There was the "battery problem" suit (demanded no profit-sharing) which was resolved when Apple sent $50 vouchers to all purchasers of that model Pod good toward Apple Care policies on affected Pods or additional Apple purchases...
About the Nano: I was reading all the comments, and I wondered if I was the only woman in this forum! We don't put our most beautiful, functional devices in pants pockets, even when we aren't carrying purses. My Razr cell phone came with a number of different accessories, among them a leatherette case which is designed to protect the phone from scratches... it's silver (the matte black shows oily fingerprints and other foreign substances - like my 1999 PB. Doesn't make me love it any less).
Something tells me the lawyers who filed this Nano suit were of the "personal injury" variety... they aren't impressive as lawyers go, they want publicity and frequently lose the first round... judges don't enjoy wasting their time with cases like this.
Do folks who wear glasses clean their lenses with rough cotton based papertowels?
I clean my glasses with my t-shirt and paper towels occasionally - maybe 6 times a week. I don't know about 'cotton based' papertowels. They sound a bit posh.
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
No. If they do they immediately see scratches. You won't get anywhere suing e Optics industry on that one.
Nope. I never see scratches but then the plastic used in lenses is much more scratch resistant and has a coating to prevent scratches. I'm quite hard on glasses as I mountain bike with them and live in the north west of England where it's usually wet and most of the hills are made of gritstone, the same stone used for mills. If I get scratches it's because I've rubbed a wet, gritty glove across my lens. Glasses last me about 2 years before I have problems seeing through them.
But your argument doesn't stack up. With glasses you put them on your face out of contact with pretty much anything likely to scratch usually. When you take them off you put them in a case when you're not using them. That's their method of operation. The iPod is a product that is usually carried and used in a pocket and as such, using plastic that scratches more easily than the plastic used in a product designed for your face is backwards. It's a nice design aesthetically but not practically.
That's fair and it's fair enough for the consumer to question why Apple "hasn't" educated them on the proper upkeep. Thus we in fact do have merit to have this judged in a court of law as both sides have a communcation issue that needs to be resolved.
Whatever happened to common sense and personal responsibility? Have you looked at a window screen lately? Mine contain a note which reads, "WARNING! Insect screens are intended to provide reasonable insect control and are not intended to provide security or provide for retention of objects or persons within the interior. This screen will not stop a child from falling out the window. Keep children away from open windows." We live in a world where no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions (i.e., expecting a window screen to prevent their home from being burglarized, or expecting a window screen to keep their child from falling out of a window). They need to have someone else to blame, whether it's their mother, their father, the twinkies they ate for lunch, the government, the military or, in this case, Apple Computer.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.
Recessing the screen a small fraction of an inch isn't going to change the likelihood of contact between the screen and objects in your pocket to any significant degree. And it will have zero effect on how the polycarbonate material reacts to wiping with some sort of cloth. If Apple can demonstrate that the materials used in the front fascia of the nano are identical to those in the other iPods, then they've won their case.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Truth is class action lawsuits don't just happen from isolated incidents. Lawyers need to see if there are a sufficient amount of plaintiffs before proceeding.
Or place ads in newspapers, magazines, mass emailings, etc. in an effort to solicit large numbers of additional participants in the suit. This they do to increase the amount of money they make by bringing and winning the suit. As a wise man once said: "If you want to know why something happens, follow the money." Or the self-interest.
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.
The outer case of the 4G does not have a recess where the LCD is - it is a smooth, flat face on the entire front. The LCD itself might be set back further behind the plastic, but that has nothing to do with preventing the outer plastic from getting scuffed.
I have a U2 iPod, and it does scuff relatively easily, though in no circumstances was the screen made unreadable. In fact, much of my scuffing was from debris that managed to get between my protective case and the iPod.
Hell I'd be defending Apple if I hadn't walked into store and saw exactly what people are talking about. The screen isn't recessed a tad bit like the iPod mini and iPods are so it really takes a beating.
