Yes it's true, really true, just read the news about it, you can actually find quotes from him in news about the nano suit.
<snip interesting quotes and links>
For the 50+ times he defended MS, I found this on the newsgroups:
Wow. I guess Mr. Berman "made his bones" and isn't kidding around...
Mr. Berman made his fame on very grass-root class-actions, like pro-environment suits and defending AOL consumers. Still, like many attorneys, he also worked on the "other side", when he defended MS for example against the DOJ and consumers.
I guess that since he's not a judge, it's "ok" in the judiciary system...
Could Apple countersue the law firm for defamation? [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't know, but it's an interesting twist on an emerging story about Gates v Jobs (and those who hate/envy either one or both), the nature of litigation here and in the EU... thanks for the added insight.
I couldn't help but notice there were no Nano/Rockr ads in this week's New Yorker magazine... wonder if Jobs was informed the centerpiece article would be about Mr. Bill and His Wondrous Philanthropy. Like TIME said on last week's cover: he always seems to know what's "Next"!
I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?
............I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?....
i predict 10-15 million nanos sold worldwide for the october-december 2005 quarter
Yeah, I agree 100%, the Nano will sell like hotcakes, in fact I think I'll get one today! If anything, this issue should make people take better care of something they must see through!
The LCD screen is two sheets of glass, sandwiched between plastic polarizer filters, on top of that is the transparent polycarbonate plastic that covers all the front of the unit. Are you seriously thinking that a screen can break just a little and then produce scratches that are clearly on the surface of the plastic?
You clearly don't seem to grasp how plastic behaves. Stress on a plastic sheet from under or the sides cannot produce scratches only on the surface. If the screen cracks in any way, it will be obvious.
Wow, I didn't realize they actually used GLASS in the Nano screen, you wouldn't have a link (or anything WRT small LCD construction) on this by any chance? If not, could you be a little more specific on the sandwich nature of the screen (i. e. you say two glass sheets sandwiched "between" plastic...), is it like PGGP or PGPGP (if you know what I mean, I'm really clueless on "small" LCD construction techniques (or "large" LCD construction techniques for that matter)). I'm assuming that there's a sheet of something (material?) in there that creates the pixel display (I think you know what I mean, the photons)? To me, since this is a composite (and given that glass (i. e. silica) has much less elongation than plastics), the glass will always fracture first (of course if the glass sheets are relatively thin and located close to the axis of stress symmetry (i. e. the neutral axis), then I guess it would be possible for the plastic to fail first (this get's into the specifics of the composite geometry (thickness of each layer, location of each in the sandwich, allowable stress of each material, brittleness (or conversely plasticity) of each material, etcetera))). Finally, on your last statement, I believe this to be fairly true for relatively thin plastics (however, I have seen relatively thin lighting panels with surface fractures (however, it has to be stressed (in bending) just right)), on thicker (clear) plastics, I've seen all kinds of surface fractures, at various length scales, the smallest of which (you could even call them "nano-fractures" ) give the surface a "hazy" appearance. Of course it depends on how brittle the plastic is and how the stress is applied.
Wow, I didn't realize they actually used GLASS in the Nano screen, you wouldn't have a link (or anything WRT small LCD construction) on this by any chance?
I'm a little in a hurry so my reply will be shorter than I would want.
You should know that EVERY LCD panel uses GLASS to enclose the liquid crystal.
Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;
10,000,000 iPod Nano's in the warehouse, 10,000,000 iPod Nano's,
I sold one now, it'll get scratched to hell, 9,999,999 iPod Nano's in the warehouse,
...
But seriously, I got one, 4GB, CompUSA only had white, but it was $50 off of MSRP, so I can't complain. Now I'll stick it in my pocket with some coins, keys, a handful of sand, and a dash of salt, and see what happens! BTW, I thought the class-action was already settled, but when I went to the mailbox, no check, wazzup with that anyway!
Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;
Who's CIJ?
