This may well be a stupid law-suit (mainly becuase the battery doesn't just stop after 300 cycles) but let's consider what freedoms Apple is taking away by using a non-user replaceable battery:
- Can't carry two batteries or more on the move. Hardly a show stopper on an iPod but a real problem on your phone
- Can't choose from a range of replacements.
- Need to pay for or have soldering experience to replace.
What comes next? The MacBook with soldered battery? We'd hate that but to Apple it could be the logical step. So for these reasons we should back those who are fighting Apple on these issues.
1) The iPhone will accept iPod accessories. There's secondary batteries available for the iPod which I'd imagine would work just fine. You just plug them in the iPod connector on the base.
2) There are already companies offering replacement batteries other than Apple, just as there is for the iPod.
3) I've yet to come across a product that has free battery replacements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
How would you know it's not true?. Just because apple claims 300 charges last longer than a year does not make it so.. how did apple arrive at length of time... wanna guess or should i tell you... they did an estimated average usage. What if this customer uses his phone so often that he is charging every single day.. a year has more than 300 days so obviously he would exceed 300 charges in a year (and this could be more than 300 full charges).
Huh? Apple claim the iPhone battery takes 400 full charges from completely run down before the battery drops to 80% capacity.
I'm sure they're done absolutely no estimations. They know the battery capacity and it's lifetime and it's charging characteristics. It's all a matter of chemistry.
Also, if you can completely wear out an iPhone battery in a year, it's UNDER WARRANTY still!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
Ok, you are all missing the point. Apple has to SUFFICIENTLY disclose that batteries are not user replaceable.
Is this written into law somewhere that a company has to disclose what their product doesn't do?
They don't disclose that it doesn't work on Verizon either. Are you going to sue them for that too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
People, lets stick to the topic.. building a replaceable battery is not impossible, apple just chose not to do it.
For good reasons.
They wanted the phone as small as possible with as big as possible a battery. If they had to add latches, a removable back, a battery case, an internal layer separating the battery and the circuit board and battery connectors you'd either have a fatter phone or less battery life.
Almost every phone I've had with a replaceable battery has also suffered from poor shut lines, squeeky covers and the ability for the cover to fly off/snap. Battery contacts also corrode so you're left rubbing them to gain contact again. I'm pretty sure Apple wanted to make the iPhone as solid as possible and as pure in form without all the cludgy seams a removable rear cover would produce.
Put those two together and you've a pretty compelling reason why the iPhone's designers would come up with the decision to use a built in battery instead of a replaceable cartridge style battery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
I run my phone down everyday. The problem is that the person is not suing on behalf on everyone or based on everyone else experience, he will be suing based on his experience so it's irrelevant that most people only use 50% of battery every day. Actually i am surprised a suit had not been brought earlier, in reference to the ipod. This policy apple have is begging for someone to sue them.
Firstly, the guy IS suing on behalf of everyone - it's a CLASS ACTION lawsuit.
Secondly, were you living on Mars when the iPod battery class action lawsuits were taking place?
Thirdly, his experience isn't that the iPhone battery will be useless after 300 charges since there's no way he could have done that already. His claim of 300 charges and then dead seems to be entirely based on a badly written review. So, he's basing this lawsuit on misinformation from the press, not his experience.
Yet you wnurse are suggesting that Apple is at fault for not disclosing information, when they have.
This may well be a stupid law-suit (mainly becuase the battery doesn't just stop after 300 cycles) but let's consider what freedoms Apple is taking away by using a non-user replaceable battery
Let's consider what Apple is giving you with a non-removable battery: amazing battery life! Maybe Apple should offer for sale two models of the iPhone; one with a non-removable battery life and 8 hours of talk time, and one with a removable battery and 2 hours of talk time. Guess which one will be the big seller?
You know the phone's battery "situation" before you even buy the phone. If you don't like it, then don't buy phone. Nobody's making you buy the iPhone here. Some people...
