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
Apple has said iPod (and presumably iPhone) batteries are not user-accessible to discourage them from ending up in landfills. Are people who find it too inconvenient to use Apple's or a competing battery-replacement service going to deal with recycling or proper disposal? Wanna bet not? Apple is being responsible. Greedy perhaps, but responsible.
As an iPhone owner, I want to know how I can get out of the class action suit. Part of the problem with these class action suits is that the judges are too quick to authorize classes. Also, I think we should limit the amount that lawyers can win from CAS to some hourly rate.
The last time I purchased Apple stock not to long ago was at $30, with today's run up $147 and retreat settling at around $143 coupled with this suit, I'm getting a little worried. Anyone else going to be glued to the market on Monday?
But yes the suit is silly, but so is Apple. It's dumb that the iPhone doesn't have a "replaceable" battery, and it's perhaps even worse that they tell people the battery is not replaceable.
First of all it is replaceable. I've replaced "nonreplaceable" the batteries in 2 iPods, a Treo 600, several Treo 180s, a Sony effects processors and I'm currently typing this message on a MacBook Pro with a 200gb 7200rpm Hitachi hard drive (try to find THAT bto option in the Apple store. ) Anyway, with the right amount of care, it is practicable to replace all batteries, except for Braun electric toothbrushes, and they might have a bit of a legit reason since a toothbrush is designed to be held under water.
If Apple lose this suit I'm so suing Palm for that really crummy Treo 600 battery. I'd probably also sue Panasonic for some of their cordless phone batteries, even though the phones are great, and don't get me started about Uniden. We could probably, all come up with our worst product/battery stories and then create the biggest and stupidest lawsuit in history....
I agree the iPhone should have a user replaceable battery. Why? Unlike the iPod cellphones from the beginning of time have had replaceable batteries. When your battery goes in 1 1/2 years you just walk into a store and buy a new one and pop it in. $100+a week without your phone is going to be a big deal to allot of people, esp people who depend on there phone and it's their only phone. Now if you could walk into an Apple Store or AT&T Support centre and they could pop it open pop in a new battery and your out of there in 30-60 minutes and for under $60 most people would be fine with that. But $100+a week without your phone just to replace the battery isn't reasonable to most and I bet a majority of people buying the iPhone don't even realize the battery isn't user replaceable and people who do won't buy it since they think there phone won't work after a year and they will have to buy a new one.
A Serious majority of people aren't in the know as we are and think they can replace the iPhone battery (for those who bought it) or for those who won't buy it because they can't replace the battery and think that's anti environment and makes them have to replace the device quickly.
The power brick for my iPhone just died today. I had to plug my iPhone into my PB's USB port to charge it. I'll be going to a local Apple store today to replace it. Some people have had luck popping off the plug part and reseating it. No luck here with that. Just a dead AC adapter. Too bad. The iPhone is fantastic otherwise.
i think the battery suit, though, is bogus. No one should need to replace a battery for 18 to 24 months. By then, you might want to get a new iPhone anyway.
Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in wet cement?
A: Not enough cement.
Q: Did you hear they just released a new Barbie doll called "Divorced Barbie"?
A: Yeah, it comes with half of Ken's things and alimony.
Q: What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
A: Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object, one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.
Q: Where can you find a good lawyer?
A: At the city morgue.
Q: What's the difference between a porcupine and a Mercedes Benz full of lawyers?
A: The porcupine has pricks on the outside.
Q: If you drop a snake and an attorney off the Empire State Building, which one hits first?
A: Who cares?
Q: How can you tell the difference between a dead skunk and a dead attorney on the road?
A: The vultures aren't gagging over the skunk.
Q: What's the difference between an attorney and a pit bull?
A: Jewelry.
Q: What do lawyers use for birth control?
A: Their personalities.
Q: What's the definition of mixed emotions?
A: Watching your attorney drive over a cliff in your new Ferrari.
Q: What's the definition of a lawyer?
A: A mouth with a life support system.
Q: What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a demon from hell?
A: No changes occur.
Q: What's the difference between God and an attorney?
abit early isn't it? Wait one year and when batteries actually start dyeing then the wolves can start in on their pray.
Your comment refers to the justiciability doctrine of ripeness (and also injury): a court should not entertain a suit based on a potential future harm. So. Has this guy charged the phone 400 times already? Has the battery actually died? Probably not.
Also, ever heard of the term caveat emptor? Apple announced this before the phone went on sale.
This won't get past the summary judgment stage (but will still probably cost Apple a lot of $$ in legal fees). The complaint is a travesty. It contains grammatical errors, and even worse, factual errors that could get the attorney into trouble for violating the rules of professional conduct.
