Apple accused of stalling iPod battery fire investigation
Following up on numerous reports of iPod batteries catching fire, a Seattle reporter says that Apple actively prevented her and others from learning the true scope of the safety hazard.
KIRO 7's Amy Clancy claims that her seven-month search for data was repeatedly frustrated as Apple asked for Consumer Product Safety Commission reports to be exempted from the Freedom of Information Act, hiding them from public view.
The investigation began in November after one iPod shuffle owner was burned when the battery ignited during a run, burning her where the iPod was clipped on. The victim, Jamie Balderas, at the time said she had contact Apple and provided photos as evidence but was purportedly dismissed by an AppleCare agent as encountering an "isolated incident" and that access to proof of previous incidents wasn't an option. The mother of a child given a mild burn also says Apple phone representatives didn't appear responsive to the problem.
Clancy searched on her own but submitted the FIA request after discovering the already widespread reports of iPod battery fires, which among other responses had prompted a Japanese government investigation.
When she finally received the requested information, however, she was surprised at just how long Apple and the CPSC had been aware of problems: fires had been reported as long ago as 2005 and have been noted periodically ever since. The 800-page report had even already pinpointed the lithium-ion battery packs as the likely causes because of their occasional tendency to overheat, but despite the evidence, hadn't led to a mandatory recall. Commission officials had determined that the the scarcity of incidents -- just a handful compared to the 175 million iPods sold at the time -- had made the risk of any injury, let alone any serious injuries, "very low." It also believed that newer batteries weren't shown vulnerable to the same sort of overheating.
The iPod maker for its part has partly responded to such issues in the past, but not comprehensively. Although it began a voluntary replacement program last year for owners of first-generation iPod nanos, some of whose batteries were known to be defective, it hasn't given recourse to owners of other iPod models affected by the problem, whether Balderas or a Cincinnati woman who just in March sued Apple for negligence in the wake of a second-generation iPod touch fire exhibiting similar symptoms.
Apple hasn't responded to the reporter's assertions.
KIRO 7's Amy Clancy claims that her seven-month search for data was repeatedly frustrated as Apple asked for Consumer Product Safety Commission reports to be exempted from the Freedom of Information Act, hiding them from public view.
The investigation began in November after one iPod shuffle owner was burned when the battery ignited during a run, burning her where the iPod was clipped on. The victim, Jamie Balderas, at the time said she had contact Apple and provided photos as evidence but was purportedly dismissed by an AppleCare agent as encountering an "isolated incident" and that access to proof of previous incidents wasn't an option. The mother of a child given a mild burn also says Apple phone representatives didn't appear responsive to the problem.
Clancy searched on her own but submitted the FIA request after discovering the already widespread reports of iPod battery fires, which among other responses had prompted a Japanese government investigation.
When she finally received the requested information, however, she was surprised at just how long Apple and the CPSC had been aware of problems: fires had been reported as long ago as 2005 and have been noted periodically ever since. The 800-page report had even already pinpointed the lithium-ion battery packs as the likely causes because of their occasional tendency to overheat, but despite the evidence, hadn't led to a mandatory recall. Commission officials had determined that the the scarcity of incidents -- just a handful compared to the 175 million iPods sold at the time -- had made the risk of any injury, let alone any serious injuries, "very low." It also believed that newer batteries weren't shown vulnerable to the same sort of overheating.
The iPod maker for its part has partly responded to such issues in the past, but not comprehensively. Although it began a voluntary replacement program last year for owners of first-generation iPod nanos, some of whose batteries were known to be defective, it hasn't given recourse to owners of other iPod models affected by the problem, whether Balderas or a Cincinnati woman who just in March sued Apple for negligence in the wake of a second-generation iPod touch fire exhibiting similar symptoms.
Apple hasn't responded to the reporter's assertions.
Comments
Pure FUD.
I know you're playing your part as the forum contrarian, but as far as I've heard, it really is FUD. It works out to something like one in 11 million iPods might catch fire or hurt someone.
I know you're playing your part as the forum contrarian, but.....
wilco a contrarian? You mean he never agrees with the topic/comment about which he is posting!?
Who would have thunk......
I know you're playing your part as the forum contrarian, but as far as I've heard, it really is FUD. It works out to something like one in 11 million iPods might catch fire or hurt someone.
The issue of whether or not Apple hampered the investigation is FUD?
Summary: 15 incidents reported out of 175 million iPods sold.
I'll take those odds.
- Jasen.
wilco a contrarian? You mean he never agrees with the topic/comment about which he is posting!?
Who would have thunk......
anantkswhatever with his nose up Apple's a--? Who would have...
anantkswhatever with his nose up Apple's a--? Who would have...
Well, I think we've seen enough of your antics. Thanks for trying.
The issue of whether or not Apple hampered the investigation is FUD?
the reporter makes a lot of claims, but shows no proof that Apple did anything to stop the release of information.
so yeah.
Well, I think we've seen enough of your antics. Thanks for trying.
Gee - first time I've been around when someone got the death sentence.
Wow, "800 pages". Not "only 15 occurrences in 4 years", but "800 pages". Sounds more menacing, doesn't it?
What depths will wanna-be journalists sink to in order to meet their deadline? Oh, wait, I think this shows it...
Not just 15 out of 175 million, but over a 4 year period. That's the equivalent of winning the Florida lottery twice in a year!
Wow, "800 pages". Not "only 15 occurrences in 4 years", but "800 pages". Sounds more menacing, doesn't it?
What depths will wanna-be journalists sink to in order to meet their deadline? Oh, wait, I think this shows it...
That's the problem, any "proper" investigation is going to have some documentation. Make a big deal about the amount of paperwork and put in some innuendo that some sinister force is trying to obstruct the investigation. I would expect that any digging that turns up dry holes wouldn't be automatically released, otherwise you'll get something that looks like hit-and-run fear mongering like this.
Far too often the press feeds these types of over-hyped cases. They take a handful of cases and boldly proclaim that we're all gonna die!!!!!! They get ratings, lawyers get rich and we get 10 pages of disclaimers about not using hair dryers while sleeping.
Not only do ipods explode and catch fire.... But they quit working after a couple of months!
Ooh, lies and FUD. Get a sense of perspective here. Less then two dozen burn out if 175 million. It's like you're viewing the world through a fisheye lens or you're the PR rep for a politician or the competition.
If on the off chance it quits working within the warranty, you can turn it in and get a new one. I have a five year old hard drive based iPod that still works, that's just the oldest, never had one die on me yet.