Apple iPod Nano lawsuit spreads
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 08 November 2005 - 16:40 · 33 comments & 2669 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Elite_graphix on 08 Nov 2005 - 16:55
- hehe
-
(4 replies)
#2 Posted by Sota on 08 Nov 2005 - 17:17
- Man. Another pointless lawsuit where money is the only objective. How transparent can you be? Sheesh, these people have no shame
. Apple acknowledged the problem, said it was a supplier defect, corrected the problem and offered replacements to those affected. Open and shut. -
#2.1 Posted by Peppery on 08 Nov 2005 - 18:14
- Not really. There were two problems with the iPod Nano in the first place.
1. Some screens that were produced by a third party company "cracked" easily. What you're talking about
2. The Nano's surface scratches easily. Which is what this particular case is about. -
#2.2 Posted by Hurmoth on 08 Nov 2005 - 18:33
- Apple has NOT acknowledged this problem. They did acknowledged the screens cracking easily, but not scratching. Reading is not a new concept
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=388146 -
#2.3 Posted by Smigit on 09 Nov 2005 - 02:10
- Apple usually does anything BUT acknowledge the problem. They are well known for removing post from their forums about such issues for instance.
Its not a suppliers problem, it's Apples problem. If they knew the parts they ordered in for the Nano were defective then they should have delayed the launch of the product and rectified the issue. They didnt, they released what they knew to be a faulty product.
Dont tell me they didnt know either. The number 1 complaint about iPods has always been that they scratch easily. Apple would have been very well aware of this and should have taken greater effort to solve this issue when making the Nano.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by aristotle-dude on 08 Nov 2005 - 17:29
- Same lawyer as the other case. These customers have the option to return the item if it was truly defective for a replacement or refund in most jurisdictions.
There is no need for this lawsuit other than to line the pockets of greedy lawyers. -
#3.1 Posted by Daffy_Duck on 09 Nov 2005 - 18:58
- I don't think Apple recogizes scratches as being a defect.
By the way, the plastic screen on my phone is about a billion times more scratch resistant than the plastic on the ipod nano.
-
(10 replies)
#4 Posted by TruckWEB on 08 Nov 2005 - 17:58
- "so marred with scratches it became hard to read", according to HBSS. How long did it this take? Within a week, the plaintiff claims.
WITHIN A WEEK?? Return it where you bought it and request a refund. Most store here has a 15-30 day return policy.
This is realy lame. Money for nothing... -
#4.1 Posted by Peppery on 08 Nov 2005 - 18:23
- My Black iPod Nano scratched within a week, and so did two of my friends nano's.
Im just lucky the Brasso tricked worked, and i've got a "InvisibleShield" to protect me now -
#4.2 Posted by Airlink on 08 Nov 2005 - 18:31
- I can't believe people are suing over this.
What's next, suing Wriggly's becasue a few packages of thier gum wasn't minty enough?
Give me a break. -
#4.3 Posted by Hurmoth on 08 Nov 2005 - 18:37
- Give me a break Airlink
If you bought a car and the seats ripped when you sat in their after you bought it, wouldn't you want your money back? That's all we're asking for... for the iPods to be fixed! -
#4.4 Posted by TruckWEB on 08 Nov 2005 - 21:21
- The fact is, YOU CAN have your money back. Just bring your iPod to the store and they will refund you. In many store you have upto 30 days to get your money back.
Since everybody is bitching that their Nano got scratch during the first week of use, no need for a lawsuit. Go back to the store and get your money.
As for your car with the seats ripped, LEMON LAW applys. And again, if your seats ripps during the first 14 days, it will be under waranty/ replaced.
Today everything seems to get fixed with lawsuit. THAT'S CRAZY.
-
#4.5 Posted by Hurmoth on 08 Nov 2005 - 22:29
- Best Buy wouldn't allow me to return it and when I contacted Apple they told me there was nothing they could do for me.
-
#4.6 Posted by TruckWEB on 08 Nov 2005 - 22:38
- That's true if it's been more than 30 days. Here FutureShop allow you to return/refund your product to a max of 30 days. Same with BestBuy (here at least, in Quebec). And it's the same 30 days for all major store. By law they have to give you at least 14 days.
-
#4.8 Posted by Smigit on 09 Nov 2005 - 02:17
- yeah, what if you cant return it.
Try taking an iPod back that looks like you hacked into it with a knife and say you want a refund and they may very well just say no and accuse you of doing the damage yourself. Most claims like these only work if the device hasn't been damaged by the user and in the case of the nano you could have a very hard time convincing them that it was a fault in the screen and not you just treating the device poorly.
Return policies arent enough. Apple has to learn after 5 years of shipping products they scatch and damage easily that they simply cant get away with it. Other players dont get as damaged as iPods do (and if they did then they too should be looked at), theres just no excuse and if the only way Apple will stop releasing these easy to damage devices then I'm all for the lawsuit. Apple probably feels they can get away with it since they own 75% of the market and people will buy the product regardless or wont even hear about the issue (as average users wont)....its just not good enough. -
#4.9 Posted by Shadrack on 09 Nov 2005 - 03:20
- Smigit is correct.
