimize the problem, at least publicly. They were also careful to separate the two issues. I believe we are letting them slide too easily. I don't believe those issues can't be so easily separated. I believe that at least some of the scratches are minor stress fractures in disguise. Is this at least possible?

[jiggz]

Originally posted by BushHater
As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.

i agree with almost everything you are saying and love the "handle." however, lets not assume that all americans voted for bush.

on a side note, there has been some serious plastics/polymer dick-slinging going on in this thread... calm down.

[VL-Tone]

Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It seems to me that if some pods had a problem with exploding screens, not all of the screens would shatter. Some would crack somewhat but not shatter. Some cracks would appear as tiny scratches. It all depends on how careful a person was with their iPod nano. Apple has already admitted a defect. But they were careful to minimize the problem, at least publicly. They were also careful to separate the two issues. I believe we are letting them slide too easily. I don't believe those issues can't be so easily separated. I believe that at least some of the scratches are minor stress fractures in disguise. Is this at least possible?

Oh no please, now you try to take this into a PowerMac Cube reference?

The LCD screen is two sheets of glass, sandwiched between plastic polarizer filters, on top of that is the transparent polycarbonate plastic that covers all the front of the unit. Are you seriously thinking that a screen can break just a little and then produce scratches that are clearly on the surface of the plastic?

If a screen breaks, even just a little, it will be clear that the screen is broken. Apple will replace those units, no questions asked. It only affected 0.1% of the first batch. Every single iPod competitors have similar fail rates, just like most consumer electronic products. But since the iPod is in the spotlight, problems like that are more easily reported.

You clearly don't seem to grasp how plastic behaves. Stress on a plastic sheet from under or the sides cannot produce scratches only on the surface. If the screen cracks in any way, it will be obvious.

Originally posted by someonelse
Is this really true? Because if it is, this "class action" suit will probably get tossed with Xtreme prejudice... and Apple will save 100s of 1,000s of $$ in legal costs. !

Yes it's true, really true, just read the news about it, you can actually find quotes from him in news about the nano suit.

Go on the website of the law firm that is suing and you'll find Steve Berman.http://www.hagens-berman.com/frontend?command=Staff&task=viewStaffDetail&iStaffId=10

Here is a quote from the page:

More recently, Microsoft recognized Mr. Berman's experience and expertise when the company retained him to be part of the core national team representing the company in antitrust class actions arising from Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the Department of Justice antitrust case against the company.

For the 50+ times he defended MS, I found this on the newsgroups:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.progressive/browse_frm/thread/5c83acaacb31a3ee/e3e24802601594da?lnk=st&q=%22steve+berman%22+microsoft&rnum=13#e3e24802601594da

Mr. Berman made his fame on very grass-root class-actions, like pro-environment suits and defending AOL consumers. Still, like many attorneys, he also worked on the "other side", when he defended MS for example against the DOJ and consumers.

I guess that since he's not a judge, it's "ok" in the judiciary system...

Could Apple countersue the law firm for defamation?

[someonelse]

Yes it's true, really true, just read the news about it, you can actually find quotes from him in news about the nano suit.

<snip interesting quotes and links>

For the 50+ times he defended MS, I found this on the newsgroups:

Wow. I guess Mr. Berman "made his bones" and isn't kidding around...

Mr. Berman made his fame on very grass-root class-actions, like pro-environment suits and defending AOL consumers. Still, like many attorneys, he also worked on the "other side", when he defended MS for example against the DOJ and consumers.

I guess that since he's not a judge, it's "ok" in the judiciary system...

Could Apple countersue the law firm for defamation? [/B][/QUOTE]

:p

I don't know, but it's an interesting twist on an emerging story about Gates v Jobs (and those who hate/envy either one or both), the nature of litigation here and in the EU... thanks for the added insight.

I couldn't help but notice there were no Nano/Rockr ads in this week's New Yorker magazine... wonder if Jobs was informed the centerpiece article would be about Mr. Bill and His Wondrous Philanthropy. Like TIME said on last week's cover: he always seems to know what's "Next"!

I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?

