It seems reasonable to me that users will drop their smartphones, but it also seems reasonable that damage as a result this misuse of the product should be the user's responsibility - unless said product is marketed as or guaranteed to be "shockproof". In my experience with shockproof/waterproof digital still cameras from Panasonic, Pentax and Olympus, the camera is warrantied against damage during normal use. If you drop it from ten feet, it gets obliterated and it was only rated for five feet then that's your problem. It seems to me if a product doesn't have such a shockproof rating, the owner should assume that they're damn lucky if it doesn't break, and if it does they shouldn't fly into a litigious rage at the manufacturer. Maybe that's just because I'm Canadian?
I'll vouch for the Roots Tuff Skin. I bought my 3G on launch day and it had a few mishaps that resulted in a couple cracks by the lock/headphone jack so I bought the Roots case and it's been through hell without another mark. I had the phone on my lap one day and it fell out of the car and went unnoticed when I got out. I came back to the car, drove away and noticed the phone was missing. A store owner saw me drive over the phone with my Buick when I backed out. There were dusty tire marks on the back of the case when I recovered it later. Still no problems over two years later.
It seems reasonable to me that users will drop their smartphones, but it also seems reasonable that damage as a result this misuse of the product should be the user's responsibility - unless said product is marketed as or guaranteed to be "shockproof". In my experience with shockproof/waterproof digital still cameras from Panasonic, Pentax and Olympus, the camera is warrantied against damage during normal use. If you drop it from ten feet, it gets obliterated and it was only rated for five feet then that's your problem. It seems to me if a product doesn't have such a shockproof rating, the owner should assume that they're damn lucky if it doesn't break, and if it does they shouldn't fly into a litigious rage at the manufacturer. Maybe that's just because I'm Canadian?
And as has been said, if I drop a helicopter, the windshield will shatter. Silence this foolishness.
Ummm actually no, all aircraft are drop tested to ensure they can 'withstand' hard(ie not normal) landings. And no, the wind shields do not break(from that defined level).
I'm willing to bet Apple does the same. Unfortunately glass has certain critical points. Struck just right... Ka-bleweee(technical term). When iPhone 4 first came out there was a few articles about this... Or was it the ipad?
It seems reasonable to me that users will drop their smartphones, but it also seems reasonable that damage as a result this misuse of the product should be the user's responsibility...
The only thing from Apple that seems unreasonable to me is that they sell cases for the iPhone and iPad yet don?t make any docking stations that work with these cases. The iPhone isn?t so bad to take on and off to dock (though still a pointless maneuver for a ?just works? company), but the iPad is a major chore to get in and out of the case every time you want to use the docks.
Being that this is taking place in Cali, he will more than likely win. California is on a mission to eliminate all possible self responsibility. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.
Actually you are making a lot of assumptions based on the words of a nut job out to make a buck. You say it is "quite clear" it is not more durable than the screen on the iPhone 3. Clear to who? Not to me, or any other reasonable person on the planet.
What is reasonable? What did she drop it on? How was it dropped? Was it thrown at the ground? I dropped a plastic blackberry on concrete from 4 feet and the case cracked and I never imagined suing anyone. Is 4 feet too high and 3 feet to low? Does he have any non conflicted witnesses to the "accident"?
I am not making any assumptions; everyone else here is. You are all assuming negligence, of which there is no stated evidence. 3 feet is hip height for the average person, it's not some arbitrary number plucked out the air. I'm not saying I agree with this person suing. I actually don't. But I do agree that he has some valid points and you have to ask why Apple mentioned the new durability of the glass used in the iPhone 4 during its launch. It did so to give an impression. The figures quoted in this very article show that the iPhone 4 is more likely to suffer screen damage. Don't be so quick to anger and read more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
I'll agree with you when you show me where Apple has stated that the iPhone would survive a drop from 3 feet.
Yes, Apple made marketing claims which you (and this person suing) interpreted to mean something which they do not. They are technical claims that I bet can be backed up both scientifically (in the hardness case) and verifying the type of glass used (in the helicopter glass claim).
I don't see this suit going very far.
