"maybe you should READ this thread before posting?"
I think at a whole other level than you do. I read the first few pages and likely more. What all you people did not say is how you quantify your testing of the plastic. I pointed out the simple thing to do is compare it to old iPods that did not receive this scratching concern. If it's the same then the case should go away. You are to dense to get my point.
I was alerted to some possibly scandalous material on this page of the thread (now the page before, cause y'all yak like a bunch of chickadees) I have not read the tread, I did not check for relevance; I simply put on my MAVAV hat and cleaned house.
Please: no questionable references to race, religion or sex. No naughty words.
Also, try to smile as little as possible, it indicates to outsiders that we may be having a good time and that just increases traffic and makes my job harder.
If you have an iPod put it away. Careful though - I had my keys in my pocket and it scr... er..
Kidding. Yeesh, sensitive aren't we. Take it with a grain of salt folks, and play nice.
Yeah, I didn't start my quote correctly. Fraknen whatever is dense.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,....., ROTFLMAO!
Yes, you do think on another level, perhaps a LOWER level?
Please refer to post #113 (where I mentioned testing methods (ASTM/ISO)) and relative metrics, then post #128 (where I reiterate post #113), and finally post #150 (where again I mentioned ASTM/ISO standards bodies, provided links to said sites, and posed a question as to my thoughts on the appropriate test(s), and if anyone was interested (asked me), I would pursue it further (I have access to the ASTM specifications)). I also had several other posts going into some (albeit) brief details on modulus, strength, hardness, etcetera. BTW, hardness in and of itself can sometimes be a misleading indicator of the wear and strength properties of a material, seeing as the chemical composition (principally additives) can give misleading results when trying to infer the wearability and strength of said material. It is the specificity of the test method (in this case a relatively low pressure wear/abrasion test with fabric materials (clean and/or impregnated with grit common to the environments under considration), and somewhat more severe tests with discrete objects (i. e. a metal tool with an profile similar to things like coins and keys)) that is most important in doing a relative comparison (i. e. replicating the insitu environmental conditions).
I too wonder, curing or if the chemistry was off in some batches. [/B]
Hmmm, I didn't think about the chemistry being off by batches - that could be the issue, too.
Does anybody know if Apple buys the plastic front ready-cast, or if they make it themselves? If ready-cast, it could be a supplier issue, and Apple might need a longer time to investigate that...
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...
I was alerted to some possibly scandalous material on this page of the thread (now the page before, cause y'all yak like a bunch of chickadees) I have not read the tread, I did not check for relevance; I simply put on my MAVAV hat and cleaned house.
Please: no questionable references to race, religion or sex. No naughty words.
Also, try to smile as little as possible, it indicates to outsiders that we may be having a good time and that just increases traffic and makes my job harder.
If you have an iPod put it away. Careful though - I had my keys in my pocket and it scr... er..
Kidding. Yeesh, sensitive aren't we. Take it with a grain of salt folks, and play nice.
Your loving mod,
Graham
Guilty as charged, I didn't mean to incur the wrath of the moderator(s), it won't happen again, I guess my attempt at humor crossed at least two of the three aforementioned subject areas (or is it 3 out of 4)? I guess I'll go reread the AI TOS, Its been a while! BTW, I didn't know we had a mom in the house (I hope I didn't just cross over the last of the aforementioned subject areas, did I)?
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...
I don't know, hard to tell, whomever they are, they don't seem to have reached puberty yet?
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...
Guys.. I just felt I should point something "constructive" out. But it seems the density of several in here is very high. Maybe you should get the hardness of your heads tested.
After all your talk about this issue (150 posts or whatever), I could not believe the obvious was not stated. To just compare the strength/hardness of the older iPods to the newer one. There are companies that do these sorts of tests, no biggy here. Apple should do it and release the results. You can talk all you want about what material is used, were it could go wrong, how to test it Yadda yadda. Don't matter. What matters is how it compares to what Apple has sold in the market in the past, since that apperently does not have the same issue. If it comes out the same, take your results to court, if not, find out where the problem is and fix it and say sorry as you exhange them. Discusion (should be) is over! That is all I was saying and I don't believe anyone else put it that way.
I'm only pointing out the obvious. Something that I thought would have been brought up in the first few posts because of the genuises in here. Laugh if you want, if you can't understand my points, skip them and read ahead my friend. I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English. What a welcome from ya'll!