[sunilraman]

............I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?....
i predict 10-15 million nanos sold worldwide for the october-december 2005 quarter :smokey:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by sunilraman
............I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?....
i predict 10-15 million nanos sold worldwide for the october-december 2005 quarter :smokey:

:smokey:

Yeah, I agree 100%, the Nano will sell like hotcakes, in fact I think I'll get one today! If anything, this issue should make people take better care of something they must see through!

:smokey:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by VL-Tone
The LCD screen is two sheets of glass, sandwiched between plastic polarizer filters, on top of that is the transparent polycarbonate plastic that covers all the front of the unit. Are you seriously thinking that a screen can break just a little and then produce scratches that are clearly on the surface of the plastic?

You clearly don't seem to grasp how plastic behaves. Stress on a plastic sheet from under or the sides cannot produce scratches only on the surface. If the screen cracks in any way, it will be obvious.

:smokey:

Wow, I didn't realize they actually used GLASS in the Nano screen, you wouldn't have a link (or anything WRT small LCD construction) on this by any chance? If not, could you be a little more specific on the sandwich nature of the screen (i. e. you say two glass sheets sandwiched "between" plastic...), is it like PGGP or PGPGP (if you know what I mean, I'm really clueless on "small" LCD construction techniques (or "large" LCD construction techniques for that matter)). I'm assuming that there's a sheet of something (material?) in there that creates the pixel display (I think you know what I mean, the photons)? To me, since this is a composite (and given that glass (i. e. silica) has much less elongation than plastics), the glass will always fracture first (of course if the glass sheets are relatively thin and located close to the axis of stress symmetry (i. e. the neutral axis), then I guess it would be possible for the plastic to fail first (this get's into the specifics of the composite geometry (thickness of each layer, location of each in the sandwich, allowable stress of each material, brittleness (or conversely plasticity) of each material, etcetera))). Finally, on your last statement, I believe this to be fairly true for relatively thin plastics (however, I have seen relatively thin lighting panels with surface fractures (however, it has to be stressed (in bending) just right)), on thicker (clear) plastics, I've seen all kinds of surface fractures, at various length scales, the smallest of which (you could even call them "nano-fractures" :lol: ) give the surface a "hazy" appearance. Of course it depends on how brittle the plastic is and how the stress is applied.

:smokey:

[VL-Tone]

Originally posted by franksargent
:smokey:

Wow, I didn't realize they actually used GLASS in the Nano screen, you wouldn't have a link (or anything WRT small LCD construction) on this by any chance?

I'm a little in a hurry so my reply will be shorter than I would want.

You should know that EVERY LCD panel uses GLASS to enclose the liquid crystal.

[franksargent]

:smokey:

Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;

10,000,000 iPod Nano's in the warehouse, 10,000,000 iPod Nano's,
I sold one now, it'll get scratched to hell, 9,999,999 iPod Nano's in the warehouse,
...

But seriously, I got one, 4GB, CompUSA only had white, but it was $50 off of MSRP, so I can't complain. Now I'll stick it in my pocket with some coins, keys, a handful of sand, and a dash of salt, and see what happens! BTW, I thought the class-action was already settled, but when I went to the mailbox, no check, wazzup with that anyway!

:smokey:

[someonelse]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by franksargent
[B]:smokey:

Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;

:grumble: Who's CIJ?

<wake me when it's ova>[COLOR=silver]

[franksargent]

Originally posted by someonelse
[QUOTE]Originally posted by franksargent
[B]:smokey:

Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;

:grumble: Who's CIJ?

<wake me when it's ova>[COLOR=silver]

:smokey:

As Foghorn Leghorn would say "It's a joke son." There is no podcast (although there is a 247nano.com website (to my surprise)). You may know what the J stands for (somebody we all know and love), the other two letters are a sly reference to Hardball (6/3/05), where a reporter refers to one of Hardball's pundits as perhaps not being a law abiding citizen and not playing with a full deck of cards (neither of which I think are really true (or are they?)). The timing is of some significance, as it predated WWDC by a week or so and rumors were flying about the switch to MacTel, when most of the faithful were in denial (including myself), and perhaps many would have thought that the J man was indeed CI! I used the term in my first post on AI (6/5/05), I still use it occasionally, just to remind myself that with CIJ, anything is possible.