<wake me when it's ova>[COLOR=silver]
As Foghorn Leghorn would say "It's a joke son." There is no podcast (although there is a 247nano.com website (to my surprise)). You may know what the J stands for (somebody we all know and love), the other two letters are a sly reference to Hardball (6/3/05), where a reporter refers to one of Hardball's pundits as perhaps not being a law abiding citizen and not playing with a full deck of cards (neither of which I think are really true (or are they?)). The timing is of some significance, as it predated WWDC by a week or so and rumors were flying about the switch to MacTel, when most of the faithful were in denial (including myself), and perhaps many would have thought that the J man was indeed CI! I used the term in my first post on AI (6/5/05), I still use it occasionally, just to remind myself that with CIJ, anything is possible.
I just came back from a Mac user group. The person going over the recent news said that he had a nano that scratched, and Apple replaced it. One thing he claimed was that there was a stealth revision, where his new revision is actually slightly thicker than his friend's, the extra thickness being a scratch resistant overlay on the faceplate. It was my first time attending this group, I really don't know this person, so take it however you will.
Okay. Last night I saw a scratched nano at Best Buy and have a little better feel of what you all are talking about:
The issue has something to do with the coating on the nano's plastic faceplate, not the plastic itself. I've seen computer screens -- and even my glasses! -- that have had the same issue. Somehow the coating on the surface gets scratched or chipped away; when it does, it creates a bit of an irridescent effect.
I wouldn't say it made the nano unreadable, but I could see how it would be incredibly annoying after much of the screen has had the coating compromised. As I mentioned earlier, I have a spot on my glasses that part of the anti-reflective coating has been scratched or chipped away and has made kind of the same effect. It looks like there's a smudge in it. While I can still see through that spot, the consistency of vision between coating/no coating is quite noticeable.
My conclusion: There is a problem with that uber-thin coating on the nanos. I'm guessing it didn't get applied correctly OR even that said coating was not applied to previous iPods even though the plastic below it is the same as all the others. If the coating is new to the nano, Apple might be wise to just drop it from the production process unless they can guarantee a better end result.
I might try to go back to Best Buy with my digital camera and sneak a few snapshots, though I agree that it will be hard to fully capture the effect. Now that you've read this post, go back and re-read what I've written before and notice the difference. I really do "get it" now, though I think EVERYONE here has done a piss-poor job of articulating the problem.
totally. all you l33t muthas (this means you franksargent) that are material scientists, let's get a scien-ta-ti-fic characterisation of the problem here rather than endless conjecture
totally. all you l33t muthas (this means you franksargent) that are material scientists, let's get a scien-ta-ti-fic characterisation of the problem here rather than endless conjecture
I'll try. I did buy one yesterday, (BTW it wasn't $50 off MSRP, it was $50 off of their $50 markup, (i. e. it was MSRP afterall)) so now I have some first hand appreciation for the proported scratching complaints. My first observations of the Nano are that the backlit screen and contrast of the character display, makes it very hard for me to believe ANYONE would have trouble reading the display under almost any condition (of course if your outside (as I was today) in bright sunlight even a NEW Nano is difficult to read), short of taking a piece of SANDPAPER and doing SERIOUS damage to the screen (i. e. sorry, NOT going to happen). My second impression is this thing IS tiny, by that I mean specifically the screen, what's the pixel count on this sucker (and PPI for that matter)? I mean really, I'd like to look at photos on a larger display than this (regardless of condition), I won't be using this as a photo iPod, that's for sure. My third impression is this is one KICKASS portable music player (someday soon the word iPod will be in Webster's Dictionary)!