As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.
Let's see now, the article was posted on a Friday, I was returning home from a business trip at that time (arrived early Saturday morning), so didn't read this thread (and other forums elsewhere) until Saturday afternoon. Also, I'm usually not one for "brain fart" responses, I usually like to "sleep on it" before posting, and I also prefer to read what others are thinking before posting. You also have to consider the frequency of posts (high initially, lower frequency with time). Finally, consider the direction threads take, here it started as mostly pro-Apple (I was also of this opinion initially, but upon some reflection, and reading other forums, I slowly changed my view, to one of (hopefully) objective analysis), I believe the tone has changed somewhat, to perhaps a neutral position. Considering all this, I believe I WAS the first to mention (someone correct me if I'm wrong) ASTM/ISO wear tests on the nano screen (post #113, on Sunday morning (I believe) CDT). You just might try to READ IT! BTW, my last post suggests that hardness testing, in and of itself, may result in a false positive, the test method needs to be specific to the insitu environmental conditions, in this case a wear/abrasion test method is more appropriate. Also, do you really think Apple would release test results into the public domain (they may have to in court, as a matter of public record), seeing as they are currently in litigation?
As for this statement,
I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English.
what can I say, you obviously didn't care to read post #113 OR my reply to one of your brilliant posts (post #166). As for my ability to understand English, what can I say, at least I try to spell my words correctly (which means I tend to edit them several times (afterall, I are a engineer)). It would appear that English is not your native language? Is it French perhaps (considering your last comment, which isn't allowed BTW)?
Call me skeptical, but there are three big factors that make me think this scratching situation can be NO WORSE than isolated to the batch of plastic in the affected nanos:
1) Previous iPods used the SAME material. My little 40Gb-iPod-in-the-cargo-pocket experiment the other night revealed no change from the previous condition. If the iPods have all used the same materials, what other than a manufacturing anomoly could cause this? If it is a manufacturing anomoly, how is that worthy of a class-action lawsuit requesting a portion of the profits?
2) There have been no pictures, videos, charcoal reliefs, crop circles, or anything else that shows me that the scratches -- which I acknowledge look ugly on a black nano -- make the screen specifically difficult to read or completely unreadable. Ugly is one thing. Disfunctional is another. If the nano is scratched so bad you can't read it, you WILL be able to pick that up with a camera.
3) There are people who can put their nano in a cotton pocket and have no problems and others who have significant problems. To me, if the "bad batch" is affected by a soft cotton cloth, the plastic must be so soft that you could imprint your thumb in it and the dent or thumbprint would remain.
Guys.. I just felt I should point something "constructive" out. But it seems the density of several in here is very high. Maybe you should get the hardness of your heads tested.
After all your talk about this issue (150 posts or whatever), I could not believe the obvious was not stated. To just compare the strength/hardness of the older iPods to the newer one. There are companies that do these sorts of tests, no biggy here. Apple should do it and release the results. You can talk all you want about what material is used, were it could go wrong, how to test it Yadda yadda. Don't matter. What matters is how it compares to what Apple has sold in the market in the past, since that apperently does not have the same issue. If it comes out the same, take your results to court, if not, find out where the problem is and fix it and say sorry as you exhange them. Discusion (should be) is over! That is all I was saying and I don't believe anyone else put it that way.
I'm only pointing out the obvious. Something that I thought would have been brought up in the first few posts because of the genuises in here. Laugh if you want, if you can't understand my points, skip them and read ahead my friend. I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English. What a welcome from ya'll!
As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.
Dude. Three words. Breate.
However, you do raise a good point, someone SHOULD test the hardness of the old Mini to a nano, and likewise a 4g? ipod to the 5g.
Anyways, do it without the moronic and dense and disapporoval please. A lot of us dont actually LIVe in america, though our Prime Minister may be so far up G.W ass its coming out the other side, we are still governed by a completly different government.
Hmm, just a thought, if this already hasn't been mentioned, but perhaps the polycarbonate coating wasn't applied to one (or several) batches of nanos? This would (perhaps) explain the discrepancy in end user reports. Stuff like that does occasionally happen at the factory. Is there any way to detect the coating by eyeballing the nano (it does look rather "shiny" in the Ars Technica photos, or conversely would the underlying plastic have a "duller" appearance)? Or perhaps the thickness of the coating was less than the specifications, or the coating properties themselves were under the specifications, or applied incorrectly? I think I've already alluded to the possibility of substandard plastics themselves (as have others).
