or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple to replace 5G iPods that exhibit hardware failure
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to replace 5G iPods that exhibit hardware failure

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
In an effort to improve both customer satisfaction and the quality of its music players, Apple in some countries will replace any fifth-generation iPod (video) player that exhibit signs of hardware failure, with little-to-no questions asked.

In a message to its channel partners this week, the iPod maker told authorized service providers in Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific to replace fifth-generationÂ*iPod products that exhibit "any type of hardware failure," including "thoseÂ*that would normally be classified as abuse."

"For a short period of time, Apple will be evaluating all forms ofÂ*hardware failure on the recently announced fifth-generation iPod," the company said. Nowhere in the message did Apple indicate that there were any known or serious issues currently effecting the players. Instead, the company's move appears to be a preemptive measure.

Over the last month, Apple has been the recipient of complaints, negative media attention, and and a class action lawsuit as a result of problems associated with its ultra-thin iPod nano players. Customers argue that the protective coating on the players has a tendency to become scratched or marred to the point where information on the screen becomes illegible.

Last week, customers upset about the iPod nano issues filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, demanding their money back plus a share of the companyÂs profits.

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

As a result of problems with the nano, Apple now ships a standard soft protective sleeve with each fifth-generation iPod video player that it sells. The company is also expected to include a standard protective casing with future revisions to the iPod nano.
post #2 of 34
good good...

proof that Apple learns from mistakes...

way to go
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 #3 of 34
Apple has always been the best company to deal with about warranty issues, in my experience. Where other companies will take weeks or months to replace or fix items, Apple will do it "no questions asked". That has been my experience so far.
post #4 of 34
Has Apple been refusing to replace the faulty nanos in question? Otherwise, it would seem that they are more or less reiterating a standing policy.
post #5 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Has Apple been refusing to replace the nanos in question? Otherwise, it would seem that they are more or less reiterating a standing policy.



Ooops, nevermind, misread article.

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 #6 of 34
that thing is actual cow skin?
i don't believe that
post #7 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan22t
that thing is actual cow skin?
i don't believe that

Fuzzy enough to not hurt it anyways. It doesn't seem like leather to me. Didn't feel like it.
-Shawn
2.4GHz 24" Intel iMac
Reply
-Shawn
2.4GHz 24" Intel iMac
Reply
post #8 of 34
"including "those that would normally be classified as abuse."

That's just asking to be taken advantage of. And yet, for a LIMITED time when a product is NEW, it's a very mart thing to do!

They'll lose a little money replacing iPods that had nothing legitimately wrong with them. BUT they keep the early buzz positive. They swallow their pride and prevent people from raising a stink over damage they themselves caused. And if there should be some actual mfg. defect (which can happen), Apple's covered there too.

Very smart marketing--even if almost nobody knows about this decision. It kills off all the reports of "I put my iPod in my soft cotton pocket with a diamond ring, a horseshoe, a land mine, and a garden gnome, and it got scratched in just one day!"

Nothing for negative press to seize onto. And it makes the lawsuit-hungry stay in bed too.

Adding a sleeve to the nano is nice too. Not "necessary" exactly, since the nano is as durable as any other iPod in reality. But very good to have, if you've got a product as nice-looking as the iPod.
post #9 of 34
WTF? Hardware failure? I just got my video iPod the other day.

Maybe AI can elaborate on what hardware failures...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #10 of 34
sorry, dbl. post
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #11 of 34
Apple is really good about this. I just got a first generation iPod Mini replaced (got it almost 2 years ago), no questions asked, with no apple care and had to pay nothing. Walked out of the store with a new Mini and a love for apple.
post #12 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by FreeState
Apple is really good about this. I just got a first generation iPod Mini replaced (got it almost 2 years ago), no questions asked, with no apple care and had to pay nothing. Walked out of the store with a new Mini and a love for apple.

You have AppleCare for that mini? Otherwise, if its out of warranty, you really are a lucky guy!
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by Xool
You have AppleCare for that mini? Otherwise, if its out of warranty, you really are a lucky guy!

