while I do think the lawsuit is stupid, I also think building a mobile phone out of glass is quite stupid too. Maybe they did it with the intention of making the back a multi-touch surface too, which is fair enough but it's too vulnerable to breakage. They use plastic camera lenses, I'm sure they could do the same with the back.
no, buying one made out of glass is stupid if you don't like the idea of it being made out of glass.
I don't remember any advertisements that claimed the iPhone 4 to be more durable. Harder and stiffer glass, yes. Meaning it will scratch less and not break while in your pocket when you sit on it. But never rated to be dropped any distance.
All that will happen from this suit is the lawyers will get a bunch of money and there will be a warning in the manual about dropping your phone.
The idea that apple should give everyone their money back is insane. The glass is not 'defective' as stated in the claim. It just isn't indestructible. Same goes for a lot of electronics. You would be surprised how many laptop screens get broken too.
What I find so sad about this thread is the banal "Apple is perfect" meme that runs through it blindly. I dropped my iPhone 3G when getting into a taxi, it dropped about a foot but has a nasty scratch on the plastic back now. But nothing shattered because plastic absorbs shocks. If it had been 20 times harder, it would probably have shattered too. Hard things have no 'give' in them.
I'm waiting for Apple to bring out iPhone 5 (without a glass back) before upgrading because I have dropped every phone I ever bought and making a phone out of glass is just plain asking for trouble. But I won't sue anybody because of it though! Not buying a device where 1 in 7 break is good enough sense to me.
While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.
You're completely wrong.
First, the numbers don't show that it breaks twice as often as the iPhone 3. The numbers show twice as many incidents. There are many possible explanations:
- iPhone 4 customers are clumsier
- iPhone 4 is harder to hold on to
- iPhone 4 customers take less care of their phone
- iPhone 4 cases were not readily available for some of the survey period, making the phone slippier
- iPhone 4 customers are more likely to report their phone
- The difference falls within statistical error
- There is a flaw in Square Trade's methodology.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the iPhone 4 is any more likely to break than the iPhone 3GS when dropped.
Second, Apple advertises that the glass is 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic. That appears to be a true statement. So what's wrong with making true statements in your advertising? Is it Apple's fault that you're not bright enough to understand what it means?
Third, Apple never advertised that the phone was unbreakable.
Fourth, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence realizes that glass can break if dropped. I'm sorry that concept is over your head.
I don't know if he should be winning a lawsuit, but the iPone 4 design is terrible when it comes to durability. Apple does lead you to believe the glass is much stronger than it really is, but the truth is if it drops and hits a corner, your f*cked. WIth the older iPhones you had the silver bezel protecting the edges of the glass. This is why I replaced my iPhone 4's back with a beveled metal back. Can't tell you how many times it's saved my phone.
"20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."
If Apple actually claims this, then they are in trouble.
When high-speed trains and helicopters crash, their "ultradurable" glass breaks. Okay. granted, it's silly argument, but so is the lawsuit: Apple never specifically claimed that the iPhone 4 could survive a 3-foot fall onto a hard surface unscathed and fully functional.
Dropping your phone onto hard surfaces does not constitute "normal use" (never mind if your earlier generation iPhone survived a similar "accident"), hence, Apple did not submit their iPhone 4 to a comprehensive battery of drop tests.
My guess is that Apple's claim of the iPhone 4 glass being "20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic" was not based on extensive testing, but more on the molecular structure of their glass.
First, the numbers don't show that it breaks twice as often as the iPhone 3. The numbers show twice as many incidents. There are many possible explanations:
- iPhone 4 customers are clumsier
- iPhone 4 is harder to hold on to
- iPhone 4 customers take less care of their phone
- iPhone 4 cases were not readily available for some of the survey period, making the phone slippier
- iPhone 4 customers are more likely to report their phone
- The difference falls within statistical error
- There is a flaw in Square Trade's methodology.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the iPhone 4 is any more likely to break than the iPhone 3GS when dropped.
Second, Apple advertises that the glass is 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic. That appears to be a true statement. So what's wrong with making true statements in your advertising? Is it Apple's fault that you're not bright enough to understand what it means?
Third, Apple never advertised that the phone was unbreakable.
Fourth, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence realizes that glass can break if dropped. I'm sorry that concept is over your head.
