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....
Unlike the majority of the discussion group members here at AI I will refrain from attacking Anders, but instead clarify what I think he means. A prefix is used to indicate decimal fractions or multiples of various units. Nano- (n) is such a prefix whose meaning is 10^(-9). Unfortunately when when talk about human embryos, they're somewhere on the size of 10^(-3) m; that's a milli- (m) prefix. Even the size of a sperm cell, approximately 30 times smaller than a mature egg, is measured in micro- (lowercase greek letter Mu) meters. Still, that's nowhere near the minuscule size of a nanometer.
It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymous with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.
It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymously with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.
I think that's over thinking it, I think the point was that it's an absurd claim that should be proven before it is circulated, just like the claim that the device's screen becomes unreadable by wiping it with a towel or puting it in a pocket repeatedly.
Now, I don't contest that the nano is easy to scratch, but as yet, no one has shown one with plastic so scuffed that it obscures any part of the screen.
I think another thing the lawsuit needs to show is that Apple is unwilling to replace the device, and so far, no one has claimed that, so far the stories are that Apple is willing to replace them.
The Nano scratches way way too fast. I beat the crap out of my phone and it stays fairly scratch free. My Nano is practically swaddled like the baby Jesus yet it's face looks like a suez chef has prepped veggies on it! WTF? Indeed! Great product but really crappy execution on design.
The Nano scratches way way too fast. I beat the crap out of my phone and it stays fairly scratch free. My Nano is practically swaddled like the baby Jesus yet it's face looks like a suez chef has prepped veggies on it! WTF? Indeed! Great product but really crappy execution on design.
A suez chef?
I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?
<edit: bringing race into the equation make the Baby... oh crap, here we go again.>
As far as Apple replacing some nanos and not others is how they were treated. If the moron in the suit wipes his off with a wood fiber product, it's not Apple's problem. He took something hard and fiberous to an LCD. Someone brought up glasses earlier ... the first thing they tell you when you buy glasses is NOT to clean them with paper towels or any other wood based product. You wouldn't buy a brand new digital camera and take the Bounty to the lens right off the bat, would you?
Poor cleaning methods fall under the realm of consumer neglect and SHOULD release Apple from any liability. It's like saying, I like to wear my nano in the shower, but now it doesn't play. The case looks water-tight but I still screwed it up. Damn you Apple, gimme another one of the defective product and the profits you will make selling the defective product. If it smells like a gold-digging rat ... probably is. Some people say they haven't done anything of the sort ... just placed the nano in coat pockets or empty pockets. Those people I would say have a legitimate complaint, and I wonder if those are the people Apple is letting return nanos.
There are several explnations for the huge variation you see in the complaints though, and I would certainly chalk them up to changes in the manufacturing process. A material is a material is a material unless you do something to alter its chemical arrangement. Polycarbonate is a strong, resiliant material, but not difficult to scratch, ESPECIALLY if the people in manufacturing didn't allow it to cure properly after molding it.
I think Apple will probably win the suit, but I do see iPod socks (like are included with the Video iPod) and LCD cleaning cloths (like are included with Cinema LCDs and iMacs) coming standard in the box.
I got a kick out of reading your posts here. You gunned your thoughts right out. For those people who bought the Ipod Nano and it got scratched up from normal careful use, there is a valid complaint, like hmurchison and mac voyer were talking. But that first guy, who wanted to get a portion of the profits, it is like that one other poster said, "why not sue for a pony?"
What I think should happen is for those folks who got one and it became scratched so that it was hard to read from normal use, replace the screen. Like you say, fingerprints show up in normal use.
I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?
<edit: Gotta edit the quotes too. It's so hard being a mod>
I was hoping someone would get the "Suez" chef joke!
<Edit: I live to politically correctify specific lines of posts>
This is simple. Since the complaint seems to be that these scratch MUCH MORE easily than earlier products, do this. TEST the darn nano case hardness with prior products. If it's substancially softer than before, they win (something but not stock). If it's the same hardness, they lose. Now, is there anything else or do you want to keep wasting your lives talking about this?
This is simple. Since the complaint seems to be that these scratch MUCH MORE easily than earlier products, do this. TEST the darn nano case hardness with prior products. If it's substancially softer than before, they win (something but not stock). If it's the same hardness, they lose. Now, is there anything else or do you want to keep wasting your lives talking about this?
Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?
BTW, do you want to know which ASTM standards (numerical designation(s)) that the plaintiffs WILL use to statistically determine the relative wear performance of the nano sceen?