There is still no picture showing a nano with a screen rendered unreadable because of "normal" use, people trying to explain that are comming up with somewhat esotheric theories...
First there is this guy saying that since the scratches are 3d and a camera is 2d they wouldn't appear on camera...Oh please... I guess that if you close one of your eye the screen magically becomes readable? If someone makes a picture to show how the screen is unreadable, he will find the right angle and light to show scratches, it shouldn't be hard at all.
You make it sound like the problem is like ghosts or UFO's that cannot be photographed.
On a more concrete side, Steve Berman, which is the attorney leading the nano class-action against Apple, is friend with Microsoft.
Berman defended Microsoft in at least 50 class action suits (that was in 2000, he did more for them since then). He defended MS against the government, and groups of people claiming that MS had a flawed product (Windows). Don't expect this guy to ever lead a suit against MS, as they are his friends.
I'm sure many people and companies are now ready to twist the facts because they've had enough with Apple's success. MS had big plans to shove us TPM down the throat using music DRM as an entry point, and now they can't do that, how sad...
Yes the nano can be scratched because of normal use, like just about every piece of plastic. Yes some people may be pissed off about their iPods eastethics. But no I don't believe the screen can become unreadable after only a few weeks of normal use. Please prove otherwise
On a more concrete side, Steve Berman, which is the attorney leading the nano class-action against Apple, is friend with Microsoft.
Berman defended Microsoft in at least 50 class action suits (that was in 2000, he did more for them since then). He defended MS against the government, and groups of people claiming that MS had a flawed product (Windows). Don't expect this guy to ever lead a suit against MS, as they are his friends.
Is this really true? Because if it is, this "class action" suit will probably get tossed with Xtreme prejudice... and Apple will save 100s of 1,000s of $$ in legal costs. !
First there is this guy saying that since the scratches are 3d and a camera is 2d they wouldn't appear on camera...Oh please... I guess that if you close one of your eye the screen magically becomes readable? If someone makes a picture to show how the screen is unreadable, he will find the right angle and light to show scratches, it shouldn't be hard at all.
No, what I was suggesting was that perhaps, just perhaps, actually SEEING a scratched nano (first hand, up close, in real time), just might, give someone a better understanding of the validity of these claims than a picture would ever convey. But let's say that there were 100's (or 1000's) of images showing various clean and scratched nano's, and let's say that they showed text and images, as an A versus B comparison (i. e. clean versus scratched), granted you probably can see the text reasonably, but the images, I'm not so sure that this would be as esthetically pleasing? Maybe this is what is upsetting certain owners?
On the Berman thing, when I first heard about the suit, the first thing that popped into my mind was the motives of the lawyers. Greed, you bet. Fighting for the consumer, you bet (but I believe that self interest is a greater motivator). But I also was thinking someone who disliked the iPod franchise (i. e. success) might be more willing to pursue litigation. I'm rather surprised it took someone this long to dig up some dirt on the lawyers! I do find it interesting that someone who defended a de facto monopoly, is now prosecuting a de facto monopoly (maybe de facto is too strong a term but I think that you get what I'm driving at), but than again I guess their still defending Microsoft? Can anyone smell bias?
It seems to me that if some pods had a problem with exploding screens, not all of the screens would shatter. Some would crack somewhat but not shatter. Some cracks would appear as tiny scratches. It all depends on how careful a person was with their iPod nano. Apple has already admitted a defect. But they were careful to minimize the problem, at least publicly. They were also careful to separate the two issues. I believe we are letting them slide too easily. I don't believe those issues can't be so easily separated. I believe that at least some of the scratches are minor stress fractures in disguise. Is this at least possible?
It seems to me that if some pods had a problem with exploding screens, not all of the screens would shatter. Some would crack somewhat but not shatter. Some cracks would appear as tiny scratches. It all depends on how careful a person was with their iPod nano. Apple has already admitted a defect. But they were careful to minimize the problem, at least publicly. They were also careful to separate the two issues. I believe we are letting them slide too easily. I don't believe those issues can't be so easily separated. I believe that at least some of the scratches are minor stress fractures in disguise. Is this at least possible?