Next lawsuit: Moron sues Apple because iPhone lacks physical keyboard buttons.
Everybody knew this was the way the iPhone would be sold. It's a bogus suit.
That said, the non-replaceable battery is a bad idea on a phone. It forces you to choose between entertainment and having a working phone. Imagine you are bored stiff on a plane or train, and you want to watch a video or surf the Web. But, you know you'll need your phone as a phone as soon as you reach your destination. Why not have the ability to carry a spare? This is ridiculous.
Suing someone over a feature (or lack thereof in this case) is ridiculous; I cannot even believe someone has done it. There's no law that states that phones are required to have replaceable batteries by the user. It is not misrepresented in having a replaceable battery either - you even have time to return your purchase to AT&T if you are unsatisfied.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Why I personally believe it is on the ridiculous side to not be able to replace your own battery (easily), that's how it was made. It wouldn't stop me from buying it; the battery in my three year old cellphone still holds a charge for over a week.
Suing someone over a feature (or lack thereof in this case) is ridiculous; I cannot even believe someone has done it. There's no law that states that phones are required to have replaceable batteries by the user. It is not misrepresented in having a replaceable battery either - you even have time to return your purchase to AT&T if you are unsatisfied.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
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.
[Anyone who bought the iPhone has NO reason to sue about the battery, it was known widely before launch...
Let's not be that hasty. Not all of it was known beforehand. IIRC, only the non-removability was known before launch. As far as I can tell, the battery program, turn-around time and price was released on July 2, three or four days after launch. If Apple wanted to look proactive, that should have been stated when they announced the revised battery life figures.
"Unknown to the Plaintiff and undisclosed to the public prior to purchase?" That's odd; if I recall correctly, one of the primary complaints about the iPhone MONTHS before launch was the fact that the battery was immovable. I guess this means that all of the early buyers totally ignored all of the iPhone-related press, or at the very least, that they didn't bother to do any research at all.
So... if I buy an Xbox 360 under the ASSUMPTION that it'll play all of the old Xbox games, in spite of the fact that it says it doesn't, can I sue Microsoft?
They could've returned their phones, but they didn't. I guess that means they're happy customers. So why the f#%* are they suing Apple?
Not that I'm in favor of the way the iPhone battery works (I think it's stupid as hell that you can't remove it) but that's one of the reasons I'm not buying one. Nobody's putting a gun to my head.
I'm gonna go out and buy a 328i, then sue BMW for not including leather seats as standard equipment!
Do they even mention the Lawyer's name or affiliation? I didn't see anything. Do not doubt, the lawyers identified this was a potential case, and thereafter trolled around for some schmuck that could be suckered into tagging along as the "lead plaintiff."
This has nothing to do with truth, justice, or protecting people from big business; it has to do with lawyers eyeing a legal opportunity for a paycheck.
Apple's legal team should be as involved in the product development cycle as their engineers, so they can get involved in making sure that marketing provides consumers with the sticky disclosures and information up front..
I understand your point, but in a way I'm glad they don't. Apple make some amazing products just they way they are. It's when accountants and lawyers get involved in product design that great products become crap ones!
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.
I'm so glad the USA got the iPhone before the UK. You guys can really kick a stink up over nothing. By the time it gets here, all the little things will be sorted, even the ones that aren't really problems.
The battery replacement program seems fair to me and no big deal. It's a bit pricey, but hey, it's Apple and it's a sealed battery. That's the deal.
If you really depend on your phone then you'll have a backup already. Just take the SIM out of the iPhone and stick it in that. If you've not got a backup phone then in the UK at least you can pick up Pay-As-You-Go Nokias for about £20 from any supermarket or phone shop. I've a drawer full of the little buggers.
Comments
But yes the suit is silly, but so is Apple. It's dumb that the iPhone doesn't have a "replaceable" battery, and it's perhaps even worse that they tell people the battery is not replaceable.
First of all it is replaceable. I've replaced "nonreplaceable" the batteries in 2 iPods, a Treo 600, several Treo 180s, a Sony effects processors and I'm currently typing this message on a MacBook Pro with a 200gb 7200rpm Hitachi hard drive (try to find THAT bto option in the Apple store.
If Apple lose this suit I'm so suing Palm for that really crummy Treo 600 battery. I'd probably also sue Panasonic for some of their cordless phone batteries, even though the phones are great, and don't get me started about Uniden. We could probably, all come up with our worst product/battery stories and then create the biggest and stupidest lawsuit in history....
A Serious majority of people aren't in the know as we are and think they can replace the iPhone battery (for those who bought it) or for those who won't buy it because they can't replace the battery and think that's anti environment and makes them have to replace the device quickly.
i think the battery suit, though, is bogus. No one should need to replace a battery for 18 to 24 months. By then, you might want to get a new iPhone anyway.