:smokey:

[someonelse]

Thanks! You're very tuned in (& turned on!)

I may just check out that nanosite. When you're done vingling, please turn out the lights. :grumble::err:

[JeffDM]

I just came back from a Mac user group. The person going over the recent news said that he had a nano that scratched, and Apple replaced it. One thing he claimed was that there was a stealth revision, where his new revision is actually slightly thicker than his friend's, the extra thickness being a scratch resistant overlay on the faceplate. It was my first time attending this group, I really don't know this person, so take it however you will.

[fng]

Really? I'm tempted to call "bullshit" on that one. But how would i know either way?

[CosmoNut]

Okay. Last night I saw a scratched nano at Best Buy and have a little better feel of what you all are talking about:

The issue has something to do with the coating on the nano's plastic faceplate, not the plastic itself. I've seen computer screens -- and even my glasses! -- that have had the same issue. Somehow the coating on the surface gets scratched or chipped away; when it does, it creates a bit of an irridescent effect.

I wouldn't say it made the nano unreadable, but I could see how it would be incredibly annoying after much of the screen has had the coating compromised. As I mentioned earlier, I have a spot on my glasses that part of the anti-reflective coating has been scratched or chipped away and has made kind of the same effect. It looks like there's a smudge in it. While I can still see through that spot, the consistency of vision between coating/no coating is quite noticeable.

My conclusion: There is a problem with that uber-thin coating on the nanos. I'm guessing it didn't get applied correctly OR even that said coating was not applied to previous iPods even though the plastic below it is the same as all the others. If the coating is new to the nano, Apple might be wise to just drop it from the production process unless they can guarantee a better end result.

I might try to go back to Best Buy with my digital camera and sneak a few snapshots, though I agree that it will be hard to fully capture the effect. Now that you've read this post, go back and re-read what I've written before and notice the difference. I really do "get it" now, though I think EVERYONE here has done a piss-poor job of articulating the problem.

[sunilraman]

totally. all you l33t muthas (this means you franksargent) that are material scientists, let's get a scien-ta-ti-fic characterisation of the problem here rather than endless conjecture :devil:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by sunilraman
totally. all you l33t muthas (this means you franksargent) that are material scientists, let's get a scien-ta-ti-fic characterisation of the problem here rather than endless conjecture :devil:

:smokey:

I'll try. I did buy one yesterday, (BTW it wasn't $50 off MSRP, it was $50 off of their $50 markup, (i. e. it was MSRP afterall)) so now I have some first hand appreciation for the proported scratching complaints. My first observations of the Nano are that the backlit screen and contrast of the character display, makes it very hard for me to believe ANYONE would have trouble reading the display under almost any condition (of course if your outside (as I was today) in bright sunlight even a NEW Nano is difficult to read), short of taking a piece of SANDPAPER and doing SERIOUS damage to the screen (i. e. sorry, NOT going to happen). My second impression is this thing IS tiny, by that I mean specifically the screen, what's the pixel count on this sucker (and PPI for that matter)? I mean really, I'd like to look at photos on a larger display than this (regardless of condition), I won't be using this as a photo iPod, that's for sure. My third impression is this is one KICKASS portable music player (someday soon the word iPod will be in Webster's Dictionary)!

