Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over iPhone Non-Replaceable Batteries
UnknowingFool writes "A customer named Jose Trujillo has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple over the iPhone batteries. According to the suit, Apple did not disclose that the batteries of the iPhone were not user-replaceable. Also the plaintiff alleges that the battery will need to replaced every year. When a battery needs to be replaced, the customer will be without a phone for several days unless the customer pays $29.95 for a loaner phone service. Lastly, the plaintiff alleges that the battery information was difficult to find on Apple's website."
But let's not even talk about that. Let's not even talk about the horrid spelling, grammar, and general rambling idiocy of the lawsuit. Let's not even consider that these questions have been asked and answered[1] for years with the iPod. Let's actually focus on the actual issues at hand.
The iPhone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery, but it is replaceable. This is the same as all iPods for the last several years. And no, the iPhone isn't the first of these devices to have a battery that is soldered. Various iPod models have already had soldered batteries. Also, the battery replacement information was available the day the iPhone shipped. So, nothing new here.
As to the "difficulty" of finding the information on Apple's site:
Main iPhone support page -> Battery Service: FAQ and iPhone Service: FAQ
and
Apple Batteries -> Apple iPhone Batteries
Wow. Difficult.
Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement.
It's also utterly and ridiculously false to say that a new battery is required every year. All lithium ion batteries have about the same lifetime. The iPhone's lithium ion battery is no different. Most people will not need, or feel they need, to replace the battery in the lifetime of the phone (i.e., while they own and are using it). The "400 charges" thing isn't any 400 charges; partial charges are just that: partial. This lithium ion battery is no different from any other.
Also, the battery is covered by the warranty, and if you choose to extend the warranty to two years with the $69 AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, the battery is covered under that as well. There are even already third party replacement options. As with iPod, more are sure to come.
The customer also doesn't have to be without a phone for several days, and claiming that they do because there is a fee for a loaner is ridiculous. Just pretend that the battery replacement costs $29 more, then. You are not without a phone at all: you swap SIMs, sync once with iTunes, and it will literally look, act, feel, and behave like your phone, with your phone number and all of your data. Seeing how Apple has done such programs in the past, the loaner phone will probably be a new service phone or a factory-refurbished phone in a brand new enclosure (so it looks physically brand new). The total price is almost the same as the official iPod battery replacement plan was for years. If you choose to not have a phone in the meantime, that's your choice.
A recent New York Times article by Joe Nocera sums it up best:
I'm convinced the answer is that the chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, and Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, are design snobs, who care more about form than function. Larry Keeley, the president of the design firm Doblin Inc., wrote me an e-mail message after he'd seen the innards of the iPhone, which several Web sites have now published. The battery, he told me, lacks the normal metal jacket, making it ''thinner and lighter, while also making it more difficult for consumers to handle or dispose of.'' He added: ''This is clear evidence that they are optimizing the INSIDES of the phone to the OUTSIDE form factor that they have designed. It is far more common and much cheaper to design the oth
But if he pulls it off, maybe it will open the doors to suing printer companies for shitty cartridges that are too replaceable.
Wow. I'm a law student, so I like to think I understand that people can and will sue over anything. But Wow. This is shameful.
WAAAAAAAAHHHH!
1) Did anyone NOT know the batteries weren't replaceable?
2) If he didn't like it, why didn't he return it for a refund?
3) Has he actually been harmed yet? One of the parts about civil courts is that there actually need to BE damages, not just potential damages, except for certain circumstances.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Thanks to the crappy iPhone sales there just aren't going to be enough people for Apple to worry about suffering any significant monetary damages.
Gotta hand it to Jobs, the Apple 'overpriced, underfeatured, and overhyped' strategy pays off again!
it's not like there were any articles on the web he could have read about the iphone, so that he might have learned the deal with the batteries.
Most likely by the time batteries start dying, he'll be able to take it into a local business and they'll replace the battery while you wait, probably for less than apple would charge.
for early acceptance.
for not doing your research.
for not waiting to know if the product is going to fit your lifestyle.
for being a consumer whore.
i'm sure after seeing the success of the iphone we'll see plenty of other options, and as time goes newer revisions of the iphone will also get better batteries i'm sure. This is just kind of what you get when you buy into the first version of something so new and groundbreaking. As i recall the first generation or two of the ipod were less than stellar also, but the last few generations have been pretty solid.
Shouldn't they establish first that the battery _needs_ to be replaced more often, than say, some capacitor on the board? Why not sue over any other part in the product not being socketed or user replaceable?
The iphone is very thin and seamless. It probably could not accommodate the same aesthetics and size if it had a removable battery. If you want a phone with a removable battery there are lots of big clunky ones to choose from.
...that really perk up my Monday mornings with a full serving of outrage and indignation.
<sarcasm>
A new Apple iThingy with a sealed in battery! No. You're kidding! Go on.
</sarcasm>
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
How many times have you witnessed a company actually fighting back against one of these class-action suits? I'm sure they have, but I can't recall ever reading about it?
It seems like no matter how lame the lawsuit, companies always settle these (usually in such a way that gives relatively little to the plaintiffs, like a 20% off coupon on a future purchase or something).
Given the potential for bad publicity that could be generated by the media reporting "Company A, today, fought back against consumers who filed suit over their defective product", it's a good bet they'll cough up some sort of "freebie" for the product owners.
So yeah, it's an incredibly dumb lawsuit, but there's a GREAT chance it will just mean Apple makes the lawyer involved a lot richer, and throws some small "bone" to everyone who owns the iPhone. Maybe a credit at the Apple store equivalent to the cost of 1 battery replacement or something?
It's likely that the guy tried to return it and could not.
If that is the case, Cell phones not having a user-replacable battery is ridiculous. They all do, there's no reason Apple cannot follow this standard.
If that is not the case, and he did not try to return it, his case will be thrown out, he'll be laughed at and have to pay attorneys fees.
Release an official statement.
Mr X should return his iphone for a refund. Call us.
No, it's a good reason to get yourself a soldering iron and learn how to use it. Replacing ipod batteries is easy and cheap, and the replacement batteries usually come with the tools for cleanly opening up the case. I'm sure they'll have the same thing for iPhones soon too.
Should I sue Oral-B because my electric toothbrush has a non-user-replaceable rechargeable battery? Honda because my hybrid Accord has a whole array of non-user-replaceable batteries?
Hard to find the info on the battery replacement? Google "iphone battery" and you'll get this... the official Apple site is the second result, and the first one is from CNET talking about the program.
This is just another person looking to make some money with a frivolous lawsuit.
I'm beginning to wonder if the class-action lawsuit isn't a worse abuse of the commons than spam is. All they have to do is find one company with a lot of cash and one customer dumb enough to sue them in exchange for the trivial takings the customers always get from these lawsuits. The lawyers always get their fees in cash, and the customers always get coupons.
I get notified that I'm a party to these about every month of so. Sometimes I even get notified that I've "won" something, like one dollar off my monthly service of Verizon every three months until they've given me $12 (really). Or once, all I got was an apology, along with the satisfaction of knowing that the lawyers got several hundred thousand in fees.
We need the class action lawsuit; it's an important legal tool. But if you've got a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it.
How about this: if you're party to a class action lawsuit, and you choose to opt out and give up your right to sue individually, you get to punch the lawyers once. Not real hard, just a little bit. So an intelligent lawsuit gives you a mild bruising. And this lawsuit ends up with brains splattered all over walls.
Of course they settle because those stupid coupons don't cost them anything. If this class-action lawsuit is settled the people in it will probably get a $10 coupon for the itunes store or something and the lawyers -- on both sides -- will get hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are the only ones who benefit.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
First Off We've know the battery was non-user replaceable back in January.
What kinda moron is this guy?
Secondly WEEKS before the launch the big topic was lack of replaceable battery.
This Guy's case should be thrown out and him fined for wasting the courts time and tax payer monies
IANAL, but perhaps all the shareholders of Apple stock can sue idiots such as this for any possible loss of the price of the stock or expenses of the company (which ever is greater). To the extent that frivolous litigation damages a public company, the shareholders would seem to have just cause for a class-action countersuit.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
By 2020, there will only be two jobs left in the US.
1. Lawyers
2. IT guys for lawyers.
just think about which you're going to be, and start preparing.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Uh, IANAL, but I don't see how this guy has standing. He is citing future problems he might have with his iPhone that are not imminent, rather, they are conjectural and hypothetical. Buyer's remorse does not make a legal case! (except maybe in America)
This guy filed the lawsuit on his own probably because no attorney would take it because it is worthless. Pro Se (i.e. filed without the aid of conusel) class actions don't have a good record of victories.
Nuts file lawsuits every day. This is hardly news even if it is against Apple.
... I believe that the technical term for this is F*CKING IDIOT!
