UUronL

I wondered where this topic went. Yes, the iPod battery suit may be a dumb suit. I was just providing an example of a suit similar to the one being discussed. There are many other similar examples that may not be so problematic.
[/quote]


F-That. The Apple suit is for -defective- batteries. There is a test that you must perform before making a claim. The suit is intended to address batteries that specifically fall short of Apple's stated expectations. Ever hear of a parts supplier making a bad run of a certain component? It happens to batteries too, and in this case it definitely happened. If the batteries were -easily- replaced (if there was a battery door), I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue at all. Apple made its bed when it decided to seal the unit. It also didn't help that the initial service response to a bad or old battery was to tell the owner of said unit that the replacement cost would be $250, and that it was just better to replace the iPod. The original website that broke the news had a .wav file of a customer service call confirming this. Only after public outcry did Apple reduce the cost to $100 or so. Some do-it-yourself kits are probably cheaper now.

I think it's deplorable that the response Apple has to building flimsy unserviceable products is to sell service/warranty contracts. You have to pay because they make products that aren't meant to last - I'm actually shocked there isn't more outrage concerning this. "Hey, you really should buy this extended warranty because this nice shiny thing you just bought will most certainly break". My sister is on her 4th iPod - a Nano I recently bought her. The thing has a centimeter band in the screen where the LCD doesn't produce an image. This is on a unit that has never been dropped, and gets used in an armband while she jogs.

I'm glad Apple is taking a few kicks in the nuts. That company could put dogshit in a box and people would lose all feeling in their hands from applauding it. Companies like Microsoft must withstand constant criticism, yet Apple can do no wrong. Well, Apple -can- do wrong, and I'm glad someone is willing to recognize it.

Don't get me started about iTMS...

znod

I wondered where this topic went. Yes, the iPod battery suit may be a dumb suit. I was just providing an example of a suit similar to the one being discussed. There are many other similar examples that may not be so problematic.
[/quote]


F-That. The Apple suit is for -defective- batteries. There is a test that you must perform before making a claim. The suit is intended to address batteries that specifically fall short of Apple's stated expectations. Ever hear of a parts supplier making a bad run of a certain component? It happens to batteries too, and in this case it definitely happened. If the batteries were -easily- replaced (if there was a battery door), I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue at all. Apple made its bed when it decided to seal the unit. It also didn't help that the initial service response to a bad or old battery was to tell the owner of said unit that the replacement cost would be $250, and that it was just better to replace the iPod. The original website that broke the news had a .wav file of a customer service call confirming this. Only after public outcry did Apple reduce the cost to $100 or so. Some do-it-yourself kits are probably cheaper now.

I think it's deplorable that the response Apple has to building flimsy unserviceable products is to sell service/warranty contracts. You have to pay because they make products that aren't meant to last - I'm actually shocked there isn't more outrage concerning this. "Hey, you really should buy this extended warranty because this nice shiny thing you just bought will most certainly break". My sister is on her 4th iPod - a Nano I recently bought her. The thing has a centimeter band in the screen where the LCD doesn't produce an image. This is on a unit that has never been dropped, and gets used in an armband while she jogs.

I'm glad Apple is taking a few kicks in the nuts. That company could put dogshit in a box and people would lose all feeling in their hands from applauding it. Companies like Microsoft must withstand constant criticism, yet Apple can do no wrong. Well, Apple -can- do wrong, and I'm glad someone is willing to recognize it.

Don't get me started about iTMS...
[/quote]Well, I don't know if the iPod suit is, or was, a dumb one or not. It was not, and still is not, my intention to discuss the suit's merits (as mentioned). As indicated, I only mentioned the iPod suit because it provides an example of a suit that parallels in some important ways to one that has been suggested here. All I said above was:

"I wondered where this topic went. Yes, the iPod battery suit may be [and, thus, may not be] a dumb suit. I was just providing an example of a suit similar to the one being discussed. There are many other similar examples that may not be so problematic."