I also did some quick and dirty (QAD) tests on portable devices; 2 TFT screens (I think they were TFT, I haven't really kept up with display technologies, as you may have guessed by now) and 4 LCD screens while there (on an 2G iPod mini, a 5G (video) iPod, an HP LCD portable device, and another manufacturer's LCD portable device (name escapes me)). As VL-Tone has pointed out, LCD screens have a couple of glass layers, this tends to make them relatively very stiff (or hard), maybe I should have known this as I have a 21" LCD monitor (with the polycarbonate coating the hardness (I'm guessing) probably exceeds 80 on the Shore D scale for these small displays). Conversely the TFT screens are relatively soft (i. e. no glass) with perhaps an equivalent hardness of 50 on the Shore A scale (it's definitely a few orders of magnitude softer than the LCD screens, at least the one's I sampled). I have 7 (polyurethane) samples that cover this range of hardnesses, but again I'm doing a touch test, no testing instruments were used here. So what did I do, I took a worn penny (relatively dull edge), placed it on its flat side, at an ~1:1 slope, applied moderate force (say 10 lbs, was the same force applied to each screen (all I can say is that I tried)), and dragged it an inch or so across each screen. NOT very scientific, but what the heck, its better than nothing. Anyway the test results are in; The HP and other manufacturer's LCD pretty much passed the penny test (I wiped the smudge marks off with my thumb), on the TFT's, because their so soft, you really can't get a "bite" into them so no marking occured, however on the iPods, I couldn't wipe the smudge marks off with my thumb (believe me I tried). BTW, I was in stealth mode in the store so no one saw me do the "tests." Remarks; remember this IS NOT a rigorous quantitative methodology, at best it is somewhat qualitative (i. e. QAD), also the force applied is over a finite surface area (sharp objects (smaller areas (i. e. grit)) would need less force for an equivalent applied pressure force)
Lessons learned: The obvious, take care of your Nano, cover it with something, ANYTHING, stick it in a CLEAN pocket (no keys, no coins, no grit, etcetera), preferably a shirt pocket, gosh this thing is TINY and THIN, use your head, when you sit down with this thing in your pants pocket, you're appling all kinds of forces to this device (unless your wearing hip-hop prison pants, of course). As far as I'm concerned, I'm going for the one cent solution, it came with a clear piece of plastic tape for shipping purposes (which I left over the screen area), I plan to get some clear plastic packing tape, and apply as necessary, thus eliminating scratches to the screen itself (BTW, you have to look carefully to even notice the clear tape, IMHO). Eventually I'll get some form of case/cover/skin/tube (whatever).
EDIT - I just wanted to add that what CosmoNut saw was similar to what I saw after the scratch "tests." I actually didn't read his entire message before I posted this reply. In fact the penny tests produced an ~3/16" wide discoloration (I still like the word smudge though, it more accurately describes what I saw) which was easily seen with the iPods OFF, I don't know how easy I would have been able to see the smudge marks with the iPods on WITH the backlit screen. Also, I mentioned how difficult it was to see the display (even backlit) in direct sunlight, but even outside, in the shade (given it was sunny), I found it diffucult to read the display WHILE backlit. My feeling is that the ambient lighting, as well as whether the screen is backlit, both play important roles in people's preceptions WRT scratches/smudges. If what CosmoNut is saying is true, actually breaking through the protective coating (or even intact but delaminated), this would be a serious problem, and easily seeable.
thank you franksargent, that is a very informative wrap-up to this issue. seems like you have identified several areas in which visual dissatisfaction with the nano may arise...
i think apple decided to go "blanket replacement" policy on the ipod screen thing because it would save time and trouble (and money) really characterising and zoning in on what exactly the issues are.
thank you franksargent, that is a very informative wrap-up to this issue. seems like you have identified several areas in which visual dissatisfaction with the nano may arise...
i think apple decided to go "blanket replacement" policy on the ipod screen thing because it would save time and trouble (and money) really characterising and zoning in on what exactly the issues are.
Well, we'll see. I think I'll take mine to the local apple retail shrine and see what they say. I'll report back next week. (probably Monday evening)
Ok I got my nano yesterday (Wow it is tiny!) It's a 2GB white model
It seems my unit was not totally brand-new... (Yikes!) The round tape patch that holds the package closed was obviously already opened at least one time, and one corner of the screen protector was peeled off a little. It was also already named when it appeared in iTunes. Anyway it works and was like new so I didn't return it (it's a local store in Montreal, not an Apple Store).
I made the only scratch on it. Just to see I tried to make a scratch with my thumbnail. I had to press very hard to make a very thin smaller than a hair line. The thing is I cannot see the scratch today, it vanished (!).
I didn't travel with it yet and I didn't put it in a pocket so I don't know for the "normal" use part.