First, I would take everything I mentioned over a video recorder and copy and pasting!!!! Second, for a first generation phone, I think Apple did a pretty good job for their FIRST phone, while everybody is comparing it to companies whos been making phone waaaaaaaaaaaay longer. Third, your probably one of those guys whose can have the perfect phone built to your needs and still find something wrong with it. And last I think Edge is pretty fast for a phone to load full webpages and accessing youtube and such.
Yes, for a first attempt, this is pretty good but i thought apple iphone was supposed to be revolutionary and better than all the other phones on the market?. I didn't realize apple meant after their 10th try. As to a perfect phone, i don't expect a perfect phone but when a company blares out loudly how much better their phones are than the competition and then their phones can't do something as simple as cut and paste, well, that company deserves to be lambasted. How can your phone be revolutionary if it cannot do simple things?.. what is it revolutionary at?.. not having features?. I can forgive the video (heck, not all blackberries can do video and they are pretty good) but cut and paste?. and this is supposed to be the worlds most advanced phone or a phone that would revolutionize the industry?.
Also edge is fast?. what coolaid have you been drinking?.
You know the phone's battery "situation" before you even buy the phone. If you don't like it, then don't buy phone. Nobody's making you buy the iPhone here. Some people...
I think the person did not know the phone battery situation before he bought the phone.. i think that's the entire point of the suit. Did you read the beginning of the post or you just jumped in the middle and felt like contributing?
Let's consider what Apple is giving you with a non-removable battery: amazing battery life! Maybe Apple should offer for sale two models of the iPhone; one with a non-removable battery life and 8 hours of talk time, and one with a removable battery and 2 hours of talk time. Guess which one will be the big seller?
the two hr. No one is on their phones for 8 hrs straight and most people have either vehicle or home chargers. The other times a vehicle or home outlet is not available represents about maybe 1% of your time (by that i mean, 99% of time, you are either in your car or somwhere with a charging outlet or even then, not talking on your phone).. i am sure standby times on batteries is pretty long. I was at a concert once for over 3 hrs and only spoke on my phone for a total of 30 minutes.. strangely, my phone battery was still good when i got home... but that's just me.
Also somehow, i suspect the removal battery would give more than 2 hrs continuous talk time.
Secondly, apple 8 hr is under optimum conditions (ie, don't expect to get that number).
It based on the wi-fi "ask to join" feature turned off, auto brightness was turned off.. heck why am i telling you this, you can check it out at their website.
I would hate to live in a country where you aren't allowed to sell a product with a hardwired battery.
What's next? Sue car manufacturers because tires aren't user replaceable when they wear out? I mean damn! They make you take it to a repair shop where the tires have to be replaced with a special machine.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in this case should be ashamed.
I would hate to live in a country where you aren't allowed to sell a product with a hardwired battery.
What's next? Sue car manufacturers because tires aren't user replaceable when they wear out? I mean damn! They make you take it to a repair shop where the tires have to be replaced with a special machine.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in this case should be ashamed.
Not everything is comparable. You can't buy a car like you buy a phone. You haggle on the price of a car, it has destination charges and dealer prep charges. It's always tricky to make comparisons between dissimilar objects.
Also, it's an expectation game. According to you, for example, apple could sell you a computer with a non-replaceable hard drive/operating system, maybe solder the case so you cannot open it and also do not include a cd drive or USB ports or any external connections without disclosing this to you cause a car manufacturer can sell you a car without telling you the tire is not user replaceable. How upset would you be if Apple sold you a computer like that without disclosing all of the "user non-replaceable" features it had?
See what happens when you make illogical comparisons?. You end up with ridiculous conclusions.
The suit has merit because as consumers, we expect batteries to be replaceable. Any deviation from the norm should be explained.. just as if you bought an apple computer, you expect to be able to upgrade it's operating system or connect usb devices or pop a cd in the cd-rom drive. Imagine how shocked you would be if apple shipped you a computer as i described above?.
I can not stand sue happy people. They are the worse, all just so they can get a few bucks and their lawyer can get a cool million or two.
Personally, I think it should be the other way around.. the client get tons of money, the lawyers a few bucks.
I'd be willing to vote for the candidate who would allow this gentleman suing Apple to keep the majority of the money (after all, it's him, not the lawyer who is the injured party).
