Wow. People are suing because they can't change the god damn battery??? PEOPLE. I have a Palm Pocket and it DOES NOT have a removable battery. It costs be $89 to ship it out, get the battery replaced and then get it shipped back. Why would Apple do anything different from these other major phone manufacturers??? Obviously, they wouldn't. Because Apple is a very intelligent company.
So please. Stop suing Apple over nothing so they can get back to working on Leopard -_-
can anyone tell us what the battery in the iphone would cost wholesale and what it would cost retail? i think that makes a difference in this bizzare argument we're having because that represents the actual inconvenience cost added on by the apple replacement policy.
That is a resonable price for the battery. Try buying an OEM replacement battery for a current model cell phone. They are well over 100.00. I believe Apple is just covering the cost of the battery plus shipping and handling etc.
They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone.
Uh . . . I guess you don't have access to the internet, newspapers or television then, 'cause I was looking at it in full detail for months up until the launch. It was posted on the Keynote in January, it was posted on Apple's site and it was posted um . . . ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE! My god, you couldn't go out the door without seeing something about the iPhone. USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times AND Apple all had specific information about the iPhone, including the fact that the battery was not accessible and would need to be replaced by an Apple service rep.
You could have looked at photos of it from all angles on Apple's web site for months! Just because you didn't have it in your hands before buying it doesn't mean the information wasn't there. All you had to do was look.
Ignorance is NOT an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
"Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
As a designer I take offense to such a stupid and ignorant comment. Just because that comment reflects YOUR opinion, doesn't make it a fact. If you had actually taken the time to do some research on this matter (as opposed to shouting out baseless rhetoric) you would have learned that there was much more to this then just something for "design's sake."
One of the reason's for the enclosed battery area is for making the iPhone less suseptible to dirt and grit that could get into the phone. As a former owner of several cell phones, I can attest to this fact (I even had one of my phones break down because of dirt and grime entering into the battery compartment). Another reason is less breakage. Any product designer can tell you that the less removable or hinged parts a device has, the less likely it is to break down or get damaged.
And finally, one of the best reasons is the environment. Think about how many cell phones are out there. Now think about how many rechargeable batteries these things use. Now think about how many of these batteries end up in landfills when users are done with them. By having something "designed" to make it more sustainable to the environment is something I think we all can live with. Screws or no screws.
I believe Apple was permitting a 14 day return policy for iPhone purchases for anyone unsatisfied with their new gadget. So, those who were shocked by the battery replacement issue could have simply returned it. I don't understand how anyone has been harmed by Apple's actions or policy.
Where is the legal precedent? Where is it written down that all cell phones have to have replaceable batteries? Some cell makers do a replaceable battery because they are using inferior batteries and using them for cheap. Just because theirs are replaceable, doesn't make all Cell Phone batteries replaceable by law.
And have people become too afraid to ask questions? Do 5 minutes of research, it is in the FAQ for crying out loud. It's called Google people! Type in "iPhone battery", and the first 5 links in Google it tells you that it isn't a replaceable battery. Go to an Apple Store and there are at least 12 demo models out there for the customer to play with, it is pretty obvious the battery is not replaceable. Caveat Emptor people! It is not like Apple hides that from you. Do a little research before complaining that you paid $XXX.XX. Are these the people that buy shoes and don't try them on first? Are these the people that complain that their DVD player won't play laserdiscs and the salesman didn't tell them? There is a website and magazine out there called "Consumer Reports" Who is stopping you from doing any research. The sales associates are going to assume you did a little research before investing $600 in a cell phone.
Why I would love it = Because I am tired of hearing about an endless amount of lawsuits representing people who refuse to exhibit any amount of common sense (which by the way is one of the reasons you'll find a disclaimer on a deodorant stick that says: "For external use only"). I am sick of people who's only reaction to something they claim to not have known is: SUE!
================
What's wrong with me = You're assuming something's wrong with me...
================
Maybe because you don't live here and you don't have to ultimately pay for all this non-sense, you don't care... but here, there are people who care about what their tax dollars are partially being wasted on.
"can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?"
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
In that case, the 'loss of phone' argument is essentially irrelevant.
If people are going to make their cell their only phone (i.e. landline free), then they need to step up to the responsibility of that choice. That means exactly what everyone in the digital age knows. You always need a backup.
