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."
Gah! I have a first generation iPod. No, it's batteries don't last as long as they once did.
THAT'S FUCKING LIFE
Equipment wears out. Shit breaks. The only problem I have is that Apple didn't initially provide a way to replace the batteries. I think the current price point to do so is unfortunate, but I don't think we're being robbed. Eventually, I may have the batteries replaced. Or, I might just buy a spiffy new iPod. Or both.
When I've had bad hardware from Apple, they fix it. My PB 190 suffered three broken power connectors, and then they offered a trade-in program on them, which got me a PowerBook G3 (Pismo). When my power block died (because the connector pulled free of the cord) I assumed I was too damned hard on it and bought a new one. This week I got a letter about a class-action suit over it. I'm not going for my compensation because I still believe it was my fault.
How many of these suits are valid, and how many are simply pissy users and overzealous lawyers?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I think this is a very baseless legal suit. First of all, you can buy a new replacement battery for the iPod from any number of vendors very cheaply and easily, or even have Apple replace it for you if you want. Secondly, who said things last forever? The battery wears out, the hard drive wears out, the buttons wear out... nothing lasts forever. Do you sue Honda because the battery in your Honda died? Every consumer device that ships with a rechargable battery is going to fail, many of which are even internal like the iPods. So you have to open the case and replace it every few years. So what? How is that any more difficult or expensive than getting a new battery for your car? It's the price you pay for a flashy new lithium polymer battery instead of alkaline AAs.
I get $50 in Apple credit, and the lawyers get up to $2,768,000. I really don't know who to cheer for here. I wish my iPod's battery would have lasted a bit longer (it's 1G, holds about 3hrs worth of charge), but I also wish the legal system wasn't so screwed up that the only people really profiting from this aren't injured parties.
Only in America...
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
The suit isn't about whether or not lithium ion batteries decay; no one is arguing that they don't.
The suit's merit lies solely in the assertion that Apple, in its original product documentation, did not strongly enough explain that fact, and in fact glossed over it to the detriment of the consumer. If you say "Plays 8 hours", the suit argues, it damn well better play 8 hours... now, and later. Car makers don't represent that the car won't require maintenance; the suit argues that Apple represented the iPod as being something that would operate in the same fashion across its usable life.
Whether you think this is a valid suit or not, stop whining that "Batteries decay!", because that isn't the argument.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
I'm curious how many people spent how many hours for that $2.768 million. If this is like many lawsuits and law firms (remember, these are businesses employing attorneys, clerks, secretaries, janitors, etc.) taking on this kind of case for long periods of time that could actually be a very reasonable sum.
/. but 2.7million is not all that much compared to some previous class action settlements...
Not knowing specifics of this case of course its hard to comment. If this was going to one guy then yes that would be silly high. The question of course becomes how many people and how long?
I know this isn't a very popular opinion on
-Use tracks that are encoded in aac at 192Kbs. or less.
-You should occasionally format you're iPod.(I read a post on iPodlounge's forum, about a guy who owned a second generation iPod. He had major battery life problems until he formatted and reloaded his music collection. He went from something like 1 1/2 hours back up to 4 hours.)
I wonder how many of these people left their iPod's in the car on hot summer days. I wonder how many of these people used 320 Kbs mp3's.
While I don't deny some of these people's claims are legitimate. I question how the majority of these people treated their iPods which has as much to do with their lifespan as apple design choices.
Nice site. Shame it's full of outright distortions.
"I used to use an iPod but abandoned it for several reasons, the most important of which were lack of choice, and thier proprietary "AAC" file format."
AAC is open format. It's mp4. Apple's DRM can be added to it, but that's only for AAC files from Apple's online store.
And you onmit the fact that the iPod plays mp3s, by far the most common format for music at this moment.
"More important is the support for WMA files, which to my trained musical ears sounds better"
Personal opinion without any sort of analysis. That's not an issue though, as you effectively point out that it's an opinion.
"Maybe Apple's AAC sounds fine if you listen to hip-hop "music" with nothing but "thump thump" and "sss sss""
Okay, now you're degenerating into open ridicule that effectively means nothing. I bought my fiancee and iPod that now forms the basis of her stereo system. It plays pretty much all sorts of music, from classical to jazz to rock and pop. With reasonable bitrate mp3 files (ie 160kbps or higher) it sounds very good. This is my opinion of course, but it's as valid as yours.
"(not to mention disgusting lyrics about drugs, prostitutes, and violence)"
This is worthless and insulting, unless you can point out the feature on your portable player that stops you listening to music like this. The music people play is a personal preference. I don't like rap, but that doesn't make it wrong for others or meaningless. This point is utterly irrelevant, and you're just slinging mud here.
"But people who like to listen to music find AAC's artifacts annoying. WMA tends to work better for serious music."
You're confusing your opinion with fact here. Where are your objective tests to show these artefacts? I know that compression schemes introduce them, but your opinion is no more valid thanm mine here, and I say that the iPod handles music extremely well. Where's the data to back your point?
"Other interesting built-in features are a photo album, ability to connect directly to a digital camera for off-loading pictures, and an audio recorder with built-in microphone (!) and line-in jacks. I've used the line-in jacks to record 5 hours of Sirius radio onto the device so I'd have something to listen to on a cross-country flight."
The iPod Photo (of course) has the photo album, but the ability to import photos to the iPod without requiring an add-on device is something Apple failed in. This is definitely a point in favour of your player.
Recording directly into the unit is a great idea too.
"As you can see, it's a bit smaller (skinnier) than an iPod, and has a much nicer illuminated color display."
You gorgot to mention that your new player is being compared to a very old iPod. The iPod Photo is slimmer than your player, and also has a colour screen.
"It comes bundled with some "Napster" software that I wasn't interested in. However, I did eventually installl the "driver" (not sure what it did, because it worked without it), and I flashed the firmware with the latest version from the Samsung website. The new firmware provided for the completely open and free OGG format, another advantage over Apple."
Driver? Why does it need one?
OGG? That's nice enough, but outside of a very small group on Slashdot, I just haven't seen anyone asking for it.
"If you're some kid that listens to noise instead of music, and you think that overpriced overhyped products are "cool", get an iPod. "
You just couldn't resist this snide comment, could you? It's worthless, and utterly subjective. You want to distance yourself from the 'cool' group you seem to hate? That's nice. Why don't you justify yourself without reference to them then?
"However, if you like to listen to serious music, want a choice of music vendors and file formats, and want something that works with Microsoft Windows without installing some weird "iTunes" software, consider one of the S
The average consumer is a moron and probably shouldn't be allowed to own a "complex" device which doesn't provide them with simple pictures to show them how to perform such difficult tasks as opening a case and replacing a battery that is as simple to replace as it is to replace a battery in a cordless phone.
If you didn't know how to swim, then you shouldn't have gone in the water in the first place!
You're as mad as a hatter -- or a troll.
An iPod is not marketed as a device for geeks. It's actively advertised as something non-technical for everyone.