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

Stupidest lawsuit ever

[daveschroeder]

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

Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever

[bestinshow]

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?

Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever

[NetDanzr]

You are absolutely right that the lawsuit has no basis, and that Apple has informed sufficiently about the batteries. However, I don't think your first argument is valid:

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.

Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever

[Jekler]

"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.

Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever

[LWATCDR]

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.

The price you pay for...

[PrescriptionWarning]

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.

God, I hate class-action suit lawyers

[jfengel]

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.

Re:Two jobs in the US by 2020

[Cytos]

3. and guys who replace batteries

Re:Stupidest -customer- ever

[AKAImBatman]

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. :-/

Re:This is crazy.

[slackmaster2000]

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.

Re:Stupidest -customer- ever

[inviolet]

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.

This angry conjecture does not bear up to scrutiny. An internal, soldered, non-user-replaceable battery confers some serious benefits:

• no contact connection problems, even in the presence of moisture and vibration
• savings of precious internal volume by omitting the battery compartment and battery sheathing
• elimination of an entry point for dust and water
• elimination of spurious warranty claims stemming from subpar or incorrect third-party batteries, and from user fiddling

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.

Re:When did we get sue happy?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Well, you know what they say about the word "Assume" don't you?"

Heh. I hear ya.

But look, it's not that I'm anti-Apple, here. I just don't care for allowing Apple to do things I know I wouldn't allow Sony or Microsoft to do. The more a company has to say up front about their products, the better it is for consumers. This concept doesn't just magically fly out the window because it's Apple and they've made us happy before. The iPod was neat, but it's no reason to drop your pants and grab your ankles in front of them.