In this case, its incumbent upon anyone with only a cell to have a cheapo backup phone. But I've never seen that mentioned in any context.
can anyone tell us what the battery in the iphone would cost wholesale and what it would cost retail? i think that makes a difference in this bizzare argument we're having because that represents the actual inconvenience cost added on by the apple replacement policy.
i have no idea how much the batteries cost wholesale, but mobile phone replacement batteries range from as low as $16.80 for the samsung d347/d407 to $84.99 for the nokia e62, and also the same for the hp6510/6515 mobile phones at the attwireless.com accessories section. these are retail prices.
for the later, it requires apple to do the battery replacement. so, if the iphone eventually needs a new battery, the owner will be out of an iphone for three business days (or less because my experience with apple's support turn-around time has been very quick - one to two business days). however, the SIM chip is suppose to work on a non-iphone, albeit without the iphone features. with this in mind, the mobile service subscriber will not necessarily be out of a phone to maintain contact during the three-business-day or less turn-around period.
i've had a few mobile phones by motorola and nokia over the period of 15 years, and none of their batteries had to be replace. so regardless of which mobile phone brand, it's very unlike that the battery will need replacement within a year of frequent usage.
i seriously doubt that this suit has any weight against apple and att regarding the iphone advertisements and the battery's longevity. the plaintiff will have to prove that both companies intentionally committed fraud. also, the plaintiff will have to prove that the iphone battery's longevity is much shorter than apple's test results. the plaintiff has not done any tests to demonstrate that the battery will cease to function soon before apple's claim.
In that case, the 'loss of phone' argument is essentially irrelevant.
If people are going to make their cell their only phone (i.e. landline free), then they need to step up to the responsibility of that choice. That means exactly what everyone in the digital age knows. You always need a backup.
In this case, its incumbent upon anyone with only a cell to have a cheapo backup phone. But I've never seen that mentioned in any context.
Learning opportunity.
Actually, any North American unlocked GSM phone will work and you can buy them for little or nothing... It doesn't have to be an A T&T GSM phone.
"can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?"
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
This is why I've told anyone moving to AT&T to get an iPhone to first signup and get one of their free phones. Then once you know that AT&T will cover the areas you travel through and your happy with the service then and only then: 1) Move your number and 2) buy your iPhone.
Now you have a backup phone incase you have to send your iPhone in for service. Oh yes, BUY APPLE CARE!
Why I would love it = Because I am tired of hearing about an endless amount of lawsuits representing people who refuse to exhibit any amount of common sense (which by the way is one of the reasons you'll find a disclaimer on a deodorant stick that says: "For external use only"). I am sick of people who's only reaction to something they claim to not have known is: SUE!
================
What's wrong with me = You're assuming something's wrong with me...
================
Maybe because you don't live here and you don't have to ultimately pay for all this non-sense, you don't care... but here, there are people who care about what their tax dollars are partially being wasted on.
Oh, thanks for clearing that up!
Now that we're on the same page...
Why don't you do the killing? You'd love it, and according to you. there's nothing wrong with it. Why involve an angry mob?
Is it because you're a chicken-shit internet tough-guy who likes to make knee-jerk comments on subjects he knows little about?
Is it because you're a chicken-shit internet tough-guy who likes to make knee-jerk comments on subjects he knows little about?
Your attempt at a provocative comment like "chicken-shit internet tough-guy" sounds funny when you're all the way in London.... a little hypocritical aren't we?
And, I don't believe I commented on anything that I know little about? It helps sometimes when you make a broad sweeping statement like that to back it up.
Anyhow, take a deep breath, don't get your knickers in a bunch. The angry mob isn't real.
You've been buying Apple products for 10 years and feel deceived by their design? Go build a PC then. Apple can make it's products how ever they feel. You are not required to buy any Apple products and i suggest that it may be in your best interest to not by anything that has an all-in-one design... something Apple has been doing since the 1970s.
Yes you Idiot, Do you not realise howv this works??? The word is split into two seperate groups..
Apple Haters - They buy Mircrosoft products and therefore are not allowed to make any comments about Apple because they are just dumb fecks with no brains and no taste.
Apple Lovers - They buy lots of Apple Products and never ever have a bad word to say about Apple, in fact if anyone has anything bad to say about Apple then they must therefore be Apple haters. If you critise any Apple product you will be told that Steve Jobs is god and you are a moron for even daring to suggest he is not.
You cannot be both dude, there is no inbetween, come on wake up.
Apple informed the buyer prior to sale that the battery did not have a user-replaceable compartment. The box says that it may need to be replaced by Apple.
If you are buying an iPhone, you know that the battery could possibly not have the same life after 300-400 cycles.
There is no case. End of story.
There really shouldn't be anymore to add to this story.
If you do have something else to say, you may want to think it over because at this point, Apple has done nothing wrong and this filing will go nowhere.
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.
Your post is ridiculous. Applecare is less than 100 dollars and will cover more than 1 year's worth of battery replacement. This guy obviously does not understand what the actual life of the battery is, or just simply refuses to acknowledge it.
