I know of an incident involving a woman who dropped a beer bottle in a bar that broke. She had eye damage from the broken glass, preserved the evidence (defective bottle) and tried to pursue a lawsuit.
This phone is supposed to be capable of falling and not breaking, it's one of the salespoints.
Citation please.
Lot's of BS flying around in this thread - I know it's probably pointless to ask but can we at least make a passing attempt to stick with facts and not Internet echo chamber hysteria?
You are incorrect. However, I haven't claimed to be an "expert", just pointed out that the OPs numbers were nonsense, which they are, and not at all in line with the SCAA's recommendations, despite your assertions that they were. And the SCAA's recommendations are not, in my opinion, worth much, except perhaps as a starting point. But, feel free to brew your coffee at 210F, if you like.
You keep trying to deflect the topic when in fact we are talking about commercial brewing in a fast food restaurant performed by high school dropout supervised by managers who cannot read or write English and yet you want to argue a degree Centigrade one way or the other? Give me a break. COFFEE IS HOT!
Mind you, no where in here does it say that the glass will not break. It does not say what height the device has been tested in. It just says it is more durable. The lines of "glass used in windshields.. Strengthened to be 30 times harder..." are all adverting jargon aimed at making you feel like you are purchasing something more durable. While all this I assume to be true, doesn't mean the device is indestructible.
Nothing is indestructible.
The iPhone is an expensive piece of electronics, and should be treated as such. This guy is more at fault for giving his daughter an expensive piece of sensitive electronics and not expecting an accident to happen.
Just because it's a phone and people have all kinds of misguided assumptions about how a phone should perform doesn't mean he has a reasonable argument in the least. Quite the contrary!
I think it is just matter of a warning label for someone to pull off without reading.
Even that would be retarded - but unfortunately we seem to be sliding into the abyss of stupidity and the inability to take responsibility for our own actions.
Where did Apple claim that you could drop it without damaging it?
What Apple said is that the glass is stronger than plastic - and it is. So what LEGAL BASIS is there for suing?
What's your point? The iPhone IS durable. That's not the same as indestructible. You seem to have the two concepts confused.
If you can show me where Apple advertised that you could drop the phone on a hard surface without damage, you might have a point.
Not at all. Sue the company that makes the beer.
There's this thing called a 'case'.
If you don't want a glass phone, no one is making you buy one. But stop whining when you finally learn that glass breaks.
I am not for lawsuits especially this kind and no where did I say that the phone should be indestructible or any phone for that matter. Al I said was that using glass as a material the way Apple has makes this phone more vulnerable to sustaining damage. If you HAVE to buy a case for your phone then that in itself speaks to the problem. A phone should be durable enough to withstand drops etc. Drops from 5 feet maybe not but I can't think of a lot of other phones that suffer the same carnage that these have. No one person is perfect - accidents do happen.
Using a class action lawsuit is a way of bringing attention to a problem that may or may not exist. If evidence supports that the iPhone 4 is more susceptible then maybe it will have legs. Does anyone know for a fact that these new phones are better than the previous models when it comes to sustaining damage? I would be interested to know.My old 3Gs held up just fine and it was dropped a few times. Those of you without kids wouldn't know anything about the risk they pose to precious handheld devices.
You keep trying to deflect the topic when in fact we are talking about commercial brewing in a fast food restaurant performed by high school dropout supervised by managers who cannot read or write English and yet you want to argue a degree Centigrade one way or the other? Give me a break. COFFEE IS HOT!
No, that's not what we were discussing in our back and forth. But, if you want to discuss that, yes, I think McDonald's was entirely liable for serving coffee at the temps they did, in the cups they did, through the takeout window. They had had several previous complaints related to people being injured by their product, served in the way they served it. They ignored those complaints and someone got seriously injured as a result. Furthermore, they could have avoided the entire lawsuit if they had simply agreed to pay her medical bills, which they refused to do, despite the injuries being the result of their reckless disregard for safety. I only wished that the jury award hadn't been reduced.