Three Squirrels
Replacement hood emblems are really expensive, and it didn't say they would be in the sales pamphlet.
technical writing / development
Okay, so the guy ended up with a bit of a crappy product. These things happen. But should he be able to sue over everything he doesn't like about it? Couldn't he have considered this when he bought it? And didn't he have any opportunity to actually look at this stuff first?
I say Apple should just give him free battery replacements until he's done with his phone.
Loaner extra.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
They didn't say the battery was replaceable, so no fraud there. Besides, my 4Gen ipod is still going on its 1st battery, and I've had it since the 4Gens's first came out.
Perhaps apple can counter sue for a frivolous action?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In an unrelated development, Attorney Lionel Hutz announced a 3.2 Kajillion lawsuit against Apple, arguing that the company did not adequately disclose the fact that their iPhone communicated via radio waves. He said he would amend his complaint later this week to include a complaint against its unnecesary use of "electricity".
.max
"I looked all over the Apple website, and not once did they explain that it used "electricity"".
IANAL but,
doesn't the guy have to show real harm in order to sue? Assuming his battery doesn't yet need to be replaced, isn't this all just theoretical? Who knows, maybe it never needs to be replaced (not likely, but who knows?).
How hard would it be to ask the salesperson when buying said phone? Once home and the phone was taken out of the packaging, wouldn't you notice there is not place to access the battery? If so, don't you have a certain number of days to return the phone and get your money back if not satisfied with it?
I mean, there are reasons to sue companies, but, lets get real....suing because YOU did do basic research before buying something, to understand how it would work and function...isn't what is supposed to happen.
Damn, when did our society decide that the answer to all of lifes problems was through litigation.
"...old Billy was right, let's kill all the lawyers, let's kill them tonight..."
--The Eagles.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I sincerely doubt he's a customer, considering he always refers to iPhone customers in the third person. He wasn't defending the iPhone from a business standpoint, just a legal standpoint. Last I heard, it wasn't illegal to make a product with a soldered on battery.
Get a grip, man.
Some points, take them for what they are, I don't particularly care today, but still:
1) The case is supposed to be arguing that it WAS difficult to know that the battery was hard wired. No argument needs be made about the present day, the content of Google's current search engine, etc. I for one had no idea. Several technical publications (including
2) Both cell phones and laptops are supposed to have batteries that can be replaced by the end user. There is a reason for this. To suggest that the bastard child of a lappy and a phone is immune from those same reasons is just plain dense.
3) I think the responsibility of proving (to a judge, at least) that this isn't merely another means of vendor lock-in is rests with Apple. They departed from the standard. The 'why' of the matter is crucial. Where are the prototypes that had normal batteries?
Here's hoping...
Well, Apple's lawyers are already in the budget (on Salary/Retainer/Funded breeding programs). So, for them, it's just a cost of doing business. So this particular case doesn't cost them any more than what they were expecting to have come out of the bottom line anyways.
The guy is just wasting his time for relatively nothing. He might have been better off writing a scathing letter to customer service instead of hiring a lawyer.
Star Pirates
No. I devoted two lines to that, in addition to the URLs where the information is located.
Yeah, that's "forever".
...
Let me ask you: how does the fact that you KNOW the battery is soldered, is making it any better for you, as an iPhone owner, when you'll have to ship it to Apple for a $100 replacement?
It doesn't make it any better or worse. If I ever do feel I need to replace the battery and don't have another phone already by that point, I'll pay to get it replaced. I fail to see what the big deal is.
Is it? Does disclosing of intentionally crippled architecture of the device mean we can't be dissatisfied with the serviceability of the phone? Does it mean people are happy with their crippled iPod batteries (judging by the web, no, they aren't).
It's not intentionally crippled. I know it's fashionable to think that it was done to fleece customers or force people into buying new iPods, when in reality it was done to decrease the size and weight of the phone for a given battery capacity, and give the iPod a sleek, unblemished enclosure, both of which are things that are huge factors in the iPod's success.
You need you to grow some balls and face the reality: Apple has intentionally crippled these products for no better reason than remain in tight control of the battery replacement procedure and get some cash from there too.
Let's re-read the actual truth of the matter:
I'm convinced the answer is that the chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, and Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, are design snobs, who care more about form than function. Larry Keeley, the president of the design firm Doblin Inc., wrote me an e-mail message after he'd seen the innards of the iPhone, which several Web sites have now published. The battery, he told me, lacks the normal metal jacket, making it ''thinner and lighter, while also making it more difficult for consumers to handle or dispose of.'' He added: ''This is clear evidence that they are optimizing the INSIDES of the phone to the OUTSIDE form factor that they have designed. It is far more common and much cheaper to design the other way: pile up all the components you have to stuff inside, then figure out the sexiest box that can contain them.''
This makes them somewhat sad, but the fact that you as a customer (I suppose you don't work at Apple) defend them, is even sadder.
Yeah, it's "sad" that I post the facts of the situation as a comment to slashdot, but somehow not sad that a guy finds a lawyer who can't spell and files a lawsuit against Apple about a fucking battery in a cell phone?
Whatever.
So, which is it? Sucks or Blows?????
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Because if you know that it doesn't have a user serviceable battery and that is a serious issue for you, you wont actually buy the iPhone in the first place.
Billions of people world wide have failed to purchase an iPhone today? Who held a gun to your head and made you buy yours?
You can be dissatisfied with the iPhone, but you show that buy not buying it, not by going out and purchasing one and then filling a bogus lawsuit over it.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Every Engineering Department I've worked with would have designed a user-replaceable battery and called it a "common sense" feature. Which it is.
In exchange for whatever coolness that's been bestowed upon you for parting ways with $500+ for the device, you assume the hidden costs of cool.
This brings us to the magic of the Steve Jobs RDF: You and your brethren feel good paying more for less.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Consumer devices with non-replaceable batteries have been around for decades.
Decades!
If you don't like it you could try-- oh, I dunno --not buying it? No one is twisting your arm to purchase a $500 cell phone/iPod. If you want it enough to where the battery won't stop you from purchasing the product, then you deserve to deal with the repercussions of your decision.
:-/
If you haven't purchased an iPhone because of the battery, then you're making a choice as an informed consumer. If it's really a deal-breaker for you, take your business somewhere else. That is your right as a consumer. Remember caveat emptor, exercise your rights as a consumer, and DON'T support a completely baseless lawsuit filed by a nut who can't even ask the store clerk a question.
I swear, the only thing worse than all the hype about the iPhone is all the anti-hype it has created.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
http://www.evda.com/messageboard/messageBoardActio n.exe
hey, software lock in is evil. software and hardware lock in with a stylish gui is the bomb!
-
You'd think a company with as good of a reputation as Apple wouldn't make 'bricks' out of their latest offering, being the "green" company that they are^H^H^Hsupposed to be... What a kick in the face to everyone who paid $600 for one of these pieces of junk.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
...why Apples laywers are always so quick to slam down rumors sites and issue cease-and-desist letters and be generally pricky and foul-mannered.
;-)
I would be constantly pissed off as well if stupid lawsuits such as this one would land on my desk every time
I don't see anyone surprised, but you seem to be confused, charcharodon.
Both, alternately. It's really quite nice, given how easily the iPhone will fit into your pants.
...phone to have a non user replaceable battery. My Ericsson T65 circa 2001 had a couple of lovely hex screws where the battery cover opening should have been.
But it looks like he isn't suing the right company. Apple isn't Apple Computers Inc. anymore, just Apple Inc. Makes you wonder what sort of job the rest of the lawsuit is if he can't get his facts straight about the company he is trying to badger money out of.
Judging anything by the Web makes you just as stupid as this guy.
Seriously, nobody cares. Battery replacement is less than 5% of the 2-year TCO of the device.
It deserves every bit of anti-hype it gets: it was the Paris Hilton of the tech world. For a short period in late June it was nothing but rampant ogling and wild speculation about a freaking cellular phone. How is it NOT absurd that people camped out for days to be the first person to get a cell phone? Now, I don't call people nerds much (mostly because I am one, or, used to be, at the current rate the industry is going), but I'm at a loss to describe it any other way.
The whole thing is a barometer that indicates how materialistic we are. We get so worked up over a cell phone with a slightly different design, and the media labels the launch of it as equally newsworthy as actual events that impact human existence. Fuck that.
Yeah, that's always the very first thing I think to ask about in a market where every other competing product had an easily replaceable battery.
And besides, why should you ever need to replace the battery? It's not like it might run down, and you'd want to swap in a fresh one until you can get to a charging outlet and wait several hours.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Because Dave's a stereotypical conceited Madisonian. He works for the state, pulls down uber bucks and a stellar benefits package from the state university (UW) while facing a less challenging work environment than those in the private sector. Therefore, with such a disproportionately large disposable income (check his website), he'd just assume pay the additional amount and not think twice about it. If he had ever gotten a job out in the private sector, where one is contstantly being pushed to be mindful of costs, he might have a different opinion on being more mindful of where his own money goes.