Does Apple really need to endanger their iPod reputation even a little bit by using inferior plastics? Class Action lawsuits come and go but I won't doubt their validity. People work hard for their money and portable devices should be built to handle the rigors of portability.
all of the screes at comp usa have razor blade slashes through them, only the apples btw, and all the ipods, acutally excapet the nano, it has some wierd case on it, were so scratched, compUSA replaced them with the exact same models. Are those razor blade slashes apples fault too, becuase they don't have a glass protector of the screen? this is bs. What screen in any popular store isn't F-ed up?
But your argument doesn't stack up. With glasses you put them on your face out of contact with pretty much anything likely to scratch usually. When you take them off you put them in a case when you're not using them. That's their method of operation. The iPod is a product that is usually carried and used in a pocket and as such, using plastic that scratches more easily than the plastic used in a product designed for your face is backwards. It's a nice design aesthetically but not practically.
The original iPods all came with cases...a pretty basic one, but a case, nonetheless. I believe this case also contained a belt clip, so the intent was for you to place your iPod inside of the protective case, and then clip it to your belt. This inferred that Apple didn't recommend your placing your iPod unprotected in your pocket. Flash forward (no pun intended) to the nano (skipping over later iPods and mini's, which also did not come shipped with cases). In the case of he nano, Apple once again decided not to ship their product with a case. This was obviously a cost-saving move on their part. They realized that most people end up buying some sort of after-market case that appeals to them aesthetically. Half-step forward to the new video iPod, and once again, Apple has decided to ship their product with a protective covering of some sort...in this case, a sleeve, not a rigid case. No doubt this was a reaction on Apple's part to all of the allegations of the scratability of the just previously released nano. Might the plaintiff's attorney's draw attention to this? Perhaps. But since Apple released the very first model with a case, they were implicitly telling the public that this is a device that should be kept in some sort of case to keep it looking as pristine as possible for as long as possible. Should they have continued to supply a case with all iPod models? No, but perhaps the inclusion of a soft, flexible felt-lined protective sleeve would have been a good idea, because, in addition to protecting the customer's investment it would have protected Apple from yet another lawsuit. Keep in mind, though, that most of us carry another very similar device that, when purchased, rarely if ever comes equipped with a case...that being the ubiquitous cell phone. So if some judge rules that Apple should be held liable for not providing some sort of protective case or sleeve for their product, imagine the flood of lawsuits that would inevitably follow against every single maker of a portable product that could potentially find its way into a user's pocket. Pandora's box, anyone?
I have a Treo 650. The very first thing I did to after taking it out of the box was apply a screen protector. It's a fragile electronic device, not a rock or a block of wood.
Apple should (if they don't already) ship it with a basic plastic screen protector.
The only problem I can see pursuable by a court of law is the case of the screen actually cracking with normal usage. If you've got something with a delicate LCD screen rattling around in your pocket along with your keys and other garbage, then you should take a few seconds to pause and reflect upon your actions.
Yet another frivolous lawsuit. Meanwhile, we continue to fight a war in another country under false pretenses. :P
Hmm the lawsuit is over the top. But the product quality is not the greatest. The Nano does scratch and comparing it to the treo 650 is a complete joke. I have dropped several time my treo and nothing...(even on concrete oops) My nano has been replaced courtesy of apple 4 times... from scratches. My solution DONT pull off the protective plastic .. the bugger still works...with it on.
I just had an idea. It's about public safety. When manufacturing lawyers, they should all be shipped in a hermetically-sealed, puncture-proof dry cleaning bag. This would provide maximum protection to the general public, and make our world a much safer, saner place to live.
A lot of people are disappointed that their Nano didn't stay in a pristine condition after use, and they expected it to. Apple really should find a material that is extremely durable and will keep scratch-free with normal use. Materials science should be able to give us a solution to this problem.
I have that phone, and your right, the outer screen doesn't scratch...ususally.
I have a ? thats kind of off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread...Do you think its okay if I use my old iPod with click wheel dock for my nano? It syncs just fine and stands upright, and I am eventually going to buy the Universal Dock, but for now, should this be okay?