I never have got apple care for anything. So Im either very lucky or the Mac Genius had a crush on me LOL
post #14 of 34
I hope that this is just an attempt to find out what problems are occuring.

What time is the limited time going to extend to?
post #15 of 34
By the way, I'd much rather have the new soft sleeve than the old rigid belt clip. The sleeve is softer and less damaging, for one thing--but it's also less bulky. The old case wasn't much use UNLESS used on your belt. This one is useful anyplace.
post #16 of 34
I think the goodness they're looking for would go a longer way if they'd include the Nano in that order...and include that protective sleeve when they replace 'em!
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
I think the goodness they're looking for would go a longer way if they'd include the Nano in that order...and include that protective sleeve when they replace 'em!

They probably won't do that because there are most likely a million and a half to two million out already, and the temptation to "scratch one" to get a new replacement would be to much for some to resist.
post #18 of 34
Well, it's a possibility that if they don't do something voluntarily, the courts could always shove it down their throats. It's been done before. Batteries, anyone?
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
Well, it's a possibility that if they don't do something voluntarily, the courts could always shove it down their throats. It's been done before. Batteries, anyone?

Yes, that was pretty stupid.

But scratches are different. It somehow needs to be proven.
post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, that was pretty stupid.

But scratches are different. It somehow needs to be proven.

Ah, but the batteries had to be proven, too. Nature of the court system...
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
Ah, but the batteries had to be proven, too. Nature of the court system...

Yes, but batteries are different. They are internal. The main issue there was their lifetime. While I didn't look, because I don't have one, I don't believe that Apple had said anything on its site or in its instruction manual about the limited lifetime that these batteries have. They also didn't warn about what happens to that lifespan if they aren't used or recharged properly.

Leaving an iPod in the glovebox of your car in the summer can ruin the battery quickly, as an example.

I think that Apple felt that people knew that rechargeable have a limited lifespan, and so weren't concerned about complaints. If the battery "failed" customers would come back and have them replaced.

Now they have these warnings.

They also wanted an unreasonable amount of money to replace batteries. They've cut that price in half.

Scratches are difficult. Though again, Apple should put a warning in the box. "Plastic can scratch. Please use the included screen protectors". Which, of course, they didn't provide.

But scratches are external, the user has more control over how they handle the item.

If there is a big scratch on the screen, is it really because the cotton pocket did it, or is it because they forgot to take their keys out?
post #22 of 34
Even putting my nano in a pocket with loose change or my keys I haven't accomplished a single serious scratch so I find it a bit difficult to believe that that alone could do it. Maybe I'm just really really lucky though.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, but batteries are different. They are internal. The main issue there was their lifetime. While I didn't look, because I don't have one, I don't believe that Apple had said anything on its site or in its instruction manual about the limited lifetime that these batteries have. They also didn't warn about what happens to that lifespan if they aren't used or recharged properly.

Leaving an iPod in the glovebox of your car in the summer can ruin the battery quickly, as an example.

I think that Apple felt that people knew that rechargeable have a limited lifespan, and so weren't concerned about complaints. If the battery "failed" customers would come back and have them replaced.

Now they have these warnings.

They also wanted an unreasonable amount of money to replace batteries. They've cut that price in half.

Scratches are difficult. Though again, Apple should put a warning in the box. "Plastic can scratch. Please use the included screen protectors". Which, of course, they didn't provide.

But scratches are external, the user has more control over how they handle the item.

If there is a big scratch on the screen, is it really because the cotton pocket did it, or is it because they forgot to take their keys out?

Actually, your post proves my point.

The court system is set up so the plaintiff MUST prove his/her point. the issues you noted about Apple's shortcomings are why they lost that case. But because they insisted on their initial hard line, the plaintiffs had to take them to court to force Apple to play fair.

Same situation here, regardless of the merit of the plaintiffs' case. They have to prove to the court the merits of their case, vs Apple's position. Because Apple is holding (in the plaintiffs' eyes) a hard line, they feel they have to take Apple to court to force them to play fair.

So they HAVE to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard of evidence), that their position is correct, and Apple has not done enough to remedy the problem.