I have an iPhone 4 and I love it. But, you should be honest, and this guy has a point. This phone is supposed to be capable of falling and not breaking, it's one of the salespoints. Gorilla glass, Combat helicopters and stuff, you remember? If that glass "designed to take a rocket and not break" can be killed by a little girl, MAYBE it has a little issue.
Sure, just not something as important as my phone.
---You are missing the point lots of people do drop their phones. Just because you don't doesn't mean that Apple should assume that everyone else is like you. The basic assumption should be that people are clumsy.
Is something as crucial as a connection to the outside world supposed to be treated like a basketball?
---Well if we take it your way, something that crucial should be a helluva lot more durable. Just so I know where does it say anything about treating the phone like a basketball?
That specific McDonalds intentionally made the coffee scalding hot to run the old people off from sitting around all day getting refills.
The McDonalds executives that testifies were such pompous asses that they pissed the jury off. Thats why the big award.
The court of appeals also dramatically reduced the damages awarded. Nobody ever hears the whole story.
No, MacDonalds served the coffee at 185ºF, substantially hotter than any other fast food restaurant (which is typically below 160ºF) and further had received over 700 reports of serious burns due to coffee spills in the previous years.
MacDonalds claimed that the drinks were served at this temperature to allow sufficient time for people to go home, even though their own research showed that most customers purchased the drinks for consumption in the car.
This was the basis for the juries award of punitive damages. The award was reduced later on appeal, but remained about half a million dollars prior to the private settlement.
The whole story is easily available on the net, if you would look for it. Given your misunderstanding of the facts in the case, perhaps you should.
No, that's not what we were discussing in our back and forth.
No what we were discussing is that you were being an arrogant jerk in your original remark that the OP did not know anything about coffee, when in fact I believe he does know quite a bit. When I called you on it, you began to split hairs to try to weasel out of your erroneous claim that the OP was 100% incorrect. So when your last stance was reduced to a degree Centigrade of difference and clearly not a very strong argument, you started attacking the SCAA which is ridiculous since it is the most well respected authority on coffee in the entire world.
I don't know how often, but judges can award costs already when the circumstances justify it. Forcing them to do so by law only makes it more difficult for less affluent plaintiffs to bring lawsuits, which I suspect some people think is a good result. Maybe they should just come out and admit it.
Quote:
At this point, that is definitely the lesser of two evils.
Fine - cap the amount Lawyers can make on "fishing expedition" lawsuits like this one and ensure that the bulk of the award has to go to the litigants and not the attorneys.
I imagine that will be just as popular with lawyers and their lobbyist (basically most of congress being fellow lawyers) as looser pays
It's a fact that most class actions are of primary benefit to attorneys, but in reality, caps on payments serve pretty much the same purpose as automatically awarding costs to the winners. You'd find few attorneys willing to take cases on contingency under those circumstances.
No what we were discussing is that you were being an arrogant jerk in your original remark that the OP did not know anything about coffee, when in fact I believe he does know quite a bit. When I called you on it, you began to split hairs to try to weasel out of your erroneous claim that the OP was 100% incorrect. So when your last stance was reduced to a degree Centigrade of difference and clearly not a very strong argument, you started attacking the SCAA which is ridiculous since it is the most well respected authority on coffee in the entire world.
I didn't split any hairs, the OPs numbers are simply wrong, and they have nothing to do with the SCAA's numbers, so your equating them is simply wrong (even if that was the OPs intent, he was wrong). So, you're both 100% incorrect. As far as the SCAA being, "the most well respected authority on coffee in the entire world," well, not by everyone.
Oh, and, BTW, now you're changing your story about what it was we were discussing? Better go back and edit your posts to eliminate your self-contradictions.
Sure, just not something as important as my phone.
Is something as crucial as a connection to the outside world supposed to be treated like a basketball?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Where you said that it should be able to survive multiple drops.
I never said anything about multiple drops anywhere in my post. I just said that phones get dropped for a multitude of reasons and that Apple should take that fact into consideration. The phone is not that durable regardless of what people say, I have seen it for myself at the Apple Store and there are plenty of reports that support this fact.The glass surface is more susceptible because they have mounted it directly on top of the frame of the phone unlike their previous design where the glass was inset.
