Apple Sued Over iPhone Non-Replaceable Batteries 574
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."
Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:5, Informative)
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 [apple.com] -> Battery Service: FAQ [apple.com] and iPhone Service: FAQ [apple.com]
and
Apple Batteries [apple.com] -> Apple iPhone Batteries [apple.com]
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 [apple.com], the battery is covered under that as well. There are even already third party replacement options [ipodjuice.com]. 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 [nytimes.com] 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Standing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pro Se nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Mac system requirements
Mac computer with USB 2.0 port
Mac OS X v10.4.10 or later
iTunes 7.3 or later
Windows system requirements
PC with USB 2.0 port
Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later
iTunes 7.3 or later
No mention of Linux anywhere.
Uh, no (Score:3, Informative)
Here [apple.com]
Here and [apple.com]
Here and also [apple.com]
Here [apple.com]
And Apple quite clearly states that it is for use with Mac and Windows:
Here and [apple.com]
Here [apple.com]
That only required about 30-45 seconds of clicking links.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The battery in my blackberry 7520 lasted about 5 months before i needed to go to the system that i've got now...two batteries, using one of my old berries as a charger. This is one HUGE reason that the iphone will never ever be a blackberry killer. Can you imagine be a sys-admin or other person that needs to be on call 100% of the time having their battery go dead? Don't give me that "they should have been responsible and chared it" B.S. either, nobody should have to change their habits to make up for a
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet people buy it (and the iPhone)... The only way you know it's not replaceable is to read the FAQ in the manual (at
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never heard of a "Samsung Upstage" but I imagine that you must have looked pretty hard (or been unlucky) to have discovered another phone with a soldered-in battery. I've never heard of it in over 12 years of owning and reading about mobile phones.
> The only way you know it's not replaceable is to read the FAQ in the manual (at the back of the manual).. unless you know someone who has one, or
> you ask the clerk "
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it's not a 12 year old phone. It's at most a few months old (released April). It's sold by Sprint, and you've probably seen it (though you've probably not heard its name) if you're in the US. It's the phone where one side is a phone with the keypad and
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It would have done you in.
* fear change!!! *
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lis
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever-YEAH (Score:2)
Yeah, that's always the very first thing I think to ask about in a market where every other competing product had an easily replaceable battery.
And besides, why should you ever need to replace the battery? It's not like it might run down, and you'd want to swap in a fresh one until you can get to a charging outlet and
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to know enough to ask. Any reasonable person will assume that a portable electronic device will have replaceable batteries. I've never bought one that didn't. If I did by accident, I'd return it as defective. If they didn't take it, then yeah a lawsuit is pretty reasonable. Apple may have had a good technical r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When did we get sue happy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:When did we get sue happy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that every single phone on the planet has a user-replaceable battery, your expectation that anybody'd even think to look into it is silly.
"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."
Oh right. The same laws that make it difficult for companies (like Microsoft) to screw you are suddenly the cause of all the world's problems because they potentially rock Apple's boat. Face it: Apple could have been more up-front about the battery replacement AND that would have been more beneficial to the consumer. Instead you get to pay $29 for the inconvenience. Good thing I love Apple so I can put them on a pedestal for it.
Re:When did we get sue happy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stupidest -customer- ever (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you know that it doesn't have a user serviceable battery and that is a serious issue for you, you wont actually buy the iPhone in the first place.
Billions of people world wide have failed to purchase an iPhone today? Who held a gun to your head and made you buy yours?
You can be dissatisfied with the iPhone
Re:Stupidest -customer- ever (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole thing is a barometer that ind
Re:Stupidest -customer- ever (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did I say I was anti-Apple? Or anti-iPhone even?
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 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=242435&cid=196 71931 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241925&cid=196 58031 [slashdot.org]
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.
Re:Stupidest -customer- ever (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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?
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).
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.
Re:Stupidest -customer- ever (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just a small point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just a small point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Maybe Not (Score:2, Interesting)
In exchange for whatever coolness that's been bestowed upon you for parting ways with $500+ for the device, you assume the hidden costs of cool.
This brings us to the magic of the Steve Jobs RDF: You and your brethren feel good paying more for less.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's a good thing you don't design pacemakers. It would really suck to fall over and break off the little plastic battery cover.
Wristwatches have forgone user-replaceable batteries for ages. Why does a phone need one? I think your "common sense" is better phrased as "lack of imagination".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about my logitech cordless mouse here? It doesn't.
Lots of devices don't have replaceable batteries for lots of reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every single cell phone I've owned, from super cheap to super expenssive, for the last 10 years, had a user-replacable battery. Heck, every phone I've even lightly considered owning has had a 'high-capacity' upgrade available for it. It'd be surprising to find a phone that has
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really that different to opening an iPod or iPhone is it in this case?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe Not (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:4, Informative)
If my laptop's battery is any indication of typical li-ion batteries, deep-cycling hurts them really bad - I deep-cycled my laptop's battery many more times than I ever meant to due to the power brick's plug slipping out of the laptop's socket on its own and the charge circuit being inhibited unless the plug is fully inserted. After about a year, I was already down to around 70% battery life even though I used my laptop plugged-in (as far as I knew) 99% of the time.