Oh no please, now you try to take this into a PowerMac Cube reference?
The LCD screen is two sheets of glass, sandwiched between plastic polarizer filters, on top of that is the transparent polycarbonate plastic that covers all the front of the unit. Are you seriously thinking that a screen can break just a little and then produce scratches that are clearly on the surface of the plastic?
If a screen breaks, even just a little, it will be clear that the screen is broken. Apple will replace those units, no questions asked. It only affected 0.1% of the first batch. Every single iPod competitors have similar fail rates, just like most consumer electronic products. But since the iPod is in the spotlight, problems like that are more easily reported.
You clearly don't seem to grasp how plastic behaves. Stress on a plastic sheet from under or the sides cannot produce scratches only on the surface. If the screen cracks in any way, it will be obvious.
Quote:
Originally posted by someonelse
Is this really true? Because if it is, this "class action" suit will probably get tossed with Xtreme prejudice... and Apple will save 100s of 1,000s of $$ in legal costs. !
Yes it's true, really true, just read the news about it, you can actually find quotes from him in news about the nano suit.
More recently, Microsoft recognized Mr. Berman's experience and expertise when the company retained him to be part of the core national team representing the company in antitrust class actions arising from Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the Department of Justice antitrust case against the company.
For the 50+ times he defended MS, I found this on the newsgroups:
Mr. Berman made his fame on very grass-root class-actions, like pro-environment suits and defending AOL consumers. Still, like many attorneys, he also worked on the "other side", when he defended MS for example against the DOJ and consumers.
I guess that since he's not a judge, it's "ok" in the judiciary system...
Could Apple countersue the law firm for defamation?
Comments
[B]I'm not saying you didn't read the thread....
No, you said
"maybe you should READ this thread before posting?"
I think at a whole other level than you do. I read the first few pages and likely more. What all you people did not say is how you quantify your testing of the plastic. I pointed out the simple thing to do is compare it to old iPods that did not receive this scratching concern. If it's the same then the case should go away. You are to dense to get my point.
[B]
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'm not saying you didn't read the thread....
No, you said
"maybe you should READ this thread before posting?"
Nope. franksargeant said that.
You are to dense to get my point.
I was not making a personal attack against you, I don't see why I should get one from you. Seems another case of mistaken identity here.
I was alerted to some possibly scandalous material on this page of the thread (now the page before, cause y'all yak like a bunch of chickadees) I have not read the tread, I did not check for relevance; I simply put on my MAVAV hat and cleaned house.
Please: no questionable references to race, religion or sex. No naughty words.
Also, try to smile as little as possible, it indicates to outsiders that we may be having a good time and that just increases traffic and makes my job harder.
If you have an iPod put it away. Careful though - I had my keys in my pocket and it scr... er..
Kidding. Yeesh, sensitive aren't we. Take it with a grain of salt folks, and play nice.
Your loving mod,
Graham
Originally posted by BushHater
Yeah, I didn't start my quote correctly. Fraknen whatever is dense.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,....., ROTFLMAO!
Yes, you do think on another level, perhaps a LOWER level?
Please refer to post #113 (where I mentioned testing methods (ASTM/ISO)) and relative metrics, then post #128 (where I reiterate post #113), and finally post #150 (where again I mentioned ASTM/ISO standards bodies, provided links to said sites, and posed a question as to my thoughts on the appropriate test(s), and if anyone was interested (asked me), I would pursue it further (I have access to the ASTM specifications)). I also had several other posts going into some (albeit) brief details on modulus, strength, hardness, etcetera. BTW, hardness in and of itself can sometimes be a misleading indicator of the wear and strength properties of a material, seeing as the chemical composition (principally additives) can give misleading results when trying to infer the wearability and strength of said material. It is the specificity of the test method (in this case a relatively low pressure wear/abrasion test with fabric materials (clean and/or impregnated with grit common to the environments under considration), and somewhat more severe tests with discrete objects (i. e. a metal tool with an profile similar to things like coins and keys)) that is most important in doing a relative comparison (i. e. replicating the insitu environmental conditions).
