Mr. Yohe and sooooo many others here simply refuse to connect the dots. They are in a fan-boy daze. "Apple did nothing wrong." Yeah, right. Stevie-boy has your prick in his back pocket, you're just too blind to see it.
It's the hyper-COST of the replacement service that the plaintiff feels is unfair. He's hoping a jury will feel the same way and side with his case. If he can convince a jury, he wins. How much would be awarded is another matter, but I would hope a judge would send a strong message to Apple to discourage this type of rip-off.
That's how I feel about this matter.
blinkdt maybe the plaintiff does not feel it is unfair--the iphone comes with 14-day return policy and I am sure all details about batteries could be digested within 14 days. Maybe he smells a business opportunity. And, perhaps, a name for himself. You may agree with the plaintiff but the court will be the ultimate arbitrator--assuming this ever gains class action status.
But you really have to put your money where your mouth is. If you think apple rips you off then don't buy their products. If you think you have wasted money on apple products (I refer to your earlier post as well) then speak for yourself, instead of claiming that we all have wasted money. Both a BMW and a GM drive you from A to B, but there's a lot to be said how each one does it. Normally we choose the car we can afford and envy those that can afford the better we so much want. I think you just envy apple users. You probably don't own an Apple product. We (the fanboys?) choose Macs because we like them better.
And by the way, since you seem to side with the plaintiff camp: apple does not make the batteries and thus does not try to screw the customers and make more money on them. Apple does not have any obligation to design around replaceable batteries if they feel the design will be compromised. Batteries for some other smart phones cost as much (in absolute terms or as % of purchase cost of the phone).
You would be right to sue if Apple misled you; if the battery dies in 3 months and they refuse to replace it and/or fix the software. If you don't like apple prices then don't buy apple products (I don't like Bang and Olufsen prices and I do not see what is special about their design--but, hey, it's good there are B&O products so that I can see what's out there).
The whole battery affair strikes me as mildly hypocritical.
"can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?"
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. I moved from T-mobile who would gladly unlock your phone before the end of the contract as long as you are 3 months in the contract. My Blackberry pearl is now unlocked. And of course it works with the AT&T SIM in the iPhone, at least for voice.
I believe you're confirming that if you have an old GSM phone that works/worked with the AT&T network, that you can remove the iPhone SIM while you send it in for battery replacement and insert it in the old non-iPhone to get basic phone service while you wait for your iPhone to be returned. It's nice to know this also works with non-AT&T GSM phones.
A simple Google search on iPhone and SIM and swap will get you links to others who have confirmed this works as a temporary fix. You can also visit CNet to confirm this functionality:
Earth to fan-boys, the lawsuit is quite clear. The plaintiff claims that the "accumulated costs of ordering the replacement, shipping, and the loaner" where NOT specified until AFTER sales began. And THEY WERE NOT. Anyone care to contradict that simple, irrefutable FACT?
The plaintiff feels that he is being held hostage (third party replacement voids warranty) to an exhorbitant battery replacement fee, about $100 annually, according to the plantiff.
A reference on the box to the fact that the battery would need to be replaced doesn't quite make clear that Stevie-boy saw you walkin' through the door, though, does it?. The grossly inflated purchase price wasn't enough for you? No problem, he plans on bending you over a log again . . . and again . . . and again.
The plaintiff wants a jury to decide. Lordy, I'd think after all the money y'all have wasted on Apple product over the years, you'd be clamoring for a seat on that jury. It's a freakin' battery, people, they make lots of 'em and they don't cost that much. And I don't think you need a rocket scientist to do the job, eh? What, they plan on FedEx'ing to and from Malaysia?
But the cult lives and the share price climbs. So sad.
Would it not be true, as well, that the plaintiff would have to been able to expect such an event to occur. Last I checked, most if not all phone manufacturers don't advertise the cost of battery replacements, or necessarily provide that information prior to the release date. It's a non-issue for most people.
The plaintiff would also have to prove that Apple's claimed _diminished_ charge after one year's estimated charge cycles (the same as is experienced on almost every if not every cell phone that is sold today) is invalid.
Which I'd imagine would be hard to do. Especially well under a year since the launch of the product in the first place - and one anecdotal case means a support call, not a freaking lawsuit.
Apple states that after 400 charge cycles, the battery will be at 80% of original capacity.
Quote:
Leung and his representing lawyers Arthur Lazear and Max Folkenflik claim that the battery in the iPhone will last only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely.
@Proximityeffect Thank you! Clearly, someone has taken a moment to read what the plaintiff has to say. And quite a discrepancy on that one point alone, I believe we can all agree. If Leung can prove his claim--and I won't be surprised at all if he can--then Stevie's got some 'splainin' to do.
The life of the Li batteries are based on solid math and past usage; they didn't just take a guess. The battery will be +-5% of where Apple states it will be after 400 cycles.
Comments
Mr. Yohe and sooooo many others here simply refuse to connect the dots. They are in a fan-boy daze. "Apple did nothing wrong." Yeah, right. Stevie-boy has your prick in his back pocket, you're just too blind to see it.