I still not believe that scratches from 3 weeks of normal use can render the display unreadable.
Anyway most scratches can be removed with Brasso or some other plastic polishing substance. Deep scratches only happen when you put very hard things like keys and other metallic objects in the same pocket, so just don't do that...
Ok I got my nano yesterday (Wow it is tiny!) It's a 2GB white model
It seems my unit was not totally brand-new... (Yikes!) The round tape patch that holds the package closed was obviously already opened at least one time, and one corner of the screen protector was peeled off a little. It was also already named when it appeared in iTunes. Anyway it works and was like new so I didn't return it (it's a local store in Montreal, not an Apple Store).
I made the only scratch on it. Just to see I tried to make a scratch with my thumbnail. I had to press very hard to make a very thin smaller than a hair line. The thing is I cannot see the scratch today, it vanished (!).
I didn't travel with it yet and I didn't put it in a pocket so I don't know for the "normal" use part.
I still not believe that scratches from 3 weeks of normal use can render the display unreadable.
Anyway most scratches can be removed with Brasso or some other plastic polishing substance. Deep scratches only happen when you put very hard things like keys and other metallic objects in the same pocket, so just don't do that...
Now isn't that a kick, almost sounds like an elastomer. What you saw is something called compression set, it shows up for all plastics/elastomers (if I'm not mistaken), under cyclic loading, and is commonly referred to as a hysteresis loop. On a load-deflection curve the loading curve is to the left of the unloading curve, and there is a gap (or offset) at the bottom of the unloading curve (zero axis), this is the compression set. Of course if you yield the plastic, it will never rebound completely. Apparently your fingernail didn't abrade the coating, but was enough applied pressure force to cause the aforementioned compression set, it just took a while to recover, after all plastic by definition is a visco-elastic material (longer duration loads do incur a permenant compression set (essentially it creeps (i. e. the visco part of visco-elastic))).
I recently did an elastomer design where we used polyurethane elastomers (the same kind you find in inline skate wheels) for compression and shear loads, that's where the 7 durometer samples I mentioned in a previous post came from. The "structure" must support an M1A1 tank (note that these elastomers are a relatively minor, but necessary feature of the design). In my evaluation, I had the manufacturer's nominal values for compression set, however these values were derived from an ASTM test that didn't meet our load pattern, so I was concerned about minimizing the effect of compression set, if at all possible (we also have some other interesting dynamic loads (for me anyway)). So I did a QAD with a vice and the 7 samples and loaded for the duration expected for the tank. All 7 samples showed compression set to varying degrees, however the 75-95 durometer (Shore A) range, rebounded (almost) completely (i. e. before the next expected tank cycle (in fact, within a few seconds)). The softer elastomers took several minutes to recover completely, while the harder elastomers took a minimum of several hours (don't know exactly when they did recover completely (i. e. sometime overnight)). I thought for sure that I had "failed" the harder elastomers, but to my surprise, the next day all that you could see was some very minor imprints from the vice.
EDIT - You did get me to thinking about the Nano some more. I don't dare to apply pressure (of any kind) to the screen, so did you do this directly on the screen, or away from it? I just did a couple of fingernail tests myself, I'll look at them tomorrow (however my fingernail was somewhat "ragged" so the marks look permanent, at this time). BTW, upon further examination, the Nano's front face is completely covered with ~1/32" to ~1/40" of clear plastic, then the white/black plastic is below this. Also, in the screen area the LCD screen face itself appears to be ~1/40" to ~1/50" recessed from the clear plastic layer (it's hard to measure exactly, as you have to look at it from a fairly shallow angel (and at that angle, given whatever the index of refraction is, it distorts the true thickness significantly, IMHO)). I don't know if this is an air gap or filled with more clear plastic (this photo http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0908/nano29.jpg clearly shows that the LCD screen is bigger then the cutout in the white/black plastic)? It sure would be nice to see a detailed teardown (photo) of the inside of the screen area.
I made the scratch below the click-wheel, not on the screen.
After two days of using it without a case and traveling with it, there are some very small scratches here and there, but nothing more that I would have expected from glossy plastic.