See, i don't hate sue happy people (i wish i could be sue happy myself).. i just hate the system that allows the sue happy people lawyers to walk away with all the money.
I think it is immoral for people to take advantage of the legal system and I place all blame fully on the people, not the system. People like the plaintiffs in this suit should be despised for what is, quite simply, greed.
I think it is immoral for people to take advantage of the legal system and I place all blame fully on the people, not the system. People like the plaintiffs in this suit should be despised for what is, quite simply, greed.
Yeah, like apple never sued anyone frivilously. Please..
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.
An interpretation of the law of unintended consequences would suggest that such a move expedites the speed that the entire device hits the landfill, battery and all.
That can still happen whether the battery was replaceable or not.
Of course, but if you make the battery harder to replace, the likelihood is higher that it's going to be prematurely junked because the cost of battery replacement is needlessly higher. If it's a matter of either paying $30 for a replacement battery or $60 for the service, it becomes a significant factor if the value of the device is less than $100. At $30, it's an easy call, but at twice that, the money may as well be spent towards a replacement device.
I really don't buy the original explanation anyway, battery recycling can be made easy as including a prepaid mailer pouch in the box of the replacement battery. Just seal the envelope and drop it in the mail box.
Of course, but if you make the battery harder to replace, the likelihood is higher that it's going to be prematurely junked because the cost of battery replacement is needlessly higher.
But in this case its a $500 - $600 dollar device. I doubt many people will toss that into the trash simply because the battery ran out.
Quote:
I really don't buy the original explanation anyway, battery recycling can be made easy as including a prepaid mailer pouch in the box of the replacement battery. Just seal the envelope and drop it in the mail box.
Most people aren't going to go through all of that. Pretty much all mobile phone providers offer mail in phone recycling, most phones still end up in the garbage.
Comments
This may well be a stupid law-suit (mainly becuase the battery doesn't just stop after 300 cycles) but let's consider what freedoms Apple is taking away by using a non-user replaceable battery:
- Can't carry two batteries or more on the move. Hardly a show stopper on an iPod but a real problem on your phone
- Can't choose from a range of replacements.
- Need to pay for or have soldering experience to replace.
What comes next? The MacBook with soldered battery? We'd hate that but to Apple it could be the logical step. So for these reasons we should back those who are fighting Apple on these issues.
1) The iPhone will accept iPod accessories. There's secondary batteries available for the iPod which I'd imagine would work just fine. You just plug them in the iPod connector on the base.
2) There are already companies offering replacement batteries other than Apple, just as there is for the iPod.
3) I've yet to come across a product that has free battery replacements.
How would you know it's not true?. Just because apple claims 300 charges last longer than a year does not make it so.. how did apple arrive at length of time... wanna guess or should i tell you... they did an estimated average usage. What if this customer uses his phone so often that he is charging every single day.. a year has more than 300 days so obviously he would exceed 300 charges in a year (and this could be more than 300 full charges).
Huh? Apple claim the iPhone battery takes 400 full charges from completely run down before the battery drops to 80% capacity.
I'm sure they're done absolutely no estimations. They know the battery capacity and it's lifetime and it's charging characteristics. It's all a matter of chemistry.
Also, if you can completely wear out an iPhone battery in a year, it's UNDER WARRANTY still!
Ok, you are all missing the point. Apple has to SUFFICIENTLY disclose that batteries are not user replaceable.
Is this written into law somewhere that a company has to disclose what their product doesn't do?
They don't disclose that it doesn't work on Verizon either. Are you going to sue them for that too?
People, lets stick to the topic.. building a replaceable battery is not impossible, apple just chose not to do it.
For good reasons.
They wanted the phone as small as possible with as big as possible a battery. If they had to add latches, a removable back, a battery case, an internal layer separating the battery and the circuit board and battery connectors you'd either have a fatter phone or less battery life.
Almost every phone I've had with a replaceable battery has also suffered from poor shut lines, squeeky covers and the ability for the cover to fly off/snap. Battery contacts also corrode so you're left rubbing them to gain contact again. I'm pretty sure Apple wanted to make the iPhone as solid as possible and as pure in form without all the cludgy seams a removable rear cover would produce.