So, I can only assume that you are not replying to me.

Bimmer32

Now you're talking like a lawyer.

UUronL

I wondered where this topic went. Yes, the iPod battery suit may be a dumb suit. I was just providing an example of a suit similar to the one being discussed. There are many other similar examples that may not be so problematic.
[/quote]


F-That. The Apple suit is for -defective- batteries. There is a test that you must perform before making a claim. The suit is intended to address batteries that specifically fall short of Apple's stated expectations. Ever hear of a parts supplier making a bad run of a certain component? It happens to batteries too, and in this case it definitely happened. If the batteries were -easily- replaced (if there was a battery door), I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue at all. Apple made its bed when it decided to seal the unit. It also didn't help that the initial service response to a bad or old battery was to tell the owner of said unit that the replacement cost would be $250, and that it was just better to replace the iPod. The original website that broke the news had a .wav file of a customer service call confirming this. Only after public outcry did Apple reduce the cost to $100 or so. Some do-it-yourself kits are probably cheaper now.

I think it's deplorable that the response Apple has to building flimsy unserviceable products is to sell service/warranty contracts. You have to pay because they make products that aren't meant to last - I'm actually shocked there isn't more outrage concerning this. "Hey, you really should buy this extended warranty because this nice shiny thing you just bought will most certainly break". My sister is on her 4th iPod - a Nano I recently bought her. The thing has a centimeter band in the screen where the LCD doesn't produce an image. This is on a unit that has never been dropped, and gets used in an armband while she jogs.

I'm glad Apple is taking a few kicks in the nuts. That company could put dogshit in a box and people would lose all feeling in their hands from applauding it. Companies like Microsoft must withstand constant criticism, yet Apple can do no wrong. Well, Apple -can- do wrong, and I'm glad someone is willing to recognize it.

Don't get me started about iTMS...
[/quote]Well, I don't know if the iPod suit is, or was, a dumb one or not. It was not, and still is not, my intention to discuss the suit's merits (as mentioned). As indicated, I only mentioned the iPod suit because it provides an example of a suit that parallels in some important ways to one that has been suggested here. All I said above was:

"I wondered where this topic went. Yes, the iPod battery suit may be [and, thus, may not be] a dumb suit. I was just providing an example of a suit similar to the one being discussed. There are many other similar examples that may not be so problematic."

So, I can only assume that you are not replying to me.
[/quote]


No, I wasn't replying to anyone in particular. Just raging.

das

Actually, that's not correct. The class action is not for "defective" batteries. The class action was for all lithium ion batteries that exhibited some predetermined amount of degradation, at any point in their lives. The only problem is, all lithium ion batteries on earth can exhibit the same type of degradation, under certain usage conditions (primarily the number of charge/discharge cycles). And such degradation does not mean the battery is defective, from a technical (or really any) standpoint.

There was never a class action issue with actual defective batteries; defective batteries in this context were ones that essentially wouldn't work at all, would lose all of their charge within a day though the iPod hadn't been used at all, or would give an hour or two of playing time even though the iPod was brand new. Defective units were always replaced, because the defect was clear. And yes, you're right, bad production runs can happen with anything. But Apple products, including the iPod, have the least problems among all manufacturers. This is statistically indisputable, and has been shown time and again by numerous industry entities and consumer advocacy organizations such as Consumer Reports.

I agree that it might not have been an issue, as most people, no matter what the circumstance, would probably just bite the bullet and buy another battery.

However, if Apple did include access mechanisms for the battery, it's not just as simple as a door. There have to be internal structures segregating the battery compartment from other components, for engineering, protection (of the innards of the unit), and regulatory reasons. Any such access mechanisms would add size and weight to the unit, even if by only millimeters or a fraction of an ounce. For a device where the dimensions literally are measured in millimeters and ounces, this is a genuine concern. Further, the sleek, unencumbered enclosure of the iPod (not to mention size and weight) are some of the main factors that make the iPod so desirable in the first place.