Usually bad to accept statistics from a company with a vested interest in scaring you into thinking your phone will break easily...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterz1337
I don't know if he should be winning a lawsuit, but the iPone 4 design is terrible when it comes to durability. Apple does lead you to believe the glass is much stronger than it really is, but the truth is if it drops and hits a corner, your f*cked. WIth the older iPhones you had the silver bezel protecting the edges of the glass. This is why I replaced my iPhone 4's back with a beveled metal back. Can't tell you how many times it's saved my phone.
And you have seen an objective study from a company that does not sell warranties or repair phones that would suggest this is true?
In spite of the excessive hype around "antenna-gate" and now "glass-gate" do any of you think there is a single phone on the market with a customer satisfaction rating in the same universe?
I love the way that my iPhone looks without a case. But I noticed that quite often it would slip off of things that I set it on. I have a glass desk and apparently it isn't perfectly level. I put my iPhone in the middle of the desk turn around to do something and plop. It lands on the carpet. I have seen this same thing on many surfaces. So, now it's in a case.
I also had the unfortunate experience of dropping my iPhone on concrete. It was in a shirt pocket and I reached down to pick something up (yeah, that was stupid). The screen got one large horizontal crack. Luckily I have square trade insurance. But my point is, the thing is slippery and if it hits a hard enough surface at the right angle it will break.
The question is: Is this a design flaw? My understanding is that a device is flawed when it fails to perform as advertised under the conditions specified for its use. If a Toyota accelerates when driving normally and crashes, it's a defect. When I wrap my Corvette around a pole because I lost control driving 90 miles an hour it's user error. Dropping your iPhone (even if it happens to be slippery) constitutes using the device in a way it was not intended. The slipperiness is not an issue. Just like if I said "my Scion tipped over in a curve because it's shaped like a box, it must be a defect." No, it was designed for style and it is the users responsibility to use the product within the designed scenarios, or assume the risk for the consequences.
First of all, McDonald's never claimed their coffee was l20 times colder than normal coffee, or that their hot coffee would burn you 30 times less than the competing coffee, or that helicopter pilots drink it because it's safer or anything like that. Fresh coffee is hot and will burn you. That case was a pretty obvious example of how fucked up the american judicial system is...
Second, wine glass makers don't claim their glasses are 20 times more durable than plastic cups, or that you could build a train or helicopter out of them...
I'm no lawyer, but I think you can claim things that are true but still not subject yourself to lawsuits when someone spins the claims against you in acts of carelessness, neglect or misuse.
Interesting note for any Rolex owners. Reading their claims makes the watches sound indestructable. They certainly certify survivability in all their rigid tests. But people nick the sapphire faces and the watches break just wearing them in normal use. If these types of lawsuits had merit, Rolex would be in deep doo doo.
There is no content in this post related to coffee that is correct.
According to the SCAA, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F) for 90% of the contact time.
SCAA is the Specialty Coffee Association of America. The original poster sounds like a member of the SCAA as his comments are almost verbatim from their brewing handbook. BTW, I am also a member.
I'm no lawyer, but I think you can claim things that are true but still not subject yourself to lawsuits when someone spins the claims against you in acts of carelessness, neglect or misuse.
Interesting note for any Rolex owners. Reading their claims makes the watches sound indestructable. They certainly certify survivability in all their rigid tests. But people nick the sapphire faces and the watches break just wearing them in normal use. If these types of lawsuits had merit, Rolex would be in deep doo doo.
I think you are right, and this is counter to the specious claim that all someone needs to do in America is file a lawsuit and money comes pouring out the slot. The most likely outcome of a suit like this, if it's not dismissed outright, is Apple agreeing to extend iPhone warranties in some limited situations.
According to the SCAA, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F) for 90% of the contact time.
SCAA is the Specialty Coffee Association of America. The original poster sounds like a member of the SCAA as his comments are almost verbatim from their brewing handbook. BTW, I am also a member.
Well, he wrote, for example,
Quote:
Commercial drip coffee brewers have a water temp of between 205-210 degrees F pre brew chamber
Which is above 197.6 - 204.8F. It actually might be the case that some commercial brewers have the water hitting the grounds at 210F, but that coffee is going to be extremely bitter and unpalatable, sort of like the coffee from McDonald's.
While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.
.
But did they ever say that it would never ever break if dropped, or would never ever scratch.