Regardless, he's a hardcode Mac Fanboy if you hadn't already figured that out. Despite whether Steve and the gang do something really good or just plain stupid, he'll defend it to the death as being the best thing out there.
As for the lawsuit itself, it may have some grounds later on, but it's rather premature and baseless at this point in time.
"I think the responsibility of proving (to a judge, at least) that this isn't merely another means of vendor lock-in is rests with Apple. They departed from the standard. The 'why' of the matter is crucial."
This, actually, is immaterial to the suit. Why Apple sealed the battery inside shouldn't affect the judgment. The issue is whether or not the sealed battery violates some sort of contractual or warranty obligation that Apple has when it sells iPhones. The only way the Plaintiff(s) can get away with a claim like this is to prove that they didn't know about the battery issue before they bought the phone, *and* that it was reasonable for them to understand differently. As a contract claim, they also have to show that the actual battery replacement program is not sufficient based on their previous claims.
The biggest problem for the Plaintiff(s)--Trujillo and any others that join the class--is that courts generally place a heavy burden on buyers to educate themselves about a good or service before they purchase. I think that it's pretty plain that the information about the battery was widely available. Heck, all he had to do was ask the salesperson.
Speaking as an attorney, my suspicion is that either a greedy plaintiff or greedy attorney decided to get in the door first on what they saw to be a potentially huge issue. (Getting in the claim first is very important for class action attorneys because once a class action is settled, future claims on the same issue are barred. Being the name plaintiff in a class action is also important because you usually get more than the rest of the class.) I also think that Apple would be crazy to settle this. There will be multiple opportunities for Apple to ask the court to dismiss the suit or rule in their favor in summary judgment, meaning the cost of defending it wouldn't be too egregious. If they settle this, it sends a strong message that they are willing to roll over in the face of weak claims. All kinds of crazy claims would pop up. The plaintiff(s)'s attorneys have to spend time and money pursuing this with the risk that they will get nothing. They won't stay in too long as they come to realize that it's a plainly frivolous claim.
I really hate it when I see people using the legal system to extort money rather than to get what they actually have a right to under the law.
Boom Shanka
The iPhone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery, but it is replaceable. This is the same as all iPods for the last several years.
So you ranted on and on (forever actually) about how the info was known in advance and can be found on the site.
I don't think he was _ranting_, where did you get that impression?
Let me ask you: how does the fact that you KNOW the battery is soldered, is making it any better for you, as an iPhone owner, when you'll have to ship it to Apple for a $100 replacement?
So short a sentence, so many problems. First - of course it's soldered. Any of the iPhone dissections will show you that. As far as why it's better - that is volume and weight that doesn't have to be lost to contact pads and battery case, so you can have more battery - so more capacity. I'm not sure how anyone could see that not to be a good thing. Also, I neither need to ship it to Apple for replacement, nor do I have to pay $100.00 for it. From the apple site, it's $79 plus $6.95 shipping. If you've ever used Apple's battery replacement, or read comments about it, you'd know that it's really an exchange/refurb program - you get back a new case, new battery, and it looks like a new unit. But, you don't have to go to Apple at all. As the grandparent post stated, chances are good you'll be on to your next gadget before the battery life makes this an issue, and if not, a simple google of "iphone battery" gives you lots of options for replacement who are _not_ Apple, and are significantly cheaper.
Is it? Does disclosing of intentionally crippled architecture of the device mean we can't be dissatisfied with the serviceability of the phone? Does it mean people are happy with their crippled iPod batteries (judging by the web, no, they aren't).
"Intentionally crippled" implies that they specifically did this to piss, apparently, specifically you, off. Sorry but, battery life, reliability (solder rather than press-together contacts), having the case not have built in weak points & openings, and all those other reasons, outweigh the "problem" of a battery that will last for the forseeable usage life of a product.
You need you to grow some balls and face the reality: Apple has intentionally crippled these products for no better reason than remain in tight control of the battery replacement procedure and get some cash from there too.
And yet, you're not forced to send it to Apple for replacement. So obviously Apple isn't blocking third-parties from selling products and services for their gadgets.
This makes them somewhat sad, but the fact that you as a customer (I suppose you don't work at Apple) defend them, is even sadder.
I don't expect this message to work any better than his did, but you might want to consider that the motivation to counter someone badmouthing a good product, isn't limited to having financial reasons for doing so. In my case, it's because you're both wrong, and belligerant about it. That's a bad combination.
Did the Caveman Lawyer from the old SNL skits file this.
"This phone, it scares me... It makes a loud ringing noise then I hear spirits talking through it!"
...you can't afford it.
In this case, you're talking thirty bucks...
This angry conjecture does not bear up to scrutiny. An internal, soldered, non-user-replaceable battery confers some serious benefits:
Each of these is a serious engineering concern, and each has the potential to significantly impact the user's ownership experience. Your conjecture, therefore, cannot possibly be true, and is also needlessly mean-spirited.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
It's fraud, the same way it's fraud if you buy a music "CD" and it doesn't play in your computer due to some stupid copyright thing. A "cell phone" or even a "PDA" is understood to have a removable battery. Unless the package says in large, clear letters "battery is not replaceable by user", an average person would have no idea and no reason to think that they couldn't replace the battery. That's pretty unheard of in any kind of consumer electronic devices, especially in a cell phone. I think that Apple has screwed up on this one. If I bought one of these things, then found out I couldn't replace the battery, I'd either return it, or join a class action suit. $600 for a phone that you have to send back to the damn company every year? What kind of idiot would buy one of these things knowing that?
I don't respond to AC's.
It's pretty easy for a company like Apple to respond to a poorly constructed suit like this one. Typically they can simply ask for proof of damages or even move straight to summary judgment. The sad fact is that suits like this are filed all the time against large, well-known companies like Apple; at any given time they are probably handling numerous minor suits. That's why they have legal departments on staff and firms on retainer.
Typically by the time the press reports on a suit, it's already passed all the basic legal muster and moved on to real negotiations or a trial. The only reason we're hearing about this one so early is that it contains the magical media word "iPhone" in it. I doubt very, very much anything will come of this, for the plaintiff or anyone else.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Just a small point of interest:
Even had Apple not said anything about the fact that the battery is not user-replaceable, they would not be guilty of false advertising unless they did the reverse - said the battery WAS user replaceable. To be liable for (not guilty of, that's crim terminology) false advertising, they would have to make an assertion - not simply not say anything. A case could, I suppose, be made for misleading the consumer, but that's a tough one to make - you still need some sort of assertion.
What *you* (not you, the poster. I mean consumers in general) think a phone should have is not relevant. Only what the company SAYS it has is relevant. You know what they say about assumptions... make an ass out of you and me. This lawsuit is retarded.
-Daniel
Would it still be a stupid lawsuit if the company in question was Microsoft? OK, I'll wait for the flames.
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
On average Americans change their phones every 18 months. I can tell you that in all the years I or my family have owned cell phones I've replaced exactly one battery. What torques me is the OBSCENE cost of replacement batteries. For the money you might as well replace the phone.
Caveat Emptor. If the user did not do any research before buying a $500+ phone, that is his problem. Although Apple did not inscribe "battery not user-replaceable" on the box and the phone, the user could have found out the information before purchasing rather easily. Websites, Apple employees--hell, all the user had to do was to pick one up and see that it was not replaceable as there is no way to open it up. This lawsuit is why all lawn mowers have warnings on them that you should not lift them up when they are operating.
So the user ASSUMED that the iPhone was like every other cell phone in that the battery could be replaced by the user. I don't know about you but from the commercials, it was apparent to me that the iPhone was not like any other cell phone.
I didn't read it in the Constitution that I had a right to replace my batteries myself. So what if Apple departed from the "standard?" Why does Apple have to justify its design choices to a judge or to anybody? People whine about not having choice, but what they are whining about is that they can't customize everything that they want to customize. If you don't like how Apple has designed the iPhone, don't buy one.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Just to hop on thefinite's previous reply to this post, since he did such a good job, I'd like to comment on these: 1) The case is supposed to be arguing that it WAS difficult to know that the battery was hard wired. No argument needs be made about the present day, the content of Google's current search engine, etc. I for one had no idea. Several technical publications (including /.) thought the fact was headline worthy - aka 'news'. So trying to say that it is impossible that it was news to a zero-day owner is just f'king goofy.
Buying a product without significantly researching it pretty much makes your claim... worthless. Especially when all you had to do was ask a sales associate or go to Apple.com. Apple did not in any way hide this, nevermind make a claim that it WAS user replaceable. They've said straight out that it is not a user replaceable part. Further, several technical publications (ie every news or review site on the planet) has pretty much commented that it isn't user replaceable. So unless we intend to protect people who do ZERO research into what they buy (and theoretically, we don't protect that person), this logic does not work.