I also did some quick and dirty (QAD) tests on portable devices; 2 TFT screens (I think they were TFT, I haven't really kept up with display technologies, as you may have guessed by now) and 4 LCD screens while there (on an 2G iPod mini, a 5G (video) iPod, an HP LCD portable device, and another manufacturer's LCD portable device (name escapes me)). As VL-Tone has pointed out, LCD screens have a couple of glass layers, this tends to make them relatively very stiff (or hard), maybe I should have known this as I have a 21" LCD monitor (with the polycarbonate coating the hardness (I'm guessing) probably exceeds 80 on the Shore D scale for these small displays). Conversely the TFT screens are relatively soft (i. e. no glass) with perhaps an equivalent hardness of 50 on the Shore A scale (it's definitely a few orders of magnitude softer than the LCD screens, at least the one's I sampled). I have 7 (polyurethane) samples that cover this range of hardnesses, but again I'm doing a touch test, no testing instruments were used here. So what did I do, I took a worn penny (relatively dull edge), placed it on its flat side, at an ~1:1 slope, applied moderate force (say 10 lbs, was the same force applied to each screen (all I can say is that I tried)), and dragged it an inch or so across each screen. NOT very scientific, but what the heck, its better than nothing. Anyway the test results are in; The HP and other manufacturer's LCD pretty much passed the penny test (I wiped the smudge marks off with my thumb), on the TFT's, because their so soft, you really can't get a "bite" into them so no marking occured, however on the iPods, I couldn't wipe the smudge marks off with my thumb (believe me I tried). BTW, I was in stealth mode in the store so no one saw me do the "tests." Remarks; remember this IS NOT a rigorous quantitative methodology, at best it is somewhat qualitative (i. e. QAD), also the force applied is over a finite surface area (sharp objects (smaller areas (i. e. grit)) would need less force for an equivalent applied pressure force)

Lessons learned: The obvious, take care of your Nano, cover it with something, ANYTHING, stick it in a CLEAN pocket (no keys, no coins, no grit, etcetera), preferably a shirt pocket, gosh this thing is TINY and THIN, use your head, when you sit down with this thing in your pants pocket, you're appling all kinds of forces to this device (unless your wearing hip-hop prison pants, of course). As far as I'm concerned, I'm going for the one cent solution, it came with a clear piece of plastic tape for shipping purposes (which I left over the screen area), I plan to get some clear plastic packing tape, and apply as necessary, thus eliminating scratches to the screen itself (BTW, you have to look carefully to even notice the clear tape, IMHO). Eventually I'll get some form of case/cover/skin/tube (whatever).

EDIT - I just wanted to add that what CosmoNut saw was similar to what I saw after the scratch "tests." I actually didn't read his entire message before I posted this reply. In fact the penny tests produced an ~3/16" wide discoloration (I still like the word smudge though, it more accurately describes what I saw) which was easily seen with the iPods OFF, I don't know how easy I would have been able to see the smudge marks with the iPods on WITH the backlit screen. Also, I mentioned how difficult it was to see the display (even backlit) in direct sunlight, but even outside, in the shade (given it was sunny), I found it diffucult to read the display WHILE backlit. My feeling is that the ambient lighting, as well as whether the screen is backlit, both play important roles in people's preceptions WRT scratches/smudges. If what CosmoNut is saying is true, actually breaking through the protective coating (or even intact but delaminated), this would be a serious problem, and easily seeable.

:smokey:

[sunilraman]

thank you franksargent, that is a very informative wrap-up to this issue. seems like you have identified several areas in which visual dissatisfaction with the nano may arise...

i think apple decided to go "blanket replacement" policy on the ipod screen thing because it would save time and trouble (and money) really characterising and zoning in on what exactly the issues are.

[rwahrens]

Originally posted by sunilraman
thank you franksargent, that is a very informative wrap-up to this issue. seems like you have identified several areas in which visual dissatisfaction with the nano may arise...

i think apple decided to go "blanket replacement" policy on the ipod screen thing because it would save time and trouble (and money) really characterising and zoning in on what exactly the issues are.

Well, we'll see. I think I'll take mine to the local apple retail shrine and see what they say. I'll report back next week. (probably Monday evening)

[VL-Tone]

Ok I got my nano yesterday (Wow it is tiny!) It's a 2GB white model

It seems my unit was not totally brand-new... (Yikes!) The round tape patch that holds the package closed was obviously already opened at least one time, and one corner of the screen protector was peeled off a little. It was also already named when it appeared in iTunes. Anyway it works and was like new so I didn't return it (it's a local store in Montreal, not an Apple Store).