If Apple blatantly said those things then it is false advertising. And someone would have laid that charge with the very first incident which would have been on the Fourth of July (drunk guy at a barbecue) if not sooner
So you upgrade your cell phone for a couple hundred dollars and decide that your clumsiness, (or that of your daughter) is a design flaw in one of the most advanced gadgets in use today. Did he try to scratch the screen with a nail too? I'm sure treating a fragile piece of technology like a toddler's plaything is grossly overlooked when designing new and more capable mobile devices today.
I hope he doesn't spill hot coffee on himself and decide to sue for that act of clumsiness as well.
Which is above 197.6 - 204.8F. It actually might be the case that some commercial brewers have the water hitting the grounds at 210F, but that coffee is going to be extremely bitter and unpalatable, sort of like the coffee from McDonald's.
That is why he explained the post brew chamber temps. Large commercial brewers are using pounds of coffee per brew. The ground coffee is at room temperature so as soon as the water hits the coffee it drops several degrees because it is slowly spraying into the chamber.
I feel like this is the heart of the lawsuit, and I certainly understand why one would file it.
The phone is a highly portable device, meant to be moved around. Because this motion is so prevalent, it stands to reason that there's a decent chance at some point, it will get dropped. Some drops are mundane, some are catastrophic, all based on the luck of gravity.
The phone is a fairly expensive piece of equipment. So, while a dropped wineglass results in maybe 3/4 dollars out of pocket ... this could be over $500.
I guess one would expect that the phone be able to sustain a couple foot drop and not sustain horribly catastrophic damage, because dropping it has to be considered a reasonable event. I've dropped my phone a number of times, on cement, and it's still pretty much ok. The case it's in maybe not so much. So it's unfortunate for him if he hasn't put it in a case. It's a reasonable extension (but one could argue that you shouldn't advertise a phone costing $200 that destroys itself when you drop it, you should advertise a $220 phone (+ $20 for the case), that survives reasonable drops.
For me, I feel the same way about their laptops. I've owned three powerbook/MBPs made in the metal case and I've also owned three powerbook/MBPs that have sustained pretty substantial damage in areas around ports (twice around the charger port). The last time, I dropped my laptop off my shoulder onto a carpeted floor, in a laptop case, when the laptop was in a hard plastic case. and that really damaged the monitor out port. And I guess that's just a little surprising. That's a fair amount of protection to still result in that kind of damage.
I think sometimes what I wish is that for things like iphones and laptops, there be some effort to help them survive a reasonable drop. Similar to how cars work under 2.5 mphs. It'd be pretty challenging to make a car survive a 60 mph head on collision, but backing up for parallel parking shouldn't result in a mangled bumper or a flat out ruined car. I feel like the same thing could be said for laptops/phones.
That is why he explained the post brew chamber temps. Large commercial brewers are using pounds of coffee per brew. The ground coffee is at room temperature so as soon as the water hits the coffee it drops several degrees because it is slowly spraying into the chamber.
210F is simply way too hot for any method of brewing or type of brewer, and it's also way beyond the SCAA's recommendations. (Which are a little misleading, anyway, since they don't account for differences inherent in brewing methods. For example, most people prefer to use a water temperature considerably below the SCAA's recommendations when using an AeroPress.)
Well, I will say that I was attracted by the "super strong" glass when I bought the iPhone 4 -- my first smartphone -- but within a week I had scratched the front by putting it in my pocket with my keys. Now I treat it like "regular" glass and haven't had any problems.
I was also attracted by the "10 hour" battery life in my new MacBook Pro, but quickly realized it had approximately the same battery life as the previous model.
If I had bought these items specifically for those claimed features, I would be more upset, but for me they would have been nice bonuses. So I'm just reminded to take those marketing claims with a grain of salt.
I love the way that my iPhone looks without a case. But I noticed that quite often it would slip off of things that I set it on. I have a glass desk and apparently it isn't perfectly level. I put my iPhone in the middle of the desk turn around to do something and plop. It lands on the carpet. I have seen this same thing on many surfaces. So, now it's in a case.
Your entire post I think has the most relevant analogy I've seen on this argument so far.
From Apple's Web Site
Quote:
All the breakthrough technology in iPhone 4 is situated between two glossy panels of aluminosilicate glass — the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed trains. Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic, the glass is ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever. It’s also recyclable.
