Personally, a public flogging is in order for the whiner.
As for the nano; sorry, if I want to be satisfied, I want something big, long and hard, not small, compact, and white <scans around the room for some hot stuff>
Some of my music CD's have been badly scratched after being in a soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal). When I bought the CD's nobody told me they would become unreadable so easily.
Q1: Who do I sue - and for how much (I want part of the Record companies profits)?
Q2: Do I have to live in the States in order to do so?
Some of my music CD's have been badly scratched after being in a soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal). When I bought the CD's nobody told me they would become unreadable so easily.
Q1: Who do I sue - and for how much (I want part of the Record companies profits)?
Q2: Do I have to live in the States in order to do so?
Q3: Shouldn't U.S. lawyers be outlawed?
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.
As usual, time will tell. It would seem prudent for Apple to upgrade the screen with a more wear resistant plastic (GE's Lexan?) to mitigate a negative outcome. The only way to objectively determine the quality (wear resistance) of the nano screen is to conduct some standardized tests such as ASTM or ISO testing methods. These methods are statistically sound, are inter/intra laboratory repeatable, and would quantify the relative wear properties (to other plastics and/or polycarbonates). If it can be shown by these procedures that the nano is made from "inferior plastics" (relative to either previous iPod screens and/or other pocketed device's screens), Apple will definately lose this one. If something such as a "clean" cotton fabric causes "significantly" greater wear relative to other device's screens, Apple doesn't stand a chance.
On the subject of lawyers, tort reform is desperatly needed, these scumbags (lawyers) should only get a small precentage of the damages awarded (i. e. "reasonable" costs (determined by the judge) necessary to litigate). Nothing more.
In hindsight, it does now seem rather stupid of CIJ to turn on his RDF and pull out the nano from his COIN POCKET, now doesn't it? Apple should have included a sock/tube/jacket with the nano, again to mitigate this Apple should include a certificate with all future shipping nano's for a free protective sheath. They should also refurbish and supply such a sheath to all existing nano owners, or furnish a refund those who do not want the nano anymore. This in the long run may be more beneficial (lower cost) then to pursue a lengthly litigation (i. e. a combination of reduced nano sales and higher costs for failing to rectify the current situation at a much later time (i. e. at the time of settlement)).
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.
umm... i think you missed the part where the poster mentioned "soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal)"
No, I didn't. Regardless of what you do with it, it's only a couple of bucks down the drain with such an ephemeral product as a CD. You don't expect them to last and so what if they don't, you've probably had your use out of it after a year. Mine last me about how long it takes to go from the postbox to how long it takes to rip them into iTunes. Why would anyone carry bags of unboxed CDs around anyway - it's a strawman argument.
I'd expect a couple of hundred dollars of kit to be more durable than a CD and I regularly stick a phone in a backpack full of sand and scrap metal and it's fine. Whenever I go biking, my muddy camelbak bag is full of tools, puncture kits, pumps, food, keys, mud, grit, old innertubes, muddy clothes. The phone is just slipped into a mesh pocket inside the bag, usually with my keys.
I'd not put a naked iPod Nano in there but that's because they're not durable, not because I don't want to. It's a pain in the arse babying an iPod. Anyone I know using iPods biking uses the shuffle because it's flash based. The advantage of the Nano over the iPod is it's flash storage that doesn't skip when riding. That advantage is completely useless if you've got to baby the thing.
idk, back when i had my 20GB, id always keep change and keys in the other pocket... kindda common sense right? i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk... why? because crumbs dont taste as good as cookies. maybe this guy should get the money, afterall gotta feel bad for him since he obviously must have a shitty life with his lack of common sense.
You have a good point there. Actually, if the screens do scratch easily to where things become illegible, there is a problem, Apple should replace the screens. There is a reasonable expectation for some durability. Or Apple will suffer in its credibility.
As for the idea of a share of the profits, the motive is clear, it is entirely unfounded, rather sounds like lawyer talk, or someone looking to try to cash in on the iPod phenomenon. What a crock.
And, it would be common sense to keep the cookies, as you say, separate from the milk or the oranges.
I guess the real answer is buy some competitor's ugly music player and not worry about scratches, too bad that most of them are a pain to use, I bought an iPod not for its looks, but for its ease of use, although a lot of the competitors did have contrived-looking products.
I agree with your comment on cases. What I did for my U2 was put it in a small plastic bag and then put it in a case. The case I had had a tendency to scratch the iPod and let it slip out if upside down, the bag kept it in and scratch-free, the case then absorbed the shock of accidental drops.
It would seem prudent for Apple to upgrade the screen with a more wear resistant plastic (GE's Lexan?) to mitigate a negative outcome.