2) Both cell phones and laptops are supposed to have batteries that can be replaced by the end user. There is a reason for this. To suggest that the bastard child of a lappy and a phone is immune from those same reasons is just plain dense.
They are? Companies commonly use replaceable batteries for their obvious advantages, but not always. The Samsung Upstage does not have a replaceable battery either (and that fact is far more "hidden" than the iPhone battery issue is). It's a design/engineering decision. User replaceable batteries are bigger and require more parts than do non-replaceable ones. One form of engineering may be common usage, but that doesn't make it something that companies are "supposed" to do. If you don't like the alternative form of engineering, don't buy it. But it isn't fraud, it isn't false advertising, it isn't in any way actionable to use the other form.
-Daniel
"2) Both cell phones and laptops are supposed to have batteries that can be replaced by the end user."
Says who? My Palm Tungsten T does not have one.
"There is a reason for this."
Is there? I've never replaced any of the supplied rechargeable batteries in my various cellphones, digicams, PDAs, music players or laptop computers, though I did buy a spare for my Olympus E-1 camera.
"To suggest that the bastard child of a lappy and a phone is immune from those same reasons is just plain dense."
Has it ever occurred to you that Apple might employ persons whose job it is to analyse the usage patterns of various devices such that they might design a better/more economical/more profitable device which provides the functions that people ACTUALLY use rater than those that THINK THEY MIGHT? Do typical users actually use the PCI slots in their home computers? The answer to that question might explain the iMac, as the answer to "do people actually buy replacement batts for their cellphones?" might very well explain the decision not to include a user replaceable batt in the iPhone.
Seriously, though, the idea of selling a phone with a non-replaceable battery and then claiming that the user shouldn't assume otherwise might have been defensible in 1997, today it's a bad joke.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Stupid, UNTIL you think about ithe big picture....
iThe? So we even have to use Apple naming conventions with definite articles now?
The goal is to get as many people as possible to talk about your product. Whether or not what you say is good is irrelevant because as long as you mention it, more people would hear about it. This lawsuit (which will be thrown out of court hopefully) just feeds the publicity machine that you are so offended by.
1) Make calls.
2) Receive calls.
3) Store contact info.
4) Accept power from some source and operate otherwise on a battery
Need I go on?
I doubt seriously that anyone expected it to be "not like any other cell phone" in EVERY way. So what makes this one way more or less actionable than numbers one or two above?
Yes, assumptions are dangerous. For example, a lot of people here assume that the iPhone buyer should have familiarity with the inner workings of an iPod.
I'm just TRYING to point out that there is in fact more than a single viewpoint on this matter.
Jeez.
A pox on Apple for selling the iPhone with a sealed case that requires a technician to replace the battery.
A pox on anyone who didn't research the iPhone before spending six hundred bucks on it.
iPhone sales increased infinite percent as the first phone was purchased.
One of us is in the minority.
Funny how one assumes that "ZERO" research was done because the battery issue wasn't known.
As I said earlier, I'm amused that THAT assumption is valid, whereas the assumption that Apple would follow suit with the vast majority of both the cell and laptop industries is not valid. (And yes, I'm noting that you have two examples to the contrary. I have more examples of what I assume to be the standard in my pockets at this very moment.)
Admit it, the distinction is, at a minimum, nifty.
How does this comment get a troll rating? It's not great, but it's hardly troll (unless you're blindly pro-apple).
"We get so worked up over a cell phone with a slightly different design..."
I don't consider the software on the Motorola phone I had previously to have been "designed". Same for the Nokia it replaced.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I don't consider it obsolescence, just taking advantage of weird pricing. (Sell the razors cheap and make the money on the blades?)
I've actually done just that with my Virgin Mobile phones over the years. The list price for a replacement battery for several of their Kyocera phones is $70, but I've usually been able to get a phone for $20-30 on sale. (I actually stuck the new battery from my K-10 into my K-7 rather than reprogram all the contacts.) Why would I want to buy a battery for multiple times more than the price of a whole new phone?
There's no good reason for the battery to be soldered in, though. It can be soldered to wires that lead to a connector, as many cordless phones do. Not having an easily-removed battery door is a separate issue. The phone could have been designed to require tools to open up without the battery being soldered.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I appreciate that you are trying to explain the alternative viewpoint on this, and hopefully nobody decides to attack you personally for it. I think the reason it rankles people is because they see this lawsuit as just leveraging the legal system to extort money for something that isn't actually wrongdoing. It's pretty despicable behavior, and although explaining the underlying viewpoint doesn't mean you are trying to justify the behavior, other people might see it that way.
Boom Shanka
I wonder
I think what is relevant here is no so much what "we think" but what "everyone else does".
Apple decided to make a device that's very much counter-intuitive in this aspect. It seems that people are primarily aware of this fact due to Google and tech journalists. Consumers shouldn't need the equivalent of consumer reports just to have a basic grasp of product characteristics.
It's not something that people would/should reasonably expect.
After seeing this, I went back to Apple and tried to get at the relevant information in a naeive sort of way one might expect an actual consumer to. I don't really see how anyone expects someone to stumble on this information themselves unless they're unusually dedicated.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It seems you'd be correct. Oh well, at least the afternoon flew by...
...than file a stupid lawsuit and remove all doubt.
Where did I say I was anti-Apple? Or anti-iPhone even? The iPhone hoopla was an instance of media over-reporting for a silly technology gadget that people were told they needed to get. There is a difference between anti-hyping the product itself ("iPhone sucks, I'll never get one, blah blah") and hating the machine delivering all the hype to you ("oh boy, another iPhone article on Slashdot!"). Until we can use Firehose to get stories off the front page, I see nothing wrong with using existing stories to discuss the ridiculousness that was the media coverage of it.
Apple doesn't settle frivolous lawsuits. If you actually followed Apple you'd know that. They settle lawsuits that have merit, although they typically solve the issue without it going to court if it truly does have merit.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
The lawsuit is a stupid one, regardless of whether the plaintiff has a good point or not. You generally don't sue because you bought something that behaves in a way contrary to what you originally expected.
But even if we pretend for a minute that the lawsuit is a good one... I still giggle.
I don't know what individual in his or her right mind would take on Apple's legal department. :P
It deserves every bit of anti-hype it gets: it was the Paris Hilton of the tech world.
Have you used one?
"No." (I'll save you the trouble.)
Gee, I thought so.
There is a long, long list of consumer products without replaceable batteries. My electric razor's battery isn't user replaceable, and the manufacturer won't replace it either; you just have to buy a new razor. Neither is the battery for my electric toothbrush.
I don't for the moment believe that the guy didn't know that the battery wasn't replaceable going in--he heard about the iPod's non-user replaceable batteries and thought that he had a shot at a big payday. He and his lawyer are barely a half step up from the guys who intentionally get hit by cars so that they can sue. For frivolous lawsuits such as this, the plaintiff should have to pay court costs.
If you want to see a 24-karat asshole, here he is.
Consumers shouldn't need the equivalent of consumer reports just to have a basic grasp of product characteristics.
I'm fairly certain that the Apple stores each have about 20 of the damned things on display, and each AT&T store probably has 1 or 2 of them out. You could, theoretically, you know, pick it up and look at it and see if it had a battery cover.
But no, I'm sure a lawsuit is much more reasonable than simple purchasing decision-making skills. Land of the fat, home of the dumb. Yay.
I'm suing Kia for selling me a car without a user-replaceable gas tank. Sure, I didn't ask if the gas tank was replaceable, and sure, I could get lots of tools and replace it if I really wanted to, but I find it much easier to sue.
- The Amazina Llama
I just camped out for the iPhone for all the high-fives and pats on the back from the salespeople. I felt like a superstar. Plus that was the most human contact I've had in years.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If you do not do your research on a product i.e. reading reviews, product literature then I have little sympathy for you.
Are you implying that there is a defined standard or law out there? If so please provide a link. I think the only reason that most do have them is convince. From what I have read apple went with the non-user replaceable batteries because they saved some space and Jobs liked the look better(not extra parts that come off the iPod for iPhone).
It was not a design flaw like the screens that scratched to easily it was a design choice.
There are 3rd parties that can replace the battery. There is no vendor lock-in.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Shakespeare - Henry VI
subject says it all. op is succinct and accurate.
If you can't activate the iPhone because you don't have iTunes, then simply return the device. I am CERTAIN if you seem genuine--and your iPhone hasn't been activated--you will be able to return the device without penalty.
I don't think he has a case unless their is some FCC regulation that says that cordless phones must have user replaceable batteries.(I would fully support such regulation.)