Apple didn't state the screen would survive a drop from 3 feet, but my toaster doesn't say it will survive breadcrumbs falling into the bottom; I just expect it to because that is a reasonable assumption based on the nature of the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero
Where the F--- do you get off being all logical and reasonable???
Take your fair-mindedness over to MacRumors. This is AppleInsider; when Apple is slighted, you circle the wagons and blast away.
Get with the program!
Thank you for restoring my faith in the sense of humour of this site's commenters!!
Cos that's what you do on an internet forum. You know, express your opinion and all.
Shocking. I'm shocked to find opinions opined here. Just shocking!
In fairnest Miss Manners suggest using as humble language as possible such as IMO when not referencing factual information. But that's just my opinion... D'oh!
Actually your grasp of the facts is where the ignorance rests.
The woman you refer to had to have several surgeries just to recuperate from the severe third degree burns she suffered. The reason she won a large award (although it was reduced by an "activist judge" as "excessive," so it didn't even cover her medical expenses) was for punitive damages. Many people (scores, hundreds) had been burned in exactly the same way she was (cheap, flimsy cups not made safe for hot liquids that would fall apart in the hand.) and McDonalds had repeatedly ignored the problem, for years. They also repeatedly ignored well established guidelines for safe serving temperatures for coffee (even after previous law suit required them to change their practices.)
Today when you enjoy a hot coffee in a sturdy cup with a tight fitting lid and a sleeve you take it for granted that a paper cup of coffee was always like it is now. Coffee to go used to come in what amounts to wimpy little dixie cup like you sometimes see at water coolers and it was generally much cooler. You should thank her ever time you enjoy a good, hot coffee, and don't get burned.
[I see now I should have written faster, Manhattanlad.]
Bottom, She dumped it in her own lap, appeals Judge got it right!
As an American, I totally agree with your first sentence. Civil litigation has been the name of the game for lawyers trying to pay back their student loans for years.
However, and this observation is subject to scrutiny, the old lady in the McD case actually was quite badly scalded when the lid of her coffee popped open at the drivethru window. It turns out that McD pinches every penny and in this case, passes steam & water (over 212°) through coffee grounds since it is well known that the hotter the water & vapor, the less coffee is needed to get roughly the same case. That coffee was not what you get from a coffee urn at Denny's (or at home) and she deserved something more than a simply "sorry 'bout that, lady" from the drivethru drone.
He should of told her to move forward so the next customers coffee wouldn't get cold waiting on the counter like it usually does, she dumped it in her own lap, the appeals Judge called it right, under the 20 grand she wanted, the rest was eaten by the lawyers fees, maybe they felt sorry for her and didn't charge her.... Lol, yeah right.
I am not making any assumptions; everyone else here is. You are all assuming negligence, of which there is no stated evidence. 3 feet is hip height for the average person, it's not some arbitrary number plucked out the air. I'm not saying I agree with this person suing. I actually don't. But I do agree that he has some valid points and you have to ask why Apple mentioned the new durability of the glass used in the iPhone 4 during its launch. It did so to give an impression. The figures quoted in this very article show that the iPhone 4 is more likely to suffer screen damage. Don't be so quick to anger and read more.
The durability was most likely mentioned to contrast the likelihood of scratching on the iPhone 4 with the previous iPhones. At least, that is how I read it.
The figures quoted also noted this:
Quote:
As such, SquareTrade projected the handset would have the highest accidental damage rate after 12 months of all smartphones at roughly 13.8 percent, possibly due to its two sides of glass.
The actual report mentions that the iPhone 4′s glass breaks 82% more than the iPhone 3GS?s glass. Since the iPhone 4 has twice the surface area of glass, I could argue that the glass may perform better than what was used on the iPhone 3GS. You can certainly argue that the all-glass design is more susceptible but people should factor that in when they make yheir purchase.
Quote:
Apple didn't state the screen would survive a drop from 3 feet, but my toaster doesn't say it will survive breadcrumbs falling into the bottom; I just expect it to because that is a reasonable assumption based on the nature of the product.
As I mentioned above, in over 15 years of cell phone use, I've dropped my phone once. I don't find it a reasonable assumption at all for people who take care of their things but I admit that is my own bias.