It was common knowledge, and could be found out by literally anyone who called or asked Apple, that the only service offered previous to November 2003 was a flat-rate $250 repair service for any and all iPod problems. It was accurately noted that if the iPod is broken out-of-warranty - and, at the time, that included a dead battery - it was probably better to just buy a new iPod. And it probably was.

And they didn't break any news. They just made a melodramatic movie of themselves vandalizing all of the iPod ads they could find in New York City, and made an untrue claim:

IPOD'S UNREPLACEABLE BATTERY ONLY LASTS 18 MONTHS

Even at that time, the battery was replaceable from several different vendors, and there is no basis to claim, universally, that it "only lasts 18 months".

That's not correct. Though that's what they'd like you to think.

See http://www.ipodbatteryfaq.com/#18 and http://das.doit.wisc.edu/neistatoriginal.txt to see what kind of people they are.

And even at the time they made their little video, there were already replacement programs out there for as little as $40. In fact, they got one - and managed to break their iPod installing it. That's when they went on their crusade, even though it was already too late: a week earlier, Apple had released a specific battery replacement program for iPod.

The bottom line is that, yes, early on, Apple had no official mechanism to replace iPod batteries. Some of the first iPods were just starting to come out of warranty. Some of them had been used enough that they probably could have used new batteries. Apple should have had a mechanism to replace them. And as of November 2003, over two years ago now, they had one. The service program was planned for at least six months, and the internal business processes were being developed for it. There was no massive public outcry that led them to do this; it was in response to a developing need. Perhaps there were trends of customers calling in asking for replacement batteries, perhaps Apple foresaw a looming issue that needed to be addressed, who knows: but the point is, they responded. And the responded before any public outcry or indeed any real public knowledge of the issue. There is now, and has been for over two years, an official way to replace a battery in any iPod. And since then, the price has but cut almost in half, and the service is available at any Apple Retail location in addition to mail-in. As a bonus, when you use Apple's replacement service, you actually get either a new iPod or an iPod in a new enclosure (with its own service warranty), so if your old iPod was looking a little scratched up you can actually get a new (or like-new) one for just $59.

Not to mention countless mail-in and even do-it-yourself sources of batteries for all iPods, for under $30.

And I must ask: like all OEMs, what if the iPod did have a door, but the Apple-branded replacement battery was still $59? Would that be a problem?

That's a really curious statement, since, as I said above, Apple bests all other manufacturers in all categories where it manufactures products, whether it's portable music players or computers. And this is Aallcategories; that is, tech support, product quality, need for repairs, documentation, and so on. Just pick up any issue of Consumer Reports whenever these types of things are reviewed, usually twice a year. It's actually laughable how far everyone else is always behind.

Again, untrue, as is evidenced by the industry-leading low rate of failures of all types, of not only iPods, but all Apple products.

In other words, if you think Apple is bad, every other manufacturer in competitive categories, statistically speaking, is worse, since Apple is statistically the best, in terms of failures and need for service, and so on.

The extended warranty for all iPod models extends the warranty to two years, and is $59. I'm quite certain any manufacturer you find will offer similar extended warranties.

Yes, and this is a known issue with less than one tenth of one percent of all iPod nanos, and was an acknowledged manufacturing defect in the screen. Instead of complaining about it, why don't you just tell her to get it replaced, free of charge, which Apple will do with no questions asked?

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09/27/nanoscreen/

?This is a real but minor issue involving a vendor quality problem in a small number of units,? Schiller told MacCentral. ?In fact, this issue has affected less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the total iPod nano units that we?ve shipped. It is not a design issue.?

Schiller said that if customers find they have this problem, all they have to do is contact AppleCare and their iPod will be replaced.

Let's see...

People have said Apple is continually going out of business for the last quarter century, and file class action lawsuits because lithium ion batteries die, and now, because the iPod nano screen scratches. (???) But the really ridiculous thing is that, not only do they want their money back, they want a share of the iPod nano profits, the product they allegedly hate! In fact, it didn't take but a month after the nano had been out for their to be two separate class actions involving the nano specifically!

