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."
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
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.
I thought it was a Li-Poly battery?
Regardless, 400 full discharge-recharge cycles to get to 80% capacity will extend beyond 2 years for the vast majority of people. If your phone is that important that you use it all the time and hit that sooner then you'll have AppleCare anyway (if the battery drops to 50% capacity), or dropping $120 won't phase you a bit.
Clearly Apple think that the battery will remain over 50% for the vast majority of users for two years, otherwise they wouldn't offer AppleCare for that long.
I don't know about the capacity/time graph for Li-Poly batteries - it could be that it takes 400 cycles to get to 80%, then another 100 to get to 20% rather than a more gradual thing, anyone know?
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.
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.
Replacement hood emblems are really expensive, and it didn't say they would be in the sales pamphlet.
technical writing / development
Let's not even consider that these questions have been asked and answered[1] for years with the iPod.
Believe it or not, but there still are a few of us who had no idea that this was the case with the iPod, as we're not interested in the device. In addition, arguing that because one product doesn't have easily replaceable batteries another product wouldn't have them either is not entirely logical.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about the reports I've heard that iTunes is required for activating the cell phone. Apple's Web site doesn't state that iTunes is required (at least I couldn't find the information); it merely suggests to use iTunes for the phone activation. As a Linux user I'd be screwed if iTunes was indeed required, and I wouldn't be told before purchasing the Apple phone.
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 ----
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.
yea... you can be held responsible for a decision like this.
The choice to make a part non user serviceable is never going to cost anyone their PE. For fucks sake what the hell is wrong with you people. Are you so excited to shit on some new gadget that you have to make shit up like this?
The thing that is supposed to hold you responsible is the free market. Not some fucking lawsuit. Apple has made no attempt to hide the fact that the battery is not user serviceable. If apple had somehow hidden that fact they would be guilty of false advertising but its seems pretty clear from the grandparent post that they did not make any attempt to hide this fact.
If a non user servicable battery makes the iPhone useless to you, DON'T BUY IT. If most people agree with you then the product will be a failure and maybe the next iPhone will have a user serviceable battery. I dont see any evidence here that apple has marketed this phone falsely or claimed it can do something it cant. Unless they have then a lawsuit is totally out of line.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
"Let's not even consider that these questions have been asked and answered[1] for years with the iPod."
Yes, let us not consider it because we have no reason to assume the plaintiff has been following the iPod issues for years.
"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."
Again, we have no reason to assume the plaintiff has been following the iPod issues for years. Replaceable but not user-replaceable isn't acceptable to many people, including myself. Why should the plaintiff be expected to be knowledgeable about Apple technology? If he's looking for a cell phone and he buys one that seems to be the best of the bunch, expecting it to have a user-replaceable battery like virtually every other cell phone doesn't seem like an outrageous expectation. If your cell phone is your primary means of communication, having to take it in for service to get the battery replaced can be unacceptable, putting you out of contact for days while you wait for service to be completed.
"It's also utterly and ridiculously false to say that a new battery is required every year."
Lithium-Ion batteries, especially under heavy use and recharge cycles, have their performance severely degrade after a year.
"As to the "difficulty" of finding the information on Apple's site"
"Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement."
Yes, the answer is easy to find once you realize what the problem is. Before you know there's a problem, it's not immediately obvious. The same goes for asking a rep. It's a very specific question. You're obviously an iPod fan, you seem to think of it as an iPod+, but consider that it's being marketed at people who think it's a fancy cell phone, people who may not know about Apple's engineering and decision making processes.
"Just pretend that the battery replacement costs $29 more"
Why should someone have to pay $29 extra for a new battery? Why would you even consider that an acceptable additional cost?
"The funniest thing of all is that most iPhone owners won't ever even want or need to replace their batteries. They'll have the same slow degradation everyone experiences with lithium ion batteries over time, and before they'd even care or consider replacing it even if it was user-replaceable, they'll be on their next phone."
That's more of a "Generation Y" mentality. Some of us older folk don't run out to get the latest greatest model of everything. Some of us make periodic upgrades when there's truly a major breakthrough, but largely don't change devices until there's a pressing need.
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
If I bought a toothbrush with a non-replaceable battery, I would not be surprised. It's very common.
If I bought a cell phone with a non-replaceable battery, I would be surprised. Most people who use cell phones have had to deal with batteries, either because they've needed to replace them or carry extras for emergency. I don't believe that I've ever seen a cell phone without a replaceable battery...I'm not saying they don't exist, but they must be rare. Being able to read about the lack of a replaceable battery on a website after I'd purchased the device without one wouldn't help me much.
I don't think that this guy has a case if he had a chance to return the iPhone for an iRefund, but iWouldn't be surprised if he couldn't.
hey, software lock in is evil. software and hardware lock in with a stylish gui is the bomb!
-
so apple has to advertise that the battery is not user replaceable.
Why doesn't blackberry packaging have to inform you that its web browser isn't fully compatible with modern web applications? I mean, I expect the web to work the way it does in firefox. Since my shinny new blackberry tells me a I can surf the web on it shouldn't it work the same way?
Verizon cripples the Bluetooth on all its phones so you can only use them with earpieces and not to transfer files. Why don't they have to have a warning label on every phone they sell?
I don't buy the idea that apple has to shout all of the limitations of its products from the rooftops but other companies don't have to.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
1. I don't like that the user can not replace the battery in the IPhone.
2. I am not all that happy with the price of the IPhone.
3. I am not happy with the limited choice of carriers for the IPhone.
4. I am not happy with the lack of an SDK for the IPhone.
The solution?
I don't own an IPhone.
Last time I checked I did not have a God or Government given right to own exactly the IPhone I want.