Mind you, no where in here does it say that the glass will not break. It does not say what height the device has been tested in. It just says it is more durable. The lines of "glass used in windshields.. Strengthened to be 30 times harder..." are all adverting jargon aimed at making you feel like you are purchasing something more durable. While all this I assume to be true, doesn't mean the device is indestructible.
I have had my iPod touch (2G) drop 3 feet to the carpet. Not a problem. My Palm Pre, same distance to carpet, not a problem. iPod touch, 6 inches face down onto gravel: got scratched. Palm Pre screen (made of plastic), scratched from normal use. I won't sue Apple or Palm because the screen got scratched. These things happen. Drop your phone, it might break, no matter what.
Lesson learned for the man and his daughter: Buy a case for your iPhone. Remember, this is Apple: Form is before Function in many cases. (But to the man who is suing, I do feel for you. It is very discouraging that a simple drop can ruin a device so completely.)
However, it would be nice if Apple included a case for their product. I have seen and have friends who's iPhone 4s have chips in the glass because there is no bevel.
Comments
while I do think the lawsuit is stupid, I also think building a mobile phone out of glass is quite stupid too. Maybe they did it with the intention of making the back a multi-touch surface too, which is fair enough but it's too vulnerable to breakage. They use plastic camera lenses, I'm sure they could do the same with the back.
no, buying one made out of glass is stupid if you don't like the idea of it being made out of glass.
All that will happen from this suit is the lawyers will get a bunch of money and there will be a warning in the manual about dropping your phone.
The idea that apple should give everyone their money back is insane. The glass is not 'defective' as stated in the claim. It just isn't indestructible. Same goes for a lot of electronics. You would be surprised how many laptop screens get broken too.
I think I'll sue Apple.
After all suing is the American Way!
I'm waiting for Apple to bring out iPhone 5 (without a glass back) before upgrading because I have dropped every phone I ever bought and making a phone out of glass is just plain asking for trouble. But I won't sue anybody because of it though! Not buying a device where 1 in 7 break is good enough sense to me.
While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.
You're completely wrong.
First, the numbers don't show that it breaks twice as often as the iPhone 3. The numbers show twice as many incidents. There are many possible explanations:
- iPhone 4 customers are clumsier
- iPhone 4 is harder to hold on to
- iPhone 4 customers take less care of their phone
- iPhone 4 cases were not readily available for some of the survey period, making the phone slippier
- iPhone 4 customers are more likely to report their phone
- The difference falls within statistical error
- There is a flaw in Square Trade's methodology.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the iPhone 4 is any more likely to break than the iPhone 3GS when dropped.
Second, Apple advertises that the glass is 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic. That appears to be a true statement. So what's wrong with making true statements in your advertising? Is it Apple's fault that you're not bright enough to understand what it means?
Third, Apple never advertised that the phone was unbreakable.
Fourth, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence realizes that glass can break if dropped. I'm sorry that concept is over your head.
"20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."
If Apple actually claims this, then they are in trouble.
When high-speed trains and helicopters crash, their "ultradurable" glass breaks. Okay. granted, it's silly argument, but so is the lawsuit: Apple never specifically claimed that the iPhone 4 could survive a 3-foot fall onto a hard surface unscathed and fully functional.
Dropping your phone onto hard surfaces does not constitute "normal use" (never mind if your earlier generation iPhone survived a similar "accident"), hence, Apple did not submit their iPhone 4 to a comprehensive battery of drop tests.
My guess is that Apple's claim of the iPhone 4 glass being "20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic" was not based on extensive testing, but more on the molecular structure of their glass.
You're completely wrong.
First, the numbers don't show that it breaks twice as often as the iPhone 3. The numbers show twice as many incidents. There are many possible explanations:
- iPhone 4 customers are clumsier
- iPhone 4 is harder to hold on to
- iPhone 4 customers take less care of their phone
- iPhone 4 cases were not readily available for some of the survey period, making the phone slippier
- iPhone 4 customers are more likely to report their phone
- The difference falls within statistical error
- There is a flaw in Square Trade's methodology.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the iPhone 4 is any more likely to break than the iPhone 3GS when dropped.
Second, Apple advertises that the glass is 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic. That appears to be a true statement. So what's wrong with making true statements in your advertising? Is it Apple's fault that you're not bright enough to understand what it means?
