Japan Demands Probe of iPod Nano Flameouts

iminplaya sends in an item from TechNewsWorld that begins, "Several incidents of iPod Nanos bursting into flames have created consumer jitters in gadget-happy Japan. Apple is downplaying the problem, pointing out that no major injuries or damage have been reported. The problem is due to defective batteries, the company said, and only a tiny percentage of the devices have caught on fire." Japan has seen 14 such incidents so far, two in recent days. iminplaya adds, "I like that. Only a 'tiny percentage'... Is anybody beginning to understand why I would prefer that these devices not be allowed on airplanes?"

Comments

Re:Yes, only a tiny percentage

[nomadic]

I'm sorry your honor, I only punched fourteen people in the face after taking their money. That's such a tiny percentage of the population.

The thing about mac zealots is, if their purchasing trends are any indication, they'll actually thank you for both punching them and taking their money.

Re:Why banned on airplanes?

[x2A]

"Did you know there are springs in keyboards?"

I'm on a laptop, no springs, just lil bits of rubber... but that is, of course, besides the point, your examples are of people causing harm to themselves, and yes of course it should be up to any responsible adult to decide what risks they expose themselves to, but during flights, their responsibility is to everyone, no just to the person who decides what risks to take for themself, and if that means excluding a product range with a battery that has been known to be able to spontaneously combust, then I don't think that's as simple to write off as "oh what are the odds?".

There are ways of listening to music that don't require a lithium-ion battery if it's that important for the flight time. There have been cases of lithium-ion battery powered devices catching fire on planes, it might be low odds, but it's still "it happens".

Re:Why banned on airplanes?

[x2A]

"But my point is, absolutely everything is a risk"

Yes (or close enough to 'yes') but some are theoretical risks, and others are things things that do or have actually happened.

"So now we'll find that there's both faulty and terrorist-created memory stick which burst into flames"

Not if it only provides low power, enough to read the memory. If terrorists were to make a stick that'd burst into flames and all it needed was to be plugged into a low power usb socket, they could power it with a small cell battery instead, so there's no change to the risk level there.

"or which launch a virus which somehow makes its way into the navigation system"

Not if it's just a standalone mp3 player, I don't think you'd be giving people access to usb ports that connect to the planes computers!

"the only way you know which risks you should care about is by calculating them"

Which leads back to theoretical risks vs things that have happened (as you can calculate those based on times it has vs times it hasn't happened).

"Also, considering that there have been no major injuries or damage... How much of a risk is this, even if it did go off?"

Perhaps risk of significant loss of life isn't that high... but if one of them did go off during flight? There'd be outrage! The people on the flight demanding to know why airliners knew this was a risk and did nothing, damage to confidence in flying, people kicking up a fuss on planes about not wanting to sit next to someone who has one, esp people who already are scared of flying and wanna be back safely on the ground asap anyway.

A load of people squeezed into a small flying can, many with their nerves on edge enough as is. It needs to be a safe and controlled environment.

"By the way: You can't say "acceptable loss is 0""

Losses aren't acceptable, I assume you mean risk, in which case yes, getting onto an plane introduces a risk, so yes, zero risk is impossible.

"If those odds scare you, you probably shouldn't be flying in the first place"

And likewise, if the concept of flying without an ipod nano scares you, you probably shouldn't be flying either!

Re:Why banned on airplanes?

[x2A]

"Your spring could leap out of the keyboard and hit someone else"

Like I said, I'm on laptop, no springs in keyboard, just squashy bits of rubber, which couldn't do that as they just won't hold enough force to even lift themselves up.

"The newspaper you're reading could be caught by a sudden gust of wind"

On an plane?

"Out of 45 million iPod-years there have been 14 fires"

There's 45 million in Japan? Cuz it has happened elsewhere as well, so is def more than 14. Anyway, surely the maths should be more along the lines of - what's the chance that one of the people with a defective battery will board a plane with it? Across all the flights for all the planes, it happening once is enough to cause problems.

"That doesn't say how many of those will cause the plane to crash, of course"

As I pointed out here it doesn't need to.

"Is it okay to check iPod Minis in luggage?"

You could request that batteries are disconnected if you wanna be uber safe, otherwise, I'd think the battery's not gonna be getting hot if the device is left turned off.

"Personally, I'll happily take the one-out-of-5.5-million chance of an iPod fire"

Yep, me too. If I was the planes captain I might prefer not though, already enough things to be thinking about and controlling without the small worry of batteries igniting or the slightly larger worry of someone kickin up a fuss because the person next to them has "one of those things they read about that can explode". Perhaps planes can provide a low voltage usb port, and request people power ipods using that and disconnect their batteries? Or ask that people remove the battery cover and keep check that the battery isn't starting to get warm and remove it if it does? I'm not saying there aren't other solutions, but for what it's worth, that I can understand people wanting to keep things simple and just not allow them to be used during flight.

"It's up to us to determine what risks everyone takes"

And if you and I are okay with taking the risk, but someone on the plane isn't, should they be able to veto it? Perhaps a democracy where you take a vote? Where does the line lie? Is it okay for x number of people to have them on board, but x+1 is too risky?

It's sometimes just easier to keep things simple.