I think that Apple is being self-serving by not using a user replaceable battery. I can't believe the same folks that seem to support recycling are willing to give Apple a pass on this.
I think MS is just as bad with the Zune.
So, if you have an iPhone and want to use it, for anything, you must have an iTunes store account and a computer that can work it? And the latest vs. of iTunes?
Has any other iPod had such stringent requirements?
Would any other phone? I know, no other phone syncs with computer-music so well as an iPhone. But could one rent, say, a Verizon Chocolate phone without the music options in hopes of getting that music later?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Well as for anti-iphone here are links to some negative posts you made on the last few iphone stories:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=251129&cid=198 83519
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=242435&cid=196 71931
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241925&cid=196 58031
The second comment involved smashing an iphone, it was this desire for destruction that led me to believe you were anti-iphone. Most of the iphone haters seem to be also anti-apple in general, so I went with that.
i'm sure we all know consumer electronic devices with cases where it isn't immediately obvious how you replace the battery. i'm looking at this moment at a microphone where it took me 2 minutes to figure out how to put a battery into it when i got it. until 5 minutes ago, if i had seen an iPhone or an iPod, i'd have thought the same thing. do portable apple computers also have batteries which the user can't replace? i don't know, but i now suspect that may well be the case.
Uh, no. The Apple website quite clearly states that iTunes is used to activate the phone:
Here
Here and
Here and also
Here
And Apple quite clearly states that it is for use with Mac and Windows:
Here and
Here
That only required about 30-45 seconds of clicking links.
The iPhone has been heavily advertised on television. These ads show off the versatility of iPhones, look attractive, make iPhones look attractive, but say nothing about the technical requirements of iPhones. They don't even have the lines of fine print that can't be read without freeze-frame.
So, I imagine that half the people trying to buy iPhones are very aware of, not just the iPhone's capabilities, but its requirements. The other half, likely including this fella filing this suit, want iPhones because they are pretty and cool; they know some of the iPhone's capabilities, but they might not know about the little technical details, such as how to get the battery replaced, before they go to the at&t store or Apple Store. That sort of thing's normally in the manual, anyway.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
.. by the man I mean apple.
If you're buying their expensive IPhone... then don't stop there... keep paying!
Who cares about $30 replacement phone when you dished out a fortune in the first place.. insanity!
If you want to save money--use a carrier pigeon for your wireless needs. In the meantime pay the guys advancing tech and get a job.
-judging another only defines yourself
So, I should sue Apple because my Motorola bluetooth headset has a non-user-replaceable battery? No? Okay then, I'll sue Apple because my Palm V has a non-user-replaceable battery. Oh wait, it's not Apple's fault there either. Hmm, I guess Apple isn't the only evil megacorp conspiring to steal my hard-earned cash via battery schemes after all...
defectivebydesign RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Not having a user-replaceable battery is an absolute show-stopper for me. Li-Ion batteries fail, it's a fact of life. I would have thought that Apple would have learned from the iPod nano but apparently not.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If you don't like how the iPhone was MADE, DON'T BUY ONE. Quit bitching.
Think about it again.
If I was stupid enough to buy a first-release iPhone (even if I wanted one, I'm smarter than to get the first-release version) I would have returned it the moment I found that batteries were not user-replaceable. Phones tend to be critical communications devices. You don't want them going out at inopportune times.
iPods are almost never "critical music playing devices" are just nice to have. Phones are, for many, quite necessary. If you cannot keep your phone charged, the alternative is to have a spare battery. I keep a spare battery in my laptop bag for just such a situation as I know many other people do this as well. (I also keep a spare laptop battery for similar reasons.)
As an entertainment device, it's sort of acceptable that the battery should not be user replaceable. But a phone??
I have to say that the lawsuit isn't warranted, but a refund is.
"Not great?" The OP claimed that having a non-user-replaceable battery is "hardware lock-in." Even if you think it's a stupid idea and you don't buy arguments made as to why Apple chose that route, the battery issue doesn't meet any definition of lock-in I can possibly imagine. Perhaps that wasn't technically a troll, but since there is no "manifestly stupid" rating, troll may be as close as we can get.
I loathe and lament the whole decades-long trend of hyperexpensive proprietary everything, including batteries. Was it RS's "Trash-80" that started the "cheap-basics, sockem' on accesssories" trend? Only, now, even expensive stuff is playing this stupid game.
$175 laptop batteries that consist of 6 AA cells wired together? Appalling.
There used to be 4 or 5 batteries that powered everything electronic. The fundamental character of electronics hasn't changed. (Alas, battery technology hasn't changed much either.) Yeah, I know, bitch on grandpa. Well ok, kiddies, but you're the ones that are $100,000 in debt on average. Yeah, I know, standardized parts are "too socialist for America." Ha, take that.
Stop buying the crap. My TV remote takes an AA. Any AA. If your phone-du-jour doesn't, tough bounce. Demand better. Every dollar is a vote.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Consider this:
the plaintiff could be a shill for some ingrate/sour grapes, wannabe competitor who is tiring and trying to crack affinity to Apple's product. If such a competitor could slow uptake/adoption of the iPhone, and at the same time cost Apple some tens of millions on redesigning the phone, dealing with PR & adverts, packaging, rep training, and more, then imagine how bitter some company might be. Also, imagine: Just imagine: who might BE such a sour-grapes competitor...?
However, I REALLY won't buy one myself unless:
1. the price comes down without an attendant reduction in features
2. there is a wider choice of carriers (to HELL with single-carrier of choice...)
3. I am sure I can sync nicely with Linux (I haven't done the research)
OTOH, I hear that battery standby and talk-time are fairly exceptional.
Captcha: halogen
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I would love to get an iPhone, but I can't for work-related reasons. My employer would even buy me one, but I get alerts at night when there's system trouble via text messages. The problem is that the iPhone has no way to change the tone for getting a text message, which is a short quiet beep and about 0.5 seconds of vibration. No way that can wake me from a drunken slumber... I had to hack my last phone (replacing a default message tone with my own mp3) in order to get a decent volume for text notifications. Am I the only person that thinks this is at all important? I don't text 100 times a day, and I want to be alerted of a text message if I'm asleep or in a loud bar or concert. Is that too much to ask?
I find it hard to believe also that you are stuck with the built-in tones for voice calls. Until I tried the iPhone at the local Apple store today, I had assumed that you could pick the ringtone from your music collection as simply as you can set your wallpaper. Start playing a song from your music collection, stretch your fingers around the section of the song you want for a ringtone and tap the screen a time or two to get it set. Instead, you have to go to settings and pick one of the built-in tones...
I'm a bigger fan of smashing people's sacred icons to make a point than anything else. ;)
I love my 3G iPod, it still runs, and might get a Mac. I just don't take much of this stuff seriously.
Sure, if I have special tools and know-how, I can replace my car battery, AFTER I pay $29 to RENT a car and drive to a store in order to purchase a battery that contains toxic, dangerous substances. Definitely harder than replacing your iPhone's battery.
I don't get it. Why does a consumer have a "right" to replace a device's battery? I have a nice Bluetooth mouse, by Logitech. I just picked it up and... there's no user-replaceable battery! Why should I be able to sue the manufacturer?
It's sad that people waste their time trying to abuse our legal system this way.
What's about privacy? I am sure Apple will look at the audio/video files stores on iPhone (since you can't swap the flash memory either) searching for illegal content. Are you saying it is ok since you don't have anything to hide? Wrong. Everyone should care about their privacy regardless of whether they have anything to hide.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Not everyone is an Apple fanboi like you. Not everyone reads every article published regarding Apple products. Not everyone checks the Apple site 100 times a day to see if anything is new. The majority of people do not know, nor care about specification of products they may not even own. Face it, unlike you, most people would not like to have their head up Steve Jobs' ass. Stupidest post ever!
Let the buyer beware.
If you're dumb enough to buy without researching the product properly. you deserve what you get.
It's simple really. The lawsuit should be thrown out.
And what else would you use to communicate "in the bush"?
This is wilderness; no electricity, no built-up civilization, nothing to plug a phone into. If you want to maintain contact with the outside world in such a situation, you likely will want a cell phone. There sure aren't going to be any fixed phones nearby...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
After failing to flock my iPhones on eBay for 200% profit this class-action was my last straw...
1) You have, upon purchase, a grace period under which the reseller MUST give you at least a partial refund for a product purchased under good faith. AFAIK, Apple was offering a 30-day return period. Don't like it? Return it.
2) No one forced you to buy an iPhone, and as long as it works as advertised, you're screwed. If they advertised a 'user-serviceable battery', you would likely have a case.
3) Who wins even if the claimant(s) win the CA case? The lawyers on both sides. Likely, Apple will settle out of court, either giving one-time free battery replacements to people who bought the phone prior to the filing, OR they will reduce the price of replacing the battery for everyone (perhaps again limited by the purchase date). The lawyers will walk away with truckloads of money.
