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.
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.
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.