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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.........
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...
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
How does this comment get a troll rating? It's not great, but it's hardly troll (unless you're blindly pro-apple).
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.
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
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...
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