As much as I hate it when ANY manufacturer makes it difficult to repair or replace wearable parts (ever try to change the battery on a car with the battery mounted INSIDE THE WHEELWELL?), they are well within their rights to do that.
Caveat emptor, bitches. Caveat emptor.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
for early acceptance.
for not doing your research.
for not waiting to know if the product is going to fit your lifestyle.
for being a consumer whore.
And how!
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
I think its a relevant issue. Even Sony Ericsson has been doing this for quite some time now. The hardware used on the K and W series phones is the same. But the software (firmware) is different and that causes for poor sound quality on the K series and poor image quality on the W series. Is this fair?
If a manufacturer purposely and intentionally suppresses certain capabilities that the device already has, isn't this an abuse of the customer's confidence in that company? Does it not amount to manipulation and cheating the customer?
How could a company like Apple leave out building a door over the battery compartment of an advanced device like the IPhone? Surely, there has to be some rationale to that move. If its just about fleecing the customer, then the lawsuit is totally justified.
My watch battery can't be replaced by the user - at least, not without special tools. Is that an issue?
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
apple laptops still have user replacable batteries. Probablly because if you are a heavy user of a laptop then you will drain multiple batteries in one trip.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I would agree that Paris Hilton has done nothing that impacts human existence. But I would say that the iPod has impacted human existence, perhaps not benignly, and perhaps in a way we have yet to fully understand. The iPhone has drawn so much attention because of the iPod's success, as another product from the same creative group. (You're only as good as your last hit. What was Paris Hilton's last hit again?)
The iPhone is not only the next-generation iPod, it is much more. Time will tell if it's enough more to remark on years from now.
Actually, an iPhone whose battery cannot be replaced by the user is like a lamp whose light bulb can't be replaced by the user.
The iPhone comes with a battery, and the lamp comes with a light bulb. Odds are the battery and the bulb will both last a while with reasonable use. But when the battery burns out, it is gone, just like when the light bulb burns out, it is gone.
You cannot use an iPhone with a non-working battery any more than you can use a lamp with a non-working light bulb.
This is not sufficient to prevent sales of iPhones or of lamps with light bulbs that can't be replaced. (I actually have bought lamps like that.)
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I must admit, I didn't disclose this in the manual I handed over to my wife, but occasionally I drop the odd smelly fart (heavens above!). Can she file a class action for a particularly bad dutch oven? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dut ch+oven
Buyers Remorse. He got caught up in the hype and now regrets it!
My Doctor prescribed daily nasal saline irrigation, hehe
Expect everyone to be a geeky hacker at the Apple store.
Sure...
When Apple decides (for whatever reason) to break with established norms, they as "the usability people" should be unusually upfront about the situation. Yes, they should warn the rubes about what they're getting into. Otherwise, Apple is just Dell with some better ad men.
Why should a Linux zealot be the one to expect more out of Apple?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I, on the other hand would never, ever ask this question of a sales associate when purchasing a cell phone. I would likewise promptly return it should I be surprised
surely if you really thought you were going to need extra batteries you would be looking into the cost of them at which point the non user replacability of the battery would become apparent pretty quickly.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Good point. That would likely push it up to 50/50. The standard assumption is that there will be at least two choices for a phone battery. The manufacturer's expensive one, and a cheap knock-off. But you're right, I might check on the price of it.
You can replace the batteries in an Apple laptop, and it's obvious that you can when you flip the laptop over and look at the battery in its compartment. There's a couple of release latches on what is obviously a removable piece on the bottom of the laptop (which happens to be the battery itself).
Because the "rubes" (read: Windows users) are too dumb to know what they want, and the Apple users are already sold on Apple's stuff.
Besides, these days, Apple is getting more like "Dell with better ad men". They update their software less and less, they break their own HIG and usability rules, and they shovel iPods out by the ton while ignoring established products. They are losing touch with their core fanbase, but not with money.
<sarcastic troll>
Meanwhile, in many ways, Linux copies Windows very well. In many ways, it improves upon Windows to the point of near-perfection. And it's all Unix-y, too. So where are the real improvements? Why is Linux always playing catch-up to Windows? Why should a Mac user be the one to expect more out of Linux?
</sarcastic troll>
I haven't seen this pointed out yet. If you go drop $500 on something without looking into it, then tough luck. If the info was hidden or incorrect, then ok you have claim. Even if you had to go 3 pages deep to find the info, well, it was there.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Why can't people stop and think for a moment before they start defending their beloved Apple. At the end of the day it is a corporation selling products and there is no such thing as an honest corporation.
Instead of a calling it an iPhone they should call it the new iPod with phone functionality. So the people who are not tech savvy are not confused. Telephones are also used by people who still live under a rock and replaceable battery is a standard.
PS - Apple fans please think before replying and/or posting you views. And if you think you have given it enough thought then think again.
That's laughable and you know it. Good luck getting your iPod repaired or replaced under warranty when its nicely obvious, due to the ding or otherwise, or, y'know, the third party battery that's in it.
"Sure, Apple's not forcing you to use their services. They'll void your warranty if you don't, but still."
Yes, I realize (and amn't arguing) that they're within their rights to do so. But if you think it's not effectively the same thing to the average non-Slashdot reading person on the street, you're standing too close to the RDF.
Do other smart phones require computers?
And until I read this, I had no idea that iTunes was needed to activate an iPhone. I imagine that many people would only learn of this at point of purchase. Worst case, some would learn of this after the purchase, which would be annoying.
(Even if you return the iPhone, there's still that at&t contract to handle.)
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
You just can't say anything bad about Apple here, or you'll be modded troll/flamebait by hordes of trendy Apple snobs wearing fashionable clothes who wasted $5000 on their last stylish Mac because of its slick exterior design, being the perfect complement for their iPods and the central hub of their digital lifestyle. Being important members of the blogosphere, they need to surf the cyberspace with class as they update their MySpace. They are complete iDolts.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
You're absolutely right. My last comment got modded down, this one will get modded down, and that makes 90% of my posts that get modded down are because I'm saying something bad about Apple. The first couple times, I tried to be reasonable (I think Apples are too limited, software-wise, to be reliable for almost anyone), but I'd get slammed down by the pro-Mac crowd. No reason whatsoever. So now, I'm just saying they can go fuck themselves.
At best, I'm wasting someone's precious mod points. This is all they use them for anyway, so fuck it.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
I think you're pretty close with the statement that Apple is just Dell with some better ad men.
Apple is basically Dell that has blessed by a bathroomware designer.
Unfortunately, it's O(pen)S(tep) X that I'm after.
I'd also guess that Apple satisfies all statutes regarding battery recyclying. With iPods and iPhones it is rather difficult for the average person to dispose of the batteries in the trash (unless they toss the whole device). Apple has increased the probability that batteries are disposed of properly, since you need to have a service shop change the batteries. I believe that environmental laws will force this type of approach more and more in the future.
Why are so many people up in arms about just the battery? Why not make every component user serviceable? Every IC, every wire, the screen, mic, and speaker...
I've never had a cell phone battery die out before the electronics or casing. The battery is just another component, and as far as I can tell it's not the least reliable. While your milage may vary, it's not completely insane to solder the battery in place like the other components, any of which might fail and require a trip to the manufacturer.
Is all this whining really just residual notions from when we used alkaline batteries?
And the iPhone is not a "slightly different design". It is very newsworthy, because it shows that there are a handful of people on this planet that actually try hard to make a good product that helps life. Nearly everyone else gives average effort. Apple seems to have built an environment where people give far more than average effort. That is remarkable. And it is the essence of human existence, for it is achievement. Owning an iPhone is a symbol that someone values achievement.
Does this mean the iPhone will soon be illegal in Europe?
AIUI, there's an EU law coming in in 2008 meaning that all batteries have to be at least user-removeable (so they can be disposed of separately) even if not user-replaceable.
The gas tank is like the battery *compartment*. The gas is like the combined battery and charge. Nobody expects a battery compartment to be be user replaceable.
Before I forget your theory, let me run the checklist one more time:
1) when I see some cool phone in the store I pick it up and look at it
2) and see if it has a battery cover.
Hm, I think I got it all wrong, let me try again:
1) I pick it up and look at it and see if it has a battery cover.
So, I have one theoretical question for you:
"look at the mobile and see if it has a battery cover",
Is that one operation or two?
Maybe if you informed yourself instead of spouting wrong and/or insulting stuff, you would not get modded down? Just a thought.
What does "Apples are too limited, software-wise" even mean? Do you mean that Mac OS X limits what you can do with it? It's a Unix. You can do whatever the hell you want with it. Do you mean that there aren't enough apps for Mac OS X? I've never been in a situation where I couldn't find an app I was looking for. Do you mean that you can't run Windows apps on Macs? Because that would be wrong, too.
