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."

Comments

Re:Huh?

[rsrsharma]

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.

Re:What about Nokia!?

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Huh?

[timeOday]

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.

Re:Huh?

[WonderSnatch]

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

Re:Huh?

[Mr.Radar]

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.

Re:What about Nokia!?

[Michalson]

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)

Re:What about Nokia!?

[falcon5768]

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.