At the other end of the spectrum, my current cell phone (four years old Nokia 7190) also has a li-ion battery. I plug it in overnight whenever possible and the battery still holds a very decent charge: the phone still indicates a full battery after 3-4 days of (unplugged) standby, seems as good as new.
Re:Stupidest lawsuit ever (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, in absolute fairness, you'd be doing bloody well to use more than one full charge cycle per day for a year, and even if you did the battery still wouldn't need replacing.
The only people this will affect are people buying second-hand iPhones, which isn't this guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they aren't. The iPhones are only for personal use. My boss has one, and he had to argue with the customer service person for about twenty minutes to convince her that she could send the bill to a business address. He had to swear up and down that this was not a business phone, and that he was merely sending the bill there for personal convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... thats a royal pain in the ass. what if you actually wanted to use one for business?
Im sure they have legal reasons for not officially supporting enterprise customers... but damn. That just seems harsh.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the iPhone is a consumer-targeted device. It hasn't been marketed to business or enterprise, isn't sold via Apple's federal, education, or developer stores, and isn't offered via AT&T on anything but personal accoun
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That "large corporation" would know damned well exactly what the iPhone does, doesn't, can, and can't do before buying 10,000 of them.
The point is that people seem to think that Apple is inappropriately targeting or marketing this at enterprise/corporate markets, only to have people disappointed that it's not a drop-in replacement in every respect for a Blackberry, Treo, or Windows Mobile smartphone. The poin
mod up: insightful (Score:2, Insightful)
-
Re:TYPICAL (MOD UP!) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TYPICAL (MOD UP!) (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:TYPICAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My gripes with Apple are all about
Oh, FFS... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
2. Then he couldn't sue about it.... Duh... Or his phone is so hip and trendy he doesn't want to return it.
3. Emotional Strain knowing that his hip and trendy phone will need a new battery in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
My thought too. Apple's iPhone refund policy is a 100% refund in the first 14 days of purchase if the box had not been opened. 90% refund within the first 14 days if the box had been opened. Instead of a maximum of $60 charge, the customer decided to sue after less than a month of the product's debut.
boo hoo (Score:2)
Most likely by the time batteries start dying, he'll be able to take it into a local business and they'll replace the battery while you wait, probably for less than apple would charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uhh, I had to do a factory reset of my iPhone via iTunes the day after it came out (this is due to my user error, it hardlocked and I could have power+menu button together hard-reset it, but I didn't read the manual!). My contact information, SMS, calendar, Safari Bookmarks, Voicemails(!) all were saved. All were re-loaded onto my iPhone after the software reset and re-activation (which was "T
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that comes close to being the basis for a lawsuit is his claim that this was an undisclosed feature of this product. Wait, no it's still not even close for reasons others have described.
The price you pay for... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Now should he have known this before? Yes. Does it mean Apple isn't stupid for designing it the way they did? No, Apple is moronic to do it this way
seems premature (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid, UNTIL you think about ithe big picture.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Stupid, UNTIL you think about ithe big picture. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stupid, UNTIL you think about ithe big picture. (Score:2)
Loaner extra.
This is crazy. (Score:4, Informative)
Hard to find the info on the battery replacement? Google "iphone battery" and you'll get this [google.com]... 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.
Re:This is crazy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
God, I hate class-action suit lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Class-action lawsuit by Apple shareholders (Score:4, Insightful)
Two jobs in the US by 2020 (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Lawyers
2. IT guys for lawyers.
just think about which you're going to be, and start preparing.
Re:Two jobs in the US by 2020 (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sue Mercedes-Benz too (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsence (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps apple can counter sue for a frivolous action?
Lionel Hutz (Score:2, Funny)
"I looked all over the Apple website, and not once did they explain that it used "electricity"".
Re: (Score:2)
We could be TAD more objective about this, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
One attorney's take... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Caveat Emptor. If the user did not do any research before buying a $500+ phone, that is his
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not new (Score:2, Informative)
Decades!
On avg Americans change phones every 18 months (Score:3, Informative)
Phones should have replaceable batteries (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Onward consumer soldiers (Score:3, Insightful)
$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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a law student, you do realize that stupid people filing stupid lawsuits are the ones who pay you clever lawyers' bills right? Unless of course you're studying law to become a judge or something (in which case congrats, but if you plan on becoming a lawyer after the bar, may you turn green in hue and die in a freak accident or something, do the world a favor, please, thank you very
Re: (Score:2)
A good take-away from this would be: "People who file dumb lawsuits aren't that popular with the general public, and give the profession a bad reputation."
Chip H.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)