Third, Apple never advertised that the phone was unbreakable.
Fourth, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence realizes that glass can break if dropped. I'm sorry that concept is over your head.
Usually bad to accept statistics from a company with a vested interest in scaring you into thinking your phone will break easily...
I don't know if he should be winning a lawsuit, but the iPone 4 design is terrible when it comes to durability. Apple does lead you to believe the glass is much stronger than it really is, but the truth is if it drops and hits a corner, your f*cked. WIth the older iPhones you had the silver bezel protecting the edges of the glass. This is why I replaced my iPhone 4's back with a beveled metal back. Can't tell you how many times it's saved my phone.
And you have seen an objective study from a company that does not sell warranties or repair phones that would suggest this is true?
In spite of the excessive hype around "antenna-gate" and now "glass-gate" do any of you think there is a single phone on the market with a customer satisfaction rating in the same universe?
I also had the unfortunate experience of dropping my iPhone on concrete. It was in a shirt pocket and I reached down to pick something up (yeah, that was stupid). The screen got one large horizontal crack. Luckily I have square trade insurance. But my point is, the thing is slippery and if it hits a hard enough surface at the right angle it will break.
The question is: Is this a design flaw? My understanding is that a device is flawed when it fails to perform as advertised under the conditions specified for its use. If a Toyota accelerates when driving normally and crashes, it's a defect. When I wrap my Corvette around a pole because I lost control driving 90 miles an hour it's user error. Dropping your iPhone (even if it happens to be slippery) constitutes using the device in a way it was not intended. The slipperiness is not an issue. Just like if I said "my Scion tipped over in a curve because it's shaped like a box, it must be a defect." No, it was designed for style and it is the users responsibility to use the product within the designed scenarios, or assume the risk for the consequences.
First of all, McDonald's never claimed their coffee was l20 times colder than normal coffee, or that their hot coffee would burn you 30 times less than the competing coffee, or that helicopter pilots drink it because it's safer or anything like that. Fresh coffee is hot and will burn you. That case was a pretty obvious example of how fucked up the american judicial system is...
Second, wine glass makers don't claim their glasses are 20 times more durable than plastic cups, or that you could build a train or helicopter out of them...
I'm no lawyer, but I think you can claim things that are true but still not subject yourself to lawsuits when someone spins the claims against you in acts of carelessness, neglect or misuse.
Interesting note for any Rolex owners. Reading their claims makes the watches sound indestructable. They certainly certify survivability in all their rigid tests. But people nick the sapphire faces and the watches break just wearing them in normal use. If these types of lawsuits had merit, Rolex would be in deep doo doo.
There is no content in this post related to coffee that is correct.
According to the SCAA, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F) for 90% of the contact time.
SCAA is the Specialty Coffee Association of America. The original poster sounds like a member of the SCAA as his comments are almost verbatim from their brewing handbook. BTW, I am also a member.
I'm no lawyer, but I think you can claim things that are true but still not subject yourself to lawsuits when someone spins the claims against you in acts of carelessness, neglect or misuse.
Interesting note for any Rolex owners. Reading their claims makes the watches sound indestructable. They certainly certify survivability in all their rigid tests. But people nick the sapphire faces and the watches break just wearing them in normal use. If these types of lawsuits had merit, Rolex would be in deep doo doo.
I think you are right, and this is counter to the specious claim that all someone needs to do in America is file a lawsuit and money comes pouring out the slot. The most likely outcome of a suit like this, if it's not dismissed outright, is Apple agreeing to extend iPhone warranties in some limited situations.
According to the SCAA, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F) for 90% of the contact time.
SCAA is the Specialty Coffee Association of America. The original poster sounds like a member of the SCAA as his comments are almost verbatim from their brewing handbook. BTW, I am also a member.
Well, he wrote, for example,
Commercial drip coffee brewers have a water temp of between 205-210 degrees F pre brew chamber
Which is above 197.6 - 204.8F. It actually might be the case that some commercial brewers have the water hitting the grounds at 210F, but that coffee is going to be extremely bitter and unpalatable, sort of like the coffee from McDonald's.
While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.
.
But did they ever say that it would never ever break if dropped, or would never ever scratch.
If Apple blatantly said those things then it is false advertising. And someone would have laid that charge with the very first incident which would have been on the Fourth of July (drunk guy at a barbecue) if not sooner
I hope he doesn't spill hot coffee on himself and decide to sue for that act of clumsiness as well.
