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.
Alright, so maybe they didn't use the BEST batteries. Maybe they made them proprietary so you couldn't just go replace it with a $10 or $20 one... Typical Apple. Anybody who didn't think they'd use their own format is NUTS.
I really doubt this lawsuit will go very far. At least I hope it won't.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
$51.2 million for the lawyers, anyone who had the ipod battery problem gets $20 off a select ipod accessory. Way to go.
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.
So they're gonna create a class action lawsuit on the basis that batteries die and cost money to replace? This is gonna be a hard sell. And i wouldn't be supprised if apple doesn't settle.
yea. we should sue duracell, too. their batteries die too.
Don't ALL batteries eventually lose their ability to hold a charge? I agree that Apple should have designed the iPod so it is easier to replace them, but consumers also should have thought about things like replacing the batteries before buying an MP3 player that costs that much.
As with almost all class action suits, the lawyers will more than likely end up being the only "winners".
I treated mine like shiiite for 10 months, then the drive crashed. I took it to the store and no questions asked: I was handed a refurbished iPod of the exact same series as mine and was only charged a $30 handling fee. I walked into that store expecting them to tell me that I had to pay for a new one since mine obviously broke due to misuse. The replacement iPod is already 6 months old and still gives me almost 11 hours of battery power.
Of course, mine was a first generation 5GB iPod. I have friends with newer units and nothing but problems, so who the hell knows? If any of you is interested in getting an iPod, go ahead and get it. It is an amazing gadget.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
Well golly, those people whose batteries have died must be lying, because your statistically significant sample of ONE unit for only 2/3 of the time they tend to die in trumps everything else.
Dumb fuck.
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.
now i can sue ford because every car my family has bought from them has broken down eventually. I'll be a millionaire!
Caveat Emptor.
They made no guarantees on battery life that I remember, its clearly stated that they use Lithium-Ion batteries, which are known to degrade, and its obvious there is no way to change that battery without extra equipment.
I don't see the case here.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
"i've had my ipod for a year. no battery problems. this is FUD."
Oh crap, somebody's on to us! We better come clean!
"Derp de derp."
That's not really how the iPod is designed to work - you sync from a music library on your PPC/PC to the iPod. As such, you inherently have a "backup" (really more like a master copy) of the music on the computer.
I suppose if you were also using the iPod as a portable hard drive for files (which you can do with any space you are not using for music) - maybe you might care about file recovery. But probably not - I'm guessing you wouldn't store a master copy of a document on the iPod either. More like use it as a backup copy or an "in transit to another computer" copy.
Either way, if you have really important stuff stored on a device, I doubt you would "treat it like shiiite for 10 months" as the original poster said he did. And if you did, I think you would almost expect the drive to fail eventually.
For what its worth, I have a first generation hard drive MP3 player - as in, NOT an iPod, more like the first hard drive player on the market - PJB100. I bought it when these were "new and expensive" and the thing still works today!!! I didn't thrash on it though - it has been dropped maybe twice. This thing is a big heavy brick in comparison to the iPod though. I guess I should "upgrade" at some point?
...because as we all know, the iPod user manual plainly says "The battery will never, EVER die!"
Oh, wait.
This lawsuit needs to be thrown out of court. No settlement, no nothing. Pay to get the battery replaced, only use the iPod while it's connected to AC power, or STFU and go buy some piece of shit Rio and a pallet of AAs.
The "master" copy of the music resides in the mac. You can have more than one iPod sync to your iTunes. That means if your iPod dies and you get a new one you can just sync it like the old one. If it was the other way around, say the mac dies and the iPod is good, you cannot extract the music unless you use a third party app to pull the music (iPod Viewer is really good and it is free).
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
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.
...posted to their solicitation page:
-----
Here are some pieces of relevant information:
1. It is well known ALL lithium ion family batteries die after a period of time. ALL have a finite lifetime. Apple used the best battery technology available in the manufacture of the iPod.
2. Apple provides an official method for iPod owners to obtain replacement batteries for $99, as well as extended warranty and service plans for new iPod purchases. This is available to all owners of all iPods. (This is in addition to numerous practical third party battery replacement plans and extended service plans.)
3. The iPod was not engineered to have batteries fail prematurely, nor is there any fundamential engineering defect or deficiency with the iPod. Lithium ion batteries fail after a finite period of time, plain and simple. No specific disclosures are required for any other lithium ion product, and none should be expected of Apple. (Yes, before Apple offered a battery replacement plan, there was a big hole in their service offerings. That hole is now filled, and this whole thing is now, therefore, a non-issue. Why not start a class action investigation into lithium ion batteries in general, since that's what this is fundamentally about?)
4. As to user-replaceability: if the iPod were designed with user-replaceable batteries, it would need to be engineered with access panels and mechanisms which would add, at a minimum, likely up to several millimeters to the thickness to the unit, as well as potentially opening up the unit to greater numbers of issues than even out-of-warranty battery failures cause. Additionally, the unit would likely be not as small and sleek as it currently is, thus making the unit much less desirable.