Any plastic screen has to be glossy to be transparent, so unless a company uses glass to protect the surface of the screen, it will be susceptible to scratches.
Comments
<snip interesting quotes and links>
For the 50+ times he defended MS, I found this on the newsgroups:
Wow. I guess Mr. Berman "made his bones" and isn't kidding around...
Mr. Berman made his fame on very grass-root class-actions, like pro-environment suits and defending AOL consumers. Still, like many attorneys, he also worked on the "other side", when he defended MS for example against the DOJ and consumers.
I guess that since he's not a judge, it's "ok" in the judiciary system...
Could Apple countersue the law firm for defamation? [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't know, but it's an interesting twist on an emerging story about Gates v Jobs (and those who hate/envy either one or both), the nature of litigation here and in the EU... thanks for the added insight.
I couldn't help but notice there were no Nano/Rockr ads in this week's New Yorker magazine... wonder if Jobs was informed the centerpiece article would be about Mr. Bill and His Wondrous Philanthropy. Like TIME said on last week's cover: he always seems to know what's "Next"!
I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?
i predict 10-15 million nanos sold worldwide for the october-december 2005 quarter
Originally posted by sunilraman
............I doubt the lawsuit will affect sales during the upcoming Xmas gift-buying rush. Whaddya think?....
i predict 10-15 million nanos sold worldwide for the october-december 2005 quarter
Yeah, I agree 100%, the Nano will sell like hotcakes, in fact I think I'll get one today! If anything, this issue should make people take better care of something they must see through!
Originally posted by VL-Tone
The LCD screen is two sheets of glass, sandwiched between plastic polarizer filters, on top of that is the transparent polycarbonate plastic that covers all the front of the unit. Are you seriously thinking that a screen can break just a little and then produce scratches that are clearly on the surface of the plastic?
You clearly don't seem to grasp how plastic behaves. Stress on a plastic sheet from under or the sides cannot produce scratches only on the surface. If the screen cracks in any way, it will be obvious.
Wow, I didn't realize they actually used GLASS in the Nano screen, you wouldn't have a link (or anything WRT small LCD construction) on this by any chance? If not, could you be a little more specific on the sandwich nature of the screen (i. e. you say two glass sheets sandwiched "between" plastic...), is it like PGGP or PGPGP (if you know what I mean, I'm really clueless on "small" LCD construction techniques (or "large" LCD construction techniques for that matter)). I'm assuming that there's a sheet of something (material?) in there that creates the pixel display (I think you know what I mean, the photons)? To me, since this is a composite (and given that glass (i. e. silica) has much less elongation than plastics), the glass will always fracture first (of course if the glass sheets are relatively thin and located close to the axis of stress symmetry (i. e. the neutral axis), then I guess it would be possible for the plastic to fail first (this get's into the specifics of the composite geometry (thickness of each layer, location of each in the sandwich, allowable stress of each material, brittleness (or conversely plasticity) of each material, etcetera))). Finally, on your last statement, I believe this to be fairly true for relatively thin plastics (however, I have seen relatively thin lighting panels with surface fractures (however, it has to be stressed (in bending) just right)), on thicker (clear) plastics, I've seen all kinds of surface fractures, at various length scales, the smallest of which (you could even call them "nano-fractures"
Originally posted by franksargent
Wow, I didn't realize they actually used GLASS in the Nano screen, you wouldn't have a link (or anything WRT small LCD construction) on this by any chance?
I'm a little in a hurry so my reply will be shorter than I would want.
You should know that EVERY LCD panel uses GLASS to enclose the liquid crystal.
Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;
10,000,000 iPod Nano's in the warehouse, 10,000,000 iPod Nano's,
I sold one now, it'll get scratched to hell, 9,999,999 iPod Nano's in the warehouse,
...
But seriously, I got one, 4GB, CompUSA only had white, but it was $50 off of MSRP, so I can't complain. Now I'll stick it in my pocket with some coins, keys, a handful of sand, and a dash of salt, and see what happens! BTW, I thought the class-action was already settled, but when I went to the mailbox, no check, wazzup with that anyway!