Matthew Yohe, Is there a website or something i can go to that will allow me to donate to your cause? I am a huge believer in helping the mentally ill when i can. I think it is very brave of you to keep such a stiff upper lip and make such strong positive comments on this forum, i mean no-one here would blame you for just giving up and staying silent, not a person in your condition anyway. Keep the faith dude!
Comments
So please. Stop suing Apple over nothing so they can get back to working on Leopard -_-
can anyone tell us what the battery in the iphone would cost wholesale and what it would cost retail? i think that makes a difference in this bizzare argument we're having because that represents the actual inconvenience cost added on by the apple replacement policy.
That is a resonable price for the battery. Try buying an OEM replacement battery for a current model cell phone. They are well over 100.00. I believe Apple is just covering the cost of the battery plus shipping and handling etc.
I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.
Who's "they"?
Why would you love it?
What's wrong with you?
P.S. I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.
You're not really clear on the concept of analogies, are you?
They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone.
Uh . . . I guess you don't have access to the internet, newspapers or television then, 'cause I was looking at it in full detail for months up until the launch. It was posted on the Keynote in January, it was posted on Apple's site and it was posted um . . . ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE! My god, you couldn't go out the door without seeing something about the iPhone. USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times AND Apple all had specific information about the iPhone, including the fact that the battery was not accessible and would need to be replaced by an Apple service rep.
You could have looked at photos of it from all angles on Apple's web site for months! Just because you didn't have it in your hands before buying it doesn't mean the information wasn't there. All you had to do was look.
Ignorance is NOT an excuse.
"Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
As a designer I take offense to such a stupid and ignorant comment. Just because that comment reflects YOUR opinion, doesn't make it a fact. If you had actually taken the time to do some research on this matter (as opposed to shouting out baseless rhetoric) you would have learned that there was much more to this then just something for "design's sake."
One of the reason's for the enclosed battery area is for making the iPhone less suseptible to dirt and grit that could get into the phone. As a former owner of several cell phones, I can attest to this fact (I even had one of my phones break down because of dirt and grime entering into the battery compartment). Another reason is less breakage. Any product designer can tell you that the less removable or hinged parts a device has, the less likely it is to break down or get damaged.
And finally, one of the best reasons is the environment. Think about how many cell phones are out there. Now think about how many rechargeable batteries these things use. Now think about how many of these batteries end up in landfills when users are done with them. By having something "designed" to make it more sustainable to the environment is something I think we all can live with. Screws or no screws.
This suit's going nowhere.
And have people become too afraid to ask questions? Do 5 minutes of research, it is in the FAQ for crying out loud. It's called Google people! Type in "iPhone battery", and the first 5 links in Google it tells you that it isn't a replaceable battery. Go to an Apple Store and there are at least 12 demo models out there for the customer to play with, it is pretty obvious the battery is not replaceable. Caveat Emptor people! It is not like Apple hides that from you. Do a little research before complaining that you paid $XXX.XX. Are these the people that buy shoes and don't try them on first? Are these the people that complain that their DVD player won't play laserdiscs and the salesman didn't tell them? There is a website and magazine out there called "Consumer Reports" Who is stopping you from doing any research. The sales associates are going to assume you did a little research before investing $600 in a cell phone.
Who's "they"?
Why would you love it?
What's wrong with you?
Okay, I'll write a little slower for you:
================
They = an angry mob.
================
Why I would love it = Because I am tired of hearing about an endless amount of lawsuits representing people who refuse to exhibit any amount of common sense (which by the way is one of the reasons you'll find a disclaimer on a deodorant stick that says: "For external use only"). I am sick of people who's only reaction to something they claim to not have known is: SUE!
================
What's wrong with me = You're assuming something's wrong with me...
================
Maybe because you don't live here and you don't have to ultimately pay for all this non-sense, you don't care... but here, there are people who care about what their tax dollars are partially being wasted on.
If Apple takes the iPhone for 3 days to replace the battery, can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?
Just curious.
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
"can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?"
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
In that case, the 'loss of phone' argument is essentially irrelevant.
If people are going to make their cell their only phone (i.e. landline free), then they need to step up to the responsibility of that choice. That means exactly what everyone in the digital age knows. You always need a backup.
In this case, its incumbent upon anyone with only a cell to have a cheapo backup phone. But I've never seen that mentioned in any context.