Originally posted by JeffDM
I too wonder, curing or if the chemistry was off in some batches. [/B]
Hmmm, I didn't think about the chemistry being off by batches - that could be the issue, too.
Does anybody know if Apple buys the plastic front ready-cast, or if they make it themselves? If ready-cast, it could be a supplier issue, and Apple might need a longer time to investigate that...
Originally posted by franksargent
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,....., ROTFLMAO!
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...
Originally posted by grahamw
Gents, Ladies,
I was alerted to some possibly scandalous material on this page of the thread (now the page before, cause y'all yak like a bunch of chickadees) I have not read the tread, I did not check for relevance; I simply put on my MAVAV hat and cleaned house.
Please: no questionable references to race, religion or sex. No naughty words.
Also, try to smile as little as possible, it indicates to outsiders that we may be having a good time and that just increases traffic and makes my job harder.
If you have an iPod put it away. Careful though - I had my keys in my pocket and it scr... er..
Kidding. Yeesh, sensitive aren't we. Take it with a grain of salt folks, and play nice.
Your loving mod,
Graham
Guilty as charged, I didn't mean to incur the wrath of the moderator(s), it won't happen again, I guess my attempt at humor crossed at least two of the three aforementioned subject areas (or is it 3 out of 4)? I guess I'll go reread the AI TOS, Its been a while! BTW, I didn't know we had a mom in the house (I hope I didn't just cross over the last of the aforementioned subject areas, did I)?
Originally posted by rwahrens
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...
I don't know, hard to tell, whomever they are, they don't seem to have reached puberty yet?
Originally posted by rwahrens
Ho, Ho! Methinks this BushHater is a troll! Anybody that would put --hater-- into their online handle (much less identify themselves primarily as such!) must be purely troll! Doesn't sound as if he's had much contructive to say...
Guys.. I just felt I should point something "constructive" out. But it seems the density of several in here is very high. Maybe you should get the hardness of your heads tested.
After all your talk about this issue (150 posts or whatever), I could not believe the obvious was not stated. To just compare the strength/hardness of the older iPods to the newer one. There are companies that do these sorts of tests, no biggy here. Apple should do it and release the results. You can talk all you want about what material is used, were it could go wrong, how to test it Yadda yadda. Don't matter. What matters is how it compares to what Apple has sold in the market in the past, since that apperently does not have the same issue. If it comes out the same, take your results to court, if not, find out where the problem is and fix it and say sorry as you exhange them. Discusion (should be) is over! That is all I was saying and I don't believe anyone else put it that way.
I'm only pointing out the obvious. Something that I thought would have been brought up in the first few posts because of the genuises in here. Laugh if you want, if you can't understand my points, skip them and read ahead my friend. I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English. What a welcome from ya'll!
As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.
Originally posted by BushHater
VERY BIG SNIP
Let's see now, the article was posted on a Friday, I was returning home from a business trip at that time (arrived early Saturday morning), so didn't read this thread (and other forums elsewhere) until Saturday afternoon. Also, I'm usually not one for "brain fart" responses, I usually like to "sleep on it" before posting, and I also prefer to read what others are thinking before posting. You also have to consider the frequency of posts (high initially, lower frequency with time). Finally, consider the direction threads take, here it started as mostly pro-Apple (I was also of this opinion initially, but upon some reflection, and reading other forums, I slowly changed my view, to one of (hopefully) objective analysis), I believe the tone has changed somewhat, to perhaps a neutral position. Considering all this, I believe I WAS the first to mention (someone correct me if I'm wrong) ASTM/ISO wear tests on the nano screen (post #113, on Sunday morning (I believe) CDT). You just might try to READ IT! BTW, my last post suggests that hardness testing, in and of itself, may result in a false positive, the test method needs to be specific to the insitu environmental conditions, in this case a wear/abrasion test method is more appropriate. Also, do you really think Apple would release test results into the public domain (they may have to in court, as a matter of public record), seeing as they are currently in litigation?
As for this statement,
I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English.
what can I say, you obviously didn't care to read post #113 OR my reply to one of your brilliant posts (post #166). As for my ability to understand English, what can I say, at least I try to spell my words correctly (which means I tend to edit them several times (afterall, I are a engineer)). It would appear that English is not your native language? Is it French perhaps (considering your last comment, which isn't allowed BTW)?
