Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sued Over iPhone Non-Replaceable Batteries

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the overly-litigious dept.

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."

10 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The price you pay for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well, I couldn't disagree less. See, the advantages outweigh the downsides on at least 4 different levels.

    First, the phone itself is

    oh, I've got an incoming call and I'm posting this from my iPhone. Will finish post later.

  2. Re:Oh, FFS... by goober1473 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I half expected number three to be "profit".

  3. IANAL but..... by rueger · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... I believe that the technical term for this is F*CKING IDIOT!

    --
    Three Squirrels
    1. Re:IANAL but..... by srmalloy · · Score: 2, Funny

      But that ignores the fundamental question about him.... which, unfortunately, we're not likely to find out: Will He Blend?

  4. Lionel Hutz by dotmax · · Score: 2, Funny

    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".

    "I looked all over the Apple website, and not once did they explain that it used "electricity"". .max

  5. Understand the Parent Poster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why should someone have to pay $29 extra for a new battery? Why would you even consider that an acceptable additional cost?

    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.

  6. Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever by presearch · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a good thing that you missed the switch to touch-tone phones and unleaded gas.
    It would have done you in.

    * fear change!!! *

  7. Re:Stupidest -customer- ever by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  8. Re:When did we get sue happy? by NeoBeans · · Score: 2, Funny

    The problem is the iPhone is like the only phone in existence right now with a soldered-in battery. Most people aren't going to have it occur to them to check on that until it's a problem. And since that's roughly a year or two away...
    And yet he filed a lawsuit after the product has been out just over a month.... Maybe he's from the future, send here to warn us of iPhone battery failures and SkyNet?
  9. Re:Maybe Not by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 2, Funny

    A user replaceable battery is not a 'common sense feature' it's a tradeoff. In a mobile phone?

    User replaceable batteries need to be physically bigger (since they need to be safe outside the confines of the device) and need more space beyond this to allow insertion and removal. You can easily add 10-20% to the amount of space needed for the battery by making it user replaceable.

    In something like an iPod, where the battery accounts for over half of the total volume, this is significant. Yes, I for one, not unlike yourself, am really wondering what you are talking about. I thought that it was about iPhone, not iPod.

    You have a choice. But so fair you said nothing at all about iPhone, I want that.

    Do your customers value a small device, or a device with a replaceable battery more? Apple believe the former, you believe the latter. How about small device with a replaceable battery, like... a mobile phone?
    I see, I do not have that choice in your example.
    Does that means that the customer and the producer will not sell nor buy from one another?

    Only the market can tell which of you is correct. and if they don't buy/sell from one another, where is the market?
    On the second though, I think you're right: only market and court can tell who is right.

    PS: But tell me how is this possible: you are right even though you did not type all the characters? I really wonder why.