Put those two together and you've a pretty compelling reason why the iPhone's designers would come up with the decision to use a built in battery instead of a replaceable cartridge style battery.
I run my phone down everyday. The problem is that the person is not suing on behalf on everyone or based on everyone else experience, he will be suing based on his experience so it's irrelevant that most people only use 50% of battery every day. Actually i am surprised a suit had not been brought earlier, in reference to the ipod. This policy apple have is begging for someone to sue them.
Firstly, the guy IS suing on behalf of everyone - it's a CLASS ACTION lawsuit.
Secondly, were you living on Mars when the iPod battery class action lawsuits were taking place?
Thirdly, his experience isn't that the iPhone battery will be useless after 300 charges since there's no way he could have done that already. His claim of 300 charges and then dead seems to be entirely based on a badly written review. So, he's basing this lawsuit on misinformation from the press, not his experience.
Yet you wnurse are suggesting that Apple is at fault for not disclosing information, when they have.
This may well be a stupid law-suit (mainly becuase the battery doesn't just stop after 300 cycles) but let's consider what freedoms Apple is taking away by using a non-user replaceable battery
Let's consider what Apple is giving you with a non-removable battery: amazing battery life! Maybe Apple should offer for sale two models of the iPhone; one with a non-removable battery life and 8 hours of talk time, and one with a removable battery and 2 hours of talk time. Guess which one will be the big seller?
First, I would take everything I mentioned over a video recorder and copy and pasting!!!! Second, for a first generation phone, I think Apple did a pretty good job for their FIRST phone, while everybody is comparing it to companies whos been making phone waaaaaaaaaaaay longer. Third, your probably one of those guys whose can have the perfect phone built to your needs and still find something wrong with it. And last I think Edge is pretty fast for a phone to load full webpages and accessing youtube and such.
Yes, for a first attempt, this is pretty good but i thought apple iphone was supposed to be revolutionary and better than all the other phones on the market?. I didn't realize apple meant after their 10th try. As to a perfect phone, i don't expect a perfect phone but when a company blares out loudly how much better their phones are than the competition and then their phones can't do something as simple as cut and paste, well, that company deserves to be lambasted. How can your phone be revolutionary if it cannot do simple things?.. what is it revolutionary at?.. not having features?. I can forgive the video (heck, not all blackberries can do video and they are pretty good) but cut and paste?. and this is supposed to be the worlds most advanced phone or a phone that would revolutionize the industry?.
Also edge is fast?. what coolaid have you been drinking?.
You know the phone's battery "situation" before you even buy the phone. If you don't like it, then don't buy phone. Nobody's making you buy the iPhone here. Some people...
I think the person did not know the phone battery situation before he bought the phone.. i think that's the entire point of the suit. Did you read the beginning of the post or you just jumped in the middle and felt like contributing?
Let's consider what Apple is giving you with a non-removable battery: amazing battery life! Maybe Apple should offer for sale two models of the iPhone; one with a non-removable battery life and 8 hours of talk time, and one with a removable battery and 2 hours of talk time. Guess which one will be the big seller?
the two hr. No one is on their phones for 8 hrs straight and most people have either vehicle or home chargers. The other times a vehicle or home outlet is not available represents about maybe 1% of your time (by that i mean, 99% of time, you are either in your car or somwhere with a charging outlet or even then, not talking on your phone).. i am sure standby times on batteries is pretty long. I was at a concert once for over 3 hrs and only spoke on my phone for a total of 30 minutes.. strangely, my phone battery was still good when i got home... but that's just me.
Also somehow, i suspect the removal battery would give more than 2 hrs continuous talk time.
Secondly, apple 8 hr is under optimum conditions (ie, don't expect to get that number).
It based on the wi-fi "ask to join" feature turned off, auto brightness was turned off.. heck why am i telling you this, you can check it out at their website.
What's next? Sue car manufacturers because tires aren't user replaceable when they wear out? I mean damn! They make you take it to a repair shop where the tires have to be replaced with a special machine.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in this case should be ashamed.
