Everybody knew this was the way the iPhone would be sold. It's a bogus suit.
Of course it is but the lawyers will make a lot of money anyway. That's the whole idea. The guy named as the plaintiff is probably the lawyer's janitor and has never even seen an iPhone.
Someone should sue Jose Trujillo for gross stupidity. If this actually goes to court, then the population of Illinois should sue the court system for incompetency.
My problem with the iPhone is it decharges if I leave it connected to the USB on a sleeping Mac. Not that it won't charge. If I leave a fully charged iPhone connected to the USB, in the morning it is 80% low! Has only 20% of battery left! I purchased two iPhones and the same happens on an MBP and on a PowerMac G5.
I know some others have found that.
I found a charger/USB combo product I'm hoping that one will address that.
For those of you in America, if you want to call the lawyer and point out that :-
The iPhone battery still has 80% of its charge after 400 'full charge cycles' here are his details :-
Larry D. Drury
Firmt
Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
Address:
205 West Randolph St.
Suite 1430
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone:
(312) 346-7950
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
This stuff happens on a daily bases with most huge companies. There is always some guy, who gets upset, and happens to tell a friend who happens to tell attorney, who happens to be greedy. Pretty soon one upset guy is the main plantiff in a suit with a attorney who "thinks" apple will quickly settle.
By that time the one angry guy isn't even involved in the suit anymore, and only has his name attached to it because the attorney is threatening to sue him if he backs out.
As mac users are used to hearing about every lawsuits involving the company because we still consider it being a "smaller" company. This is now more common, "day in the life" of the company bull.
But I wish the knucklehead attorney who thinks he's going to get a nickle out of Apple lots of warm wishes. No-where on the box does it say "battery is removable" I'm very curious to what his case is, besides "technically" anything can be "user replaceable" hehe
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
A little more apt comparison would be that the buyer wasn't told that the gas tank would corrode and need to be replaced every two years because it couldn't hold a full tank anymore, and need to be in the shop for a week for repairs. Maybe that's not as good as I would like.
A little more apt comparison would be that the buyer wasn't told that the gas tank would corrode and need to be replaced every two years because it couldn't hold a full tank anymore, and need to be in the shop for a week for repairs. Maybe that's not as good as I would like.
I wasn't trying for a comparason. Just looking for quick lawsuit money.
I understand the battery holds energy and the tank holds energy and under the suit there should no expectation to replace parts that are not user replaceable. Maybe brake pads would be a better analogy because most car owners can't change them, but there is an expectation that they wear and need replacement.
I agree the iPhone should have a user replaceable battery. Why? Unlike the iPod cellphones from the beginning of time have had replaceable batteries.
It's not a cell phone. It's an iPhone. That's the difference. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just making a point that Apple is trying to differentiate itself from other phone manufacturers with the iPhone. Apple doesn't care about the cheapo LG or Samsung phone that others might be using. It's not in the same class. They aren't worried about it.
Anyway, the iPhone is a "smartphone" and there are many models of smartphones (several Treo's come to mind) that don't have user serviceable batteries. That would be a better comparison in terms of feature sets and hardware capabilities.
I hope Apple puts a lot of lawyers on this and lets it go to trial. Then I hope Drury, Esq. loses. Then I hope the judge orders him to pay Apple's legal costs for filing a frivolous case. Hmmm. Mr. Drury, we had 60 lawyers working on this at a base rate of $900 per hour each. Totaling up the billable hours, you owe us $80 million. Can you say "personal bankruptcy"? Payback's a bitch.
Agreed! The stupidity of this law suit reminds me of the story about the woman who sued an early manufacturer of Microwave ovens when after drying her poodle in it (as she had apparently always done in her conventional oven) it came out dead.
People will not run down their battery fully every day, lets say for the purpose of this exercise they use 50% of the battery every day (which is very quite heavy use).
If they then charge the battery every night (therefore only using 50% of a charge cycle every night).
That would give you 800 nights (2*400 full cycles) before the battery would only reach its 80% capacity. 800 nights is actually 2.19 years. Even after 2 years the battery would not need replacing.
That is a worse case scenario as most people will not actually use 50% every day. If we reduce the use to 25% then the time goes to over 4 years before it gets to 80%.
This is not hard to understand, why do these people try to sue.
You really need a reality check in the USA!
Absolutely. Apple stated this within the first few days of the iPhone release after someone spread some fud about this in the media.
This is just a case of some crap lawyers hoping to get a quick settlement. Apple won't bite though.
For those that use their phones all the time then maybe they will have to replace the battery. Since it is an important part of their lives I don't that they will see an issue.
The standard price for a treo battery is $60. Of course you cna get them for cheaper prices. In a years time you'll be able to do that for the iPhone, just like you cna for the iPod.
My last cell phone batteries didn't seem to hold charge as well after 1.5 years. This seems like the norm for me.
who the heck had this thing for a year already, apple dont like people messing with there battery and people just got to learn to deal with it, heck if i was to warranty it for a year i sure would not want anyone else toching it ether, so i really dont know whats the big deal with the battery, most phone companies dont even warranty batteries, and at least we are getting something, and by the time you change it the dam thing will be obsolette
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
[Anyone who bought the iPhone has NO reason to sue about the battery, it was known widely before launch...
