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."
... with earbuds attached
Why would the type of headphones attached change the drain on the battery?
...I got 8 hours out of it before I retired it. At the time I had VBR 320KB MP3s on it.
But I'm torn. $50 in Apple pr0n or join the evil empire of class action lawsuits where the lawyeres get huge chunks of the settlement and the 'injured' party gets a gift cert or a measly check relatively speaking to the cost of the item you bought.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I agree that the iPod battery life was misrepresented by Apple... but what about cell phones? Aren't their battery lifetimes inflated MUCH more than that of the iPod? And don't they have at least as short of a lifespan?
E = m * c^(Hammer)
I'm just mad because my iPod didn't turn me black and vastly improve my dancing skills. I'm still just a fat old clumbsy white boy with no skills... talk about your false advertising.
Where's my check? Huh?
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.
In Apple's defense...even though they lost the court battle their defense was well designed, and their lawyers were pretty slick looking.
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.)
Yeah, batteries wear out. Mine wore out in 3 months. Was holding a charge for an hour if I was lucky. Totally different situation there, it's not whining, it's defective. $400 device, non-replaceable battery? It was a long process, but they eventually redeemed themselves.
When my equipment was broken, Apple fixed it. As I stated, when my PowerBook 190 had a damaged power connector because of poor design, for which they eventually offered a replacement system at a reduced price, and were required to repair it free for some years - probably by a much more reasonable lawsuit - they repaired it. When it came back the second time with a shattered screen, they replaced the screen.
When the door covering the ports broke on a teacher's - weak hinge design - they sent a bag of 144, free of charge. When the power brick on my 1400cs overheated to the point it discolored the plastic, they replaced it.
All of the times I have had problems with Apple's hardware that were not a) my fault or b) typical wear, I have had a good experiences.
I am not saying that no one recieved defective units. I am not saying that people who did should not have an avenue for recompense. My problem is the implementation of this lawsuit.
--
My first generation iPod is old, now. It has been dropped several times. The Lucite facing is chipped. The chrome back is scratched. The battery doesn't last as long as it used to. Part of that - I'm sure - is it being in heat and cold when it spent time in my parked car. That's my fault.
Apple didn't lie. The iPod I received lived up to the battery specs, or reasonable approximations under non-ideal usage. Over time, the battery degraded. For people who didn't get the promised battery life (or anything reasonable), there should be compensation. For people who are complaining that old batteries don't hold a charge as well, I have no sympathy. I'm one of them.
Did that happen to everyone? No.
Did some people get bad batteries? Most likely.
Will many people who have misused their equipment be elligible for compensation? Yes.
I believe that class action lawsuits were conceived to provide protection to consumers who would otherwise be unaware that they have received poor quality or damaged goods and are entitled to compensation. I think that this lawsuit - while having some merit - overreaches what is reasonable and provides no safeguards against abuse. "Sure, my ipod battery is bad. Gimmegimmegimme!" Now I get $25.
If your first-gen iPod, which could be almost four years old is now experiencing battery problems, you're elligible. How many charge cycles have some of these iPods been through? How long ago did they experience loss? It's too broad.
Also, you'll find it is often the opposite with MS products. Most people simply expect a certain level of failure from Microsoft Software. With my PC hardware, I accept certain failure - when cheap RAM or an inexpensive motherboard fails, it's cheap. When I received a dead processor though, I got a replacement. When equipment fails unreasonably, I look into it. When the old laptop battery doesn't hold a charge, that's the cost of business.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
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
you gotta be kidding. plain AA/AAA batteries are the WORST way to go.
... 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).
...
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
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.
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.
Toys with non replaceable batteries? Have you been to a toys r us recently? All sorts of kids toys come with no replaceable batteries.
But how many of them are $500 toys? I think that's one of the main contentions in the argument. If it were a $25 toy, no one would have any heartburn over it. But who wants to shell out several hundred dollars every year or two for an mp3 player?
18 months > 500 charges assuming 1 charge per day. Therefore, it seems they got their use out of it.
Nice assumption, and I'd agree with you for the folks who did get their allotted 500 charges, but I'd venture to say that most people weren't charging every day and fell far short of 500 charges- do they have a legitimate gripe?
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.