Wow, glass breaks after some idiot drops it? Who would have ever imagined that?
This lawsuit is idiotic, and it has little to do with Apple. The lawsuit would be equally as idiotic, if the phone in question was a Nokia, Samsung or Motorola instead of an iPhone. I'd wager that it is far more likely that the only defective thing here is the inferior genes of that father, who passed them on to his unfortunate children.
Somebody should start a class action lawsuit against people who start frivolous class action lawsuits.
I slamed my phone in the car door by accident, my phone has gorilla glass, but it isn't the manufacturer's fault, its my own damn fault.
True the glass in the iPhone 4 maybe harder, but only from the front/back as it is designed. That doesn't mean you can drop it any ol which way. You drop it the right way, it'll still shatter.
Sometimes advertising something is stronger is a bad idea. You make it idiot proof, i'll find you a better idiot.
This is Apple. The company who fights off lawsuits from the big boys. I doubt seriously that this will go anywhere. Umm, snowballs chance...
Actually, most class action lawsuits do get somewhere. The only problem is that only the lawyers make money. (Check out the class action lawsuits over stock prices. At best, you get back 7 cents a share. The lawyers get $300 million.) It's basically extortion. My bet is that Apple settles this.
While I do think this guy is a jerk, I don't necessarily think Apple is totally in the right here. Mobile phones do get dropped a lot. Apple does sometimes concentrate more on the look than on the practicality of their products. On the other hand, I own a number of devices (like cameras) that could easily be dropped, but if I drop my camera, there is definitely also going to be damage. Yet no one thinks of suing the camera company.
One could also make the argument that a car should survive a 25 mph hit with absolutely no body damage (while still protecting the passengers.) But they don't. No one is suing them either (at least not for that.)
He should of told her to move forward so the next customers coffee wouldn't get cold waiting on the counter like it usually does, she dumped it in her own lap, the appeals Judge called it right, under the 20 grand she wanted, the rest was eaten by the lawyers fees, maybe they felt sorry for her and didn't charge her.... Lol, yeah right.
While I understand your point of view, IMO it simply ignores the real world, people make stupid mistakes. So from coffee temperatures to jumbo airliners, rules and regulations are put in place to mitigate stupid things people do. Not saying there needs to be cell phone drop regulations, but some level of design against stupid mistakes(and in cell phones and coffee cups that occur some what frequently) 'might' be expected from some.
For example, should hot food service be 'expected' to ward of bacteria and buyer beware if not hot enough? Or is it more practical to set food temp standards that are easiably measured etc. Just food for thought/discussion(pun intended).
Apple should countersue and include an injunction to prohibit him (and his butterfingered daughter) from ever owning another apple product or ever purchasing something from the iTunes store.
Watch his daughter whine over the thought of showing off her new Zune to her friends, or trying to 'root' for an app with an android phone.
Actually, most class action lawsuits do get somewhere. The only problem is that only the lawyers make money. (Check out the class action lawsuits over stock prices. At best, you get back 7 cents a share. The lawyers get $300 million.) It's basically extortion. My bet is that Apple settles this.
While I do think this guy is a jerk, I don't necessarily think Apple is totally in the right here. Mobile phones do get dropped a lot. Apple does sometimes concentrate more on the look than on the practicality of their products. On the other hand, I own a number of devices (like cameras) that could easily be dropped, but if I drop my camera, there is definitely also going to be damage. Yet no one thinks of suing the camera company.
One could also make the argument that a car should survive a 25 mph hit with absolutely no body damage (while still protecting the passengers.) But they don't. No one is suing them either (at least not for that.)
Yup, that about sums it up. I personally would not sue, but I'd be darn sure everyone I knew what I thought about the product. And if it's a widespread issue, that can be more than enough to get the offending party to act. Example in the extreme is the Toyota self acceleration issue
"20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."
If Apple actually claims this, then they are in trouble.
This is true but for the front glass only. Also a 68% higher failure rate is actually lower than there previous phone. If you drop your phone on the back side of the 3GS there's no glass there only plastic, so no glass breaks. With the iPhone 4 having glass on two sides you would expect the failure rate to be 100% higher but it's not because there using Gorilla glass on the front side.