I am merely stating what is known to be true. To suggest that people don't drop there phones and they should be treated like a rare piece of bone china is completely ridiculous (not saying you said that). A majority of the posts in here with the exception of a few border on asinine because they make the basic assumption that anyone who drops their phone is an idiot and deserves it if it breaks. No one drops their phone on purpose you do know that right?
The fact that Apple sold tens of millions of them tells us that your concern about the company's 'stupidity' is unwarranted.
Not really, if you have a phone worth over $500, you're likely going to try and look after it regardless of what it's made of. In much the same way you walk carefully through department stores full of expensive china. If someone left an expensive vase in a precarious situation, you can say don't go in the store or you can say it wasn't the smartest thing to do creating the situation in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
no, buying one made out of glass is stupid if you don't like the idea of it being made out of glass.
I would hazard a guess that a large majority of people would dislike the idea of anything designed to be used in a mobile scenario being built primarily of glass. Vehicle windows are made of glass by necessity not by choice.
The worst part is that the glass sticks out from the edge of the band. They could at least have carved the metal band with a diagonal lip and done the same with the glass in the opposite direction with a rubber layer between so that flat surfaces don't contact the glass and the rubber layer absorbs the impact. They could even use the rubber they use on the base of the unibody Macbook for the back. That way they can finally make the white one and it's easy gripped. It's going to get dirty more easily but dirt lets you know when you need a new one.
A majority of the posts in here with the exception of a few border on asinine because they make the basic assumption that anyone who drops their phone is an idiot and deserves it if it breaks. No one drops their phone on purpose you do know that right?
It is not stated that the device will not break. That people are not taking the responsibility for dropping it once it happens is the issue.
Comments
Buy a case...
This phone is supposed to be capable of falling and not breaking, it's one of the salespoints.
Citation please.
Lot's of BS flying around in this thread - I know it's probably pointless to ask but can we at least make a passing attempt to stick with facts and not Internet echo chamber hysteria?
...I'd hate to see Apple have to change the design of the iPhone to some other material....
I think it is just matter of a warning label for someone to pull off without reading.
You are incorrect. However, I haven't claimed to be an "expert", just pointed out that the OPs numbers were nonsense, which they are, and not at all in line with the SCAA's recommendations, despite your assertions that they were. And the SCAA's recommendations are not, in my opinion, worth much, except perhaps as a starting point. But, feel free to brew your coffee at 210F, if you like.
You keep trying to deflect the topic when in fact we are talking about commercial brewing in a fast food restaurant performed by high school dropout supervised by managers who cannot read or write English and yet you want to argue a degree Centigrade one way or the other? Give me a break. COFFEE IS HOT!
Mind you, no where in here does it say that the glass will not break. It does not say what height the device has been tested in. It just says it is more durable. The lines of "glass used in windshields.. Strengthened to be 30 times harder..." are all adverting jargon aimed at making you feel like you are purchasing something more durable. While all this I assume to be true, doesn't mean the device is indestructible.
Nothing is indestructible.
The iPhone is an expensive piece of electronics, and should be treated as such. This guy is more at fault for giving his daughter an expensive piece of sensitive electronics and not expecting an accident to happen.
Just because it's a phone and people have all kinds of misguided assumptions about how a phone should perform doesn't mean he has a reasonable argument in the least. Quite the contrary!
I think it is just matter of a warning label for someone to pull off without reading.
Even that would be retarded - but unfortunately we seem to be sliding into the abyss of stupidity and the inability to take responsibility for our own actions.
Where did Apple claim that you could drop it without damaging it?
What Apple said is that the glass is stronger than plastic - and it is. So what LEGAL BASIS is there for suing?
What's your point? The iPhone IS durable. That's not the same as indestructible. You seem to have the two concepts confused.
If you can show me where Apple advertised that you could drop the phone on a hard surface without damage, you might have a point.