The only thing that bothers me about the lawsuit is the "share of the profits" garbage. They want a share of the profits for an item they have deemed defective? That pretty much renders the lawsuit frivilous. If it were not for that...
The iPod nano and iPod 5G do seem to use a different plastic for the case despite what Apple says. They appear to be clear plastic painted white or black on the inside or something. This would explain why scratches are more visible.
So if some judge rules that Apple should be held liable for not providing some sort of protective case or sleeve for their product, imagine the flood of lawsuits that would inevitably follow against every single maker of a portable product that could potentially find its way into a user's pocket. Pandora's box, anyone? [/B]
Except, almost every portable product I've got can be put in a pocket and doesn't scratch easily. Really. The SE T610 phone has black plastic with an embedded clear window for the screen. It's almost completely scratch free after 3+ years of use without a case. Apple should phone up SE and ask them which plastic they used. The compliant isn't about cases, it's about the materials.
People only buy the cases BECAUSE they scuff up so easily. Personally I find the cases make a good looking product look totally ugly. What's the point of a beautiful design if you've got to encase it in hideousness?
Recessing the screen a small fraction of an inch isn't going to change the likelihood of contact between the screen and objects in your pocket to any significant degree.
Methinks HMurchison is confusing the scratching issue with the cracking issue. When Apple admitted that the slimmer profile with less clearance between the front and the screen had caused a problem with a small percentage of nanos, it was referring to the complaints about cracking. In point of fact, I have a 3G iPod sitting here and the front of the device is completely flat except for the controls, just like all other iPods. Quite frankly, with the lack of common sense that these whiners are showing, they probably wouldn't be satisfied unless Apple put a diamond hardcoat on the nano, and maybe not even then.
Where is this misconception about polycarbonate being a "premium" polymer coming from? It's a little like the "bulletproof" claim writers tossed around when the first polycarbonate iBook (the "toilet lid" model) came onto the scene. Polycarbonate is all over the place. Check any CD, which costs pennies to make. Also note that carrying bare CDs in one's pocket is not recommended.
I think Apple should come out with a Special Edition nano: The Scratchiti Edition!
Where is this misconception about polycarbonate being a "premium" polymer coming from? It's a little like the "bulletproof" claim writers tossed around when the first polycarbonate iBook (the "toilet lid" model) came onto the scene. Polycarbonate is all over the place. Check any CD, which costs pennies to make. Also note that carrying bare CDs in one's pocket is not recommended.
My favourite example is Oakley sports glasses. They used to provide dealers with lenses that had been peppered by a shotgun showing the glasses could withstand serious impacts.
That's great but
a) they couldn't survive gritty fingers wiping them
b) your face wouldn't survive the shot gun blast 8)
This is what happened when a nano was used to gently caress the bare ass of a new born baby.
case closed
LOTSCWTIMEL! (Lying on the sofa, cringing with tears in my eyes lauging...)
Concerning the scratch resistance of a Treo or glasses, these are made to be scratch resistant and their surface/treatment/material costs a lot more than what could be put on the nano for a reasonable price. I have coated glasses (the expensive kind for $150 for each lens) and although they have lasted me 7 years, each one of the scratches (there aren't many) I can trace back to the like 6 times that I wiped them with a) a paper towel or b) my cotton T shirt. And this already *is* the expensive coat, so I guess I'll go to my lawyer and sue the shit out of Rodenstock (the manufacturer). So, power to them, they are right to sue Apple's ass off for making such a shitty overpriced gagdet. Oh, and earth is a disc, right? Seriously, I'd rather have 4 GB and have to make sure that I don't scratch it than have 1 or 2 GB and a somewhat more scratch resistant front plate for the same price.
Comments
Originally posted by SoopaDrive
Didn't we have several cases like this before?
There was the "battery problem" suit (demanded no profit-sharing) which was resolved when Apple sent $50 vouchers to all purchasers of that model Pod good toward Apple Care policies on affected Pods or additional Apple purchases...