Anyone stupid enough to buy a phone that has a seald battery bay -- or a consumer that doesnt return it when they see the lack of battery access are STUPID LEMMINGS who deserve what they got.
"Oh how quickly a fool and his money are parted"
the masses are the asses.
while consumers complain about battery lock while still gobbbling them up, Jobs and Ive are laughing all the wat o the bank.
that is just my $0.02...which is the amount of Jobs' paycheck for the week!
The battery issue was not widely known (actually apple did not make a statement about the batteries and mom and pop do not read appleinsider) usually i bash apple because they do stupid greedy things (there is no doubt in my mind that apple can make a thin device with replaceable batteries.. the razr has replaceable batteries and that thing is pretty thin).. so anyone making that argument don't know what they are talking about. However, having said that..the only people with issues really are those that
1. paid a termination fee to go to AT&T
2. left their old carrier and switched.
Perhaps this person is one of those people?. I know if i was a consumer that did not read appleinsider and wired news and switched to buy the iphone and found out that it's the gift that keeps giving apple, i'd be pissed. Now i don't want the phone and i can't get my termination fee back.. plus i would have to pay another termination fee to AT&T (why would i even want to stay with AT&T if i don't have the iphone?).
The thing i think most people are missing is that discussion in a forum or article on a website does not substitute for official, legal disclosure by a company. Apple cannot claim cause some trade magazine pointed out the battery issue constitutes sufficient disclosure. You'd be amazed how many people do not read any techie magazines (my GF is one, and she wanted an iphone badly.. when i told her about the battery issue, she was very surprised, she had never heard about that.. suffice to say, she decided to hold off on getting the iphone).
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
Great analogy!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth
Great analogy!
No, it's a dumb analogy.. it's so stupid, i had to wait until i finished laughing before typing this.. of course you are warned.. ever heard of the gas needle?. (you know, that thing in the dashboard that tells you how much gas you have.. full tank, 3/4, half, 1/4 etc)..
certainly an amusing and smart aleck post but dumb, nevertheless.
It's not a cell phone. It's an iPhone. That's the difference. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just making a point that Apple is trying to differentiate itself from other phone manufacturers with the iPhone. Apple doesn't care about the cheapo LG or Samsung phone that others might be using. It's not in the same class. They aren't worried about it.
Anyway, the iPhone is a "smartphone" and there are many models of smartphones (several Treo's come to mind) that don't have user serviceable batteries. That would be a better comparison in terms of feature sets and hardware capabilities.
There is a BIG difference between user serviceable and replaceable, you know that right?.
I've never met a battery that is user serviceable, have you?.
Comments
If an idiot can sue McDonald's and win for not telling her that her coffee was hot, there's a 50/50 chance Apple will lose this case.
Anyone can sue anyone over anything, but what did she finally win from this?
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
Everybody knew this was the way the iPhone would be sold. It's a bogus suit.
Of course it is but the lawyers will make a lot of money anyway. That's the whole idea. The guy named as the plaintiff is probably the lawyer's janitor and has never even seen an iPhone.
This is absolutely unbelievable.
I know some others have found that.
I found a charger/USB combo product I'm hoping that one will address that.
For those of you in America, if you want to call the lawyer and point out that :-
The iPhone battery still has 80% of its charge after 400 'full charge cycles' here are his details :-
Larry D. Drury
Firm
Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
Address:
205 West Randolph St.
Suite 1430
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone:
(312) 346-7950
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
By that time the one angry guy isn't even involved in the suit anymore, and only has his name attached to it because the attorney is threatening to sue him if he backs out.
As mac users are used to hearing about every lawsuits involving the company because we still consider it being a "smaller" company. This is now more common, "day in the life" of the company bull.
But I wish the knucklehead attorney who thinks he's going to get a nickle out of Apple lots of warm wishes. No-where on the box does it say "battery is removable" I'm very curious to what his case is, besides "technically" anything can be "user replaceable" hehe
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
A little more apt comparison would be that the buyer wasn't told that the gas tank would corrode and need to be replaced every two years because it couldn't hold a full tank anymore, and need to be in the shop for a week for repairs. Maybe that's not as good as I would like.
A little more apt comparison would be that the buyer wasn't told that the gas tank would corrode and need to be replaced every two years because it couldn't hold a full tank anymore, and need to be in the shop for a week for repairs. Maybe that's not as good as I would like.
I wasn't trying for a comparason. Just looking for quick lawsuit money.
I understand the battery holds energy and the tank holds energy and under the suit there should no expectation to replace parts that are not user replaceable. Maybe brake pads would be a better analogy because most car owners can't change them, but there is an expectation that they wear and need replacement.
I agree the iPhone should have a user replaceable battery. Why? Unlike the iPod cellphones from the beginning of time have had replaceable batteries.
It's not a cell phone. It's an iPhone. That's the difference. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just making a point that Apple is trying to differentiate itself from other phone manufacturers with the iPhone. Apple doesn't care about the cheapo LG or Samsung phone that others might be using. It's not in the same class. They aren't worried about it.