[B]
Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;
<wake me when it's ova>[COLOR=silver]
[B]
Originally posted by franksargent
Hey, there's a podcast directly from CIJ's house, it's at 247nano.com, it sounds like he's drunk and singing;
<wake me when it's ova>[COLOR=silver]
As Foghorn Leghorn would say "It's a joke son." There is no podcast (although there is a 247nano.com website (to my surprise)). You may know what the J stands for (somebody we all know and love), the other two letters are a sly reference to Hardball (6/3/05), where a reporter refers to one of Hardball's pundits as perhaps not being a law abiding citizen and not playing with a full deck of cards (neither of which I think are really true (or are they?)). The timing is of some significance, as it predated WWDC by a week or so and rumors were flying about the switch to MacTel, when most of the faithful were in denial (including myself), and perhaps many would have thought that the J man was indeed CI! I used the term in my first post on AI (6/5/05), I still use it occasionally, just to remind myself that with CIJ, anything is possible.
I may just check out that nanosite. When you're done vingling, please turn out the lights.
The issue has something to do with the coating on the nano's plastic faceplate, not the plastic itself. I've seen computer screens -- and even my glasses! -- that have had the same issue. Somehow the coating on the surface gets scratched or chipped away; when it does, it creates a bit of an irridescent effect.
I wouldn't say it made the nano unreadable, but I could see how it would be incredibly annoying after much of the screen has had the coating compromised. As I mentioned earlier, I have a spot on my glasses that part of the anti-reflective coating has been scratched or chipped away and has made kind of the same effect. It looks like there's a smudge in it. While I can still see through that spot, the consistency of vision between coating/no coating is quite noticeable.
My conclusion: There is a problem with that uber-thin coating on the nanos. I'm guessing it didn't get applied correctly OR even that said coating was not applied to previous iPods even though the plastic below it is the same as all the others. If the coating is new to the nano, Apple might be wise to just drop it from the production process unless they can guarantee a better end result.
I might try to go back to Best Buy with my digital camera and sneak a few snapshots, though I agree that it will be hard to fully capture the effect. Now that you've read this post, go back and re-read what I've written before and notice the difference. I really do "get it" now, though I think EVERYONE here has done a piss-poor job of articulating the problem.
Originally posted by sunilraman
totally. all you l33t muthas (this means you franksargent) that are material scientists, let's get a scien-ta-ti-fic characterisation of the problem here rather than endless conjecture
I'll try. I did buy one yesterday, (BTW it wasn't $50 off MSRP, it was $50 off of their $50 markup, (i. e. it was MSRP afterall)) so now I have some first hand appreciation for the proported scratching complaints. My first observations of the Nano are that the backlit screen and contrast of the character display, makes it very hard for me to believe ANYONE would have trouble reading the display under almost any condition (of course if your outside (as I was today) in bright sunlight even a NEW Nano is difficult to read), short of taking a piece of SANDPAPER and doing SERIOUS damage to the screen (i. e. sorry, NOT going to happen). My second impression is this thing IS tiny, by that I mean specifically the screen, what's the pixel count on this sucker (and PPI for that matter)? I mean really, I'd like to look at photos on a larger display than this (regardless of condition), I won't be using this as a photo iPod, that's for sure. My third impression is this is one KICKASS portable music player (someday soon the word iPod will be in Webster's Dictionary)!
