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:Oh, FFS...

[goober1473]

I half expected number three to be "profit".

IANAL but.....

[rueger]

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

Re:IANAL but.....

[srmalloy]

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

Lionel Hutz

[dotmax]

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

Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever

[presearch]

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!!! *

Re:Stupidest -customer- ever

[StikyPad]

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.

Re:When did we get sue happy?

[NeoBeans]

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?

Re:Maybe Not

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

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.