Which is above 197.6 - 204.8F. It actually might be the case that some commercial brewers have the water hitting the grounds at 210F, but that coffee is going to be extremely bitter and unpalatable, sort of like the coffee from McDonald's.
That is why he explained the post brew chamber temps. Large commercial brewers are using pounds of coffee per brew. The ground coffee is at room temperature so as soon as the water hits the coffee it drops several degrees because it is slowly spraying into the chamber.
The phone is a highly portable device, meant to be moved around. Because this motion is so prevalent, it stands to reason that there's a decent chance at some point, it will get dropped. Some drops are mundane, some are catastrophic, all based on the luck of gravity.
The phone is a fairly expensive piece of equipment. So, while a dropped wineglass results in maybe 3/4 dollars out of pocket ... this could be over $500.
I guess one would expect that the phone be able to sustain a couple foot drop and not sustain horribly catastrophic damage, because dropping it has to be considered a reasonable event. I've dropped my phone a number of times, on cement, and it's still pretty much ok. The case it's in maybe not so much.
For me, I feel the same way about their laptops. I've owned three powerbook/MBPs made in the metal case and I've also owned three powerbook/MBPs that have sustained pretty substantial damage in areas around ports (twice around the charger port). The last time, I dropped my laptop off my shoulder onto a carpeted floor, in a laptop case, when the laptop was in a hard plastic case. and that really damaged the monitor out port. And I guess that's just a little surprising. That's a fair amount of protection to still result in that kind of damage.
I think sometimes what I wish is that for things like iphones and laptops, there be some effort to help them survive a reasonable drop. Similar to how cars work under 2.5 mphs. It'd be pretty challenging to make a car survive a 60 mph head on collision, but backing up for parallel parking shouldn't result in a mangled bumper or a flat out ruined car. I feel like the same thing could be said for laptops/phones.
That is why he explained the post brew chamber temps. Large commercial brewers are using pounds of coffee per brew. The ground coffee is at room temperature so as soon as the water hits the coffee it drops several degrees because it is slowly spraying into the chamber.
210F is simply way too hot for any method of brewing or type of brewer, and it's also way beyond the SCAA's recommendations. (Which are a little misleading, anyway, since they don't account for differences inherent in brewing methods. For example, most people prefer to use a water temperature considerably below the SCAA's recommendations when using an AeroPress.)
I was also attracted by the "10 hour" battery life in my new MacBook Pro, but quickly realized it had approximately the same battery life as the previous model.
If I had bought these items specifically for those claimed features, I would be more upset, but for me they would have been nice bonuses. So I'm just reminded to take those marketing claims with a grain of salt.
I love the way that my iPhone looks without a case. But I noticed that quite often it would slip off of things that I set it on. I have a glass desk and apparently it isn't perfectly level. I put my iPhone in the middle of the desk turn around to do something and plop. It lands on the carpet. I have seen this same thing on many surfaces. So, now it's in a case.
Your entire post I think has the most relevant analogy I've seen on this argument so far.
From Apple's Web Site
All the breakthrough technology in iPhone 4 is situated between two glossy panels of aluminosilicate glass — the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed trains. Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic, the glass is ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever. It’s also recyclable.
Mind you, no where in here does it say that the glass will not break. It does not say what height the device has been tested in. It just says it is more durable. The lines of "glass used in windshields.. Strengthened to be 30 times harder..." are all adverting jargon aimed at making you feel like you are purchasing something more durable. While all this I assume to be true, doesn't mean the device is indestructible.
I have had my iPod touch (2G) drop 3 feet to the carpet. Not a problem. My Palm Pre, same distance to carpet, not a problem. iPod touch, 6 inches face down onto gravel: got scratched. Palm Pre screen (made of plastic), scratched from normal use. I won't sue Apple or Palm because the screen got scratched. These things happen. Drop your phone, it might break, no matter what.
Lesson learned for the man and his daughter: Buy a case for your iPhone. Remember, this is Apple: Form is before Function in many cases. (But to the man who is suing, I do feel for you. It is very discouraging that a simple drop can ruin a device so completely.)
However, it would be nice if Apple included a case for their product. I have seen and have friends who's iPhone 4s have chips in the glass because there is no bevel.