The article says that this person spoke to an Apple executive. I can see this happening if it was Apple legal, they have a history of not considering PR, but an executive should have known better. Plus, this person was passed on to the executive, which in it of itself may suggest an internal protocol to deal with a know, albeit limited, issue. I'm sure there are several circumstances the general public are unaware of.
Apple should have provided a refund and an apology. I agree with other comments here and in other forums; Apple has been behaving a little strange lately.
A couple of things in Apple's favor: They did not offer the person 'hush' money, as in something well beyond a refund. Apple has sold millions of iPod, and, while disturbing nonetheless, when considering all the iPods that have ever caught on fire, to include some probably not reported, this sort of thing happening is almost zero. And, we don't really know what happened prior to the Touch exploding - we only have the person word. He does indicate that he dropped the device.
And honestly, I would be hesitant about signing a legally binding contract such as this with a large company. Better I'm out a couple of bucks than find myself of victim of events outside of my control.
Such a melodrama, over nothing. Apple's handling of this situation is completely industry standard, and as the AI article correctly points out (and the Time article did not), Apple cannot issue a "gag order." Only a court can do that. The rhetoric is more overheated than the iPod in question.
Good observation. The article didn't say they did.
I can understand their concern: What if I took the money, but mentioned it at a dinner party with friends or family - or my kids did so, say at school? Would I not be violating the terms of the agreement and be liable?
Some of these corporate legal boilerplates are so stupid, sometimes. As someone else said, Apple should have sent a check with some flowers and moved on.
Note that here in the UK Apple's one-year warranty in not worth the paper it is written on. Thanks to European Union legislation good have up to six years warranty.
Therefore the family in question were quite within their rights to ask for a refund without conditions as Apple have tried to impose.
Note that here in the UK Apple's one-year warranty in not worth the paper it is written on. Thanks to European Union legislation good have up to six years warranty.
Therefore the family in question were quite within their rights to ask for a refund without conditions as Apple have tried to impose.
Wrong on several counts. It isn't European Union legislation, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which is UK legislation. You're probably confused by the fact that recent EU legislation has laid down that if a product fails within 6 months of purchase, there is no onus on the user to prove that device failure was due to a design or manufacturing flaw. I haven't read the legislation, but presumably there is some protection for retailers from consumers trying to get refunds for products that they've abused.
Anyway, the 1979 Act gives consumers the right to demand a refund, repair or replacement (whichever is most "reasonable") for defective products, up to six years from the original purchase date. The Act makes frequent reference to reasonableness. Depending upon the circumstances under which a product is dropped, it may not be reasonable to expect that product to still work, and you'd have a hell of a time proving that the product had failed due to a design or manufacturing fault rather than because you had dropped it.
I can understand their concern: What if I took the money, but mentioned it at a dinner party with friends or family - or my kids did so, say at school? Would I not be violating the terms of the agreement and be liable?
Yes, because as we know, Apple has spies everywhere.
I wonder how many morons are reading this thinking "WELL THAT DOES IT! I'M NEVER BUYING AN IPOD!"
Out of 175 million only a handful have had issues like this. I think it's safe to buy one.
On one hand I think Apple shouldn't have tried to sweep this under the rug, but on the other hand, who can blame them? Should they warn of a possible explosion with every sale? That doesn't seem wise.
Apple probably should have issued the refund, and if he discussed it with the news or something, they should acknowledge that yes, it did happen, but then assure people the odds of it happening to their ipod are the same as winning the lottery or something. That would have made more sense. The "gagging order" makes it look like they've got something BIGGER to hide.
I call bullshit. The Times seems to me to be similar to The Enquirer, with fewer stories about Aliens meeting with the President and Elvis on Air Force 1...
Pics of the iPod? pics of the alleged "gagging order"? Any actual proof?
This department is the Apple Executive Relations. They use such tactics to shut you up. Any refund or so called goodwill gesture is accompanied with a legal agreement that you don't discuss the matter with anyone, or else. Their lawyers even use bogus legal info to fan you off. Yes, it's has been happening since 2005. They never admit they are wrong or there's problem with their products, EVER!
To be fair, most American companies do practice this tactic to some extend. But Apple is the worst of the lot.
I had to sign one of these exact agreements over 9 years ago. I believe I still have the papers filed away somewhere. Apple has been doing this for years. I was just glad to get a full refund, even though it required weeks of haggling with Apple. What finally worked was when I faxed Apple the letters I got back from the FTC Consumer Protection board (or whatever it was called), who took an interest in the problem.
Anything with a battery have the potential of catching fire and exploding. Laptops, cellphones, and other electronics could catch fire if the chemicals in the battery are leaked, which can be a result of a drop or a faulty battery.
Note that here in the UK Apple's one-year warranty in not worth the paper it is written on. Thanks to European Union legislation good have up to six years warranty.
Therefore the family in question were quite within their rights to ask for a refund without conditions as Apple have tried to impose.
So you are saying that if I bought setting of China and dropped it 5 years later, that I was entitled to a refund without conditions.
Hell, I would take that offer with conditions any time.
Wrong on several counts. It isn't European Union legislation, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which is UK legislation. You're probably confused by the fact that recent EU legislation has laid down that if a product fails within 6 months of purchase, there is no onus on the user to prove that device failure was due to a design or manufacturing flaw. I haven't read the legislation, but presumably there is some protection for retailers from consumers trying to get refunds for products that they've abused.
Anyway, the 1979 Act gives consumers the right to demand a refund, repair or replacement (whichever is most "reasonable") for defective products, up to six years from the original purchase date. The Act makes frequent reference to reasonableness. Depending upon the circumstances under which a product is dropped, it may not be reasonable to expect that product to still work, and you'd have a hell of a time proving that the product had failed due to a design or manufacturing fault rather than because you had dropped it.
This is probably why products cost so much more in England and the continent than they do here.
Nothing is for free. Somehow, that, what amounts to an extended warrantee, has to be paid for by the consumer.
So everyone is paying more for their product so that a few will get it fixed or replaced for free years later.
So his kid drops the iPod down the stairs (how many steps down?). It starts to 'hiss' so the father picks it up and throws it out the back door.
How far did he throw it?
What did it land on? Grass? Is there grass in the UK? The driveway? Cement?
And 30 seconds later it explodes and goes another 10 feet in the air.
So we are told that the iPod was out of warranty. But he claims for a refund, asked to sign an NDA but refuses and won't let anybody examine the weapon of mass destruction (note that he wasn't out to cause trouble, "We just don't want this happening to anyone else."
Such a melodrama, over nothing. Apple's handling of this situation is completely industry standard, and as the AI article correctly points out (and the Time article did not), Apple cannot issue a "gag order." Only a court can do that. The rhetoric is more overheated than the iPod in question.
I'm glad a few people have kept their heads over this story. I've seen it reported on three sites over the last couple of days and very few people even in the comments have got it right.
The fact that these incidents are so rare proves that the iPod is actually very well put together and safer than almost any consumer product out there. There are thousands of everyday products with failure rates orders of magnitude greater that even kill people from time to time but no one ever complains about that.
Also, as you say, the "gag order" is an industry standard and something the authors of the original article had to know. That means that the only reason the story has even spread is the deliberately slanted view they put on the story, presumably to sell papers (or views), and everyone who thinks worse of Apple after reading this tripe is just a fool.
I wonder how many morons are reading this thinking "WELL THAT DOES IT! I'M NEVER BUYING AN IPOD!"
Out of 175 million only a handful have had issues like this. I think it's safe to buy one.
On one hand I think Apple shouldn't have tried to sweep this under the rug, but on the other hand, who can blame them? Should they warn of a possible explosion with every sale? That doesn't seem wise.
Apple probably should have issued the refund, and if he discussed it with the news or something, they should acknowledge that yes, it did happen, but then assure people the odds of it happening to their ipod are the same as winning the lottery or something. That would have made more sense. The "gagging order" makes it look like they've got something BIGGER to hide.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with the design or manufacturing of the iPod, but there is something wrong with how Apple handled this. They should have considered the PR repercussions of this.
Comments
Apple should have provided a refund and an apology. I agree with other comments here and in other forums; Apple has been behaving a little strange lately.
A couple of things in Apple's favor: They did not offer the person 'hush' money, as in something well beyond a refund. Apple has sold millions of iPod, and, while disturbing nonetheless, when considering all the iPods that have ever caught on fire, to include some probably not reported, this sort of thing happening is almost zero. And, we don't really know what happened prior to the Touch exploding - we only have the person word. He does indicate that he dropped the device.
And honestly, I would be hesitant about signing a legally binding contract such as this with a large company. Better I'm out a couple of bucks than find myself of victim of events outside of my control.
I don't think they took the money.
Good observation. The article didn't say they did.
I can understand their concern: What if I took the money, but mentioned it at a dinner party with friends or family - or my kids did so, say at school? Would I not be violating the terms of the agreement and be liable?
Some of these corporate legal boilerplates are so stupid, sometimes. As someone else said, Apple should have sent a check with some flowers and moved on.
Therefore the family in question were quite within their rights to ask for a refund without conditions as Apple have tried to impose.
Note that here in the UK Apple's one-year warranty in not worth the paper it is written on. Thanks to European Union legislation good have up to six years warranty.
Therefore the family in question were quite within their rights to ask for a refund without conditions as Apple have tried to impose.
Wrong on several counts. It isn't European Union legislation, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which is UK legislation. You're probably confused by the fact that recent EU legislation has laid down that if a product fails within 6 months of purchase, there is no onus on the user to prove that device failure was due to a design or manufacturing flaw. I haven't read the legislation, but presumably there is some protection for retailers from consumers trying to get refunds for products that they've abused.
Anyway, the 1979 Act gives consumers the right to demand a refund, repair or replacement (whichever is most "reasonable") for defective products, up to six years from the original purchase date. The Act makes frequent reference to reasonableness. Depending upon the circumstances under which a product is dropped, it may not be reasonable to expect that product to still work, and you'd have a hell of a time proving that the product had failed due to a design or manufacturing fault rather than because you had dropped it.
Apple comes under fire over "exploding" iPod response
Pun-tastic!
I can understand their concern: What if I took the money, but mentioned it at a dinner party with friends or family - or my kids did so, say at school? Would I not be violating the terms of the agreement and be liable?
Yes, because as we know, Apple has spies everywhere.
I could tell you more, but I'd have to shoot you.
Out of 175 million only a handful have had issues like this. I think it's safe to buy one.
On one hand I think Apple shouldn't have tried to sweep this under the rug, but on the other hand, who can blame them? Should they warn of a possible explosion with every sale? That doesn't seem wise.
Apple probably should have issued the refund, and if he discussed it with the news or something, they should acknowledge that yes, it did happen, but then assure people the odds of it happening to their ipod are the same as winning the lottery or something. That would have made more sense. The "gagging order" makes it look like they've got something BIGGER to hide.
http://www.ananova.com/business/stor...196.html?menu=
Thanks for the link.
When I first read about this, I thought the article said that the KID was blown 10 feet into the air!
Pics of the iPod? pics of the alleged "gagging order"? Any actual proof?
To be fair, most American companies do practice this tactic to some extend. But Apple is the worst of the lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWq6rWzChw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlZggVrF9VI
Note that here in the UK Apple's one-year warranty in not worth the paper it is written on. Thanks to European Union legislation good have up to six years warranty.
Therefore the family in question were quite within their rights to ask for a refund without conditions as Apple have tried to impose.
So you are saying that if I bought setting of China and dropped it 5 years later, that I was entitled to a refund without conditions.
Hell, I would take that offer with conditions any time.
Apple's bahviour has been a little strange recently.
So is this spelling.
Wrong on several counts. It isn't European Union legislation, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which is UK legislation. You're probably confused by the fact that recent EU legislation has laid down that if a product fails within 6 months of purchase, there is no onus on the user to prove that device failure was due to a design or manufacturing flaw. I haven't read the legislation, but presumably there is some protection for retailers from consumers trying to get refunds for products that they've abused.
Anyway, the 1979 Act gives consumers the right to demand a refund, repair or replacement (whichever is most "reasonable") for defective products, up to six years from the original purchase date. The Act makes frequent reference to reasonableness. Depending upon the circumstances under which a product is dropped, it may not be reasonable to expect that product to still work, and you'd have a hell of a time proving that the product had failed due to a design or manufacturing fault rather than because you had dropped it.
This is probably why products cost so much more in England and the continent than they do here.
Nothing is for free. Somehow, that, what amounts to an extended warrantee, has to be paid for by the consumer.
So everyone is paying more for their product so that a few will get it fixed or replaced for free years later.
That's another hidden tax you have to pay.
http://www.ananova.com/business/stor...196.html?menu=
So his kid drops the iPod down the stairs (how many steps down?). It starts to 'hiss' so the father picks it up and throws it out the back door.
How far did he throw it?
What did it land on? Grass? Is there grass in the UK? The driveway? Cement?
And 30 seconds later it explodes and goes another 10 feet in the air.
So we are told that the iPod was out of warranty. But he claims for a refund, asked to sign an NDA but refuses and won't let anybody examine the weapon of mass destruction (note that he wasn't out to cause trouble, "We just don't want this happening to anyone else."
I wonder if his kid was listening to titit by HISS (http://www.myspace.com/djhiss) when she dropped it.
Or maybe she had a hissy-fit when she dropped her iPod
Or maybe the father just has a short fuse and got ballistic because it took too long to explode.
So is this spelling.
What spelling? "Behaviour"? It's British. Us Americans are the strange ones...
Such a melodrama, over nothing. Apple's handling of this situation is completely industry standard, and as the AI article correctly points out (and the Time article did not), Apple cannot issue a "gag order." Only a court can do that. The rhetoric is more overheated than the iPod in question.
I'm glad a few people have kept their heads over this story. I've seen it reported on three sites over the last couple of days and very few people even in the comments have got it right.
The fact that these incidents are so rare proves that the iPod is actually very well put together and safer than almost any consumer product out there. There are thousands of everyday products with failure rates orders of magnitude greater that even kill people from time to time but no one ever complains about that.
Also, as you say, the "gag order" is an industry standard and something the authors of the original article had to know. That means that the only reason the story has even spread is the deliberately slanted view they put on the story, presumably to sell papers (or views), and everyone who thinks worse of Apple after reading this tripe is just a fool.
I wonder how many morons are reading this thinking "WELL THAT DOES IT! I'M NEVER BUYING AN IPOD!"
Out of 175 million only a handful have had issues like this. I think it's safe to buy one.
On one hand I think Apple shouldn't have tried to sweep this under the rug, but on the other hand, who can blame them? Should they warn of a possible explosion with every sale? That doesn't seem wise.
Apple probably should have issued the refund, and if he discussed it with the news or something, they should acknowledge that yes, it did happen, but then assure people the odds of it happening to their ipod are the same as winning the lottery or something. That would have made more sense. The "gagging order" makes it look like they've got something BIGGER to hide.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with the design or manufacturing of the iPod, but there is something wrong with how Apple handled this. They should have considered the PR repercussions of this.