Isn't the first question whether or not the consumer/plaintiff exercised reasonable care in preventing the alleged scratches? All Apple has to show is that the nano is made of exactly the same material as the 4th generation iPod (as well as the new video iPod, btw). So they should have been just as susceptible to the alleged scratching problem as the nano...but, absent their inclusion in the suit, we must assume they weren't. As others have pointed out, use of improper materials to clean the polycarbonate face of the nano does not show reasonable care on the part of the owner. Nor does placing the nano into an environment where it will come into contact with materials of sufficient hardness at sufficient pressure to mar the nano's plastic face. This suit is without merit. Class action lawsuits are just the sleazy legal profession's way of using legalistic BS to make a fast buck. The big winners in these things are ALWAYS the attorneys, not the class participants. So what should be done? Personally, I would suggest looking to Mr. Shakespeare in 'Henry VI' for inspiration: "The first thing we do, let's ... all the lawyers."
Quality and Durability a two seperate issues. If I was to say the iPod nano was a quality but non-durable product would many agree with me that it was quality at all? Or does a durable but crappy product suddenly become quality?
Consumers are paying for both. Apple charges a premium and they expect premium performance.
Quote:
This is a frivolous lawsuit.
It is no such thing. The defects that have come with the Nano are flat out unacceptable. Who ever heard of a portable device that you have to baby. At the very least Apple should be forced to put a warning on the outside of the box stating that Nanos will scratch easy and precautions need to be made to protect it. Obviously the unit is more picky than normal.
Apple sticking it's head in the sand like an Ostrich isn't going to change the fact that enough consumers are unhappy about the Nano's durability.
This suit is without merit. Class action lawsuits are just the sleazy legal profession's way of using legalistic BS to make a fast buck. The big winners in these things are ALWAYS the attorneys, not the class participants. So what should be done? Personally, I would suggest looking to Mr. Shakespeare in 'Henry VI' for inspiration: "The first thing we do, let's ... all the lawyers."
Point to where Apple clearly stated your aformentioned warning/tips in Nano packaging. Unless the consumer know they were buying into a portable device that would degrade easily they have every right to seek a legal redress. Whether the case is of merit is up to each individual but only the presiding judge has the final call.
Lawyers are like policemen/women everyone hates them until they need one.
im thinking one of the reasons that the display ipod nano may be scratched is because people who hear about the nano scratching rumors might test it to see just how easily it scratches. just a thought.
on another note, my friend has a nano and it is perfectly fine but he takes care of his stuff. but on the other hand i see a ton of people take care of their stuff like it has absolutely no value to them. i take care of all of my electronics with a lot of care such as my PDA, computer, cell, etc. i can see where people are expieriencing scratches on nanos, it is bound to happen, but with "normal" usage i find it hard to believe that the screens become unreadable.
trust my i have run into some pretty stupid people... for example some guy on tech-forums.net bought an FX-53 (at the time 1000+) which was skt939. he then proceeded to attempt to install it into a sktA motherboard. when he discovered that it didnt fit.. he decided to take out the trusty old hammer. when the pins on the bottom all of the sudden fell out(WTF?!?!) he decided some vice grips and a little bit of elbow grease would fix the problem. in the process of "fixing" the CPU he knocked out all of the other pins.. he then goes on to call AMD for a refund.. america is full of dumbasses that do stupid things and then get pissed off at the consequences(no offense to anyone).
[B]Point to where Apple clearly stated your aformentioned warning/tips in Nano packaging. Unless the consumer know they were buying into a portable device that would degrade easily they have every right to seek a legal redress.
It isn't incumbent upon Apple to educate the consumer as to the ability of a harder substance to scratch a softer substance. Since the use of identical materials in an almost identical product precedes the release of the nano, one has to wonder how the plaintiffs in this case will be able to prove the nano defective...at least with respect to the alleged 'much greater susceptibility to scratching' issue. Apple has acknowledged the cracked screen problem, so that is a non-issue. It affected a limited number of items, and Apple has made good on fixing the problem for all concerned. Going back to the scratching issue, if the materials used (polycarbonate) are identical, then the difference has to be in how the devices were handled. And that is most definitely the user's responsibility, not Apple's.
i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk...
I don't. I got home got pissed off sued the grocery store chain for 10mil and for an additional $20,000 each month, that is delivered to me by direct deposit into my bank account. Why? Because I had to suffer through eating 600 tiny cookies instead of 12 real ones.
But really, if the screen is crap people should be re-embursed and future models should be fixed. But money from the profits is kinda crazy but lawyers are known to ask for more so they can bargain down if they have to.