About the Nano: I was reading all the comments, and I wondered if I was the only woman in this forum! We don't put our most beautiful, functional devices in pants pockets, even when we aren't carrying purses. My Razr cell phone came with a number of different accessories, among them a leatherette case which is designed to protect the phone from scratches... it's silver (the matte black shows oily fingerprints and other foreign substances - like my 1999 PB. Doesn't make me love it any less).
Something tells me the lawyers who filed this Nano suit were of the "personal injury" variety... they aren't impressive as lawyers go, they want publicity and frequently lose the first round... judges don't enjoy wasting their time with cases like this.
Oh well...
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Do folks who wear glasses clean their lenses with rough cotton based papertowels?
I clean my glasses with my t-shirt and paper towels occasionally - maybe 6 times a week. I don't know about 'cotton based' papertowels. They sound a bit posh.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
No. If they do they immediately see scratches. You won't get anywhere suing e Optics industry on that one.
Nope. I never see scratches but then the plastic used in lenses is much more scratch resistant and has a coating to prevent scratches. I'm quite hard on glasses as I mountain bike with them and live in the north west of England where it's usually wet and most of the hills are made of gritstone, the same stone used for mills. If I get scratches it's because I've rubbed a wet, gritty glove across my lens. Glasses last me about 2 years before I have problems seeing through them.
But your argument doesn't stack up. With glasses you put them on your face out of contact with pretty much anything likely to scratch usually. When you take them off you put them in a case when you're not using them. That's their method of operation. The iPod is a product that is usually carried and used in a pocket and as such, using plastic that scratches more easily than the plastic used in a product designed for your face is backwards. It's a nice design aesthetically but not practically.
If I had a Nano that scratched like that, I'd be mad as hell too..
I've had my 3G iPod 40GB on me almost every day for more than 2 YEARS and it still doesnt look like what my friend's Nano looked like after 24h.
Originally posted by ZO
Apple messed up (or at least one of their suppliers id seeing Apple says "1 out 10 have the problem").. they will remedy. End of discussion.
One 10th of 1% had the problem with the screen, e.g. 0.1% (1 out of every 1000 sold).
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's fair and it's fair enough for the consumer to question why Apple "hasn't" educated them on the proper upkeep. Thus we in fact do have merit to have this judged in a court of law as both sides have a communcation issue that needs to be resolved.
Whatever happened to common sense and personal responsibility? Have you looked at a window screen lately? Mine contain a note which reads, "WARNING! Insect screens are intended to provide reasonable insect control and are not intended to provide security or provide for retention of objects or persons within the interior. This screen will not stop a child from falling out the window. Keep children away from open windows." We live in a world where no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions (i.e., expecting a window screen to prevent their home from being burglarized, or expecting a window screen to keep their child from falling out of a window). They need to have someone else to blame, whether it's their mother, their father, the twinkies they ate for lunch, the government, the military or, in this case, Apple Computer.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.
Recessing the screen a small fraction of an inch isn't going to change the likelihood of contact between the screen and objects in your pocket to any significant degree. And it will have zero effect on how the polycarbonate material reacts to wiping with some sort of cloth. If Apple can demonstrate that the materials used in the front fascia of the nano are identical to those in the other iPods, then they've won their case.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Truth is class action lawsuits don't just happen from isolated incidents. Lawyers need to see if there are a sufficient amount of plaintiffs before proceeding.
Or place ads in newspapers, magazines, mass emailings, etc. in an effort to solicit large numbers of additional participants in the suit. This they do to increase the amount of money they make by bringing and winning the suit. As a wise man once said: "If you want to know why something happens, follow the money." Or the self-interest.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm well aware that Apple used the same materials in the previous iPods however both of those iPod lines had the screen slighly recessed rather a bit more than the mini.
The outer case of the 4G does not have a recess where the LCD is - it is a smooth, flat face on the entire front. The LCD itself might be set back further behind the plastic, but that has nothing to do with preventing the outer plastic from getting scuffed.
I have a U2 iPod, and it does scuff relatively easily, though in no circumstances was the screen made unreadable. In fact, much of my scuffing was from debris that managed to get between my protective case and the iPod.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Is this quote aimed at me?