5. Other best-of-breed products, such as Dell's DJ portable music player, also use non-user-replaceable lithium ion batteries. Dell has no plan or program to replace failed batteries outside of warranty at this time. Better get a class action investigation ready for Dell, too, because they'll have the same exact problems as Apple, in the same exact proportion. Lithium ion is lithium ion.
6. The vast majority of first generation iPods, many over two years old, continue to function without issue.
I hope you find this information valuable in your investigation, and take the time to consider the facts.
My CD player runs the CD on a pair of AAAs for ABOUT 40 hours (this is what it's rated for, manufacturer's stats).
I can get a 12-pack of AAA cells for $9 US, plus tax.
Now, the first batch of IPod batteries to fail went after 18 months of "heavy use". Let's call that... 5 hours a day. At least.
4 hours a day, for a year and a half... 2737.5 hours of use.
That translates into $102.66 US, plus applicable taxes.
Compare to the $99 battery replacement from Apple. The $49 3rd-party battery. Compare to the people who've been running theirs under "heavy use" for over 2 years now.
Hmm..... those Duracells aren't looking so good, anymore.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
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)
What jurry is going to award these whiners any money what so ever?
How is an ipod any different from a watch? I need a special tool to open one of those too.
pansy-ass whiners. Same with the Powerbook G3 owners that whined about X running slow until they got partial refunds.
Do some research, buy what you want, and know that you can get battery replacements from 3rd party houses. Enough raping of Apple.
The new iPod is the exact opposite thing you want in engineering. A device that lasts less time on battery power. But this seems to be the general trend at Apple lately. With heavy use, I doubt the 3G iPods will have more then 4 hours battery life in two years. For an MP3 device, this is horrible.
The Rio Karma team had a goal of getting the same battery life that the first Rio MP3 player had. And they did it, the Karma lasts around 16 hours on a charge.
Back to Apple. I spent a decent amount of money on the new Powerbook 15 inch, only to discover it's horrible battery life. Checking the specifications, it ships with the lowest capacity battery out of their entire lineup, including the 12 inch Powerbook and iBook. See a problem with this? A bigger screen, faster processor, possibility for a second DIMM, and less battery power? With the move from the old Ti Powerbooks to the new, the battery lost 21 watt hours of power. But yet the laptop is slightly bigger and heavier.
Hopefully a class action lawsuit about the iPod battery issue will kick them into gear about improving batteries in all their products.
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.
A: Unemployed
Lay the blame where appropriate. Lawyers are part of the problem, but not the only part. Blame the clients that hire them.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I could definitely see some compensation for people that were forced to replace their batteries (or iPods) prior to Apple's $99 replacement policy. And that doesn't seem totally unreasonable.
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 new iPod is the exact opposite thing you want in engineering. A device that lasts less time on battery power. But this seems to be the general trend at Apple lately.
You seem to assume that engineer has different priorities than the customer (engineers often call "customer" something like "mindless drone" or "Joe Sixpack" etc.). On the short term, it could be true indeed, but on the long term - it's not. An engineer working for a company that does not satisfy its customers will soon be an unemployed engineer. The new iPod is a piece of fine engineering, because the customers queue to buy it. Period.
Seriously, I use a 3rd gen iPod and I am happy with the trade "less weight for less battery life". Wouldn't swap it for the old one (actually, I was buying my machine when both generations of iPods coexisted on the market).
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
Batteries are not designed to have a life in YEARS. Their life is measured in RECHARGE CYCLES. Once the engineers know how the device is supposed to be used someone then figures out how often it is expected to be recharded and converts that into days/months/years.
I believe the battery in question is rated for 500 charge cycles. If you charge it twice a day then it will only last about eight months. If you charge it every two days then it will last just about three years.
If you drain the battery 20% and then recharge it you have used one of the battery's recharge cycles.
This is the main reason why normal batteries last longer for some people that for others.
The way i understnd it is that most manufacturers build products that just about outlast their designated warranties. (For example, it does feel like I buy a new MD player every year).. At the same time, one of the reasons I bought a Apple PB and a pod was their generous warranty provisons. I gather you can totally abuse your hardware and they happily fix/replace it for you while it is in warranty. So if your pod fails after the warranty then you just buy a replacement battery for $50-100. I know this is "shit", but it is not as if people do not know about the disadvantages of li-ion batteries. Yes I agree pods are not the cheapest players, but by most standards they do have very positive aspects with regrads to useability/standard of build/compact form factor. I love my MD player because I can run it for 70-100hours between charges, but the downside is I have to carry 4 - 10 of my fav compliations.. but with the pod I have my complete music library but have to charge it every 2nd day. The choice is yours.... Whatever you buy, you should always read the small print and have realistic expectations, whether you buy a $400 pod or a $40,000 car, you should always do your research and decide if the product is suitable for your needs and expectations.
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.
One lawyer in a small town can starve to death.
Two lawyers in a small town can make a pretty good living.