Slashdot Mirror
Apple's 'Shoddy' Beats Headphones Get Slammed In Lawsuit (theregister.co.uk)
A lawsuit (PDF) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, recounts the frustrations of five plaintiffs who found that Apple's Powerbeats 2 and Powerbeats 3 headphones did not perform as advertised. They are also claiming the company is refusing to honor warranty commitments to repair or replace the failed units. The Register reports: The complaint seeks $5,000,000 in damages and class action certification, in order to represent thousands of similarly afflicted Beats customers who are alleged to exist. "In widespread advertising and marketing campaigns, Apple touts that its costly Powerbeats (which retail for $199.95) are 'BUILT TO ENDURE' and are the 'BEST HEADPHONES FOR WORKING OUT,'" the complaint says. "But these costly headphones are neither 'built to endure' nor 'sweat & water resistant,' and certainly do not have a battery that lasts for six or twelve hours. Instead, these shoddy headphones contain a design defect that causes the battery life to diminish and eventually stop retaining a charge."
The complaint attributes the shoddiness of Apple's Powerbeats headphones to cheap components. Citing an estimate in a recent Motley Fool article, the complaint contends that Apple's Beats Solo headphones cost $16.89 to make and retail for $199.95: a markup of more than 1,000 per cent. That figure actually comes from a Medium post by Avery Louie, from hardware prototyping biz Bolt.
The complaint attributes the shoddiness of Apple's Powerbeats headphones to cheap components. Citing an estimate in a recent Motley Fool article, the complaint contends that Apple's Beats Solo headphones cost $16.89 to make and retail for $199.95: a markup of more than 1,000 per cent. That figure actually comes from a Medium post by Avery Louie, from hardware prototyping biz Bolt.
That takes courage!
A recent TV investigation (I think it was BBC's Rogue Traders) featured people getting ripped off with poor quality fakes of premium brand headphones, including Beats, IIRC. Wonder if some of the complainants here have been similarly caught out.
you got what you paid for.
the logo.
Are easily parted.
I doubt Apple will mind even if they lose the FULL 5 million.
It's courageous to drop 200 on headphones with batteries.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I have no idea whether the case has merit or not - I would never spend $200 on headphones and am completely unequipped to judge. However, the article says "recent" Motley Fool article, when the linked article was published in 2015 - about a year after the Apple acquisition of Beats. I don't know if Apple has used those years to improve the product or not, but calling the article "recent" is disingenuous.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is the second lawsuit I've read about in the last couple of days which just amounts to, "It's not as good as I thought it was". Are consumers today really so ignorant they just purchase without research and then expect someone to bail them out if they're not satisfied?
And... my Grado headphones are great, btw. Not wireless, though.
They have "beats" in really large letters so that everybody else in the gym can notice that you are wearing them which is the only reason you would buy such a ridiculous product as these to begin with. Unfortunately, having the beats headphones isn't going to provide the attention from the cute girls in the gym who are in better shape and not interested. You can't file a class action suit saying that the headphones didn't increase your sex appeal, though.
Why isn't there a lawsuit over that?
but the amplified ones are awful. I still use Koss PortaPros, the same model I had in high school.
Beats headphones have always been absolutely crappy cans. People are just realizing that now?
At least in the EU, a company making false claims for a product will rapidly find itself in violation of trade description and advertising laws. Prior "research" by consumers to check that the advertised claims are accurate before purchase is not a requirement. To put it simply, companies should not lie.
Companies that lie and abuse consumers should not be defended but condemned. They're a blight on society, just white-collar fraudsters.
Can we sue the people who bought them just simply for being that stupid? In fact, can Apple sue for that? Beats and Apple are toxic brand names in the last 5 years in case they haven't been paying attention.
Beats have been over hyped crap since the day they were released. They've only sold because they have a name people know attached to them. I can buy just as good of quality for about $10-20 at office depot.
People, please learn, if a celebrity has their name on a product, that product is of inferior quality 100% of the time, no exceptions.
Good old American made Grado headphones are a much better investment. For $150 you can get a very good pair of SR125e phones that will provide years of enjoyment. Read the reviews.
People with desperate lawyers sue deep pockets all the time trying to get class action status. This is just another such fishing trip from lawyer trying to win the lottery, one of many. It MIGHT be news if they actually were granted class-action status, but even then most of those suits die because they're without merit. /. editors should not be wasting the time of their readership by posting such useless crap.
I really wish I'd stop avoiding purchases for the obvious reasons and get in on this sue happy opportunities.
You buy Apple to LOOK cool, not to actually BE cool -- you understand that right?
That was true in 2014. Now you buy Apple because the storage on your previous Apple product is full and you have no other way to get more space.
lucm, indeed.
I read somewhere their phones are only designed to work for a year...
It's all about the look & feel with Apple, they want nothing to do with durable products, only provide you with the illusion that you're buying one.
And you're still cool because you now have more space...and the latest Apple product...suck it you cheap bastards...being cool costs $$$$...yeah!!!
People always seem to forget the amount of R&D that goes into making a product. How long and how many people at what wages? How many prototypes were created and tested? How much for the marketing? All of that costs money and is recovered through the sales price. I imagine they still make a good chunk of profit once costs are recovered but you can't just say it's $20 per set.