Or better yet, why don't you go to these links to LEARN more about the ASTM and ISO standards organizations:
<Edit: You know, I'm a little too young to remember the rat pack, but I remember it freaking me out a little when I discovered that Sammy's eyepatch wasn't part of a costume. I'm not sure why>
I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.
Wait a minute....
I'll take that as a facetious comment!
On a serious note, how does a 2D image cannote anything other than that plastics scratch?
It doesn't answer the fundamental questions of, who, what, where, when, why, or how, now does it?
Or is it a forgery (i. e. Photochopped)?
A 2D image also doesn't accurately represent what the human eye can see first hand, in 3D real time!
Light refracts, and is subsequently further refracted by the myriad scatches that (appear to) occur over a relatively short time period for the nano.
A 2D static (or 2D dynamic) image cannot reproduce this effect to the same degree as the human eye can see it first hand, that's a given!
Like I've been saying (for the umpteenth time), to determine the RELATIVE wear of the nano screen you must TEST it and TEST other such device's screens!
Not that I would ever be on this jury, but if I were, and the plaintiff didn't present compelling quantitative tests, I'd throw the case out (either as a hung jury or in Apple's favor).
I don't get the persistent credulity of the scratch skeptics. Every reviewer who has had this thing for more than a week has commented on the unexplained scratches. What follows is from a Q & A with Walt Mossberg.
Quote:
Q: You and other writers gave the Apple iPod nano a rave review. But my nano is badly scratched up after only a couple of weeks of careful use, and there are lots of similar reports online. What's going on?
A: Based on my own experience of about a month with the product, and emails I've received from readers, I believe the tiny, thin iPod nano is much more prone to scratching than earlier iPods, even though they, too, picked up scratches.
If I were reviewing the nano today, I would still call it "the best combination of beauty and functionality of any music player I've tested," as I did in my review. But I would include a strong, prominent, warning that it scratches too easily in normal usage. This is a real downside to an otherwise excellent product.
My review of the nano ran on Sept. 8, and was based on four days of tests with an evaluation unit lent me by Apple. I bought my own nano the next day. The test nano, a new production model delivered in the box, picked up some scratches in testing, like any iPod, but nothing out of the ordinary or which impacted functionality.
But, after just under a month of daily use, my own nano is badly scratched, and looks beat up when viewed at an angle. Worse, there are several large scratches across the screen that impede functionality by making text and photos slightly harder to see. I have never tested or owned any portable electronic device that picked up as many scratches as quickly as the iPod nano.
Like the previous iPods I've owned, my nano has never been sheathed in a case. Like the others, I carry the nano -- by itself -- in my pants or jacket or shirt pockets; or loosely in a briefcase or carry-on travel bag, in a pocket containing no other hard objects. This is also how I carry my Treo smart phone, whose screen is free of scratches after much longer and harder use than the nano's. My nano hasn't been dropped or scraped. Yet it is badly scratched.
My recommendation now is that nano owners must buy and use a case for the device. That's a shame with a product as beautiful and sleek like this, because it ruins the look and feel of the thing and adds to the cost. But I don't consider it optional.
Apple says it uses exactly the same clear coating on the nano as on some earlier iPods, and that its engineers have conducted tests that show the nano isn't any more vulnerable to scratches than other current iPods. Apple also says it hasn't had a large number of complaints about scratching on the nano.
Company officials speculate that, because cases for the nano aren't being sold in volume yet, early buyers who would normally protect an iPod with a case haven't been able to do so with the nano. They also suggest that, because of its small size, some users may have carried it in places and ways that differ from how they carried larger iPods, and which increased the possibility of scratching.
I can't dispute any of that, but I believe that something about the size and weight of the nano, and therefore the way it is used and behaves when carried, is making the coating Apple applies far less effective than it is with larger iPods.
I believe Apple should include a strong, thin case with every nano, starting as soon as possible. And Apple should research some sort of tougher coating for future nano models.
This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.
This case will not be won or lost based on any legal issue IMO. It will be based on whether the judge and jury own the iPn. If they don't, Apple wins. If they do, Apple loses.
I don't get the persistent credulity of the scratch skeptics.
This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.
I don't have a nano, and I'm not disputing that it's easy to scratch.
That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano? If one in 100 nano owners have severe scratches, and 1 in 100 of them own a digital camera, that means that means there could be pictures of 100 scratched nanos being circulated now, but a lot more people own cameras than my low-ball estimate, so I have to ask, why is it too much to ask for a photograph?
Granted, someone in this thread did have a link to a site that showed what I would consider minor scratching. The claims by the lawsuit that the scratching makes the screen unreadable simply seems bombastic, and THAT is one thing I want to see a photo of.