Anyway, the iPhone is a "smartphone" and there are many models of smartphones (several Treo's come to mind) that don't have user serviceable batteries. That would be a better comparison in terms of feature sets and hardware capabilities.
Agreed! The stupidity of this law suit reminds me of the story about the woman who sued an early manufacturer of Microwave ovens when after drying her poodle in it (as she had apparently always done in her conventional oven) it came out dead.
Speaking of stupidity - that's an urban myth.
Bad market + fear + news like this = Monday plunge
I just hope I'm wrong
The real facts in this case are :-
People will not run down their battery fully every day, lets say for the purpose of this exercise they use 50% of the battery every day (which is very quite heavy use).
If they then charge the battery every night (therefore only using 50% of a charge cycle every night).
That would give you 800 nights (2*400 full cycles) before the battery would only reach its 80% capacity. 800 nights is actually 2.19 years. Even after 2 years the battery would not need replacing.
That is a worse case scenario as most people will not actually use 50% every day. If we reduce the use to 25% then the time goes to over 4 years before it gets to 80%.
This is not hard to understand, why do these people try to sue.
You really need a reality check in the USA!
Absolutely. Apple stated this within the first few days of the iPhone release after someone spread some fud about this in the media.
This is just a case of some crap lawyers hoping to get a quick settlement. Apple won't bite though.
For those that use their phones all the time then maybe they will have to replace the battery. Since it is an important part of their lives I don't that they will see an issue.
The standard price for a treo battery is $60. Of course you cna get them for cheaper prices. In a years time you'll be able to do that for the iPhone, just like you cna for the iPod.
My last cell phone batteries didn't seem to hold charge as well after 1.5 years. This seems like the norm for me.
Didn't Diggs report that there were two batteries - one for the phone and one for iPod service?
who the heck had this thing for a year already, apple dont like people messing with there battery and people just got to learn to deal with it, heck if i was to warranty it for a year i sure would not want anyone else toching it ether, so i really dont know whats the big deal with the battery, most phone companies dont even warranty batteries, and at least we are getting something, and by the time you change it the dam thing will be obsolette
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
Great analogy!
[Anyone who bought the iPhone has NO reason to sue about the battery, it was known widely before launch...
Anyone stupid enough to buy a phone that has a seald battery bay -- or a consumer that doesnt return it when they see the lack of battery access are STUPID LEMMINGS who deserve what they got.
"Oh how quickly a fool and his money are parted"
the masses are the asses.
while consumers complain about battery lock while still gobbbling them up, Jobs and Ive are laughing all the wat o the bank.
that is just my $0.02...which is the amount of Jobs' paycheck for the week!
The battery issue was not widely known (actually apple did not make a statement about the batteries and mom and pop do not read appleinsider) usually i bash apple because they do stupid greedy things (there is no doubt in my mind that apple can make a thin device with replaceable batteries.. the razr has replaceable batteries and that thing is pretty thin).. so anyone making that argument don't know what they are talking about. However, having said that..the only people with issues really are those that
1. paid a termination fee to go to AT&T
2. left their old carrier and switched.
Perhaps this person is one of those people?. I know if i was a consumer that did not read appleinsider and wired news and switched to buy the iphone and found out that it's the gift that keeps giving apple, i'd be pissed. Now i don't want the phone and i can't get my termination fee back.. plus i would have to pay another termination fee to AT&T (why would i even want to stay with AT&T if i don't have the iphone?).
The thing i think most people are missing is that discussion in a forum or article on a website does not substitute for official, legal disclosure by a company. Apple cannot claim cause some trade magazine pointed out the battery issue constitutes sufficient disclosure. You'd be amazed how many people do not read any techie magazines (my GF is one, and she wanted an iphone badly.. when i told her about the battery issue, she was very surprised, she had never heard about that.. suffice to say, she decided to hold off on getting the iphone).
Originally Posted by city View Post
I attempted to drive my car from L.A. to San Francisco, but the gas tank was depleted before I got there. If any one else had this experience we should contact an attorney to file a class action suit. My car had no disclosure that this might happen or that the tank needed to be refilled.
Great analogy!
__________________
Great analogy!
No, it's a dumb analogy.. it's so stupid, i had to wait until i finished laughing before typing this.. of course you are warned.. ever heard of the gas needle?. (you know, that thing in the dashboard that tells you how much gas you have.. full tank, 3/4, half, 1/4 etc)..
certainly an amusing and smart aleck post but dumb, nevertheless.
It's not a cell phone. It's an iPhone. That's the difference. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just making a point that Apple is trying to differentiate itself from other phone manufacturers with the iPhone. Apple doesn't care about the cheapo LG or Samsung phone that others might be using. It's not in the same class. They aren't worried about it.
Anyway, the iPhone is a "smartphone" and there are many models of smartphones (several Treo's come to mind) that don't have user serviceable batteries. That would be a better comparison in terms of feature sets and hardware capabilities.
There is a BIG difference between user serviceable and replaceable, you know that right?.
I've never met a battery that is user serviceable, have you?.