Ok, you are all missing the point. Apple has to SUFFICIENTLY disclose that batteries are not user replaceable.
Are you a lawyer? If not then why do you presume to know how much disclosure is required vs any other poster in this thread?
Vinea
I would hate to live in a country where you aren't allowed to sell a product with a hardwired battery.
What's next? Sue car manufacturers because tires aren't user replaceable when they wear out? I mean damn! They make you take it to a repair shop where the tires have to be replaced with a special machine.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in this case should be ashamed.
Not everything is comparable. You can't buy a car like you buy a phone. You haggle on the price of a car, it has destination charges and dealer prep charges. It's always tricky to make comparisons between dissimilar objects.
Also, it's an expectation game. According to you, for example, apple could sell you a computer with a non-replaceable hard drive/operating system, maybe solder the case so you cannot open it and also do not include a cd drive or USB ports or any external connections without disclosing this to you cause a car manufacturer can sell you a car without telling you the tire is not user replaceable. How upset would you be if Apple sold you a computer like that without disclosing all of the "user non-replaceable" features it had?
See what happens when you make illogical comparisons?. You end up with ridiculous conclusions.
The suit has merit because as consumers, we expect batteries to be replaceable. Any deviation from the norm should be explained.. just as if you bought an apple computer, you expect to be able to upgrade it's operating system or connect usb devices or pop a cd in the cd-rom drive. Imagine how shocked you would be if apple shipped you a computer as i described above?.
Are you a lawyer? If not then why do you presume to know how much disclosure is required vs any other poster in this thread?
Vinea
I slept at a holiday inn last night, should that be sufficient?.
I can not stand sue happy people. They are the worse, all just so they can get a few bucks and their lawyer can get a cool million or two.
Personally, I think it should be the other way around.. the client get tons of money, the lawyers a few bucks.
I'd be willing to vote for the candidate who would allow this gentleman suing Apple to keep the majority of the money (after all, it's him, not the lawyer who is the injured party).
See, i don't hate sue happy people (i wish i could be sue happy myself).. i just hate the system that allows the sue happy people lawyers to walk away with all the money.
I agree with your observation that it's not fair.
I think it is immoral for people to take advantage of the legal system and I place all blame fully on the people, not the system. People like the plaintiffs in this suit should be despised for what is, quite simply, greed.
Yeah, like apple never sued anyone frivilously. Please..
Some people here are griping about greedy and immoral lawsuits. It has nothing to do with attacking or defending apple.
I slept at a holiday inn last night, should that be sufficient?.
Then the answer is "no I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just talking out my ass".
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.
An interpretation of the law of unintended consequences would suggest that such a move expedites the speed that the entire device hits the landfill, battery and all.
Apple has to SUFFICIENTLY disclose that batteries are not user replaceable.
It states on the iPhone box that the batteries are not user replaceable. Apple can do nothing about people who do not read.
the entire device hits the landfill, battery and all.
That can still happen whether the battery was replaceable or not.
That can still happen whether the battery was replaceable or not.
Of course, but if you make the battery harder to replace, the likelihood is higher that it's going to be prematurely junked because the cost of battery replacement is needlessly higher. If it's a matter of either paying $30 for a replacement battery or $60 for the service, it becomes a significant factor if the value of the device is less than $100. At $30, it's an easy call, but at twice that, the money may as well be spent towards a replacement device.
I really don't buy the original explanation anyway, battery recycling can be made easy as including a prepaid mailer pouch in the box of the replacement battery. Just seal the envelope and drop it in the mail box.
Of course, but if you make the battery harder to replace, the likelihood is higher that it's going to be prematurely junked because the cost of battery replacement is needlessly higher.
But in this case its a $500 - $600 dollar device. I doubt many people will toss that into the trash simply because the battery ran out.
I really don't buy the original explanation anyway, battery recycling can be made easy as including a prepaid mailer pouch in the box of the replacement battery. Just seal the envelope and drop it in the mail box.
Most people aren't going to go through all of that. Pretty much all mobile phone providers offer mail in phone recycling, most phones still end up in the garbage.