Slashdot Mirror
Attorneys Prepare iPod Class Action Lawsuit
An anonymous reader writes "Well, it was bound to happen. It looks like some lawyers are preparing to file a class action lawsuit against apple computer due to the iPod's battery problem (previously discussed here, here, and here)."
What I don't understand is how do you make a class action lawsuit out of any issue where the company it's self already has something in place for consumers that have battery issue problems.
Just sounds like a scam to me for someone looking to make a quick buck.
It seems Apple is periodically on the losing end of class action lawsuits over product standards other companies appear to get a pass on. The court remedy is usally lame for the affected consumers and at least in one case where I received an offer to join, the original problem no longer existed. I wonder how much tougher being in California makes it for them.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
If I recall correctly, weren't the polymer batteries in the iPod first to market cutting edge technology? i.e. ounce for ounce more powerful than anything being produced at the time in consumer quantities
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
There's absolutely no reason there can't be standard battery sizes that are user-servicable.
Yes, Lithium Ion batteries can be dangerous if charged improperly, that's why you make them a different (standardized) size so they only fit Lithium Ion chargers, and you have standards for construction as far as inherent short circuit protection.
There are plenty of other consumer items that can be dangerous if misused or abused, so the safety argument doesn't go far.
Companies that use proprietary sizes, or much worse, don't even let the user change their own battery, are asking to be sued.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Great. Go design an iPod with a foolproof user-servicable battery, maintaining the same size and weight as the current line. I'm sure Apple will be interested to see how you manage it.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Anyway, as someone else said, the only winners in these suits are lawyers. The plaintiffs will get $5 coupns and the lawyers a pile of cash.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
There is no excuse for producing throw away players that cost several hundred dollars.
Um, they don't? I've got a first generation, 5gig iPod (the kind with the wheel that is an actual wheel, not a touchpad). I've used it every day since I bought it two years ago. I've even dropped it once or twice.
I've had one problem with it, and it was battery related, but it was fixed by a software update a year ago.
It isn't just about apple. It's about standards for batteries.
IEEE.... WAKE UP!
BTW- a little door and two metal contacts would be trivial to add. You make it sounds like some impossible feat of engineering. Tiny digital cameras manage user-servicable batteries all the time.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Seriously though, anyone who's ever bought a laptop knows that batteries like this have a life that's rough one half to one third of the life of the device and cost anywhere from $50 to $150 to replace. If you're going to sue anyone sue someone like Nintendo who discontinued their Gameboy Printer and the paper it prints on on the same day.
There is no excuse for producing throw away players that cost several hundred dollars.
Good, I hope this dicourages anybody else to make such dumb decitions in the future.
Apple chose to make an an audio player that was much smaller and much more sleek than any other player available at the time (or even now IMO). One of the tradeoffs of this design is that the battery is not removeable. However, this is nothing new for Apple. The iMac is basically impossible for the average consumer to tinker with (save adding RAM), but it still has sold well because people love the simplicity of an all-in-one design.
If you don't like the iPod because of this, don't purchase one. However, for many of us, the iPod has served faithfully as an excellent audio player. I recently replaced my original 5 GB with a 40 GB for HD space issues, but the 5 GB still runs as well as the day I got it. Hell, it runs better now due to the firmware updates. If these were dumb decisions on my, I guess I'm happy being dumb and satisfied.
Where the hell is my class action lawsuit for my 2 dell laptop batteries that died after 13 months? Sure there is a replacement plan but it is more than $100 dollars for each battery and I have to change it myself.
I would say that Apple $100 and they change it is a better deal.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
From one point of view, Apple's problem is failing to be forthright about its intention to discourage battery replacement. As the Neistats' film indisputably revealed, only until a few weeks ago Apple tech support actively encouraged owners with dead batteries to buy new iPods rather than replacing the battery in their post-warranty units. Belatedly introducing a new battery replacement policy won't absolve Apple of any prior misleading marketing or other commercial behavior, if such is found by the courts to exist.
