Slashdot Mirror


Settlement Proposed in iPod Class Action Suit

An anonymous reader writes "A court has conditionally approved a settlement in a class action suit brought against Apple Computer by several consumers who claim their iPod batteries did not live up to the company's representation, according to AppleInsider. The tentative approval was handed down by the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County and covers all consumers who purchased a first-, second-, or third-generation iPod model on or before May 31, 2004 and experienced 'battery failure.' According to the published settlement notice, 'battery failure' is when 'the capacity of an iPod's battery to hold an electrical charge has dropped to four hours or less of continuous audio playback, with earbuds attached, with respect to the Third Generation iPod, or five hours or less of continuous audio playback, with earbuds attached, with respect to the First Generation iPod and the Second Generation iPod.' The deadline for filing a claim is September 30, 2005."

10 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Huh? by rsrsharma · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm just guessing here, but the earbuds given with the iPod (and most relatively cheap earbuds) are probably 8 ohm headphones, unlike the 16 ohms of most headphones and the 32 ohms of high-end 'phones. (Probably don't have to explain this on /., but lower ohms = lower resistance = less power.) That means that the iPod can power the earbuds easier, so you're more likely to turn down the volume to save your ears, and (most likely inadvertenly) save power. This gives them a little more leniancy.

  2. Re:What about Nokia!? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can replace your cell phone battery. The issue with iPods was that the battery was irreplaceable, and Apple told people to buy a new iPod when the battery failed after a year.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. Re:Huh? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative
    Omitting "with earbuds attached," Apple could test your iPod with no headphones attached, lowering the requirement for them.

    Car and motorcycle makers do the equivalent of this all the time by quoting "dry weight" (where the vehicle is inoperable because it has no coolant, oil, or fuel), or measuring horsepower at the crankshaft (before some of it gets sapped by the powertrain).

    And then there's the bogus way CRT screen size is measured.

  4. Re:Huh? by WonderSnatch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Probably don't have to explain this on /., but lower ohms = lower resistance = less power.

    Wrong. Lower resistance = more current = HIGHER power:
    P=V*I
    I=V/R
    plug the second into the first:
    P=V^2/R.

    The output voltage will probably remain roughly constant. Decreasing R will INCREASE the power.

    Brett

  5. Re:Huh? by Mr.Radar · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know where you get your information, but that is wrong. The lowest impedance I've seen in headphones is 16-ohms. Most portable headphones are 32 ohms to 120 ohms. The iPod earbuds are about 80 ohms. Also, not all high end headphones are the same impedance. Some are as high as 600 ohms, though those are mainly older models. Sennheiser's HD-650, their top-of-the-line dynamic headphone, are 300 ohms, Beyerdynamic's flagship DT880 is 250 ohms, Etymotic's flagship model, the ER4S, is 100 ohms. Grado Lab's high-end headphones (including their $700 flagship model, the RS-1) are all 32 ohms. Sennheiser's earbuds (considered by most audiophiles to be some of the best cheap earbuds currently on the market) are 32 ohms (MX-x00 series).

    Also, lower resistance does not necessarily equal less power because while it does take less voltage to drive lower impedance headphones, it require more current. Really low impedance headphones start running into problems with portable players not being able to supply enough current, and most moderate to high impedance headphones run into the problem of not getting enough voltage from portable players.

    --
    What if this signature were clever?
  6. Re:What about Nokia!? by Michalson · · Score: 4, Informative
    Please mod parent up. This is the heart of the issue. As will likely be presented and proven in this case:

    • Apple knew its substandard battery would not hold up to its claims for long after purchase in many cases, yet still chose to push the misleading battery life specification.
    • Made the battery impossible to legitamately replace, and from dissections they might have even intentionally tried to prevent user replacements (why are so many iPod models pumped full of a sticky paste around the battery area, when other similar electronics need no such adhesive to hold the battery in place)
    • As documented by at least one person (the iPod battery secret guy), it seems Apple had a corperate policy in effect from their tech support lines down to their retail stores to tell consumers the only way to service their dead battery was to buy a new iPod from Apple. (as pointed out by parent, this is the real gotcha)
  7. Re:Huh? by briankoenig · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are specifying earbuds since they draw less power than an external set of speakers would. Lots of portable cheap speakers draw all their power from the headphone jack (and therefore from the iPod battery).

  8. Re:What about Nokia!? by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Informative
    owning a 1 gen and not havingthe battery fail for long after it should have and likewise knowing that a lot of people DID research the whole battery claim and found that it was false

    I CALL BULLSHIT.

    Sometimes companies settle cause they just dont want to spend the money fighting. My 1st gen still works perfectly, had no "sticky paste" and was offered a battery replacement for 50 bucks before the policy was ever stated. I may be one guy, but there are plenty of others who would also agree with my findings.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  9. Re:no offense... by IdahoEv · · Score: 2, Informative

    you gotta be kidding. plain AA/AAA batteries are the WORST way to go.

    First of all, they aren't rechargable which creates a steady flow of dead batteries polluting our environment.


    Um, I have a charger and a tall stack of rechargeable AA/AAA batteries I use for everything in my house like remotes, cordless mice, etc. And a plastic battery rack to store the charged batts. Don't you?

    Second, it ends up costing more money for your mp3 player because you have to constantly purchase more batteries.

    See above.

    you should get an mp3 player with an easily replacable, rechargable battery.

    Maybe. I do agree it would be nice to be able to pull the battery out of my mini and slap a spare fully-charged one in there. Sometimes I realize it's empty and I forgot to plug it in, so I have to go out for my run with no music because I can't wait an hour for it to charge.

    But ... have you ever seen the inside of an iPod mini? If so you'd realize the thing would be a lot bigger if they had to fit big round AAAs in there. You'd need three AAAs to match the capacity of the new generation iPod mini battery (3.7 volts, 600mAh).

    Oh, and about 4 million "morons" bought devices whose batteries cannot be changed, fyi.

    Apparently, four million morons wanted them anyway. Believe it or not, the benefits of an integrated battery (simplicity, small size, avoiding the hassle of putting separate batteries in a charger and maybe losing them, etc.) are worth it to many. Most people waste money on alkaline batteries just because they hate the hassle of rechargeables ...

    Besides, it's probably far more than 4 million, because most cellphones have integrated rechargeable batteries as well.

    But I think if you WERE to do removeable batteries in such a device, they should be standard AA or AAA. Those are plentiful and cheap. Using a proprietary rechargeable would give you the hassle of removeables PLUS the hassle of a separate charger and expensive, proprietary batteries. I remember going through that with my first cellphone- it was a pain in the a$$.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  10. I see where you're coming from by goldcd · · Score: 2, Informative

    but I disagree. I got a 3rd generation and had nothing but trouble. Almost from the first day it randomly decided to lock up. One of the things I wanted it for was on long car journeys, first trip I took up the country it locked up on me. Contacted Apple and was told just to let the battery discharge (which took so long it was still waiting discharging for the trip back down) - no music for me. Battery was also bad from the start and got worse - although new firmware helped a bit with the random lockups. After 9 months I'd had enough, and apple replaced it for me (and I must say their customer service was excellent).
    The replacement didn't lock up, but the battery life got worse and worse. It wasn't just the play time, the annoying thing was it went flat when it was turned off (and yes I did turn off the clock and power it off properly). If I went away by train overnight I had to take the charger as the next morning it would have to be fed again.
    The thing that really annoys me is that I feel Apple sold me an ipod for £400 (~$750) that would last 12 months. I'm used to 12 month guarantees on stuff - but you normally expect them to last a bit longer. iPods just seem to continuously die and when you buy one you just get your 12 months life support.