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."

Comments

Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever

[jedidiah]

Brilliant...

multi-media toy == productive business gadget.

It's this kind of stupidity that leads to phones that aren't readily serviceable.

The fact that you can characterize this as an "engineering decision" doesn't alter the fact that you can be held responsible for it. This is why there is serious professional certification for real engineers. Your PE license is on the line anytime you sign your name to something.

Fraud

[DogDude]

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?

Re:Fraud

[DogDude]

What's important is that Apple expects that people are going to treat their gadgets as disposable and replace them every few years. That's absurd and gives a new meaning to the word "wasteful". And yes, it's shocking to me that so many people buy into this hook, line, and sinker. I buy things to last for a long time. I wouldn't expect a gizmo to last 40 years, but if I have to fix/replace a gizmo, especially an obscenely overpriced one, within a few years, I'm either returning it or not buying another from that company. I just bought a brand new stereo receiver. I expect that to last me, if not for the rest of my life, then for a very long time. I shouldn't have to replace a stereo receiver every few years. If it conks out in 5 years, I'm gonna be pissed. I shouldn't have to replace a telephone every few years, either.

But then again, maybe I'm just out of touch with the average consumer/lemming that enjoys wasting their money on anything disposable.