1) Previous iPods used the SAME material. My little 40Gb-iPod-in-the-cargo-pocket experiment the other night revealed no change from the previous condition. If the iPods have all used the same materials, what other than a manufacturing anomoly could cause this? If it is a manufacturing anomoly, how is that worthy of a class-action lawsuit requesting a portion of the profits?
2) There have been no pictures, videos, charcoal reliefs, crop circles, or anything else that shows me that the scratches -- which I acknowledge look ugly on a black nano -- make the screen specifically difficult to read or completely unreadable. Ugly is one thing. Disfunctional is another. If the nano is scratched so bad you can't read it, you WILL be able to pick that up with a camera.
3) There are people who can put their nano in a cotton pocket and have no problems and others who have significant problems. To me, if the "bad batch" is affected by a soft cotton cloth, the plastic must be so soft that you could imprint your thumb in it and the dent or thumbprint would remain.
Originally posted by BushHater
Guys.. I just felt I should point something "constructive" out. But it seems the density of several in here is very high. Maybe you should get the hardness of your heads tested.
After all your talk about this issue (150 posts or whatever), I could not believe the obvious was not stated. To just compare the strength/hardness of the older iPods to the newer one. There are companies that do these sorts of tests, no biggy here. Apple should do it and release the results. You can talk all you want about what material is used, were it could go wrong, how to test it Yadda yadda. Don't matter. What matters is how it compares to what Apple has sold in the market in the past, since that apperently does not have the same issue. If it comes out the same, take your results to court, if not, find out where the problem is and fix it and say sorry as you exhange them. Discusion (should be) is over! That is all I was saying and I don't believe anyone else put it that way.
I'm only pointing out the obvious. Something that I thought would have been brought up in the first few posts because of the genuises in here. Laugh if you want, if you can't understand my points, skip them and read ahead my friend. I am just a guy who posted the above and then got attacked for not reading the posts, I guess franksarg can't understand English. What a welcome from ya'll!
As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.
Dude. Three words. Breate.
However, you do raise a good point, someone SHOULD test the hardness of the old Mini to a nano, and likewise a 4g? ipod to the 5g.
Anyways, do it without the moronic and dense and disapporoval please. A lot of us dont actually LIVe in america, though our Prime Minister may be so far up G.W ass its coming out the other side, we are still governed by a completly different government.
Hmm, just a thought, if this already hasn't been mentioned, but perhaps the polycarbonate coating wasn't applied to one (or several) batches of nanos? This would (perhaps) explain the discrepancy in end user reports. Stuff like that does occasionally happen at the factory. Is there any way to detect the coating by eyeballing the nano (it does look rather "shiny" in the Ars Technica photos, or conversely would the underlying plastic have a "duller" appearance)? Or perhaps the thickness of the coating was less than the specifications, or the coating properties themselves were under the specifications, or applied incorrectly? I think I've already alluded to the possibility of substandard plastics themselves (as have others).
First there is this guy saying that since the scratches are 3d and a camera is 2d they wouldn't appear on camera...Oh please... I guess that if you close one of your eye the screen magically becomes readable? If someone makes a picture to show how the screen is unreadable, he will find the right angle and light to show scratches, it shouldn't be hard at all.
You make it sound like the problem is like ghosts or UFO's that cannot be photographed.
On a more concrete side, Steve Berman, which is the attorney leading the nano class-action against Apple, is friend with Microsoft.
Berman defended Microsoft in at least 50 class action suits (that was in 2000, he did more for them since then). He defended MS against the government, and groups of people claiming that MS had a flawed product (Windows). Don't expect this guy to ever lead a suit against MS, as they are his friends.
I'm sure many people and companies are now ready to twist the facts because they've had enough with Apple's success. MS had big plans to shove us TPM down the throat using music DRM as an entry point, and now they can't do that, how sad...
Yes the nano can be scratched because of normal use, like just about every piece of plastic. Yes some people may be pissed off about their iPods eastethics. But no I don't believe the screen can become unreadable after only a few weeks of normal use. Please prove otherwise
Originally posted by VL-Tone
On a more concrete side, Steve Berman, which is the attorney leading the nano class-action against Apple, is friend with Microsoft.
Berman defended Microsoft in at least 50 class action suits (that was in 2000, he did more for them since then). He defended MS against the government, and groups of people claiming that MS had a flawed product (Windows). Don't expect this guy to ever lead a suit against MS, as they are his friends.