Personally, I'm tempted to buy one of them and record it on an HDV camcorder.
The skeptics I can understand. Since most portable electronic devices DON'T scratch easily, I can understand they'd want proof before blindly believing claims.
However, for those making stupid, insipid comments about the plaintiffs asking for too much (especially part of the profits), I will quote my own post again:
"Asking for the moon at the beginning of the suit is a normal trial tactic. It is often (almost always?) reduced at the end to something more palatable to both the plaintiff and defendant - sometimes in negotiation before trials end. You NEVER start negotiating anything by asking for what you are really willing to settle for! You ask for something outrageous and allow the other party to talk you down through their own counterpoints. At the end of the day, you reach a point where both parties can live with the price. (Hopefully!)"
I will add that trial judges often reduce judgments, too - sometimes arbitrarily. So stop going off the deep end, folks! Remember - if you want to get a major corporation's attention (ESPECIALLY Apple) you've gotta do something outrageous first! (Similar to hitting that donkey with the two-by-four to get his attention!) Then, when they're finally listening, you can argue your case. Once they're at that stage, Apple often gets more reasonable just on their own. If not, losing the suit will make them do something.
<That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano?>
Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.
This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.
My own Nano doesn't look as though it's been through a grist mill - but it is harder to see the screen, and much of the print seems blurry because of the scratches. Yes, I can hold it at an angle to read it, but that's very annoying! I paid $250 for this item. If Apple advertises that I can carry it in my pocket, it should be able to withstand the ride! As others have said, I have a phone I carry in my pocket (the other shirt pocket, not the same one), and it isn't scratched at all!
Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?
Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?
Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.
Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.
I'm not saying you didn't read the thread, but the wording of your first post left an impression that you didn't read the thread.
Generally, for a thread this long in any forum, anywhere, means that most of the main points are handled in the first two or three pages, from there, it either gets refined or goes circular. Simply jumping into a thread to make a comment without even even reading a little bit of it is just rude, and I think that's what the impression was.
<That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano?>
Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.
This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.
There is some truth to that, but there are easy ways around that. I think part of the limitations are that most cameras aren't binocular, like one eye would see from a slightly different angle, and another is that with the object in hand, it's easy to change the angle by hand to see the flaws, whereas a still image doesn't give a person that ability. Changing the lighting and the angle should help a lot.
Quote:
Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?
I too wonder, curing or if the chemistry was off in some batches.
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Anders
[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....
Unlike the majority of the discussion group members here at AI I will refrain from attacking Anders, but instead clarify what I think he means. A prefix is used to indicate decimal fractions or multiples of various units. Nano- (n) is such a prefix whose meaning is 10^(-9). Unfortunately when when talk about human embryos, they're somewhere on the size of 10^(-3) m; that's a milli- (m) prefix. Even the size of a sperm cell, approximately 30 times smaller than a mature egg, is measured in micro- (lowercase greek letter Mu) meters. Still, that's nowhere near the minuscule size of a nanometer.
It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymous with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.
Originally posted by damiansipko
It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymously with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.
I think that's over thinking it, I think the point was that it's an absurd claim that should be proven before it is circulated, just like the claim that the device's screen becomes unreadable by wiping it with a towel or puting it in a pocket repeatedly.
Now, I don't contest that the nano is easy to scratch, but as yet, no one has shown one with plastic so scuffed that it obscures any part of the screen.
I think another thing the lawsuit needs to show is that Apple is unwilling to replace the device, and so far, no one has claimed that, so far the stories are that Apple is willing to replace them.
Originally posted by GreggWSmith
The Nano scratches way way too fast. I beat the crap out of my phone and it stays fairly scratch free. My Nano is practically swaddled like the baby Jesus yet it's face looks like a suez chef has prepped veggies on it! WTF? Indeed! Great product but really crappy execution on design.
A suez chef?
I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?
<edit: bringing race into the equation make the Baby... oh crap, here we go again.>
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
As far as Apple replacing some nanos and not others is how they were treated. If the moron in the suit wipes his off with a wood fiber product, it's not Apple's problem. He took something hard and fiberous to an LCD. Someone brought up glasses earlier ... the first thing they tell you when you buy glasses is NOT to clean them with paper towels or any other wood based product. You wouldn't buy a brand new digital camera and take the Bounty to the lens right off the bat, would you?