Hell I'd be defending Apple if I hadn't walked into store and saw exactly what people are talking about. The screen isn't recessed a tad bit like the iPod mini and iPods are so it really takes a beating.
Does Apple really need to endanger their iPod reputation even a little bit by using inferior plastics? Class Action lawsuits come and go but I won't doubt their validity. People work hard for their money and portable devices should be built to handle the rigors of portability.
all of the screes at comp usa have razor blade slashes through them, only the apples btw, and all the ipods, acutally excapet the nano, it has some wierd case on it, were so scratched, compUSA replaced them with the exact same models. Are those razor blade slashes apples fault too, becuase they don't have a glass protector of the screen? this is bs. What screen in any popular store isn't F-ed up?
[BAD TASTE WARNING]
If you are right, taking the size of the Nano into account, Apple is also breaking the laws against embryo research.
[/BAD TASTE WARNING]
wait... i don't get it....
Originally posted by aegisdesign
But your argument doesn't stack up. With glasses you put them on your face out of contact with pretty much anything likely to scratch usually. When you take them off you put them in a case when you're not using them. That's their method of operation. The iPod is a product that is usually carried and used in a pocket and as such, using plastic that scratches more easily than the plastic used in a product designed for your face is backwards. It's a nice design aesthetically but not practically.
The original iPods all came with cases...a pretty basic one, but a case, nonetheless. I believe this case also contained a belt clip, so the intent was for you to place your iPod inside of the protective case, and then clip it to your belt. This inferred that Apple didn't recommend your placing your iPod unprotected in your pocket. Flash forward (no pun intended) to the nano (skipping over later iPods and mini's, which also did not come shipped with cases). In the case of he nano, Apple once again decided not to ship their product with a case. This was obviously a cost-saving move on their part. They realized that most people end up buying some sort of after-market case that appeals to them aesthetically. Half-step forward to the new video iPod, and once again, Apple has decided to ship their product with a protective covering of some sort...in this case, a sleeve, not a rigid case. No doubt this was a reaction on Apple's part to all of the allegations of the scratability of the just previously released nano. Might the plaintiff's attorney's draw attention to this? Perhaps. But since Apple released the very first model with a case, they were implicitly telling the public that this is a device that should be kept in some sort of case to keep it looking as pristine as possible for as long as possible. Should they have continued to supply a case with all iPod models? No, but perhaps the inclusion of a soft, flexible felt-lined protective sleeve would have been a good idea, because, in addition to protecting the customer's investment it would have protected Apple from yet another lawsuit. Keep in mind, though, that most of us carry another very similar device that, when purchased, rarely if ever comes equipped with a case...that being the ubiquitous cell phone. So if some judge rules that Apple should be held liable for not providing some sort of protective case or sleeve for their product, imagine the flood of lawsuits that would inevitably follow against every single maker of a portable product that could potentially find its way into a user's pocket. Pandora's box, anyone?
Originally posted by JamesG
I agree this is a bit silly.
I have a Treo 650. The very first thing I did to after taking it out of the box was apply a screen protector. It's a fragile electronic device, not a rock or a block of wood.
Apple should (if they don't already) ship it with a basic plastic screen protector.
The only problem I can see pursuable by a court of law is the case of the screen actually cracking with normal usage. If you've got something with a delicate LCD screen rattling around in your pocket along with your keys and other garbage, then you should take a few seconds to pause and reflect upon your actions.
Yet another frivolous lawsuit. Meanwhile, we continue to fight a war in another country under false pretenses. :P
Hmm the lawsuit is over the top. But the product quality is not the greatest. The Nano does scratch and comparing it to the treo 650 is a complete joke. I have dropped several time my treo and nothing...(even on concrete oops) My nano has been replaced courtesy of apple 4 times... from scratches. My solution DONT pull off the protective plastic .. the bugger still works...with it on.
Originally posted by revs
find me anything with a screen tat doesnt scratch when you stick it in your pocket with sharp and blunt metal items....