I made the only scratch on it. Just to see I tried to make a scratch with my thumbnail. I had to press very hard to make a very thin smaller than a hair line. The thing is I cannot see the scratch today, it vanished (!).

I didn't travel with it yet and I didn't put it in a pocket so I don't know for the "normal" use part.

I still not believe that scratches from 3 weeks of normal use can render the display unreadable.

Anyway most scratches can be removed with Brasso or some other plastic polishing substance. Deep scratches only happen when you put very hard things like keys and other metallic objects in the same pocket, so just don't do that...

[franksargent]

Originally posted by VL-Tone
Ok I got my nano yesterday (Wow it is tiny!) It's a 2GB white model

It seems my unit was not totally brand-new... (Yikes!) The round tape patch that holds the package closed was obviously already opened at least one time, and one corner of the screen protector was peeled off a little. It was also already named when it appeared in iTunes. Anyway it works and was like new so I didn't return it (it's a local store in Montreal, not an Apple Store).

I made the only scratch on it. Just to see I tried to make a scratch with my thumbnail. I had to press very hard to make a very thin smaller than a hair line. The thing is I cannot see the scratch today, it vanished (!).

I didn't travel with it yet and I didn't put it in a pocket so I don't know for the "normal" use part.

I still not believe that scratches from 3 weeks of normal use can render the display unreadable.

Anyway most scratches can be removed with Brasso or some other plastic polishing substance. Deep scratches only happen when you put very hard things like keys and other metallic objects in the same pocket, so just don't do that...

:smokey:

Now isn't that a kick, almost sounds like an elastomer. What you saw is something called compression set, it shows up for all plastics/elastomers (if I'm not mistaken), under cyclic loading, and is commonly referred to as a hysteresis loop. On a load-deflection curve the loading curve is to the left of the unloading curve, and there is a gap (or offset) at the bottom of the unloading curve (zero axis), this is the compression set. Of course if you yield the plastic, it will never rebound completely. Apparently your fingernail didn't abrade the coating, but was enough applied pressure force to cause the aforementioned compression set, it just took a while to recover, after all plastic by definition is a visco-elastic material (longer duration loads do incur a permenant compression set (essentially it creeps (i. e. the visco part of visco-elastic))).

I recently did an elastomer design where we used polyurethane elastomers (the same kind you find in inline skate wheels) for compression and shear loads, that's where the 7 durometer samples I mentioned in a previous post came from. The "structure" must support an M1A1 tank (note that these elastomers are a relatively minor, but necessary feature of the design). In my evaluation, I had the manufacturer's nominal values for compression set, however these values were derived from an ASTM test that didn't meet our load pattern, so I was concerned about minimizing the effect of compression set, if at all possible (we also have some other interesting dynamic loads (for me anyway)). So I did a QAD with a vice and the 7 samples and loaded for the duration expected for the tank. All 7 samples showed compression set to varying degrees, however the 75-95 durometer (Shore A) range, rebounded (almost) completely (i. e. before the next expected tank cycle (in fact, within a few seconds)). The softer elastomers took several minutes to recover completely, while the harder elastomers took a minimum of several hours (don't know exactly when they did recover completely (i. e. sometime overnight)). I thought for sure that I had "failed" the harder elastomers, but to my surprise, the next day all that you could see was some very minor imprints from the vice.

EDIT - You did get me to thinking about the Nano some more. I don't dare to apply pressure (of any kind) to the screen, so did you do this directly on the screen, or away from it? I just did a couple of fingernail tests myself, I'll look at them tomorrow (however my fingernail was somewhat "ragged" so the marks look permanent, at this time). BTW, upon further examination, the Nano's front face is completely covered with ~1/32" to ~1/40" of clear plastic, then the white/black plastic is below this. Also, in the screen area the LCD screen face itself appears to be ~1/40" to ~1/50" recessed from the clear plastic layer (it's hard to measure exactly, as you have to look at it from a fairly shallow angel (and at that angle, given whatever the index of refraction is, it distorts the true thickness significantly, IMHO)). I don't know if this is an air gap or filled with more clear plastic (this photo http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0908/nano29.jpg clearly shows that the LCD screen is bigger then the cutout in the white/black plastic)? It sure would be nice to see a detailed teardown (photo) of the inside of the screen area.