Comments
Get Compensated. We Can Help. Easy & Secure Contact Form. Act Now
DepuyHipReplacementLawyer.com
-- No, I'm not making this up
I'll vouch for the Roots Tuff Skin. I bought my 3G on launch day and it had a few mishaps that resulted in a couple cracks by the lock/headphone jack so I bought the Roots case and it's been through hell without another mark. I had the phone on my lap one day and it fell out of the car and went unnoticed when I got out. I came back to the car, drove away and noticed the phone was missing. A store owner saw me drive over the phone with my Buick when I backed out. There were dusty tire marks on the back of the case when I recovered it later. Still no problems over two years later.
It seems reasonable to me that users will drop their smartphones, but it also seems reasonable that damage as a result this misuse of the product should be the user's responsibility - unless said product is marketed as or guaranteed to be "shockproof". In my experience with shockproof/waterproof digital still cameras from Panasonic, Pentax and Olympus, the camera is warrantied against damage during normal use. If you drop it from ten feet, it gets obliterated and it was only rated for five feet then that's your problem. It seems to me if a product doesn't have such a shockproof rating, the owner should assume that they're damn lucky if it doesn't break, and if it does they shouldn't fly into a litigious rage at the manufacturer. Maybe that's just because I'm Canadian?
No! You are just sensible.
And as has been said, if I drop a helicopter, the windshield will shatter. Silence this foolishness.
Ummm actually no, all aircraft are drop tested to ensure they can 'withstand' hard(ie not normal) landings. And no, the wind shields do not break(from that defined level).
I'm willing to bet Apple does the same. Unfortunately glass has certain critical points. Struck just right... Ka-bleweee(technical term). When iPhone 4 first came out there was a few articles about this... Or was it the ipad?
It seems reasonable to me that users will drop their smartphones, but it also seems reasonable that damage as a result this misuse of the product should be the user's responsibility...
The only thing from Apple that seems unreasonable to me is that they sell cases for the iPhone and iPad yet don?t make any docking stations that work with these cases. The iPhone isn?t so bad to take on and off to dock (though still a pointless maneuver for a ?just works? company), but the iPad is a major chore to get in and out of the case every time you want to use the docks.
Being that this is taking place in Cali, he will more than likely win. California is on a mission to eliminate all possible self responsibility. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.
Classic FUD(and I'm being polite)
What a way to save your own hide. Proclaim Starbucks is inferior based upon sound observations of your own opinion.
Cos that's what you do on an internet forum. You know, express your opinion and all.
Actually you are making a lot of assumptions based on the words of a nut job out to make a buck. You say it is "quite clear" it is not more durable than the screen on the iPhone 3. Clear to who? Not to me, or any other reasonable person on the planet.
What is reasonable? What did she drop it on? How was it dropped? Was it thrown at the ground? I dropped a plastic blackberry on concrete from 4 feet and the case cracked and I never imagined suing anyone. Is 4 feet too high and 3 feet to low? Does he have any non conflicted witnesses to the "accident"?
I am not making any assumptions; everyone else here is. You are all assuming negligence, of which there is no stated evidence. 3 feet is hip height for the average person, it's not some arbitrary number plucked out the air. I'm not saying I agree with this person suing. I actually don't. But I do agree that he has some valid points and you have to ask why Apple mentioned the new durability of the glass used in the iPhone 4 during its launch. It did so to give an impression. The figures quoted in this very article show that the iPhone 4 is more likely to suffer screen damage. Don't be so quick to anger and read more.
I'll agree with you when you show me where Apple has stated that the iPhone would survive a drop from 3 feet.
Yes, Apple made marketing claims which you (and this person suing) interpreted to mean something which they do not. They are technical claims that I bet can be backed up both scientifically (in the hardness case) and verifying the type of glass used (in the helicopter glass claim).
I don't see this suit going very far.
Apple didn't state the screen would survive a drop from 3 feet, but my toaster doesn't say it will survive breadcrumbs falling into the bottom; I just expect it to because that is a reasonable assumption based on the nature of the product.
Where the F--- do you get off being all logical and reasonable???