Apple takes it in the teeth all the time. And as for Microsoft, yeah, it must hurt being the largest, richest, and most powerful company in the world.

Don't get you started about the music store with the most share, consistently reviewed as vastly easiest to use and most integrated with the companion player, the first real commercial music store of any kind, with the least restrictive DRM, after which every other music store followed meekly in its footsteps, the first store to get all five US record labels to agree to downloadable music, to say nothing of the similar feat it has accomplished in many other nations with their respective licensing authorities, the first store to offer commercial, prime time television shows for download, without commercials, outside of the auspices of a cable or satellite operator, and the music store and player with over 85% share? Ok, I won't get you started.

znod

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

I have no idea what was said above, but the design left is nice. But, the suit was about Apple making excessive claims about iPod battery life, right? Assuming I am right, what, in relatively few words (as though I have a right to make such a request ), has happended with the suit? Has it been settled, and was, or was not, Apple found to have been making such claims?

I do have a little personal experience with the iPod and it batteries. My iPod battery, soon after purchase, started giving much less play time than it should according to Apple's test specs (but not necessarily shorter than any possible Apple claimed play time). "My" Applestore repaced my iPod on the spot explaining that is was cheaper to do the exchange than to replace the battery. This story is not really meant to imply anything about the above design or anything else.

das

No. The suit was about any first, second, or third generation iPod of ANY age or any usage disposition, essentially, getting half, or less, of the original specified playback time.

The only problem is that ALL lithium ion batteries will eventually drop to half or less of their original specified capacity, and eventually die altogether. Lithium ion batteries are only good for around 300-500 charge/discharge cycles and have a lifetime of around 3 years. Now, they don't just drop dead, but many, many factors play into how long they'll last.

It's basically settled, except for an objection that has been raised by a couple of the claimants. The actual facts on which the case was settled would, quite literally, Apply to ANY manufacturer using a lithium ion battery in any device, namely, that they will eventually degrade to half of the original specified capacity.

Welcome to the world of lithium ion batteries.

Now *that* is a defect, and is *not* what any of the class action suits or battery brouhaha has been about. What the issue and class actions were about is an issue that affects ALL lithium ion batteries; namely, that they'll eventually die. And that Apple "knew" they'd die. (Duh.)

This might not have ever gotten to such a status if the iPods had a battery door and anyone could run to their neighborhood Radio Shack and get a new battery, but after November 2003 (the time Apple started offering battery replacements), this is all really a non-issue. Yes, to use the "official" vendor method of replacing the battery, you do have to send your iPod in. But they overnight you a prepaid shipping box, you drop your iPod in, and a new or like-new (manufacturer-refurbished with new enclosure and warranty) iPod of the same model is returned. Or, you can go to any Apple Retail location.

Or, you can get a battery yourself for under $30 from any of countless online retailers, and replace it it under five minutes yourself. Yes, it's not as easy as a door, but five or ten minutes out of a two or three year life? I don't see how it's a big deal.

Ruf930

Lets make an accusation that BMW NA has weapons of mass destruction and take over the company... that seems to be the American way.

das

If the automotive intelligence capabilities of the United States, France, Germany, Russia, most of the EU, and the UN, all universally agree that BMWNA is in continuing possession of squeaky door seals, squeaky door seals that it was known to be in possession of as of 1998 when door seal inspectors (aka, E60.net forum members) left the second time after years of dozens of egregious and acknowledged violations of binding, in-force Chapter VII UNSEC resolutions when literally hundreds of tons of squeaky door seals that BMWNA was already known factually to be in possession of previously were still unaccounted for and not proven destroyed or otherwise disabled, I'd say let's go for it!

Perhaps next is an "oil for food" program, wherein BMW owners whose E60s consume more than a liter of oil every 1000km will get 100 pounds of foodstuffs in return for each liter consumed.

znod