Poor cleaning methods fall under the realm of consumer neglect and SHOULD release Apple from any liability. It's like saying, I like to wear my nano in the shower, but now it doesn't play. The case looks water-tight but I still screwed it up. Damn you Apple, gimme another one of the defective product and the profits you will make selling the defective product. If it smells like a gold-digging rat ... probably is. Some people say they haven't done anything of the sort ... just placed the nano in coat pockets or empty pockets. Those people I would say have a legitimate complaint, and I wonder if those are the people Apple is letting return nanos.
There are several explnations for the huge variation you see in the complaints though, and I would certainly chalk them up to changes in the manufacturing process. A material is a material is a material unless you do something to alter its chemical arrangement. Polycarbonate is a strong, resiliant material, but not difficult to scratch, ESPECIALLY if the people in manufacturing didn't allow it to cure properly after molding it.
I think Apple will probably win the suit, but I do see iPod socks (like are included with the Video iPod) and LCD cleaning cloths (like are included with Cinema LCDs and iMacs) coming standard in the box.
I got a kick out of reading your posts here. You gunned your thoughts right out. For those people who bought the Ipod Nano and it got scratched up from normal careful use, there is a valid complaint, like hmurchison and mac voyer were talking. But that first guy, who wanted to get a portion of the profits, it is like that one other poster said, "why not sue for a pony?"
What I think should happen is for those folks who got one and it became scratched so that it was hard to read from normal use, replace the screen. Like you say, fingerprints show up in normal use.
Originally posted by someonelse
A suez chef?
I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?
<edit: Gotta edit the quotes too. It's so hard being a mod>
I was hoping someone would get the "Suez" chef joke!
<Edit: I live to politically correctify specific lines of posts>
<Edit: Sorry, it's a fire sale, it all must go!>
Originally posted by BushHater
This is simple. Since the complaint seems to be that these scratch MUCH MORE easily than earlier products, do this. TEST the darn nano case hardness with prior products. If it's substancially softer than before, they win (something but not stock). If it's the same hardness, they lose. Now, is there anything else or do you want to keep wasting your lives talking about this?
Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?
BTW, do you want to know which ASTM standards (numerical designation(s)) that the plaintiffs WILL use to statistically determine the relative wear performance of the nano sceen?
Or better yet, why don't you go to these links to LEARN more about the ASTM and ISO standards organizations:
http://www.astm.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart...808+1130249713
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/i...soinbrief.html
<Edit: They used to burn books. I just delete links. Discuss>
<Edit: You know, I'm a little too young to remember the rat pack, but I remember it freaking me out a little when I discovered that Sammy's eyepatch wasn't part of a costume. I'm not sure why>
Wait a minute....
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.
Wait a minute....
There was the
www.flawedmusicplayer.com
site that had photos of hazed iPods but it seems to be down now.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.
Wait a minute....
I'll take that as a facetious comment!
On a serious note, how does a 2D image cannote anything other than that plastics scratch?
It doesn't answer the fundamental questions of, who, what, where, when, why, or how, now does it?
Or is it a forgery (i. e. Photochopped)?
A 2D image also doesn't accurately represent what the human eye can see first hand, in 3D real time!
Light refracts, and is subsequently further refracted by the myriad scatches that (appear to) occur over a relatively short time period for the nano.
A 2D static (or 2D dynamic) image cannot reproduce this effect to the same degree as the human eye can see it first hand, that's a given!
Like I've been saying (for the umpteenth time), to determine the RELATIVE wear of the nano screen you must TEST it and TEST other such device's screens!
Not that I would ever be on this jury, but if I were, and the plaintiff didn't present compelling quantitative tests, I'd throw the case out (either as a hung jury or in Apple's favor).
Q: You and other writers gave the Apple iPod nano a rave review. But my nano is badly scratched up after only a couple of weeks of careful use, and there are lots of similar reports online. What's going on?
A: Based on my own experience of about a month with the product, and emails I've received from readers, I believe the tiny, thin iPod nano is much more prone to scratching than earlier iPods, even though they, too, picked up scratches.
If I were reviewing the nano today, I would still call it "the best combination of beauty and functionality of any music player I've tested," as I did in my review. But I would include a strong, prominent, warning that it scratches too easily in normal usage. This is a real downside to an otherwise excellent product.
My review of the nano ran on Sept. 8, and was based on four days of tests with an evaluation unit lent me by Apple. I bought my own nano the next day. The test nano, a new production model delivered in the box, picked up some scratches in testing, like any iPod, but nothing out of the ordinary or which impacted functionality.
But, after just under a month of daily use, my own nano is badly scratched, and looks beat up when viewed at an angle. Worse, there are several large scratches across the screen that impede functionality by making text and photos slightly harder to see. I have never tested or owned any portable electronic device that picked up as many scratches as quickly as the iPod nano.