"In fact, if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card, or even the earphones that accompany the nano, the devices would likely scratch so badly that viewing the screens would be extremely difficult, if not impossible."
I rubbed my iPod nano with sandpaper and it scratched! How could I know this would happen?
After reading the reports of screens scratched so horrible they could not be ready anymore (oh the drama) I bought a pack of screen protectors and put one on. It looks pretty good and sticks better than I thought it would.
1) This is obviously an isolated problem. When you have two different people here posting that they both treated their nano essentially the same way and only one had problems, something is awry.
2) I still want to see pictures of an unreadable or terribly scratched nano. Audiopollution? Anybody?
3) Right now I have my 4G photo alone in the left cargo pocket of my pants. If this is such a widespread problem, I will find my iPod severely scratched in just a little while.
4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.
2) I still want to see pictures of an unreadable or terribly scratched nano. Audiopollution? Anybody?
I will attempt to get my hands on a camera that will do macro shots ... my shitty casio will not.
Quote:
3) Right now I have my 4G photo alone in the left cargo pocket of my pants. If this is such a widespread problem, I will find my iPod severely scratched in just a little while.
I believe that the problem is entirely more visible on the black nano. Since the black undercoat acts as a mirror, the scratches stand out much more. I've treated the nano with kid gloves compared to the treatment that my old, white, 30 Gig iPod was subjected to. Whereas I really need to look hard and tilt the white ipod all over the place to see them, the nano makes scratch spotting easy.
Quote:
4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.
I never claimed that the nano was unreadable. With the backlight on I agree that most people would look past the scratches. What concerns me, on a purely aethestic level, is that my nano looks terrible. The scratches do not affect the functionality for me.
It isn't incumbent upon Apple to educate the consumer as to the ability of a harder substance to scratch a softer substance.
That's fair and it's fair enough for the consumer to question why Apple "hasn't" educated them on the proper upkeep. Thus we in fact do have merit to have this judged in a court of law as both sides have a communcation issue that needs to be resolved.
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.
Truth is class action lawsuits don't just happen from isolated incidents. Lawyers need to see if there are a sufficient amount of plaintiffs before proceeding.
I believe that the problem is entirely more visible on the black nano. Since the black undercoat acts as a mirror, the scratches stand out much more.
Interesting. That got me thinking: Maybe that's why Apple waited SO LONG to release black iPods when people were asking for them left and right. They might have known that a black iPod would show the scratches much more than the white models. It could be they decided to take the chance and release black iPods anyway.
But the U2 iPod never had complaints about this. What changed?
If those scratches happened during "normal" use with few sharp objects to scratch it, I can only surmise that there was a manufacturing anomoly of some sort that caused the plastic to not harden enough. The top corners of it look like someone took a nail file to it and parts of the plastic may have chipped off.
What's the deal with the screen? There are a couple of spots that look like the screen is on with no backlight, and the rest of the screen looks like the nano is off.
Finally, it looks like the black nanos are a significant part of the problem. They definitely do show the scratches more.
I'd like to remind people that the photo you are seeing uphere, posted by fng is a joke. The nano on this picture has been tortured (and then killed) in extreme conditions by Ars-Technica, including running over it with a car.
I know it should be obvious, but hey there are people that fell for it
Quality and Durability a two seperate issues. If I was to say the iPod nano was a quality but non-durable product would many agree with me that it was quality at all? Or does a durable but crappy product suddenly become quality?
The Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is one of the world's most well known and is also considered one of the finest paintings in history. The quality of the painting is quite remarkable. It is not, though, as wall hangings go, especially durable, and at the price it was bought for... well, I'm shocked that the Louvre hasn't sued.
Quality is a buzzword. Quality, excellence, "it's good", "buy it". Most products with a price tag over $20 claim to be of high "quality" somewhere on the label.
However, we're talking about plastic here. If you look at the quote I was commenting on, we were talking about the quality of the plastic, not of the whole device (which I've understood to be as excellent as past iPods). The 'quality' of a plastic is a reflection on the refinement process used to develop the plastic. In this case, we're taling about polycarbonate, one of the finest and most expensive groups of plastic.
I'd like to remind people that the photo you are seeing uphere, posted by fng is a joke. The nano on this picture has been tortured (and then killed) in extreme conditions by Ars-Technica, including running over it with a car.
I know it should be obvious, but hey there are people that fell for it
I did assume it to be the Ars torture dummy. For the screen to be unreadable due to scratching, the covering plastic would have to be scuffed up to the point that it is very diffuse looking, as such, no reflections allowed.