Take your fair-mindedness over to MacRumors. This is AppleInsider; when Apple is slighted, you circle the wagons and blast away.
Get with the program!
Thank you for restoring my faith in the sense of humour of this site's commenters!!
Cos that's what you do on an internet forum. You know, express your opinion and all.
Shocking. I'm shocked to find opinions opined here. Just shocking!
In fairnest Miss Manners suggest using as humble language as possible such as IMO when not referencing factual information. But that's just my opinion... D'oh!
Actually your grasp of the facts is where the ignorance rests.
The woman you refer to had to have several surgeries just to recuperate from the severe third degree burns she suffered. The reason she won a large award (although it was reduced by an "activist judge" as "excessive," so it didn't even cover her medical expenses) was for punitive damages. Many people (scores, hundreds) had been burned in exactly the same way she was (cheap, flimsy cups not made safe for hot liquids that would fall apart in the hand.) and McDonalds had repeatedly ignored the problem, for years. They also repeatedly ignored well established guidelines for safe serving temperatures for coffee (even after previous law suit required them to change their practices.)
Today when you enjoy a hot coffee in a sturdy cup with a tight fitting lid and a sleeve you take it for granted that a paper cup of coffee was always like it is now. Coffee to go used to come in what amounts to wimpy little dixie cup like you sometimes see at water coolers and it was generally much cooler. You should thank her ever time you enjoy a good, hot coffee, and don't get burned.
[I see now I should have written faster, Manhattanlad.]
Bottom, She dumped it in her own lap, appeals Judge got it right!
As an American, I totally agree with your first sentence. Civil litigation has been the name of the game for lawyers trying to pay back their student loans for years.
However, and this observation is subject to scrutiny, the old lady in the McD case actually was quite badly scalded when the lid of her coffee popped open at the drivethru window. It turns out that McD pinches every penny and in this case, passes steam & water (over 212°) through coffee grounds since it is well known that the hotter the water & vapor, the less coffee is needed to get roughly the same case. That coffee was not what you get from a coffee urn at Denny's (or at home) and she deserved something more than a simply "sorry 'bout that, lady" from the drivethru drone.
He should of told her to move forward so the next customers coffee wouldn't get cold waiting on the counter like it usually does, she dumped it in her own lap, the appeals Judge called it right, under the 20 grand she wanted, the rest was eaten by the lawyers fees, maybe they felt sorry for her and didn't charge her.... Lol, yeah right.
I am not making any assumptions; everyone else here is. You are all assuming negligence, of which there is no stated evidence. 3 feet is hip height for the average person, it's not some arbitrary number plucked out the air. I'm not saying I agree with this person suing. I actually don't. But I do agree that he has some valid points and you have to ask why Apple mentioned the new durability of the glass used in the iPhone 4 during its launch. It did so to give an impression. The figures quoted in this very article show that the iPhone 4 is more likely to suffer screen damage. Don't be so quick to anger and read more.
The durability was most likely mentioned to contrast the likelihood of scratching on the iPhone 4 with the previous iPhones. At least, that is how I read it.
The figures quoted also noted this:
As such, SquareTrade projected the handset would have the highest accidental damage rate after 12 months of all smartphones at roughly 13.8 percent, possibly due to its two sides of glass.
The actual report mentions that the iPhone 4′s glass breaks 82% more than the iPhone 3GS?s glass. Since the iPhone 4 has twice the surface area of glass, I could argue that the glass may perform better than what was used on the iPhone 3GS. You can certainly argue that the all-glass design is more susceptible but people should factor that in when they make yheir purchase.
Apple didn't state the screen would survive a drop from 3 feet, but my toaster doesn't say it will survive breadcrumbs falling into the bottom; I just expect it to because that is a reasonable assumption based on the nature of the product.
As I mentioned above, in over 15 years of cell phone use, I've dropped my phone once. I don't find it a reasonable assumption at all for people who take care of their things but I admit that is my own bias.
This lawsuit is idiotic, and it has little to do with Apple. The lawsuit would be equally as idiotic, if the phone in question was a Nokia, Samsung or Motorola instead of an iPhone. I'd wager that it is far more likely that the only defective thing here is the inferior genes of that father, who passed them on to his unfortunate children.