Sprint Sanyo PM-8200
I have a ? thats kind of off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread...Do you think its okay if I use my old iPod with click wheel dock for my nano? It syncs just fine and stands upright, and I am eventually going to buy the Universal Dock, but for now, should this be okay?
The iPod nano and iPod 5G do seem to use a different plastic for the case despite what Apple says. They appear to be clear plastic painted white or black on the inside or something. This would explain why scratches are more visible.
Originally posted by ZO
I really hope my iPod Video (black) will not suffer in the same way...
You and me both. I have a white iPod video coming and a black nano (for a gift).
Is there a protective film for the iPod video yet? How about a good case like my SPECK for my 20 GB iPod?
Originally posted by macspirit
So if some judge rules that Apple should be held liable for not providing some sort of protective case or sleeve for their product, imagine the flood of lawsuits that would inevitably follow against every single maker of a portable product that could potentially find its way into a user's pocket. Pandora's box, anyone? [/B]
Except, almost every portable product I've got can be put in a pocket and doesn't scratch easily. Really. The SE T610 phone has black plastic with an embedded clear window for the screen. It's almost completely scratch free after 3+ years of use without a case. Apple should phone up SE and ask them which plastic they used. The compliant isn't about cases, it's about the materials.
People only buy the cases BECAUSE they scuff up so easily. Personally I find the cases make a good looking product look totally ugly. What's the point of a beautiful design if you've got to encase it in hideousness?
Originally posted by macspirit
Recessing the screen a small fraction of an inch isn't going to change the likelihood of contact between the screen and objects in your pocket to any significant degree.
Methinks HMurchison is confusing the scratching issue with the cracking issue. When Apple admitted that the slimmer profile with less clearance between the front and the screen had caused a problem with a small percentage of nanos, it was referring to the complaints about cracking. In point of fact, I have a 3G iPod sitting here and the front of the device is completely flat except for the controls, just like all other iPods. Quite frankly, with the lack of common sense that these whiners are showing, they probably wouldn't be satisfied unless Apple put a diamond hardcoat on the nano, and maybe not even then.
Where is this misconception about polycarbonate being a "premium" polymer coming from? It's a little like the "bulletproof" claim writers tossed around when the first polycarbonate iBook (the "toilet lid" model) came onto the scene. Polycarbonate is all over the place. Check any CD, which costs pennies to make. Also note that carrying bare CDs in one's pocket is not recommended.
I think Apple should come out with a Special Edition nano: The Scratchiti Edition!
Originally posted by Kolchak
Where is this misconception about polycarbonate being a "premium" polymer coming from? It's a little like the "bulletproof" claim writers tossed around when the first polycarbonate iBook (the "toilet lid" model) came onto the scene. Polycarbonate is all over the place. Check any CD, which costs pennies to make. Also note that carrying bare CDs in one's pocket is not recommended.
My favourite example is Oakley sports glasses. They used to provide dealers with lenses that had been peppered by a shotgun showing the glasses could withstand serious impacts.
That's great but
a) they couldn't survive gritty fingers wiping them
b) your face wouldn't survive the shot gun blast 8)
Again, nice design, wrong material choice.
Originally posted by fng
This is what happened when a nano was used to gently caress the bare ass of a new born baby.
case closed
LOTSCWTIMEL! (Lying on the sofa, cringing with tears in my eyes lauging...)
Concerning the scratch resistance of a Treo or glasses, these are made to be scratch resistant and their surface/treatment/material costs a lot more than what could be put on the nano for a reasonable price. I have coated glasses (the expensive kind for $150 for each lens) and although they have lasted me 7 years, each one of the scratches (there aren't many) I can trace back to the like 6 times that I wiped them with a) a paper towel or b) my cotton T shirt. And this already *is* the expensive coat, so I guess I'll go to my lawyer and sue the shit out of Rodenstock (the manufacturer). So, power to them, they are right to sue Apple's ass off for making such a shitty overpriced gagdet. Oh, and earth is a disc, right? Seriously, I'd rather have 4 GB and have to make sure that I don't scratch it than have 1 or 2 GB and a somewhat more scratch resistant front plate for the same price.