I hope this prods Apple to seek out either a scratch resistant coating or a different plastic, hopefully one that is reasonably reasonably scratch resistant and still pretty shatter resistant. Polycarbonate is the most shatter resistant of the kinds of plastic that I've used, but least scratch resistant. When thick enough, it can absorb a fired bullet, though be deformed by the heat from stopping said bullet. The problem is, I don't expect any portable electronics to be durable enough to stop a bullet (though the Toughbooks are cool), it would be nice if they didn't scratch so easily.
Comments
It's not the quality, it's the durability.
Quality and Durability a two seperate issues. If I was to say the iPod nano was a quality but non-durable product would many agree with me that it was quality at all? Or does a durable but crappy product suddenly become quality?
Consumers are paying for both. Apple charges a premium and they expect premium performance.
This is a frivolous lawsuit.
It is no such thing. The defects that have come with the Nano are flat out unacceptable. Who ever heard of a portable device that you have to baby. At the very least Apple should be forced to put a warning on the outside of the box stating that Nanos will scratch easy and precautions need to be made to protect it. Obviously the unit is more picky than normal.
Apple sticking it's head in the sand like an Ostrich isn't going to change the fact that enough consumers are unhappy about the Nano's durability.
This suit is without merit. Class action lawsuits are just the sleazy legal profession's way of using legalistic BS to make a fast buck. The big winners in these things are ALWAYS the attorneys, not the class participants. So what should be done? Personally, I would suggest looking to Mr. Shakespeare in 'Henry VI' for inspiration: "The first thing we do, let's ... all the lawyers."
Point to where Apple clearly stated your aformentioned warning/tips in Nano packaging. Unless the consumer know they were buying into a portable device that would degrade easily they have every right to seek a legal redress. Whether the case is of merit is up to each individual but only the presiding judge has the final call.
Lawyers are like policemen/women everyone hates them until they need one.
im thinking one of the reasons that the display ipod nano may be scratched is because people who hear about the nano scratching rumors might test it to see just how easily it scratches. just a thought.
on another note, my friend has a nano and it is perfectly fine but he takes care of his stuff. but on the other hand i see a ton of people take care of their stuff like it has absolutely no value to them. i take care of all of my electronics with a lot of care such as my PDA, computer, cell, etc. i can see where people are expieriencing scratches on nanos, it is bound to happen, but with "normal" usage i find it hard to believe that the screens become unreadable.
trust my i have run into some pretty stupid people... for example some guy on tech-forums.net bought an FX-53 (at the time 1000+) which was skt939. he then proceeded to attempt to install it into a sktA motherboard. when he discovered that it didnt fit.. he decided to take out the trusty old hammer. when the pins on the bottom all of the sudden fell out(WTF?!?!) he decided some vice grips and a little bit of elbow grease would fix the problem. in the process of "fixing" the CPU he knocked out all of the other pins.. he then goes on to call AMD for a refund.. america is full of dumbasses that do stupid things and then get pissed off at the consequences(no offense to anyone).
[B]Point to where Apple clearly stated your aformentioned warning/tips in Nano packaging. Unless the consumer know they were buying into a portable device that would degrade easily they have every right to seek a legal redress.
It isn't incumbent upon Apple to educate the consumer as to the ability of a harder substance to scratch a softer substance. Since the use of identical materials in an almost identical product precedes the release of the nano, one has to wonder how the plaintiffs in this case will be able to prove the nano defective...at least with respect to the alleged 'much greater susceptibility to scratching' issue. Apple has acknowledged the cracked screen problem, so that is a non-issue. It affected a limited number of items, and Apple has made good on fixing the problem for all concerned. Going back to the scratching issue, if the materials used (polycarbonate) are identical, then the difference has to be in how the devices were handled. And that is most definitely the user's responsibility, not Apple's.
Originally posted by mike518
i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk...
I don't. I got home got pissed off sued the grocery store chain for 10mil and for an additional $20,000 each month, that is delivered to me by direct deposit into my bank account. Why? Because I had to suffer through eating 600 tiny cookies instead of 12 real ones.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Consumers are paying for both. Apple charges a premium and they expect premium performance.
Last time I looked, the nano was the cheapest 4GB flash, colour screen mp3 player on the market. Just where's the premium???
Originally posted by AppleInsider
"In fact, if users were to put their nanos in their pockets with common items such as coins, keys, a money clip, a credit card, or even the earphones that accompany the nano, the devices would likely scratch so badly that viewing the screens would be extremely difficult, if not impossible."