A: Not enough cement.
Q: Did you hear they just released a new Barbie doll called "Divorced Barbie"?
A: Yeah, it comes with half of Ken's things and alimony.
Q: What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
A: Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object, one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.
Q: Where can you find a good lawyer?
A: At the city morgue.
Q: What's the difference between a porcupine and a Mercedes Benz full of lawyers?
A: The porcupine has pricks on the outside.
Q: If you drop a snake and an attorney off the Empire State Building, which one hits first?
A: Who cares?
Q: How can you tell the difference between a dead skunk and a dead attorney on the road?
A: The vultures aren't gagging over the skunk.
Q: What's the difference between an attorney and a pit bull?
A: Jewelry.
Q: What do lawyers use for birth control?
A: Their personalities.
Q: What's the definition of mixed emotions?
A: Watching your attorney drive over a cliff in your new Ferrari.
Q: What's the definition of a lawyer?
A: A mouth with a life support system.
Q: What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a demon from hell?
A: No changes occur.
Q: What's the difference between God and an attorney?
A: God doesn't think he's an attorney.
Q: How many lawyer jokes are there?
A: ONE, all the rest are true.
abit early isn't it? Wait one year and when batteries actually start dyeing then the wolves can start in on their pray.
Your comment refers to the justiciability doctrine of ripeness (and also injury): a court should not entertain a suit based on a potential future harm. So. Has this guy charged the phone 400 times already? Has the battery actually died? Probably not.
Also, ever heard of the term caveat emptor? Apple announced this before the phone went on sale.
This won't get past the summary judgment stage (but will still probably cost Apple a lot of $$ in legal fees). The complaint is a travesty. It contains grammatical errors, and even worse, factual errors that could get the attorney into trouble for violating the rules of professional conduct.
Next lawsuit: Moron sues Apple because iPhone lacks physical keyboard buttons.
That said, the non-replaceable battery is a bad idea on a phone. It forces you to choose between entertainment and having a working phone. Imagine you are bored stiff on a plane or train, and you want to watch a video or surf the Web. But, you know you'll need your phone as a phone as soon as you reach your destination. Why not have the ability to carry a spare? This is ridiculous.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Why I personally believe it is on the ridiculous side to not be able to replace your own battery (easily), that's how it was made. It wouldn't stop me from buying it; the battery in my three year old cellphone still holds a charge for over a week.
Suing someone over a feature (or lack thereof in this case) is ridiculous; I cannot even believe someone has done it. There's no law that states that phones are required to have replaceable batteries by the user. It is not misrepresented in having a replaceable battery either - you even have time to return your purchase to AT&T if you are unsatisfied.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
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.
[Anyone who bought the iPhone has NO reason to sue about the battery, it was known widely before launch...
Let's not be that hasty. Not all of it was known beforehand. IIRC, only the non-removability was known before launch. As far as I can tell, the battery program, turn-around time and price was released on July 2, three or four days after launch. If Apple wanted to look proactive, that should have been stated when they announced the revised battery life figures.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_program.html
I do agree that this lawsuit wasn't going to help, or do anyone but lawyers any good.
So... if I buy an Xbox 360 under the ASSUMPTION that it'll play all of the old Xbox games, in spite of the fact that it says it doesn't, can I sue Microsoft?
They could've returned their phones, but they didn't. I guess that means they're happy customers. So why the f#%* are they suing Apple?
Not that I'm in favor of the way the iPhone battery works (I think it's stupid as hell that you can't remove it) but that's one of the reasons I'm not buying one. Nobody's putting a gun to my head.
I'm gonna go out and buy a 328i, then sue BMW for not including leather seats as standard equipment!
This has nothing to do with truth, justice, or protecting people from big business; it has to do with lawyers eyeing a legal opportunity for a paycheck.
Apple's legal team should be as involved in the product development cycle as their engineers, so they can get involved in making sure that marketing provides consumers with the sticky disclosures and information up front..
I understand your point, but in a way I'm glad they don't. Apple make some amazing products just they way they are. It's when accountants and lawyers get involved in product design that great products become crap ones!
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
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!
The battery replacement program seems fair to me and no big deal. It's a bit pricey, but hey, it's Apple and it's a sealed battery. That's the deal.
If you really depend on your phone then you'll have a backup already. Just take the SIM out of the iPhone and stick it in that. If you've not got a backup phone then in the UK at least you can pick up Pay-As-You-Go Nokias for about £20 from any supermarket or phone shop. I've a drawer full of the little buggers.
On another note, if it can be charged via usb, could you have an external usb jack battery for long use. Like watching movies on planes?
Psi