Somebody should start a class action lawsuit against people who start frivolous class action lawsuits.
He should sue whoever was responsible for surfacing the hard ground that his daughter dropped it on too.
And he should sue his daughter for carelessness.
And he should sue his wife for the bad genes which gave his daughter such weak grip.
And he should sue the government for providing an inadequate education system which allowed him to grow up to be such a moron.
And he should sue his parents for giving birth to him.
True the glass in the iPhone 4 maybe harder, but only from the front/back as it is designed. That doesn't mean you can drop it any ol which way. You drop it the right way, it'll still shatter.
Sometimes advertising something is stronger is a bad idea. You make it idiot proof, i'll find you a better idiot.
This is Apple. The company who fights off lawsuits from the big boys. I doubt seriously that this will go anywhere. Umm, snowballs chance...
Actually, most class action lawsuits do get somewhere. The only problem is that only the lawyers make money. (Check out the class action lawsuits over stock prices. At best, you get back 7 cents a share. The lawyers get $300 million.) It's basically extortion. My bet is that Apple settles this.
While I do think this guy is a jerk, I don't necessarily think Apple is totally in the right here. Mobile phones do get dropped a lot. Apple does sometimes concentrate more on the look than on the practicality of their products. On the other hand, I own a number of devices (like cameras) that could easily be dropped, but if I drop my camera, there is definitely also going to be damage. Yet no one thinks of suing the camera company.
One could also make the argument that a car should survive a 25 mph hit with absolutely no body damage (while still protecting the passengers.) But they don't. No one is suing them either (at least not for that.)
He should of told her to move forward so the next customers coffee wouldn't get cold waiting on the counter like it usually does, she dumped it in her own lap, the appeals Judge called it right, under the 20 grand she wanted, the rest was eaten by the lawyers fees, maybe they felt sorry for her and didn't charge her.... Lol, yeah right.
While I understand your point of view, IMO it simply ignores the real world, people make stupid mistakes. So from coffee temperatures to jumbo airliners, rules and regulations are put in place to mitigate stupid things people do. Not saying there needs to be cell phone drop regulations, but some level of design against stupid mistakes(and in cell phones and coffee cups that occur some what frequently) 'might' be expected from some.
For example, should hot food service be 'expected' to ward of bacteria and buyer beware if not hot enough? Or is it more practical to set food temp standards that are easiably measured etc. Just food for thought/discussion(pun intended).
He doesn't deserve to own an apple product!
Apple should countersue and include an injunction to prohibit him (and his butterfingered daughter) from ever owning another apple product or ever purchasing something from the iTunes store.
Watch his daughter whine over the thought of showing off her new Zune to her friends, or trying to 'root' for an app with an android phone.
Actually, most class action lawsuits do get somewhere. The only problem is that only the lawyers make money. (Check out the class action lawsuits over stock prices. At best, you get back 7 cents a share. The lawyers get $300 million.) It's basically extortion. My bet is that Apple settles this.
While I do think this guy is a jerk, I don't necessarily think Apple is totally in the right here. Mobile phones do get dropped a lot. Apple does sometimes concentrate more on the look than on the practicality of their products. On the other hand, I own a number of devices (like cameras) that could easily be dropped, but if I drop my camera, there is definitely also going to be damage. Yet no one thinks of suing the camera company.
One could also make the argument that a car should survive a 25 mph hit with absolutely no body damage (while still protecting the passengers.) But they don't. No one is suing them either (at least not for that.)
Yup, that about sums it up. I personally would not sue, but I'd be darn sure everyone I knew what I thought about the product. And if it's a widespread issue, that can be more than enough to get the offending party to act. Example in the extreme is the Toyota self acceleration issue
"20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."
If Apple actually claims this, then they are in trouble.
This is true but for the front glass only. Also a 68% higher failure rate is actually lower than there previous phone. If you drop your phone on the back side of the 3GS there's no glass there only plastic, so no glass breaks. With the iPhone 4 having glass on two sides you would expect the failure rate to be 100% higher but it's not because there using Gorilla glass on the front side.