Same thing, both cases. In the long run, the court gets the last word. (barring appeals, of course.)
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #24 of 34
I have the 60gb iPod video and an iceLink car integration kit. I wonder if the problem I'm having could be fixed by trading in my iPod for another one with this deal.

When the backlighting goes off (screen gets darker) there is a hardware noise that comes over the speakers in my car from the iPod. Its low but very distracting. It didn't do this with previous 60gb model. I sold my iPod Photo to get this iPid video. Now I'm kinda wishing I hadn't just for this reason. How annoying!!!
post #25 of 34
I have a 60 GB Video and have noticed a couple things with mine. First, the screen does get scratches from the case that it comes with. They are deep scratches, but the screen does scratch. Number 2, the battery life in mine sucks. I can listen to a single hour long podcast, and the battery indicator is next to dead. This is after leaving the iPod connected to my iMac overnight (8+ Hours). The sound EQ is off, and backlight is on a 10 second timer, and audio level sits at about 50%, so those should not be issues. Number three, if a video is paused when the screen, the screen will get all distorted. Green and blue bars will be on the screen, and the only way to get arid of them is to reboot the iPod.

Anyone else out there experiencing these issues???
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
Actually, your post proves my point.

The court system is set up so the plaintiff MUST prove his/her point. the issues you noted about Apple's shortcomings are why they lost that case. But because they insisted on their initial hard line, the plaintiffs had to take them to court to force Apple to play fair.

Same situation here, regardless of the merit of the plaintiffs' case. They have to prove to the court the merits of their case, vs Apple's position. Because Apple is holding (in the plaintiffs' eyes) a hard line, they feel they have to take Apple to court to force them to play fair.

So they HAVE to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard of evidence), that their position is correct, and Apple has not done enough to remedy the problem.

Same thing, both cases. In the long run, the court gets the last word. (barring appeals, of course.)

It doesn't prove your point because juries are known for giving awards when the expectation is that they won't. This is why I say that these cases should be heard before a judge, rather than before a jury.

Even when an award is justified, it often is far in excess of what it should be. The case of the McDonalds coffee is an example of that. The award was well in excess of $100 million, it was cut down to just a few million. There would have been a good chance that a judge would have not awarded in favor of her at all, or would have given a far smaller amount if (s)he had.

This is why there have been so many calls to revise the Tort system. Most cases like these are nuisance cases.
post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by endymionls
I have a 60 GB Video and have noticed a couple things with mine. First, the screen does get scratches from the case that it comes with. They are deep scratches, but the screen does scratch. Number 2, the battery life in mine sucks. I can listen to a single hour long podcast, and the battery indicator is next to dead. This is after leaving the iPod connected to my iMac overnight (8+ Hours). The sound EQ is off, and backlight is on a 10 second timer, and audio level sits at about 50%, so those should not be issues. Number three, if a video is paused when the screen, the screen will get all distorted. Green and blue bars will be on the screen, and the only way to get arid of them is to reboot the iPod.

Anyone else out there experiencing these issues???

It's hard to believe that you haven't heard of it, because it's been recieving a great deal of publicity - even here on this site, but Apple said that ANY hardware problem with the iPod 5G is enough reason for the owner to bring it in and get a new one- no questions asked.

This is in effect for a short time only, so you should do it now.

All the reviews I've seen show that the 30GB version gets over 2 hours Video time - up to 2.5 hours, and the 60 has been getting up to 4.25 hours.

As far as scratches and the other problems go, I haven't seen anything about that yet.

Take it in now. Don't wait.
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It doesn't prove your point because juries are known for giving awards when the expectation is that they won't. This is why I say that these cases should be heard before a judge, rather than before a jury.

Even when an award is justified, it often is far in excess of what it should be. The case of the McDonalds coffee is an example of that. The award was well in excess of $100 million, it was cut down to just a few million. There would have been a good chance that a judge would have not awarded in favor of her at all, or would have given a far smaller amount if (s)he had.

This is why there have been so many calls to revise the Tort system. Most cases like these are nuisance cases.