More interesting to me is whether legal action -- or just media coverage -- spurs better iPod design. Everyone would benefit if Apple simply put the battery in a better place than under the hdd and made the case easier to open without voiding the warranty. I hear there's this guy named Ives who might be able to finagle that.
The iPod case reminds me a lot the similar questions and arguments when Palm bought out the original Palm V. Until, then of course, Palms had used good old AAA batteries, and there were all kinds of concerns voiced over the fact that the V's LiON batteries would 1. eventually degrade in performance 2. The only way to get into a Palm V involved using a hair dryer to melt the case's glue. Palm, of course gave no up-front warnings abou tthis when you bought the device. Now I know that the parallels are not exact, however it would be interesting to go back and see if there were any similar class action suits levelled against Palm, and to see how they fared. For what it's worth, my Palm V; bought in 1999 is still bhaving fine, with daily use and no noticeable reduction in battery life.
I love Apple products in general but please...there is no way that most consumers would ever regard having to pay $99 to replace a battery in a $400 gizmo after 18 months as being reasonable.
How many of those defending Apple would be defening, say, Archos if there was a similar problem with one of its players? How many slashdotters would be supporting Microsoft if a fault in the Xbox meant it needed even a $20 repair after 18 months?
And there's no question that it would be possible to design an iPod-sized player with an easily removable battery. Hell, you can now buy a combined phone-radio-mp3 player about the same size as an iPod, with a removable battery. OK, so you might have to say goodbye to the hermetically-sealed look - but call me old fashioned for believing form should follow function.
Anyway, I predict that within 2 years, unless Apple moves into the phone market, the iPod will be dead. It won't be long until Nokia or Sony brings out a phone with gigabyte MP3 storage, and since the number of mobile phone users massively outnumbers the number of uers of portable MP3 players, it will only take a small proportion of the former to upgrade to the new phones for them to form the dominant market.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
the fine print at the bottom of the page reads "this web site and its contents might be considered advertising under your state's laws" that about somes it up I'd say
Why did Apple choose to design the iPod without a user accessible battery compartment?
Obviously, Apple is a company that spends a lot of time and money on industrial design - it is one of their selling points, and one of the reasons they are so well liked. However, in achieving the particular design of the iPod, they had to make certain design choices relating to the package. A decision was made at some point to eliminate a user-accessible battery compartment. We can't say for sure why this decision was made, but it is a fair speculation (at this point), that it was part of a comprimise for size and weight (and perhaps durability). Other companies have chosen differently (see, e.g., Creative's Nomad Zen players which are slightly larger than the iPod, not as elegant, but have an easily accessible battery).
When companies make design choices that compromise one feature for another, they run the risk that they will later be found to have been unreasonable, or made the wrong choice. However the criteria that they are judged by is not purely public opinion. Apple had a right to choose size and weight over battery replaceability - the only problem would be if they fraudulently masked that decision (or the implications of it) from the public. An extreme example would be the Ford Pinto: Ford chose to put the gas tank outside the frame for cost/size/weight reasons with the specific knowledge that it would comprimise safety. Ford was found liable in the Pinto case not because they designed a bad car, but because they knowingly compromised safety for cost/size/weight on the premise that the lawsuits would be cheaper than changing the design - a premise that proved untrue when the jury (a facsimile of "the public") found that to have been an unreasonable choice.
At the end of the day, the Apple case should turn on what decisions and compromises Apple made, and whether they were entitled to make them. Since safety isn't really an issue here, I would think that there is almost unlimited freedom on Apple's part in the design as long as they didn't misrepresent the product.
Unfortunately, the problem with class actions today is that they are essentially sanctioned blackmail. The attorneys bring these suits for their own sake - these firms do nothing but bring class actions, many of dubious merit - with the knowledge that it will be ultimately cheaper for Apple to settle the case than to litigate it. The lawyers walk away with $millions and the consumers (the supposed victims) will get some token (like one free download from iTunes). It is a sad fact that the class action system is broken.
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.