It's the hyper-COST of the replacement service that the plaintiff feels is unfair. He's hoping a jury will feel the same way and side with his case. If he can convince a jury, he wins. How much would be awarded is another matter, but I would hope a judge would send a strong message to Apple to discourage this type of rip-off.
That's how I feel about this matter.
blinkdt maybe the plaintiff does not feel it is unfair--the iphone comes with 14-day return policy and I am sure all details about batteries could be digested within 14 days. Maybe he smells a business opportunity. And, perhaps, a name for himself. You may agree with the plaintiff but the court will be the ultimate arbitrator--assuming this ever gains class action status.
But you really have to put your money where your mouth is. If you think apple rips you off then don't buy their products. If you think you have wasted money on apple products (I refer to your earlier post as well) then speak for yourself, instead of claiming that we all have wasted money. Both a BMW and a GM drive you from A to B, but there's a lot to be said how each one does it. Normally we choose the car we can afford and envy those that can afford the better we so much want. I think you just envy apple users. You probably don't own an Apple product. We (the fanboys?) choose Macs because we like them better.
And by the way, since you seem to side with the plaintiff camp: apple does not make the batteries and thus does not try to screw the customers and make more money on them. Apple does not have any obligation to design around replaceable batteries if they feel the design will be compromised. Batteries for some other smart phones cost as much (in absolute terms or as % of purchase cost of the phone).
You would be right to sue if Apple misled you; if the battery dies in 3 months and they refuse to replace it and/or fix the software. If you don't like apple prices then don't buy apple products (I don't like Bang and Olufsen prices and I do not see what is special about their design--but, hey, it's good there are B&O products so that I can see what's out there).
The whole battery affair strikes me as mildly hypocritical.
"can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?"
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. I moved from T-mobile who would gladly unlock your phone before the end of the contract as long as you are 3 months in the contract. My Blackberry pearl is now unlocked. And of course it works with the AT&T SIM in the iPhone, at least for voice.
A simple Google search on iPhone and SIM and swap will get you links to others who have confirmed this works as a temporary fix. You can also visit CNet to confirm this functionality:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Swap_out_you...7-6748937.html
Checking other Mac sites will also bring up numerous articles about the portability of the iPhone SIM into old AT&T phones. E.g.:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/06/...rn.and.repair/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/?p=443
http://www.tuaw.com/search/?q=iPhone+SIM
Earth to fan-boys, the lawsuit is quite clear. The plaintiff claims that the "accumulated costs of ordering the replacement, shipping, and the loaner" where NOT specified until AFTER sales began. And THEY WERE NOT. Anyone care to contradict that simple, irrefutable FACT?
The plaintiff feels that he is being held hostage (third party replacement voids warranty) to an exhorbitant battery replacement fee, about $100 annually, according to the plantiff.
A reference on the box to the fact that the battery would need to be replaced doesn't quite make clear that Stevie-boy saw you walkin' through the door, though, does it?. The grossly inflated purchase price wasn't enough for you? No problem, he plans on bending you over a log again . . . and again . . . and again.
The plaintiff wants a jury to decide. Lordy, I'd think after all the money y'all have wasted on Apple product over the years, you'd be clamoring for a seat on that jury. It's a freakin' battery, people, they make lots of 'em and they don't cost that much. And I don't think you need a rocket scientist to do the job, eh? What, they plan on FedEx'ing to and from Malaysia?
But the cult lives and the share price climbs. So sad.
Would it not be true, as well, that the plaintiff would have to been able to expect such an event to occur. Last I checked, most if not all phone manufacturers don't advertise the cost of battery replacements, or necessarily provide that information prior to the release date. It's a non-issue for most people.
The plaintiff would also have to prove that Apple's claimed _diminished_ charge after one year's estimated charge cycles (the same as is experienced on almost every if not every cell phone that is sold today) is invalid.
Which I'd imagine would be hard to do. Especially well under a year since the launch of the product in the first place - and one anecdotal case means a support call, not a freaking lawsuit.
Apple says 300-400 charges. They say 300.
Where's the fraud?
I don't see what would be fraud here.
Apple says 300-400 charges. They say 300.
Where's the fraud?
Apple states that after 400 charge cycles, the battery will be at 80% of original capacity.
Leung and his representing lawyers Arthur Lazear and Max Folkenflik claim that the battery in the iPhone will last only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely.
@Proximityeffect Thank you! Clearly, someone has taken a moment to read what the plaintiff has to say. And quite a discrepancy on that one point alone, I believe we can all agree. If Leung can prove his claim--and I won't be surprised at all if he can--then Stevie's got some 'splainin' to do.
The life of the Li batteries are based on solid math and past usage; they didn't just take a guess. The battery will be +-5% of where Apple states it will be after 400 cycles.
http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPhone
http://www.ipodjuice.com/iphone-batt...t-products.htm
New battery: $25 for the do-it-yourselfer.