Sure, it does. Whether a jury hears the case or a judge, it doesn't matter. the plaintiff still must prove his/her case to the satisfaction of whomever that may be. So the awards are excessive, and sometimes it doesn't make sense who the winner is, the point if that the plaintiff STILL must prove their point!

I remember a case we studied in a business law class about a man in California (where else?) who was on the roof of a school, at night, in the process of burglarizing it, when he fell through a skylight and broke his back. He sued the school district, saying that they should have had signs noting the presence of the skylight. He won, and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars.

Obviously, the plaintiffs in these cases proved their cases had merit, whether to a judge of jury, and were awarded damages.

Obviously, often appeals courts reduce these overlarge awards, once again showing that the system, while not perfect, does have some safeguards.

But you still have to prove your case!
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
Sure, it does. Whether a jury hears the case or a judge, it doesn't matter. the plaintiff still must prove his/her case to the satisfaction of whomever that may be. So the awards are excessive, and sometimes it doesn't make sense who the winner is, the point if that the plaintiff STILL must prove their point!

I remember a case we studied in a business law class about a man in California (where else?) who was on the roof of a school, at night, in the process of burglarizing it, when he fell through a skylight and broke his back. He sued the school district, saying that they should have had signs noting the presence of the skylight. He won, and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars.

Obviously, the plaintiffs in these cases proved their cases had merit, whether to a judge of jury, and were awarded damages.

Obviously, often appeals courts reduce these overlarge awards, once again showing that the system, while not perfect, does have some safeguards.

But you still have to prove your case!

This the point that I'm trying to make though.

It's easier to "prove" to a jury that you have made your case than it is to a judge. I'll, of course, admit that this isn't always going to be true. The case against Merk that just ended shows that. But statistically, it is true. As are the sizes of the awards.

A jury, in cases of the "people" against a large corporation, have that feeling of "it's us against them" more often than not. They are also more often willing to throw common sense out the window.

Case law has swung to the side of blaming the defendant for violations of rationality and logic the plaintiff has committed.

The case you mention shows just what I mean. There is no logic to that award. I certainly would not have gone along with it.

My own example here is not of a specific case, but of extremes that we can see.

Most areas in this country require one to secure a swimming pool against someone who doesn't belong there falling in and injuring themselves.

If a neighbors child manages to get into the pool by committing trespass, the owners of the property are considered responsible if that child is able to enter the pool and becomes injured or dies.

So far so good. I agree that children need to be protected, and a law that enforces that is proper.

But if an adult trespasses and somehow is injured or dies in ones pool it should be different. In that case, I don't think that one should be responsible. An adult should know better, and the law treats adults as responsible, unlike children, who are not considered responsible under the law (most of the time).

But even if you secure your pool, an adult might be able to work around that when a child cannot.

Should one be liable for the adult as for the child?

I don't believe so.

Of course this holds true if it's an instituiotnal setting as well, which is more correspondent to our discussion.
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This the point that I'm trying to make though.

It's easier to "prove" to a jury that you have made your case than it is to a judge. I'll, of course, admit that this isn't always going to be true. The case against Merk that just ended shows that. But statistically, it is true. As are the sizes of the awards.

A jury, in cases of the "people" against a large corporation, have that feeling of "it's us against them" more often than not. They are also more often willing to throw common sense out the window.

Case law has swung to the side of blaming the defendant for violations of rationality and logic the plaintiff has committed.

The case you mention shows just what I mean. There is no logic to that award. I certainly would not have gone along with it.

My own example here is not of a specific case, but of extremes that we can see.

Most areas in this country require one to secure a swimming pool against someone who doesn't belong there falling in and injuring themselves.

If a neighbors child manages to get into the pool by committing trespass, the owners of the property are considered responsible if that child is able to enter the pool and becomes injured or dies.

So far so good. I agree that children need to be protected, and a law that enforces that is proper.

But if an adult trespasses and somehow is injured or dies in ones pool it should be different. In that case, I don't think that one should be responsible. An adult should know better, and the law treats adults as responsible, unlike children, who are not considered responsible under the law (most of the time).

But even if you secure your pool, an adult might be able to work around that when a child cannot.

Should one be liable for the adult as for the child?