Thanks, for the additional insight!

:smokey:

[AquaMac]

Originally posted by Anders
I dislike Apple, the company, as much as the next guy. Maybe you like MicroSoft better? :???:

[VL-Tone]

franksargent:

I made the scratch below the click-wheel, not on the screen.

After two days of using it without a case and traveling with it, there are some very small scratches here and there, but nothing more that I would have expected from glossy plastic.

Any plastic screen has to be glossy to be transparent, so unless a company uses glass to protect the surface of the screen, it will be susceptible to scratches.

[franksargent]

Originally posted by VL-Tone
franksargent:

I made the scratch below the click-wheel, not on the screen.

After two days of using it without a case and traveling with it, there are some very small scratches here and there, but nothing more that I would have expected from glossy plastic.

Any plastic screen has to be glossy to be transparent, so unless a company uses glass to protect the surface of the screen, it will be susceptible to scratches.

:smokey:

Scratched mine in the same place! Scratches are still there. Totally agree with your last statement.

:smokey:

[franksargent]

Originally posted by franksargent
:smokey:

Scratched mine in the same place! Scratches are still there. Totally agree with your last statement (although even glass scratches (albeit much more difficultly than any plastic tha I'm aware of)).

:smokey:

[finedaycoming]

I have had several cell phones that lived in my front pocket... with keys, pocket knife, etc. None of them have ever show as much scratching as my nano. I'm surprised that the nano didn't come with at least a sleeve like the 5G iPods do.

I'm paranoid to take my 5G anywhere until a decent case comes out.

[Jleon]

A few of my observations here: 1) the fact that the Nano has a hi-res color screen makes people care much more about this screen than the ones on earlier ipods, and therefore people will be naturally more likely to notice small scratches on it, and also be far more likely to get upset over them.

2) Those talking about how their cell phone screens never scratch are probably not taking into account that many of these screens are inside very hard plactic shells that they wouldn't be happy having their iPod screens under. My cell (Moto V710) has two screens- one external and one internal to the clamshell- the external one never scratches because it is under a very think plactic which also lowers its overall clarity somewhat. The internal screen is not under this protection because the resolution is more important for this one (just like your iPod Nano screen).

3) I just spent $250 of my hard-earned money on a cool little gizmo with a nice screen, so why on earth would I jam it into my pocket without protecting it properly?

[finedaycoming]

The internal screen on my previous cell phone (Samsung e105) didn't scratch too badly. And my current cell phone has good clarity on the outer screen -- it only has one screen, as it's a slider, and there is very minor scuffing. It does get carried in my pocket, and it gets a lot of use and abuse.

My Invisible Shield should arrive today for my 5G, and I've ordered the Invisible Shield screen protector for the Nano. I use the iKeychain from a1qp.com for the Nano... So I've spent $250 for the Nano, $45 for a case, and $10 for a screen protector. Huzzah.

I don't carry my nano around with keys or anything. When I do transport it anywhere, it's in the iKeychain. But it's still scratched just from using it in a safe and sane manner.

I'm not saying a law suit is justified, but it's pretty ridiculous, in that Apple Way to bring this thing to market without any case options or including at least the sleeve that came with the 5G.

It would be nice to see someone other than armchair chemists chime in here with some educated information on the issue, rather than the speculations on why the plastic is soft.

[Jleon]

Check out my other post about the case I found:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58672

I know it must seem like I'm a salesrep for ZCOVER or something, but it really is the perfect thing for the Nano. I also never removed the plastic coating on the top of the Nano either, so between that and the case I don't think I have to worry about scratches at all.

[finedaycoming]

Thanks Jleon. I did consider those at one point, but went with the iKeychain, as I wanted to be able to drop the nano in my computer case and go... something to keep the nano from being crushed. I might still do the zcover thing when I can justify more money for this -- well, it's a toy!

I'd like to see something like that out SOON for the 30GB iPod video.