At all major retail outlets here they won't take back a device that looks like you damaged it. Neither will apple apparently. But a significant amount of people believe this all to be manufacturer defect, not just usage abuse. What else can you do, but sue? -
#4.10 Posted by aristotle-dude on 09 Nov 2005 - 19:35
- Hurmoth, if Best Buy has such crappy service, why do you shop there? Talk to the BBB.
Did any of you store your nano in your pocket with your keys or other sharp items?
-
#5 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 08 Nov 2005 - 19:02
- I can't believe the amount of people bitching about this being an unjustified lawsuit. If you spent out for a new car, and the paint peeled off within a week, wouldn't you expect your money back? I guess some people just like having opinions on things for the sake of having an opinion....
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by mad_onion on 08 Nov 2005 - 19:10
- but cant you get your money back anyway, i know most places give you a full refund if you want im sure the apple store would which is the only place i would personally buy a nano from.
but that isnt what they are suing about, they are saying that apple knew about the problem and so shouldnt have released the product which such a big issue looming over it, which is of course the issue, the problem doesnt seem to be universal but did apple know about the scrating before hand. -
#6.1 Posted by Mr_Mo on 09 Nov 2005 - 21:00
- Apple is denying the problem AFAIK. And when there are no problems, why should they refound the product which you have destroyed by scratching it?
I highly doubt that you can smash your iPod with a sledgehammer and demand a refound. This is the same thing, you destroyed your iPod by scratching it, YOU destroyed, it is NOT apple's fault. However, this is only what I know, I might be wrong. Anyone able to clarify this?
-
#7 Posted by LTD on 08 Nov 2005 - 19:12
- We are either beset with a legion of Apple apologists, or some people are seriously misinformed when it comes to the law.
Lawsuits with respect to an allegedly defective product are ALL about money. Consumers want to be compensated fairly for products that either do not function as stated, or fail to meet a reasonable standard of fitness within a particular period of time. If the consumer does not receive compensation or satisfaction from the manufacturer in a timely, equitable manner, the consumer has every right to pursue compensation through legal channels.
This is not Apple-bashing or some conspiratorial vendetta orchestrated by the competition. It is about protecting consumers.
-
(3 replies)
#8 Posted by Galley on 08 Nov 2005 - 20:44
- Why are Palm PDA screens so scratch-resistant, but an iPod's isn't? Apple needs to use aluminum for the iPod shells and scratch-resistant plastic for the screens.
-
#8.1 Posted by SojIrOu on 09 Nov 2005 - 00:43
- yeah they need to use the plastic thats similar to the PSP's mine's still perfect after 6 months and i just chuck it around and wipe it with any cloth.
-
#8.2 Posted by Shadrack on 09 Nov 2005 - 03:26
- my palm (way back when) got scratched up pretty bad. my pocket pc probably would too, but now I know better and protect it with that "writeguard" stuff. That stuff is amazing.
If you buy an iPod Nano, you should buy some protective replaceable stick on.
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by Berserk on 09 Nov 2005 - 01:28
- cars dont scratch from normal use, they scratch from the driver or other drivers etc... and the ipod dosnt just get scratched either, but they should still give you a refund, mp3 players do go into pockets and pouches with other things, and its expect that they would be resistent and last a long time.
-
#9.1 Posted by mrbester on 09 Nov 2005 - 10:28
- True. I've got a two year old Karma that has only been in the (considered substandard) drawstring pouch / MD arm case (conveniently the same size) when it isn't in its dock. No scratches. Zero. After two years "standard use". UK Trading laws are pretty good when it comes to customer protection, however, most don't know them, and a lot have been actively fed misinformation from a company when registering a complaint.
One in particular is the one where a product can be considered defective (and as such commands a complete and immediate refund, including any return costs incurred by the customer) if it suffers from poor workmanship or is of insufficient quality as (reasonably) expected by the customer. Scratching of a screen after two weeks of "normal" use (where that could even be the situations where utmost care has been taken) falls into this category.
After all, if the headphone socket fell out after a fortnight, you'd be a bit annoyed wouldn't you (even if it could be just popped back in again, no harm done)?
-
#10 Posted by ju5si on 09 Nov 2005 - 05:40
- Soon to be followed by a iPod video lawsuit. I hear these things scratch as easily as nanos.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by pickleman on 09 Nov 2005 - 12:26
- what I find funny is that people spend a ridiculous amount of money already on the nano and ipods in general and then turn around and spend more money to buy protective sleeves for them.
-
#11.1 Posted by Daffy_Duck on 09 Nov 2005 - 19:08
- You are right. It is ridiculousy funny that Apple chose to use the least scratch resistant plastic ever, easily surpassed by the plastic used on free cellphones given out by phone companies which forces iPod users to buy protective cases in order to avoid a matte finish due to all of the scratches.
Yep, funny indeed. Hilarious.
Last edited by 2302 on 09 Nov 2005 - 19:17
-
#12 Posted by pickleman on 10 Nov 2005 - 01:37
QUOTE It is ridiculousy funny that Apple chose to use the least scratch resistant plastic ever
tell that to the people that are complaining
Jennings claims he bought a Nano in September but despite treating the screen "extremely cautiously" it became "so marred with scratches it became hard to read", according to HBSS. How long did it this take? Within a week, the plaintiff claims. "If I had known the truth about the problem, I never would have purchased a Nano," said Jennings via his legal representative.
Dupe Article