I don't believe so.

Of course this holds true if it's an instituiotnal setting as well, which is more correspondent to our discussion.

Mostly, I agree with your last post.

There are a number of cases that have fed public disgust with the tort system, and it has allowed the Republicans (with which I identify myself most of the time) to reform the system, unfortunately, slanted against small plaintiffs.

I think there should be a balance to the system. Small plaintiffs, and large numbers of individuals, need protection against large corporations (and wealthy individuals) with deeper pockets who can afford legions of lawyers.

However, those same deep pockets need protection against the (senior moment here) silly? - lawsuits that have no merit, or at least, none once you scratch the surface, and certainly the ones only meant to extort money.

You're right that juries tend to award more often and larger awards when they do, but how do you take away people's right to a trial by peer?

I wouldn't have awarded in the lawsuits we spoke about, either, at least not on what we've read in the papers about them. But I wasn't sitting in the jury box listening to the evidence, either. Since I didn't hear the judge's instructions, which tell the jury what legal basis they have to judge the case on, I can't say I definitively wouldn't have if given the same instructions they received, though.

So basically, these plaintiffs still have the right to go to court and present their case against Apple, but they have to prove that Apple was negligent in some way to win. Or Apple will see the handwriting on the wall and settle outta court.

We can sit here and speculate about plastic and it's characteristics, and manufacturing defects till the cows come home, but it's what is presented in court that counts.
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
Mostly, I agree with your last post.

There are a number of cases that have fed public disgust with the tort system, and it has allowed the Republicans (with which I identify myself most of the time) to reform the system, unfortunately, slanted against small plaintiffs.

I think there should be a balance to the system. Small plaintiffs, and large numbers of individuals, need protection against large corporations (and wealthy individuals) with deeper pockets who can afford legions of lawyers.

However, those same deep pockets need protection against the (senior moment here) silly? - lawsuits that have no merit, or at least, none once you scratch the surface, and certainly the ones only meant to extort money.

You're right that juries tend to award more often and larger awards when they do, but how do you take away people's right to a trial by peer?

I wouldn't have awarded in the lawsuits we spoke about, either, at least not on what we've read in the papers about them. But I wasn't sitting in the jury box listening to the evidence, either. Since I didn't hear the judge's instructions, which tell the jury what legal basis they have to judge the case on, I can't say I definitively wouldn't have if given the same instructions they received, though.

So basically, these plaintiffs still have the right to go to court and present their case against Apple, but they have to prove that Apple was negligent in some way to win. Or Apple will see the handwriting on the wall and settle outta court.

We can sit here and speculate about plastic and it's characteristics, and manufacturing defects till the cows come home, but it's what is presented in court that counts.

I'm happy you agreed with my last point, considering how I spelled it.

The question is always of balance. I've been on a lot of juries over the years, though never on a large civil case.

One of the first things the lawyers ask is if you have any reason as to why you might not see their client in neutral terms. most people tell the truth, but not all.

It's why I think that civil trials of this type should be heard by a judge. They certainly aren't perfect. But they usually are more neutral.
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm happy you agreed with my last point, considering how I spelled it.

The question is always of balance. I've been on a lot of juries over the years, though never on a large civil case.

One of the first things the lawyers ask is if you have any reason as to why you might not see their client in neutral terms. most people tell the truth, but not all.

It's why I think that civil trials of this type should be heard by a judge. They certainly aren't perfect. But they usually are more neutral.

I'm not sure I'd agree on judges being more neutral - but this isn't the forum for that.

AND, I don't insist on correct spelling before I agree with something (but my senior english teacher just rolled over in her grave )
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by rwahrens
I'm not sure I'd agree on judges being more neutral - but this isn't the forum for that.

AND, I don't insist on correct spelling before I agree with something (but my senior english teacher just rolled over in her grave )

We had a saying in my high school (several decades ago). The more words you know, the less you can spell.
post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
We had a saying in my high school (several decades ago). The more words you know, the less you can spell.

Ooooo, sounds like me!
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
"TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" Lazarus Long in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple to replace 5G iPods that exhibit hardware failure