Um, you do realize that Lexan® is nothing more than GE's trade name for its polycarbonate resin, don't you? Nothing special about it that would distinguish it from other polycarbonates. The only abrasion resistant grades of Lexan have hardcoatings on them, and those can be applied to any polycarbonate.
Um, you do realize that Lexan® is nothing more than GE's trade name for its polycarbonate resin, don't you? Nothing special about it that would distinguish it from other polycarbonates. The only abrasion resistant grades of Lexan have hardcoatings on them, and those can be applied to any polycarbonate.
You do realize that Lexan produces 453 hits at matweb? Do you think ALL THESE 453 hits are for the exact same material (i. e. exact same physical properties (hardness, wear resistance, etcetera))? I know for a FACT that these grades of materials (like ALL metals/plastics) WILL have different wear properties (in addition to dozens of other physical/chemical/thermal properties). I do have just a LITTLE bit of experience in material science, its standard practice to produce multiple grades (hundreds to thousands of different formulations) of a given material (i. e. check out aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, polyurethane, etcetera). How were the DIFFERENT resins (of Lexan) processed and treated, and then coated (IF coated)? Somehow, a polycarbonate from Asia (?) may not meet certain standards versus GE's Lexan. Did Apple specify wear resistance requirements, or forgo them in an effort to save a FEW cents? Sounds like Apple may have been "penny wise and pound foolish." IF Apple did indeed use "inferior plastics" (relative to other similar products/uses), THEN Apple WILL lose this one, it's a given!
And aren't you being presumptuous in assuming that Apple is in fact using a coated polycarbonate? If not, please provide such evidence (i. e. URL(s))? IF it was coated, what is the hardness of the coating AND underlying materials (this makes a BIG difference in the overall material's wear properties since the pressure of the applied load determines its basic resistance properties). What is its thickness? Don't you think that a object (lint, sand grain, dirt, coin, key, etcetera) THICKER than the coating WILL defeat said coating? Thanks, in advance.
How is it that someone has yet to produce a photograph of a genuine Nano with a scratched up screen caused by subjecting it to normal iPod transportation?
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
<edited the rant and made it this meanigless replacement comment>
Whatever.
I'm in a foul enough mood today without having to read some bullshit rant, nevermind qualifying it with any sort of cogent response.
As for the nano; sorry, if I want to be satisfied, I want something big, long and hard, not small, compact, and white <scans around the room for some hot stuff>
.....if I want to be satisfied, I want something big, long and hard....
Q1: Who do I sue - and for how much (I want part of the Record companies profits)?
Q2: Do I have to live in the States in order to do so?
Q3: Shouldn't U.S. lawyers be outlawed?
Originally posted by Kendoka
Some of my music CD's have been badly scratched after being in a soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal). When I bought the CD's nobody told me they would become unreadable so easily.
Q1: Who do I sue - and for how much (I want part of the Record companies profits)?
Q2: Do I have to live in the States in order to do so?
Q3: Shouldn't U.S. lawyers be outlawed?
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.
umm... i think you missed the part where the poster mentioned "soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal)"
As usual, time will tell. It would seem prudent for Apple to upgrade the screen with a more wear resistant plastic (GE's Lexan?) to mitigate a negative outcome. The only way to objectively determine the quality (wear resistance) of the nano screen is to conduct some standardized tests such as ASTM or ISO testing methods. These methods are statistically sound, are inter/intra laboratory repeatable, and would quantify the relative wear properties (to other plastics and/or polycarbonates). If it can be shown by these procedures that the nano is made from "inferior plastics" (relative to either previous iPod screens and/or other pocketed device's screens), Apple will definately lose this one. If something such as a "clean" cotton fabric causes "significantly" greater wear relative to other device's screens, Apple doesn't stand a chance.
On the subject of lawyers, tort reform is desperatly needed, these scumbags (lawyers) should only get a small precentage of the damages awarded (i. e. "reasonable" costs (determined by the judge) necessary to litigate). Nothing more.
In hindsight, it does now seem rather stupid of CIJ to turn on his RDF and pull out the nano from his COIN POCKET, now doesn't it? Apple should have included a sock/tube/jacket with the nano, again to mitigate this Apple should include a certificate with all future shipping nano's for a free protective sheath. They should also refurbish and supply such a sheath to all existing nano owners, or furnish a refund those who do not want the nano anymore. This in the long run may be more beneficial (lower cost) then to pursue a lengthly litigation (i. e. a combination of reduced nano sales and higher costs for failing to rectify the current situation at a much later time (i. e. at the time of settlement)).