Good freaking grief.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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
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
You have a choice. Do your customers value a small device, or a device with a replaceable battery more? Apple believe the former, you believe the latter. Only the market can tell which of you is correct.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"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.
How does this comment get a troll rating? It's not great, but it's hardly troll (unless you're blindly pro-apple).
1. I don't like that the user can not replace the battery in the IPhone. ...
The solution?
I don't own an IPhone.
Good thing you knew about that before you went to buy one, right?
Last time I checked I did not have a God or Government given right to own exactly the IPhone I want.
No, but you do have a right to be treated fairly and at least warned before being sold a crippled device.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
But what happens when they assume the iphone has this functionality? Since you know, every other portable electronic device on the face of the earth does. It's not an unreasonable assumption to make and apple is negligent for not warning people on the box.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
All he has to do is prove that the product sold did not meet the expectations that a normal consumer might have of a phone.
For example:
What if Ford sold you a car where the wheels were welded onto the axles, so that you would need to take your car to a Ford dealer whenever your tires needed to be replaced, but did not mention it to you when you bought the car?
People who buy a car have a reasonable expectation that the wheels are not welded to the axle just like people who buy a phone have a reasonable expectation that the battery is not soldered in the phone. If your product differs substantially from the normal expected operation you must disclose this at the time of sale.
You're a perfect example of why our current trend in infantilizing our youth is going to be the death of Western Civilization. You need a carebear world where no one ever offends you, where everything works the way "you think it should," where everything needs a warning label on the box otherwise the manufacturer is "negligent." GET A GRIP. Every "unreasonable assumption" you've made in this entire thread is just a sign of this.
And to all the folks who will cry out "ad hominem" about my post, think about it for a second.
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.
Well most people who use cell phones "know" the batteries are replaceable. Those who use PDAs and Smart Phone "know" the user experience is not exactly the same as using a Lap/Desktop. I'm not a lawyer so I cannot say if Apple HAS to make it very clear about the battery, but they most certainly SHOULD have. What often seems to make a difference in situations like this is when the world finds out someone within the company said, "We have to do this" and those running the show choose to ignore that in order to make more profit at the expense of what is fair to the customer. One question would be did Apple know that many customers would assume the battery was replaceable and purposely minimize the notification of this in order to minimize the impact on sales. I didn't sweat the iPhone enough to part with the half grand or switch to the unappealing AT&T network. I figured I'd wait and if it got even more features, a public SDK, or more carriers (Verizon) I'd take the plunge. Things like this battery fiasco were a setback to that. By the time the iPhone gets to the point I want it, they'll be giving it away with a 2 year contract.
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.
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.
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...
Fraud. The fact that you think this is fraud just goes to show the futility of infantilization. FYI fraud is a specific legal term that implies far more intent even your limited, Perry Mason knowledgebase shows. And to think when I grew up the "me generation" was the bane of the world. Little did we know that the future generations would expect even more potty-training.
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.
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
Very nice. However, do you really think that people should expect a computer to be required to use a phone? Really? Slashdot readers would most likely find any and all information on anything new before throwing dollars at useless tech, however ordinary people just want something that acts like a phone.
I'd also like to point out that if not having a user servicable battery is grounds for a lawsuit, shouldn't every auto manufacturer be sued for making changing a headlight a non-serviceable function? Honestly, a battery change is far more dangerous than a headlight change, since batteries have shown a tendancy to start fires or even explode when not handled properly.
This really is a retarded lawsuit. Quit trying to dress it up, we all know Mr. Plaintiff is just trying to make a buck. These are the same kinds of people that sue McDonalds for making them fat.
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.
The point of the Upstage is that I _didn't_ have to look hard to find another phone with a non-user replaceable battery. That's not the only one.
Let me ask you this.. would you buy a car without first knowing some basics about it? What makes someone not ask if it's now "electronic"? It's a device, just like a car... if you don't ask, they're not going to tell you everything.... they assume you either already know or don't care. The user manual is available, as is the spec sheet. If you don't see it listed... (like what octane works best with this car?) you have to _ask_. Not asking is not grounds for anything but being stupid, as a customer and a shopper.
Same with the iPhone. If you didn't ask, that meant you didn't care to know, or you already knew.. Steve Jobs and Co. are many things, but mindreaders are not among them...
Apple not mentioning in the sales pitch "yeah, you can't replace the battery yourself" is not criminal, negligent, or worthy of a lawsuit.
Consider this little gem from IBM Thinkpads (the last time I got one).
Most all thinkpads have user-replaceable hard drives... a flap underneath the laptop to move the drive out and put a new one in... no big deal. The i1460 was also a Thinkpad... it had the word "Thinkpad" on it, made by IBM, and was advertised as such.
Now, the little catch was, the i1460's drive was NOT user-serviceable. Meaning, you possibly could void your warranty taking the computer apart to get to the HDD. Was it listed in the brochure? Not in the spec-sheet I saw at the store. It wasn't even mentioned by the salesman. Know how I found out? I researched the brand to find the one I wanted... decided the 1460 wasn't my cup of tea and when pitched (as it was on sale), I told the sales clerk... "I need a user-replaceable HDD" and that was that.
Say I didn't ask, and ASS-umed it was like all the other Thinkpads w/r/t HDD replacement. I get home unpack and gleefully see how to replace the HDD, but there's no SLOT! Does that grant me the right to sue? I can try... but it'll be just like the iPhone... the info wasn't hidden, it just wasn't put in bold print above the item's name.
Same idea, different product... it's _NOT_ too much to ask people to do a little research before plunking down $500 for a phone. (or in my case $2000 for a laptop.)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
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
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".