I rubbed my iPod nano with sandpaper and it scratched! How could I know this would happen?
2) I still want to see pictures of an unreadable or terribly scratched nano. Audiopollution? Anybody?
3) Right now I have my 4G photo alone in the left cargo pocket of my pants. If this is such a widespread problem, I will find my iPod severely scratched in just a little while.
4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
2) I still want to see pictures of an unreadable or terribly scratched nano. Audiopollution? Anybody?
I will attempt to get my hands on a camera that will do macro shots ... my shitty casio will not.
3) Right now I have my 4G photo alone in the left cargo pocket of my pants. If this is such a widespread problem, I will find my iPod severely scratched in just a little while.
I believe that the problem is entirely more visible on the black nano. Since the black undercoat acts as a mirror, the scratches stand out much more. I've treated the nano with kid gloves compared to the treatment that my old, white, 30 Gig iPod was subjected to. Whereas I really need to look hard and tilt the white ipod all over the place to see them, the nano makes scratch spotting easy.
4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.
I never claimed that the nano was unreadable. With the backlight on I agree that most people would look past the scratches. What concerns me, on a purely aethestic level, is that my nano looks terrible. The scratches do not affect the functionality for me.
If I were to do it again, I'd buy a white one.
It isn't incumbent upon Apple to educate the consumer as to the ability of a harder substance to scratch a softer substance.
That's fair and it's fair enough for the consumer to question why Apple "hasn't" educated them on the proper upkeep. Thus we in fact do have merit to have this judged in a court of law as both sides have a communcation issue that needs to be resolved.
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.
Truth is class action lawsuits don't just happen from isolated incidents. Lawyers need to see if there are a sufficient amount of plaintiffs before proceeding.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I believe that the problem is entirely more visible on the black nano. Since the black undercoat acts as a mirror, the scratches stand out much more.
Interesting. That got me thinking: Maybe that's why Apple waited SO LONG to release black iPods when people were asking for them left and right. They might have known that a black iPod would show the scratches much more than the white models. It could be they decided to take the chance and release black iPods anyway.
But the U2 iPod never had complaints about this. What changed?
Originally posted by a_greer
duche bag
a $2 cupon
soarly abused
Originally posted by CosmoNut
snip
4) Did I say I want to see photos of an unreadable nano? Backlight on and unreadable. Let's see it.
This is what happened when a nano was used to gently caress the bare ass of a new born baby.
case closed
What's the deal with the screen? There are a couple of spots that look like the screen is on with no backlight, and the rest of the screen looks like the nano is off.
Finally, it looks like the black nanos are a significant part of the problem. They definitely do show the scratches more.
I know it should be obvious, but hey there are people that fell for it
Originally posted by hmurchison
Quality and Durability a two seperate issues. If I was to say the iPod nano was a quality but non-durable product would many agree with me that it was quality at all? Or does a durable but crappy product suddenly become quality?
The Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is one of the world's most well known and is also considered one of the finest paintings in history. The quality of the painting is quite remarkable. It is not, though, as wall hangings go, especially durable, and at the price it was bought for... well, I'm shocked that the Louvre hasn't sued.
Quality is a buzzword. Quality, excellence, "it's good", "buy it". Most products with a price tag over $20 claim to be of high "quality" somewhere on the label.
However, we're talking about plastic here. If you look at the quote I was commenting on, we were talking about the quality of the plastic, not of the whole device (which I've understood to be as excellent as past iPods). The 'quality' of a plastic is a reflection on the refinement process used to develop the plastic. In this case, we're taling about polycarbonate, one of the finest and most expensive groups of plastic.
Originally posted by VL-Tone
I'd like to remind people that the photo you are seeing uphere, posted by fng is a joke. The nano on this picture has been tortured (and then killed) in extreme conditions by Ars-Technica, including running over it with a car.
I know it should be obvious, but hey there are people that fell for it
I did assume it to be the Ars torture dummy. For the screen to be unreadable due to scratching, the covering plastic would have to be scuffed up to the point that it is very diffuse looking, as such, no reflections allowed.
I hope this prods Apple to seek out either a scratch resistant coating or a different plastic, hopefully one that is reasonably reasonably scratch resistant and still pretty shatter resistant. Polycarbonate is the most shatter resistant of the kinds of plastic that I've used, but least scratch resistant. When thick enough, it can absorb a fired bullet, though be deformed by the heat from stopping said bullet. The problem is, I don't expect any portable electronics to be durable enough to stop a bullet (though the Toughbooks are cool), it would be nice if they didn't scratch so easily.