I also did some quick and dirty (QAD) tests on portable devices; 2 TFT screens (I think they were TFT, I haven't really kept up with display technologies, as you may have guessed by now) and 4 LCD screens while there (on an 2G iPod mini, a 5G (video) iPod, an HP LCD portable device, and another manufacturer's LCD portable device (name escapes me)). As VL-Tone has pointed out, LCD screens have a couple of glass layers, this tends to make them relatively very stiff (or hard), maybe I should have known this as I have a 21" LCD monitor (with the polycarbonate coating the hardness (I'm guessing) probably exceeds 80 on the Shore D scale for these small displays). Conversely the TFT screens are relatively soft (i. e. no glass) with perhaps an equivalent hardness of 50 on the Shore A scale (it's definitely a few orders of magnitude softer than the LCD screens, at least the one's I sampled). I have 7 (polyurethane) samples that cover this range of hardnesses, but again I'm doing a touch test, no testing instruments were used here. So what did I do, I took a worn penny (relatively dull edge), placed it on its flat side, at an ~1:1 slope, applied moderate force (say 10 lbs, was the same force applied to each screen (all I can say is that I tried)), and dragged it an inch or so across each screen. NOT very scientific, but what the heck, its better than nothing. Anyway the test results are in; The HP and other manufacturer's LCD pretty much passed the penny test (I wiped the smudge marks off with my thumb), on the TFT's, because their so soft, you really can't get a "bite" into them so no marking occured, however on the iPods, I couldn't wipe the smudge marks off with my thumb (believe me I tried). BTW, I was in stealth mode in the store so no one saw me do the "tests." Remarks; remember this IS NOT a rigorous quantitative methodology, at best it is somewhat qualitative (i. e. QAD), also the force applied is over a finite surface area (sharp objects (smaller areas (i. e. grit)) would need less force for an equivalent applied pressure force)
Lessons learned: The obvious, take care of your Nano, cover it with something, ANYTHING, stick it in a CLEAN pocket (no keys, no coins, no grit, etcetera), preferably a shirt pocket, gosh this thing is TINY and THIN, use your head, when you sit down with this thing in your pants pocket, you're appling all kinds of forces to this device (unless your wearing hip-hop prison pants, of course). As far as I'm concerned, I'm going for the one cent solution, it came with a clear piece of plastic tape for shipping purposes (which I left over the screen area), I plan to get some clear plastic packing tape, and apply as necessary, thus eliminating scratches to the screen itself (BTW, you have to look carefully to even notice the clear tape, IMHO). Eventually I'll get some form of case/cover/skin/tube (whatever).
EDIT - I just wanted to add that what CosmoNut saw was similar to what I saw after the scratch "tests." I actually didn't read his entire message before I posted this reply. In fact the penny tests produced an ~3/16" wide discoloration (I still like the word smudge though, it more accurately describes what I saw) which was easily seen with the iPods OFF, I don't know how easy I would have been able to see the smudge marks with the iPods on WITH the backlit screen. Also, I mentioned how difficult it was to see the display (even backlit) in direct sunlight, but even outside, in the shade (given it was sunny), I found it diffucult to read the display WHILE backlit. My feeling is that the ambient lighting, as well as whether the screen is backlit, both play important roles in people's preceptions WRT scratches/smudges. If what CosmoNut is saying is true, actually breaking through the protective coating (or even intact but delaminated), this would be a serious problem, and easily seeable.
i think apple decided to go "blanket replacement" policy on the ipod screen thing because it would save time and trouble (and money) really characterising and zoning in on what exactly the issues are.
Originally posted by sunilraman
thank you franksargent, that is a very informative wrap-up to this issue. seems like you have identified several areas in which visual dissatisfaction with the nano may arise...
i think apple decided to go "blanket replacement" policy on the ipod screen thing because it would save time and trouble (and money) really characterising and zoning in on what exactly the issues are.
Well, we'll see. I think I'll take mine to the local apple retail shrine and see what they say. I'll report back next week. (probably Monday evening)
It seems my unit was not totally brand-new... (Yikes!) The round tape patch that holds the package closed was obviously already opened at least one time, and one corner of the screen protector was peeled off a little. It was also already named when it appeared in iTunes. Anyway it works and was like new so I didn't return it (it's a local store in Montreal, not an Apple Store).
I made the only scratch on it. Just to see I tried to make a scratch with my thumbnail. I had to press very hard to make a very thin smaller than a hair line. The thing is I cannot see the scratch today, it vanished (!).
I didn't travel with it yet and I didn't put it in a pocket so I don't know for the "normal" use part.
I still not believe that scratches from 3 weeks of normal use can render the display unreadable.
Anyway most scratches can be removed with Brasso or some other plastic polishing substance. Deep scratches only happen when you put very hard things like keys and other metallic objects in the same pocket, so just don't do that...