Like the previous iPods I've owned, my nano has never been sheathed in a case. Like the others, I carry the nano -- by itself -- in my pants or jacket or shirt pockets; or loosely in a briefcase or carry-on travel bag, in a pocket containing no other hard objects. This is also how I carry my Treo smart phone, whose screen is free of scratches after much longer and harder use than the nano's. My nano hasn't been dropped or scraped. Yet it is badly scratched.
My recommendation now is that nano owners must buy and use a case for the device. That's a shame with a product as beautiful and sleek like this, because it ruins the look and feel of the thing and adds to the cost. But I don't consider it optional.
Apple says it uses exactly the same clear coating on the nano as on some earlier iPods, and that its engineers have conducted tests that show the nano isn't any more vulnerable to scratches than other current iPods. Apple also says it hasn't had a large number of complaints about scratching on the nano.
Company officials speculate that, because cases for the nano aren't being sold in volume yet, early buyers who would normally protect an iPod with a case haven't been able to do so with the nano. They also suggest that, because of its small size, some users may have carried it in places and ways that differ from how they carried larger iPods, and which increased the possibility of scratching.
I can't dispute any of that, but I believe that something about the size and weight of the nano, and therefore the way it is used and behaves when carried, is making the coating Apple applies far less effective than it is with larger iPods.
I believe Apple should include a strong, thin case with every nano, starting as soon as possible. And Apple should research some sort of tougher coating for future nano models.
This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.
This case will not be won or lost based on any legal issue IMO. It will be based on whether the judge and jury own the iPn. If they don't, Apple wins. If they do, Apple loses.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I don't get the persistent credulity of the scratch skeptics.
This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.
I don't have a nano, and I'm not disputing that it's easy to scratch.
That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano? If one in 100 nano owners have severe scratches, and 1 in 100 of them own a digital camera, that means that means there could be pictures of 100 scratched nanos being circulated now, but a lot more people own cameras than my low-ball estimate, so I have to ask, why is it too much to ask for a photograph?
Granted, someone in this thread did have a link to a site that showed what I would consider minor scratching. The claims by the lawsuit that the scratching makes the screen unreadable simply seems bombastic, and THAT is one thing I want to see a photo of.
Personally, I'm tempted to buy one of them and record it on an HDV camcorder.
However, for those making stupid, insipid comments about the plaintiffs asking for too much (especially part of the profits), I will quote my own post again:
"Asking for the moon at the beginning of the suit is a normal trial tactic. It is often (almost always?) reduced at the end to something more palatable to both the plaintiff and defendant - sometimes in negotiation before trials end. You NEVER start negotiating anything by asking for what you are really willing to settle for! You ask for something outrageous and allow the other party to talk you down through their own counterpoints. At the end of the day, you reach a point where both parties can live with the price. (Hopefully!)"
I will add that trial judges often reduce judgments, too - sometimes arbitrarily. So stop going off the deep end, folks! Remember - if you want to get a major corporation's attention (ESPECIALLY Apple) you've gotta do something outrageous first! (Similar to hitting that donkey with the two-by-four to get his attention!) Then, when they're finally listening, you can argue your case. Once they're at that stage, Apple often gets more reasonable just on their own. If not, losing the suit will make them do something.
Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.
This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.
My own Nano doesn't look as though it's been through a grist mill - but it is harder to see the screen, and much of the print seems blurry because of the scratches. Yes, I can hold it at an angle to read it, but that's very annoying! I paid $250 for this item. If Apple advertises that I can carry it in my pocket, it should be able to withstand the ride! As others have said, I have a phone I carry in my pocket (the other shirt pocket, not the same one), and it isn't scratched at all!
Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?
[B]
Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?
Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.
Originally posted by BushHater
Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.
I'm not saying you didn't read the thread, but the wording of your first post left an impression that you didn't read the thread.
Generally, for a thread this long in any forum, anywhere, means that most of the main points are handled in the first two or three pages, from there, it either gets refined or goes circular. Simply jumping into a thread to make a comment without even even reading a little bit of it is just rude, and I think that's what the impression was.
Originally posted by rwahrens
<That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano?>
Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.
This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.
There is some truth to that, but there are easy ways around that. I think part of the limitations are that most cameras aren't binocular, like one eye would see from a slightly different angle, and another is that with the object in hand, it's easy to change the angle by hand to see the flaws, whereas a still image doesn't give a person that ability. Changing the lighting and the angle should help a lot.
Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?
I too wonder, curing or if the chemistry was off in some batches.