Not at all. Sue the company that makes the beer.
There's this thing called a 'case'.
If you don't want a glass phone, no one is making you buy one. But stop whining when you finally learn that glass breaks.
I am not for lawsuits especially this kind and no where did I say that the phone should be indestructible or any phone for that matter. Al I said was that using glass as a material the way Apple has makes this phone more vulnerable to sustaining damage. If you HAVE to buy a case for your phone then that in itself speaks to the problem. A phone should be durable enough to withstand drops etc. Drops from 5 feet maybe not but I can't think of a lot of other phones that suffer the same carnage that these have. No one person is perfect - accidents do happen.
Using a class action lawsuit is a way of bringing attention to a problem that may or may not exist. If evidence supports that the iPhone 4 is more susceptible then maybe it will have legs. Does anyone know for a fact that these new phones are better than the previous models when it comes to sustaining damage? I would be interested to know.My old 3Gs held up just fine and it was dropped a few times. Those of you without kids wouldn't know anything about the risk they pose to precious handheld devices.
You keep trying to deflect the topic when in fact we are talking about commercial brewing in a fast food restaurant performed by high school dropout supervised by managers who cannot read or write English and yet you want to argue a degree Centigrade one way or the other? Give me a break. COFFEE IS HOT!
No, that's not what we were discussing in our back and forth. But, if you want to discuss that, yes, I think McDonald's was entirely liable for serving coffee at the temps they did, in the cups they did, through the takeout window. They had had several previous complaints related to people being injured by their product, served in the way they served it. They ignored those complaints and someone got seriously injured as a result. Furthermore, they could have avoided the entire lawsuit if they had simply agreed to pay her medical bills, which they refused to do, despite the injuries being the result of their reckless disregard for safety. I only wished that the jury award hadn't been reduced.
I have an iPhone 4 and I love it. But, you should be honest, and this guy has a point. This phone is supposed to be capable of falling and not breaking, it's one of the salespoints. Gorilla glass, Combat helicopters and stuff, you remember? If that glass "designed to take a rocket and not break" can be killed by a little girl, MAYBE it has a little issue.
Mine is in a case
The iPhone 4 does not use Gorilla glass.
No other phone was touchscreen "in the past".
---How is this relevant to your point?
Sure, just not something as important as my phone.
---You are missing the point lots of people do drop their phones. Just because you don't doesn't mean that Apple should assume that everyone else is like you. The basic assumption should be that people are clumsy.
Is something as crucial as a connection to the outside world supposed to be treated like a basketball?
---Well if we take it your way, something that crucial should be a helluva lot more durable. Just so I know where does it say anything about treating the phone like a basketball?
Just so I know where does it say anything about treating the phone like a basketball?
Where you said that it should be able to survive multiple drops.
That specific McDonalds intentionally made the coffee scalding hot to run the old people off from sitting around all day getting refills.
The McDonalds executives that testifies were such pompous asses that they pissed the jury off. Thats why the big award.
The court of appeals also dramatically reduced the damages awarded. Nobody ever hears the whole story.
No, MacDonalds served the coffee at 185ºF, substantially hotter than any other fast food restaurant (which is typically below 160ºF) and further had received over 700 reports of serious burns due to coffee spills in the previous years.
MacDonalds claimed that the drinks were served at this temperature to allow sufficient time for people to go home, even though their own research showed that most customers purchased the drinks for consumption in the car.
This was the basis for the juries award of punitive damages. The award was reduced later on appeal, but remained about half a million dollars prior to the private settlement.
The whole story is easily available on the net, if you would look for it. Given your misunderstanding of the facts in the case, perhaps you should.
No, that's not what we were discussing in our back and forth.
No what we were discussing is that you were being an arrogant jerk in your original remark that the OP did not know anything about coffee, when in fact I believe he does know quite a bit. When I called you on it, you began to split hairs to try to weasel out of your erroneous claim that the OP was 100% incorrect. So when your last stance was reduced to a degree Centigrade of difference and clearly not a very strong argument, you started attacking the SCAA which is ridiculous since it is the most well respected authority on coffee in the entire world.