Originally posted by VL-Tone
Ok I got my nano yesterday (Wow it is tiny!) It's a 2GB white model
It seems my unit was not totally brand-new... (Yikes!) The round tape patch that holds the package closed was obviously already opened at least one time, and one corner of the screen protector was peeled off a little. It was also already named when it appeared in iTunes. Anyway it works and was like new so I didn't return it (it's a local store in Montreal, not an Apple Store).
I made the only scratch on it. Just to see I tried to make a scratch with my thumbnail. I had to press very hard to make a very thin smaller than a hair line. The thing is I cannot see the scratch today, it vanished (!).
I didn't travel with it yet and I didn't put it in a pocket so I don't know for the "normal" use part.
I still not believe that scratches from 3 weeks of normal use can render the display unreadable.
Anyway most scratches can be removed with Brasso or some other plastic polishing substance. Deep scratches only happen when you put very hard things like keys and other metallic objects in the same pocket, so just don't do that...
Now isn't that a kick, almost sounds like an elastomer. What you saw is something called compression set, it shows up for all plastics/elastomers (if I'm not mistaken), under cyclic loading, and is commonly referred to as a hysteresis loop. On a load-deflection curve the loading curve is to the left of the unloading curve, and there is a gap (or offset) at the bottom of the unloading curve (zero axis), this is the compression set. Of course if you yield the plastic, it will never rebound completely. Apparently your fingernail didn't abrade the coating, but was enough applied pressure force to cause the aforementioned compression set, it just took a while to recover, after all plastic by definition is a visco-elastic material (longer duration loads do incur a permenant compression set (essentially it creeps (i. e. the visco part of visco-elastic))).
I recently did an elastomer design where we used polyurethane elastomers (the same kind you find in inline skate wheels) for compression and shear loads, that's where the 7 durometer samples I mentioned in a previous post came from. The "structure" must support an M1A1 tank (note that these elastomers are a relatively minor, but necessary feature of the design). In my evaluation, I had the manufacturer's nominal values for compression set, however these values were derived from an ASTM test that didn't meet our load pattern, so I was concerned about minimizing the effect of compression set, if at all possible (we also have some other interesting dynamic loads (for me anyway)). So I did a QAD with a vice and the 7 samples and loaded for the duration expected for the tank. All 7 samples showed compression set to varying degrees, however the 75-95 durometer (Shore A) range, rebounded (almost) completely (i. e. before the next expected tank cycle (in fact, within a few seconds)). The softer elastomers took several minutes to recover completely, while the harder elastomers took a minimum of several hours (don't know exactly when they did recover completely (i. e. sometime overnight)). I thought for sure that I had "failed" the harder elastomers, but to my surprise, the next day all that you could see was some very minor imprints from the vice.
EDIT - You did get me to thinking about the Nano some more. I don't dare to apply pressure (of any kind) to the screen, so did you do this directly on the screen, or away from it? I just did a couple of fingernail tests myself, I'll look at them tomorrow (however my fingernail was somewhat "ragged" so the marks look permanent, at this time). BTW, upon further examination, the Nano's front face is completely covered with ~1/32" to ~1/40" of clear plastic, then the white/black plastic is below this. Also, in the screen area the LCD screen face itself appears to be ~1/40" to ~1/50" recessed from the clear plastic layer (it's hard to measure exactly, as you have to look at it from a fairly shallow angel (and at that angle, given whatever the index of refraction is, it distorts the true thickness significantly, IMHO)). I don't know if this is an air gap or filled with more clear plastic (this photo http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0908/nano29.jpg clearly shows that the LCD screen is bigger then the cutout in the white/black plastic)? It sure would be nice to see a detailed teardown (photo) of the inside of the screen area.
Thanks, for the additional insight!
Originally posted by Anders
I dislike Apple, the company, as much as the next guy.
Maybe you like MicroSoft better?
I made the scratch below the click-wheel, not on the screen.
After two days of using it without a case and traveling with it, there are some very small scratches here and there, but nothing more that I would have expected from glossy plastic.
Any plastic screen has to be glossy to be transparent, so unless a company uses glass to protect the surface of the screen, it will be susceptible to scratches.