Learning opportunity.
can anyone tell us what the battery in the iphone would cost wholesale and what it would cost retail? i think that makes a difference in this bizzare argument we're having because that represents the actual inconvenience cost added on by the apple replacement policy.
i have no idea how much the batteries cost wholesale, but mobile phone replacement batteries range from as low as $16.80 for the samsung d347/d407 to $84.99 for the nokia e62, and also the same for the hp6510/6515 mobile phones at the attwireless.com accessories section. these are retail prices.
apple's replacement battery is $79, plus $6.95 shipping. which brings the total cost to $85.95 (http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/service/battery/).
for the later, it requires apple to do the battery replacement. so, if the iphone eventually needs a new battery, the owner will be out of an iphone for three business days (or less because my experience with apple's support turn-around time has been very quick - one to two business days). however, the SIM chip is suppose to work on a non-iphone, albeit without the iphone features. with this in mind, the mobile service subscriber will not necessarily be out of a phone to maintain contact during the three-business-day or less turn-around period.
i've had a few mobile phones by motorola and nokia over the period of 15 years, and none of their batteries had to be replace. so regardless of which mobile phone brand, it's very unlike that the battery will need replacement within a year of frequent usage.
i seriously doubt that this suit has any weight against apple and att regarding the iphone advertisements and the battery's longevity. the plaintiff will have to prove that both companies intentionally committed fraud. also, the plaintiff will have to prove that the iphone battery's longevity is much shorter than apple's test results. the plaintiff has not done any tests to demonstrate that the battery will cease to function soon before apple's claim.
(http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html, http://www.apple.com/batteries/ << regarding these links, correct me if i'm wrong, i doubt any other company has been this informative about their batteries.)
In that case, the 'loss of phone' argument is essentially irrelevant.
If people are going to make their cell their only phone (i.e. landline free), then they need to step up to the responsibility of that choice. That means exactly what everyone in the digital age knows. You always need a backup.
In this case, its incumbent upon anyone with only a cell to have a cheapo backup phone. But I've never seen that mentioned in any context.
Learning opportunity.
Actually, any North American unlocked GSM phone will work and you can buy them for little or nothing... It doesn't have to be an A T&T GSM phone.
"can I swap the SIM card into a freebie, crapo phone while I wait?"
Yes, if it's an AT&T phone.
This is why I've told anyone moving to AT&T to get an iPhone to first signup and get one of their free phones. Then once you know that AT&T will cover the areas you travel through and your happy with the service then and only then: 1) Move your number and 2) buy your iPhone.
Now you have a backup phone incase you have to send your iPhone in for service. Oh yes, BUY APPLE CARE!
Okay, I'll write a little slower for you:
================
They = an angry mob.
================
Why I would love it = Because I am tired of hearing about an endless amount of lawsuits representing people who refuse to exhibit any amount of common sense (which by the way is one of the reasons you'll find a disclaimer on a deodorant stick that says: "For external use only"). I am sick of people who's only reaction to something they claim to not have known is: SUE!
================
What's wrong with me = You're assuming something's wrong with me...
================
Maybe because you don't live here and you don't have to ultimately pay for all this non-sense, you don't care... but here, there are people who care about what their tax dollars are partially being wasted on.
Oh, thanks for clearing that up!
Now that we're on the same page...
Why don't you do the killing? You'd love it, and according to you. there's nothing wrong with it. Why involve an angry mob?
Is it because you're a chicken-shit internet tough-guy who likes to make knee-jerk comments on subjects he knows little about?
Is it because you're a chicken-shit internet tough-guy who likes to make knee-jerk comments on subjects he knows little about?
Your attempt at a provocative comment like "chicken-shit internet tough-guy" sounds funny when you're all the way in London.... a little hypocritical aren't we?
And, I don't believe I commented on anything that I know little about? It helps sometimes when you make a broad sweeping statement like that to back it up.
Anyhow, take a deep breath, don't get your knickers in a bunch. The angry mob isn't real.
You've been buying Apple products for 10 years and feel deceived by their design? Go build a PC then. Apple can make it's products how ever they feel. You are not required to buy any Apple products and i suggest that it may be in your best interest to not by anything that has an all-in-one design... something Apple has been doing since the 1970s.
Yes you Idiot, Do you not realise howv this works??? The word is split into two seperate groups..
Apple Haters - They buy Mircrosoft products and therefore are not allowed to make any comments about Apple because they are just dumb fecks with no brains and no taste.
Apple Lovers - They buy lots of Apple Products and never ever have a bad word to say about Apple, in fact if anyone has anything bad to say about Apple then they must therefore be Apple haters. If you critise any Apple product you will be told that Steve Jobs is god and you are a moron for even daring to suggest he is not.
You cannot be both dude, there is no inbetween, come on wake up.
If you are buying an iPhone, you know that the battery could possibly not have the same life after 300-400 cycles.
There is no case. End of story.
There really shouldn't be anymore to add to this story.
If you do have something else to say, you may want to think it over because at this point, Apple has done nothing wrong and this filing will go nowhere.
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.
Your post is ridiculous. Applecare is less than 100 dollars and will cover more than 1 year's worth of battery replacement. This guy obviously does not understand what the actual life of the battery is, or just simply refuses to acknowledge it.