So your argument is that the average American consumer is stupid. Maybe Apple should also tell them not to feed the iPhone to their pet hampster.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
That's laughable and you know it. Good luck getting your iPod repaired or replaced under warranty when its nicely obvious, due to the ding or otherwise, or, y'know, the third party battery that's in it.
So why would this happen? Why would anybody replace their iPod battery with a third party one when it's still under warranty? That is laughable, and you know it.Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
* no contact connection problems, even in the presence of moisture and vibration
* savings of precious internal volume by omitting the battery compartment and battery sheathing
* elimination of an entry point for dust and water
* elimination of spurious warranty claims stemming from subpar or incorrect third-party batteries, and from user fiddling
Each of these is a serious engineering concern, and each has the potential to significantly impact the user's ownership experience. Your conjecture, therefore, cannot possibly be true, and is also needlessly mean-spirited. Well, it seems to me that there is some of, so to say, internal, soldered, non-user-replaceable spirit there in your post as well. For, for the sake of scrutiny and possible truth, the non-user-replaceable battery is such a thing that it is not replaceable by user, no? I mean, if you were ever to construct such an object, by your own definition and construction, you would have to forbid users from replacing the battery, therefore, who knows, maybe even annoy, possibly make angry, some of your customers. Does that stand to reason?
Not to mention that some people just love to open and close battery covers out of boredom until it breaks and has to be taped back on.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Wahey, Mods are all on crack.
The point that nobody else seems to have made is that crap like an ipod you can do without for a while, a phone is a little different.
I was thinking about waiting for the iPhone to be available over here in the UK before getting an upgrade as it has a lot of features I would have liked. I on the other hand did not know that I would be unable to replace the battery when it was unable to charge anymore or that I would be unable to carry a spare charged battery as a backup if I am unable to find a powerslot I can use. Currently I always keep a spare battery for my phone in my bag.
As it is I will just go and upgrade to the latest Sony Ericson P990i instead. It supports wifi, has a web browser and most things I want but I really would have preffered an iPhone. Not being able to replace the battery myself is a killer for me though so this is one sale Apple lost.
I dont read
Right now my head is swimming with miss-information from this post. But before I address that, let me say this. It is your job as a consumer to research your purchases before making them, period. It seems this person expected someone to sit him down and go over the device, before he made his purchase. The crazy thing is, if he would have actively sought guidance, it would have been provided, without charge. This degree of expected mental hand-holding is a tragic laziness that unfortunately plagues our marketplace. If we make a bad decision as a consumer, we are quick to play the "uninformed" card and try to back out of our purchase while blaming others for our own miss judgment.
I see things in this post stating that since "all the other phones" have removable batteries, is ok to blindly expect the i-phone to have one. But yet, when the argument is made that all other I-pods have non-removable batteries the rebuttal once again proves my point. "But I don't follow i-pods, so how should I know that or why should I be expected to know that". People are all to eager to toss cash at something, hopping its all they imagined, instead or spending 10 minutes, actively researching the product. After paying, they find its not what they had dreamed of, and complain......and complain.....and....ect...
"Apple is mean-spirited". That is probably the most uninformed statement I have seen in a long time. As with the i-pod the battery for the i-phone is sealed into the case for esthetic and functionality reasons.
It strikes me funny that the same crowd that complains about the battery being sealed, is the same group that would complain about a bulky removable battery and we would see posts like "but the I-pod isn't like that, how was I to know?"..............
Also, you have 14 days to back out of your purchase, with a 10% restocking fee, if the box is open. Not 30 days.
Activate with I-tunes is written on the box, on Apple's site and on AT&T's site. Read a little, all the information is there, un hidden.
Apple even offers support for activation via an 800 number, also printed on the box, in the users guide, on Apple's site and on AT&T's site. The activation support center has access to both at&t accounts and apple admin aplications, so you are not bounced back and forth between companies. Also, (and this is the best part) the activation center is NOT outsourced to a foreign country, so the person you talk with is speaking understandable English.
BTW. Forever \For*ev"er\ (f[o^]r*[e^]v"[~e]r), adv. [For, prep. + ever.]
1. Through eternity; through endless ages; eternally.
[1913 Webster]
2. At all times; always.
[1913 Webster]
According to webster, his post didn't take "forever" to read. With a little research, you could have figured out that one "on your own" as well......
Tell me how your life has been different since the launch of the iPhone. Strangely enough, you don't hear much about it these days outside of Slashdot. If it was really making a huge difference in the world, by your logic, wouldn't we be hearing about it more?
Owning an iPhone means someone wants an iPhone. It doesn't mean anything else.
If you don't see what is wrong with materialism, then there is no point in continuing the discussion, because we will never see eye to eye.
Or be more wise with your material?
In all 13 phones I've had I had only one phone dying on the electronics; but that after it fell in a canal.
The battery life dies first in most of the times.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
That's laughable and you know it. Good luck getting your iPod repaired or replaced under warranty when its nicely obvious, due to the ding or otherwise, or, y'know, the third party battery that's in it.
Oh Gosh! Apple doesn't do a warranty replacement if the product is abused or has parts that aren't theirs in it! Goodness me! How Shocking! How Terrible! How like every other vendor out there, who won't fix things under warranty that aren't, ahem, warranty items. Sheesh.
"Sure, Apple's not forcing you to use their services. They'll void your warranty if you don't, but still."
Your interpretation of my point is wrong to the point of being laughable. Think about the process here. IF your battery dies during the warranty period, THEN they will replace it under warranty. ELSE: If battery dies after warranty period, THEN they will replace it at the $79.00 price...which, in my experience with an iPod, gets you a refurb unit with new battery and case, looking brand new. ELSE IF you don't want to pay $79.00, you can go anywhere else and get it for maybe half that price or less.So, if it's under warranty, there's no reason to pay to get it replaced, they'll replace it. It would be astonishingly stupid to pay for a third-party battery replacement into an iAnything that's under warranty, because you'd be voiding the warranty for that item _and_ paying money you don't have to. So it seems your point is all self-contradictory handwaving.
Yes, I realize (and amn't arguing) that they're within their rights to do so. But if you think it's not effectively the same thing to the average non-Slashdot reading person on the street, you're standing too close to the RDF.
Explain to me how, in your reality, you'd pay for a third party battery replacement on a unit which is under warranty. Because that seems to be the thing you're complaining about, right? On a side note, it is somewhat amusing to me that the thing people are whining about the loudest, is a complete non-issue. Unless you are proposing the battery chemistry is other than stated? I'll want a new phone LONG before this battery goes south on me.Haven't seen any of them yet or maybe I'm just not interested having the technology-du-jour and I buy with my brains and not with my tv-or-wallet.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Sorry about the insult but I'm currently laughing at this whole thread. Most of you realize, others not so much, that you are arguing about Apple's overall design practices. The iPhone is nothing new in term of design from Apple, and most of us with any amount of tech savvy know this, and summarily reject it due to this.
To those that don't: Apple makes pretty, compact devices, that do a few functions very well under restricted conditions (ignoring dedicated hacking of such devices, which is beyond the scope used to create the device). Everything from their desktops to the new iPhone is this way, always have been, probably always will be.
If you are buying an iPhone (a $500 gimmick, imo) either you love Apple products or you need the latest new tech toy, either way you should be intimately familiar with the way Apple does business, since you've seen it all before. To assume differently would be naive. Now, I'm sure there is a small percentage of truly clueless consumers, and I feel a little bad for them, but then again the information is available if you care to find it. And while people love to ignore it: You, as a consumer, do have some responsibility.
"Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
Again, you're running into the same situation that Linux is in: not enough dedicated apps for 90% of the market, and a market that isn't really savvy enough to emulate Windows software in the Unix environment. I love Unix, I love Linux, and as a pure operating system, I think OS/X works well. OS/X would work a lot better if I wasn't convinced they're eventually going to stop concentrating on their operating systems for any other purpose than to sell their iPods and iPhones.
My gripes with Apple are all about their gadgets. They release virtual beta products as the Next Big Thing, and let their early adopters do the bug testing; with the iPhone, that was at $500 - $600 a pop. It's not even like this is a surprise; it happened with the iPod, and we knew what the issues were with the iPhone before it came out. But again, it's not Apple's fault that the general public fell for their marketing push. My problem isn't Apple so much as it is Apple fanboys.
I've stated the above in comments even better worded than this, and gotten modded down as either "overrated" or "flamebait" each time. I'm no M$ fanboy in the least bit, but I do think that OS/X - and Linux, of which I'm a huge fan - are too niche for Joe Luser. But the same way that people that talk good about Microsoft get modded down, talking bad about Apple - even in the abstract, using facts - results in the person getting modded down by it's cult of personality.
