or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod nano owners sue Apple over screen issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPod nano owners sue Apple over screen issues - Page 3

post #81 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #82 of 208
Quote:
Originally posted by SoopaDrive


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...
post #83 of 208
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #84 of 208
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.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #85 of 208
Quote:
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).
post #86 of 208
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #87 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #88 of 208
Quote:
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?
post #89 of 208
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....
post #90 of 208
Quote:
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?
post #91 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #92 of 208
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.
post #93 of 208
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.
post #94 of 208
Quote:
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
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #95 of 208
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?
I love you...
Reply
I love you...
Reply
post #96 of 208
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.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #97 of 208
Quote:
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?
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #98 of 208
Quote:
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?
post #99 of 208
Quote:
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.

I think Apple should come out with a Special Edition nano: The Scratchiti Edition!
post #100 of 208
Quote:
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.

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.
post #101 of 208
Quote:
Originally posted by fng
This is what happened when a nano was used to gently caress the bare ass of a new born baby.




case closed


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.
42 = 54 base 13
Reply
42 = 54 base 13
Reply
post #102 of 208
I didn't buy a nano, but seeing the nano with scratches on it causes me mental anguish.. can I get in on this?
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #103 of 208
(edited out)
post #104 of 208
Quote:
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.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #105 of 208
okay out of respect for ai i'll edit out my rant.
post #106 of 208
I'm tellin' ya. I got some of plastic protector sheets and my Nano is as happy as an iPod.
post #107 of 208
They should have sued for a pony
post #108 of 208
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>
post #109 of 208
Originally posted by kaiwai
.....if I want to be satisfied, I want something big, long and hard....


post #110 of 208
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?
post #111 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #112 of 208
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)"
post #113 of 208


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)).

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #114 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #115 of 208
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!
post #116 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #117 of 208
Quote:
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.
post #118 of 208
Quote:
Originally posted by franksargent


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.
post #119 of 208
Quote:
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.



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.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #120 of 208
I reckon they should use transparent aluminium.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod nano owners sue Apple over screen issues