Not always, and rarely in BS cases like this.
I don't know how often, but judges can award costs already when the circumstances justify it. Forcing them to do so by law only makes it more difficult for less affluent plaintiffs to bring lawsuits, which I suspect some people think is a good result. Maybe they should just come out and admit it.
At this point, that is definitely the lesser of two evils.
Fine - cap the amount Lawyers can make on "fishing expedition" lawsuits like this one and ensure that the bulk of the award has to go to the litigants and not the attorneys.
I imagine that will be just as popular with lawyers and their lobbyist (basically most of congress being fellow lawyers) as looser pays
It's a fact that most class actions are of primary benefit to attorneys, but in reality, caps on payments serve pretty much the same purpose as automatically awarding costs to the winners. You'd find few attorneys willing to take cases on contingency under those circumstances.
No what we were discussing is that you were being an arrogant jerk in your original remark that the OP did not know anything about coffee, when in fact I believe he does know quite a bit. When I called you on it, you began to split hairs to try to weasel out of your erroneous claim that the OP was 100% incorrect. So when your last stance was reduced to a degree Centigrade of difference and clearly not a very strong argument, you started attacking the SCAA which is ridiculous since it is the most well respected authority on coffee in the entire world.
I didn't split any hairs, the OPs numbers are simply wrong, and they have nothing to do with the SCAA's numbers, so your equating them is simply wrong (even if that was the OPs intent, he was wrong). So, you're both 100% incorrect. As far as the SCAA being, "the most well respected authority on coffee in the entire world," well, not by everyone.
Oh, and, BTW, now you're changing your story about what it was we were discussing? Better go back and edit your posts to eliminate your self-contradictions.
No other phone was touchscreen "in the past".
Sure, just not something as important as my phone.
Is something as crucial as a connection to the outside world supposed to be treated like a basketball?
Where you said that it should be able to survive multiple drops.
I never said anything about multiple drops anywhere in my post. I just said that phones get dropped for a multitude of reasons and that Apple should take that fact into consideration. The phone is not that durable regardless of what people say, I have seen it for myself at the Apple Store and there are plenty of reports that support this fact.The glass surface is more susceptible because they have mounted it directly on top of the frame of the phone unlike their previous design where the glass was inset.
I am merely stating what is known to be true. To suggest that people don't drop there phones and they should be treated like a rare piece of bone china is completely ridiculous (not saying you said that). A majority of the posts in here with the exception of a few border on asinine because they make the basic assumption that anyone who drops their phone is an idiot and deserves it if it breaks. No one drops their phone on purpose you do know that right?
The fact that Apple sold tens of millions of them tells us that your concern about the company's 'stupidity' is unwarranted.
Not really, if you have a phone worth over $500, you're likely going to try and look after it regardless of what it's made of. In much the same way you walk carefully through department stores full of expensive china. If someone left an expensive vase in a precarious situation, you can say don't go in the store or you can say it wasn't the smartest thing to do creating the situation in the first place.
no, buying one made out of glass is stupid if you don't like the idea of it being made out of glass.
I would hazard a guess that a large majority of people would dislike the idea of anything designed to be used in a mobile scenario being built primarily of glass. Vehicle windows are made of glass by necessity not by choice.
The worst part is that the glass sticks out from the edge of the band. They could at least have carved the metal band with a diagonal lip and done the same with the glass in the opposite direction with a rubber layer between so that flat surfaces don't contact the glass and the rubber layer absorbs the impact. They could even use the rubber they use on the base of the unibody Macbook for the back. That way they can finally make the white one and it's easy gripped. It's going to get dirty more easily but dirt lets you know when you need a new one.
A majority of the posts in here with the exception of a few border on asinine because they make the basic assumption that anyone who drops their phone is an idiot and deserves it if it breaks. No one drops their phone on purpose you do know that right?
It is not stated that the device will not break. That people are not taking the responsibility for dropping it once it happens is the issue.