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by aegisdesign
CD's don't cost a couple of hundred dollars/euros.
umm... i think you missed the part where the poster mentioned "soft cotton bag (filled with sand and scrap metal)"
No, I didn't. Regardless of what you do with it, it's only a couple of bucks down the drain with such an ephemeral product as a CD. You don't expect them to last and so what if they don't, you've probably had your use out of it after a year. Mine last me about how long it takes to go from the postbox to how long it takes to rip them into iTunes. Why would anyone carry bags of unboxed CDs around anyway - it's a strawman argument.
I'd expect a couple of hundred dollars of kit to be more durable than a CD and I regularly stick a phone in a backpack full of sand and scrap metal and it's fine. Whenever I go biking, my muddy camelbak bag is full of tools, puncture kits, pumps, food, keys, mud, grit, old innertubes, muddy clothes. The phone is just slipped into a mesh pocket inside the bag, usually with my keys.
I'd not put a naked iPod Nano in there but that's because they're not durable, not because I don't want to. It's a pain in the arse babying an iPod. Anyone I know using iPods biking uses the shuffle because it's flash based. The advantage of the Nano over the iPod is it's flash storage that doesn't skip when riding. That advantage is completely useless if you've got to baby the thing.
I once saw a woman complain quite loudly that the very case she'd bought to protect her iPod from scratches had caused more scuffing than without.
I guess the answer is one of these...
http://www.h2oaudio.com/products/ipodsv_4G.php
$149. Ouch!
Originally posted by mike518
idk, back when i had my 20GB, id always keep change and keys in the other pocket... kindda common sense right? i mean, at the gocery you keep cookies in a different bag then say a gallon of milk... why? because crumbs dont taste as good as cookies. maybe this guy should get the money, afterall gotta feel bad for him since he obviously must have a shitty life with his lack of common sense.
You have a good point there. Actually, if the screens do scratch easily to where things become illegible, there is a problem, Apple should replace the screens. There is a reasonable expectation for some durability. Or Apple will suffer in its credibility.
As for the idea of a share of the profits, the motive is clear, it is entirely unfounded, rather sounds like lawyer talk, or someone looking to try to cash in on the iPod phenomenon. What a crock.
And, it would be common sense to keep the cookies, as you say, separate from the milk or the oranges.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I guess the answer is one of these...
http://www.h2oaudio.com/products/ipodsv_4G.php
$149. Ouch!
I guess the real answer is buy some competitor's ugly music player and not worry about scratches, too bad that most of them are a pain to use, I bought an iPod not for its looks, but for its ease of use, although a lot of the competitors did have contrived-looking products.
I agree with your comment on cases. What I did for my U2 was put it in a small plastic bag and then put it in a case. The case I had had a tendency to scratch the iPod and let it slip out if upside down, the bag kept it in and scratch-free, the case then absorbed the shock of accidental drops.
Originally posted by franksargent
It would seem prudent for Apple to upgrade the screen with a more wear resistant plastic (GE's Lexan?) to mitigate a negative outcome.
Um, you do realize that Lexan® is nothing more than GE's trade name for its polycarbonate resin, don't you? Nothing special about it that would distinguish it from other polycarbonates. The only abrasion resistant grades of Lexan have hardcoatings on them, and those can be applied to any polycarbonate.
Originally posted by Kolchak
Um, you do realize that Lexan® is nothing more than GE's trade name for its polycarbonate resin, don't you? Nothing special about it that would distinguish it from other polycarbonates. The only abrasion resistant grades of Lexan have hardcoatings on them, and those can be applied to any polycarbonate.
You do realize that Lexan produces 453 hits at matweb? Do you think ALL THESE 453 hits are for the exact same material (i. e. exact same physical properties (hardness, wear resistance, etcetera))? I know for a FACT that these grades of materials (like ALL metals/plastics) WILL have different wear properties (in addition to dozens of other physical/chemical/thermal properties). I do have just a LITTLE bit of experience in material science, its standard practice to produce multiple grades (hundreds to thousands of different formulations) of a given material (i. e. check out aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, polyurethane, etcetera). How were the DIFFERENT resins (of Lexan) processed and treated, and then coated (IF coated)? Somehow, a polycarbonate from Asia (?) may not meet certain standards versus GE's Lexan. Did Apple specify wear resistance requirements, or forgo them in an effort to save a FEW cents? Sounds like Apple may have been "penny wise and pound foolish." IF Apple did indeed use "inferior plastics" (relative to other similar products/uses), THEN Apple WILL lose this one, it's a given!
And aren't you being presumptuous in assuming that Apple is in fact using a coated polycarbonate? If not, please provide such evidence (i. e. URL(s))? IF it was coated, what is the hardness of the coating AND underlying materials (this makes a BIG difference in the overall material's wear properties since the pressure of the applied load determines its basic resistance properties). What is its thickness? Don't you think that a object (lint, sand grain, dirt, coin, key, etcetera) THICKER than the coating WILL defeat said coating? Thanks, in advance.