So, I have decided "fuck it", and react in kind towards the fanbrats. And I'm sure this post will end up like the last ones before it: in a perpetual battle of people that agree with me modding me up as "informative" and "insightful", with people disagreeing with me - not calling me a troll, but disagreeing - modding me down as "flamebait" and "overrated", which will cause others to mark me "underrated". With luck... I'll end up right back at 2.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
No need. That's already covered in the iTunes EULA.
You DID read the EULA, right?
STFU!
And one voided warranty if you do it yourself.
I probably also was in the target audience as techy proffesional who loves wasting money on hi-tech gizmos.
But I don't care about what something looks like as much as need it to always work. I cannot be without a phone, even while waiting for it to charge due to the nature of my work.
I dont read
No. I spoke to that point. You don't have to be without a phone, and you don't have to replace the battery yourself.
if you haven't moved on to the next device before it even needs a new battery, you can simply get a loaner iPhone as part of the battery replacement program, insert your SIM, sync once with iTunes, and it will then look, act, and feel like your own phone. If you choose not to get a loaner to save $29, that's your choice.
As someone who has owned the P802, P910 and now had the P990, you'd be better off getting an iPhone.
Somehow Sony Ericsson makes each new model more cumbersome to use.
Okay. I understand that the features of a smart phone require a computer for full benefits. But with iPhones, the activation requires that you own a computer--you must have one to use it at all.
Yes, I did overreact to that, and I apologize. It still would've been nice if there was some other way, though--say, through an Apple or at&t customer-service number.
I actually do believe that people should research iPhones before buying them, as far as that's possible. But, given how Apple advertises it and how the non-tech media covered it, I seriously doubt everyone did. I have mixed feelings about caveat emptor.
It has been noted that people with Linux have more difficulty than average researching iPhones because the activation and key info page is in Quicktime. Admittedly, people with Linux can't use them anyway. But I think some people on this board would not want Linux machines called "crazy set-ups."
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Me again... looks like you're not the pathetic little man as your former posts suggest. The last posts were more thoughtful - err.. Insightful but still broken.
I'll disagree with the niche reference to Macs. Mainstream Joe Luser can do everything and more on a Mac they do with their virus infested PCs only faster, easier and without the hassle of owning Windows. There are a large number of unique apps for Windows, most of which are far more "niche" than the Mac itself, so that argument doesn't work. If you really need it, virtualization is an option for the one Windows app you must have. Otherwise, you can happily dump Windows.
Where do you get 90% of the market can't use the Mac? I've helped lots of Joe Luser people convert to the Mac just by showing them the hardware - usually by loaning them a Mac while I fix (sit on) their PC for two weeks (pro and side). Universally, they don't want the PC any more. By my sample of about 70 people, 100% of them can use the Mac instead just fine and they're much happier.
I'll also disagree with the fanboi public being suckers for fresh Apple products. Their new stuff has behaved much better than most any mature product from anyone else, so that's a pooped argument as well. Besides, over half the people who buy a Mac are first time buyers, not fanbois. The public has done much stupider things than buy an iPod or iPhone.
Fanbrats? Speak more truth and I won't bite you.
Well, this is all theory, but...
1) pick it up
2) look at it
3) observe the battery cover or lack thereof
Of course, it's only a theory, and not a complete one. If, for instance, you lacked hands, you would have to perform step 1 with nubs, which is a less-than-ideal system. If you were blind, then perhaps you would have to feel it in step 2 rather than looking at it. And god help you if you're blind and nubby. Really, the last step is the all-important one. If it has a battery cover, then it likely contains a user-replaceable battery.
You must live in a trailer park.
Most of the stuff on
I think Apple isn't using iSync for this delicate and dangerous procedure because they want to sell iPhones to Windows users, and Windows does not have iSync.
It still makes me feel uneasy, esp. since even people without iPhones have to live with this feature.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
90% of the market? Of what market?
and a market that isn't really savvy enough to emulate Windows software in the Unix environment.So you mean the home market? Having used Macs for 10 years, I've never found even a single app that I wanted to use that was available on Windows, but not on the Mac.
Examples?
I love Unix, I love Linux, and as a pure operating system, I think OS/X works well. OS/X would work a lot better if I wasn't convinced they're eventually going to stop concentrating on their operating systems for any other purpose than to sell their iPods and iPhones.Why would they throw away half of their profits?
My gripes with Apple are all about their gadgets. They release virtual beta products as the Next Big Thing, and let their early adopters do the bug testing;Any specific issues you're talking about, or just general FUD?
I've stated the above in comments even better worded than this, and gotten modded down as either "overrated" or "flamebait" each time. I'm no M$ fanboy in the least bit, but I do think that OS/X - and Linux, of which I'm a huge fan - are too niche for Joe Luser.I find that a strange position to take. "Joe Luser" uses his computer for web, mail, music and letters. Why would he not be able to do this on a Mac? There's one group of users that should go with Windows PCs: PC gamers. Other than that, I do not know why a Mac would not do everything the user wanted it to do.
For businesses, it's a different store. In those cases, there are often specific applications - sometimes even DOS-based - which they need to run, and to which there are no alternatives. Clearly, using Macs is a bad idea in many of those cases.
(...) cult of personality (...) fuck it (...) fanbrats (...)Maybe you should stop to consider that the downrating might have had less to do with some kind of cultish fanboy conspiracy, and more with your superficial arguments and general choice of words?
OK, that was nasty. Let me be more specific about why you earned that - your whole post was about jealousy:
...hordes of trendy Apple snobs wearing fashionable clothes who wasted $5000 on their last stylish Mac because of its slick exterior design, being the perfect complement for their iPods and the central hub of their digital lifestyle. Being important members of the blogosphere, they need to surf the cyberspace with class as they update their MySpace.You must live in a trailer park.
Most of the stuff on
my problem is fixed for that, I won't have any problems with that particular phone 'coz I won't buy it in the first place :D I'll stick with my Nokia 6310i I guess.. .. with replacable battery .. even my Nokia 6210 battery fits in it.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I want to carry a spare battery for when the first one runs out of charge as well. Sometimes I do not get a chance to plug it in for several days in a row.
I dont read
According to who, you?
The Samsung UpStage phone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery. Should Samsung be sued?
Not really; my whole post was about trolling Apple fanboys by using the words they use and pointing out how big snobs they are.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
It's not intentionally crippled. I know it's fashionable to think that it was done to fleece customers or force people into buying new iPods, when in reality it was done to decrease the size and weight of the phone for a given battery capacity, and give the iPod a sleek, unblemished enclosure, both of which are things that are huge factors in the iPod's success.
Can I buy your mind-reading equipment?
I know it's fashionable amongst whiny-mac-fanbois to think that that it was done to decrease the size and weight, and give the unblemished enclosure, but the fact of the matter is YOU DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS DONE.
Stating as fact that it was definitively done for reason X (aesthetics) is just as moronic as stating is was certainly done for reason Y (fleece).
Do I think it was a good move? I'm of two minds on the subject. Ask me when my iPod is older--I tend to keep things in incredibly good condition, and make things last a long time. As an engineer, I have to think that some kind of compromise could have been made. Obviously, however, I've decided that it's worth it, despite whatever.
Do I hate apple? No.
Do I think this was done because Steve is the devil? No.
Do I think that this lawsuit is stupid? For the most part, yes.
Do I think that maybe the possibility of selling AppleCare and battery replacement services weighed into the decision? Distinct possibility. Anyone who thinks it couldn't've played any part is either naive, delusional, or most likely, stupid.
If you need a phone with easily replaceable batteries, then buy one.
Complete or not, the one thing in your theory is obviously the most important: "the last step is the all-important one".
No wonder that the guys who did not know this got surprised!
I looked up a few details and found this article, which - if correct - seems to provide a lot of information.
It appears that there are many factors in lithium battery life. Deep-cycling is not good, but neither would repeatedly charging the battery when it is not necessary (using up charge cycles). It also mentions an often-forgotten factor, heat, which as well could be related to overcharging, or constant charging.
As it says in the article "Removing the battery from the laptop when running on fixed power protects the battery from heat."
Perhaps a happy-medium would to charge when it's about halfway down?
It seems to me that the best method would be to have a quick-switch circuit which would combine fixed-power, a capacitor, and the battery. When plugged into wall-power, the battery is charged up and then disconnected from the circuit when around full. The circuit then runs off fixed-power which runs through a capacitor. In the event of a drop or disconnection of fixed-power, the circuit could stay "alive" long enough on the capacitor to switch back over to using the battery. I'm not sure if anyone does this though, but depending on the needs of the capacitor it might be a good fix... it shouldn't have to run on the cap for more than a second or two before swapping over to battery-power.
Man I've lost my touch at pissing people off. Where are the negative 5's at?