Is this really true? Because if it is, this "class action" suit will probably get tossed with Xtreme prejudice... and Apple will save 100s of 1,000s of $$ in legal costs. !
Originally posted by VL-Tone
First there is this guy saying that since the scratches are 3d and a camera is 2d they wouldn't appear on camera...Oh please... I guess that if you close one of your eye the screen magically becomes readable? If someone makes a picture to show how the screen is unreadable, he will find the right angle and light to show scratches, it shouldn't be hard at all.
No, what I was suggesting was that perhaps, just perhaps, actually SEEING a scratched nano (first hand, up close, in real time), just might, give someone a better understanding of the validity of these claims than a picture would ever convey. But let's say that there were 100's (or 1000's) of images showing various clean and scratched nano's, and let's say that they showed text and images, as an A versus B comparison (i. e. clean versus scratched), granted you probably can see the text reasonably, but the images, I'm not so sure that this would be as esthetically pleasing? Maybe this is what is upsetting certain owners?
On the Berman thing, when I first heard about the suit, the first thing that popped into my mind was the motives of the lawyers. Greed, you bet. Fighting for the consumer, you bet (but I believe that self interest is a greater motivator). But I also was thinking someone who disliked the iPod franchise (i. e. success) might be more willing to pursue litigation. I'm rather surprised it took someone this long to dig up some dirt on the lawyers! I do find it interesting that someone who defended a de facto monopoly, is now prosecuting a de facto monopoly (maybe de facto is too strong a term but I think that you get what I'm driving at), but than again I guess their still defending Microsoft? Can anyone smell bias?
Originally posted by BushHater
As for my "handle" it's my small way to state my dissaproval of your moronic leader, that I have no doubt you voted for.
i agree with almost everything you are saying and love the "handle." however, lets not assume that all americans voted for bush.
on a side note, there has been some serious plastics/polymer dick-slinging going on in this thread... calm down.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It seems to me that if some pods had a problem with exploding screens, not all of the screens would shatter. Some would crack somewhat but not shatter. Some cracks would appear as tiny scratches. It all depends on how careful a person was with their iPod nano. Apple has already admitted a defect. But they were careful to minimize the problem, at least publicly. They were also careful to separate the two issues. I believe we are letting them slide too easily. I don't believe those issues can't be so easily separated. I believe that at least some of the scratches are minor stress fractures in disguise. Is this at least possible?
Oh no please, now you try to take this into a PowerMac Cube reference?
The LCD screen is two sheets of glass, sandwiched between plastic polarizer filters, on top of that is the transparent polycarbonate plastic that covers all the front of the unit. Are you seriously thinking that a screen can break just a little and then produce scratches that are clearly on the surface of the plastic?
If a screen breaks, even just a little, it will be clear that the screen is broken. Apple will replace those units, no questions asked. It only affected 0.1% of the first batch. Every single iPod competitors have similar fail rates, just like most consumer electronic products. But since the iPod is in the spotlight, problems like that are more easily reported.
You clearly don't seem to grasp how plastic behaves. Stress on a plastic sheet from under or the sides cannot produce scratches only on the surface. If the screen cracks in any way, it will be obvious.
Originally posted by someonelse
Is this really true? Because if it is, this "class action" suit will probably get tossed with Xtreme prejudice... and Apple will save 100s of 1,000s of $$ in legal costs. !
Yes it's true, really true, just read the news about it, you can actually find quotes from him in news about the nano suit.
Go on the website of the law firm that is suing and you'll find Steve Berman.http://www.hagens-berman.com/fronten...il&iStaffId=10
Here is a quote from the page:
More recently, Microsoft recognized Mr. Berman's experience and expertise when the company retained him to be part of the core national team representing the company in antitrust class actions arising from Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the Department of Justice antitrust case against the company.
For the 50+ times he defended MS, I found this on the newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e24802601594da
Mr. Berman made his fame on very grass-root class-actions, like pro-environment suits and defending AOL consumers. Still, like many attorneys, he also worked on the "other side", when he defended MS for example against the DOJ and consumers.
I guess that since he's not a judge, it's "ok" in the judiciary system...
Could Apple countersue the law firm for defamation?