Quality HAHAHA
and why is shoddy in quotes?
'Her old Macbook was full, so she had to go out and get a new one.'
My use case is running for 40 minutes 4 times a week while getting my headphones soaked in a combination of sweat, rain, and lately ash blown in from nearby wildfires. I have blown through 3 prior pairs of Bluetooth wireless headphones, all of which suffered from poor reception while running, and all of which died a salt-encrusted death within several months.
My Powerbeats 3 aren't perfect (the cord sticks a bit on the back of my neck) but they are by far the only wireless headphones that ever really worked for me for running. I spent more than $200 with the other 3, which I suppose made the admittedly stiff price worth my while.
I can buy Apple! Don't Tread On Me! Because my pecker bleeds pretty easily now.
Who was it that said, "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap." I believe the same, but for a different reason. Those were the words of some entertainer trying to create a "look".
What I'm thinking of are people that buy cheap stuff that wears out, breaks, or whatever, and then they have to try to keep it together with duct tape and baling wire or try to scrape together enough money for a replacement that is also cheap. They are constantly trying to save money getting junk products not realizing that if they just stopped for a bit, saved up a little money, and bought something that would last for once, that they could get themselves out of this hole.
I did that. It takes a lot of self control. When I broke my laptop I panicked and immediately started looking for a replacement. I calmed down a bit and I was able to get my laptop working as a desktop, the battery is shot. I could try to replace the battery, and pound out the dents I put into the case when I dropped it, but I decided to save up for a new laptop instead. It's not likely to be as nice as the one I broke but it won't be a cheap pieced of crap like I was about to get in my earlier panic. Spending money on repairing my current laptop means putting money into a computer that is already 5 years old and the repair may not be successful.
Between my laptop (which is now shackled to my desk), my iPhone, and computer labs on campus, I've been able to get by so far. I'm going to see if I can last until Christmas before buying, that can mean a lot of after Christmas sales for a laptop for next semester.
It's actually not that expensive to look "cool" if you can contain yourself from getting the latest and greatest every year. Any more it's hard to tell a 5 year old laptop from a 5 month old laptop if you buy nice stuff and take care of it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
>Who was it that said, "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap."
Dolly Parton
I don't know about the water/sweat resistance of these headphones but I do know that all rechargeable batteries diminish over time. That has nothing to do with these specific headphones.
I also know that anyone who thinks manufacturing costs are the only costs that exist when selling are just dumb.
There are costs for development, Testing not to forget the seller chains.
Have you ever heard the phrase "poor people can't afford to buy cheap things"?
It is well known right across society that paying more for a more durable and reliable piece of equipment often pays off in the long run.
By now people should be well aware that Apple stuff is of craptastic quality and grossly overpriced. Those who keep buying it anyway are beyond a point where a court of law can help.
Urm , and this was a surprise to the claimant?
Apple Cultists really are that stupid ?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I realize I'm wading into one big Anti-Apple circle jerk, but I just wanted to mention that I spend $175 on their overpriced BeatsX bluetooth headphones....
And they're the single best bluetooth headphones I've ever owned. The sound quality is great (well, as great as they can be for in-ear headphones, obviously), and most importantly, they have given me virtually flawless performance. I had given up completely on bluetooth headphones because every single one I bought gave me problems, notably constant connection drops. Every. Single. One. Even in residential areas where you would think ambient RF interference was low. They were all useless unless I kept my phone in a front coat pocket or otherwise somehow kept the phone within 2 ft unobstructed from the headsets.
I decided to take a chance with the BeatsX, cause I wanted to know if the W1 chip would make that much of a difference. And I have to say that the BeatsX headset doesn't give me any problems. I've had exactly one major connection failure, and that was when I was walking past an electrical room that puts out so much RF that I'm amazed surprised the florescent lights don't excite on their own.
I have no idea about the circumstances of this lawsuit, but I can honestly say that I am happier with my BeatsX headphones than I ever have been with any previous BT headset.
Except that you can't figure out which equipment is durable and reliable. You might be getting better headphones for $200 or you might be getting $12 headphones that are marked up. Well if you buy the $12 version, your total risk is $12. If you buy the $200 version, your risk is $200. So given that you can't be sure that the order-of-magnitude more expensive option is actually better, you have to go with the cheaper option. Furthermore even a "durable and reliable" piece of equipment is subject to accidental damage which isn't covered by warranty. So you're still better off going with the low risk option sometimes even if the higher priced option is genuinely better.
Well you can save up to buy the more expensive laptop. Then you'll drop it again and it turns out you would have been way better off buying a much cheaper one and keeping the extra cash in the bank. Warranties don't cover accidental damage. And you could get an outlier that lasts only the warranty period. In general, other than perhaps housing and vehicles, if you have to "save up" to buy something, you are better off saving up and then not buying it.
My daughter's Beats headphones cost $300, and yep -- they're broken already!
USB key and USB OTG adapter
Excuse me, but my only way to be cool is to turn the thermostat down. I use iPhones because I like them, and the price is reasonable for something I use so often for three years or so.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes