Comments on: Worst lawsuit ever

An Illinois man has filed a lawsuit against Apple, incorrectly claiming the iPhone battery will die after 300 charges.

[dentalrep]

I Hope He Wins!!!

It should be a crime to sell an item that the end user cannot change the battery.

[wsuschmitt]

Buyer beware

If the buyer is going to spend $600 and NOT look into where they are going to be spending or investing their money, then it is the buyer's fault. Buyer beware when it comes to shopping... and seller beware too. Apple has done NOTHING but be upfront about the iPhone and it's capabilities and limitations.

[polaris20]

No....

It should be a crime to be a grown adult and not be able to do 5 minutes internet research about the $600 product you're buying, then blame it on the manufacturer because you're too stupid to read the fine print.

There's a moron with money born every minute.

[rcrusoe]

Oh, Bull

If this loser is too stupid to determine that the battery is not user replaceable then he shouldn't be allowed to even own a cellphone*


* or a car, or a house, or be allowed to procreate, ... :)

[sbwinn]

Rats! There goes my toothbrush!

"It should be a crime to sell an item that the end user cannot
change the battery."

I have a great solution. Let's let manufacturers produce
whatever they want as long as it is reasonably safe. Then we'll
let consumers buy what the market has to offer. That way you
can buy a phone without a user replaceable battery that is thin
and well designed or you can have phone brick with an ultra-
critical user replaceable battery. People get more or less what
they want and we don't need extra police to enforce your
proposed user replaceable battery law.

[MadKiwi]

You're an idiot

Just stop and think of all the devices that have batteries that would not be safe for users to change...

[iMacUser]

huh?

Why?

[devans00]

Why is it OK

Why is it OK for Apple to put out a non-consumer friendly product? Customers have a right to speak up if they are unhappy with a product.

It's standard convention for phones to have batteries that can be changed at will. To say nothing of letting consumers customize their ringtones. The manufacturer has no incentive to change if people who purchase their products don't speak up. After all, the customers did invest in the company.

[ronjay]

Uhmmm

You're right when you say "Customers have a right to speak up if
they are unhappy with a product", but here's a glimpse of reality:

Most users never replace the batteries in cellphones. We are a
very fickle society (here in the USA) and we like to have the best
and the brightest. So, every two years, when our cellphone
contracts have expired, we go for a new phone. Usually, by the
end of the two years, those batteries are charging near 50%
capacity. At least, this has been my experience, and the same for
many of my friends.

I personally would not pay $5-600 for the iPhone because if I
spend that much on the phone, I am going to want to keep it for
at least four years, and the non-user-replaceable battery won't
fly with me. The most I've ever paid for a cell phone with a two-
year contract is $100, and at the end of the contract, I hated the
carrier so much, I was happy to get rid of both the phone, and
the carrier (Crapular).

[ResinNation]

Maybe I'm Quibbling...

But I do have some issues with what you said...
First, the manufacturer or a product can make whatever they
want, however they want, whenever they want. If customers are
unhappy, sure they have the right to speak out, everone does.
But there's world of difference between speaking out and a
frivolous lawsuit. The FACT is that the moron who is filing suit
had ample warning before he bought a phone that it sounds like
he isn't even smart enough to operate, let alone understand. In
addition to this, the customers did not invest in the company,
they invested in the product. And as someone who did invest in
the company, it angers me personally that someone is suing my
investment simply because they are a moron that cannot keep
up with technology.
Just another symptom of an over-litigeous society with too
much time, and too few brains.

[Travis Ernst]

Lets sue PACEMAKER

I can't replace my battery in that medical device on my own!

I think this guy's brain has a low battery light. If you are smart
enough you can OPEN the iPods and iPhones to service the
battery's if you wish to. Otherwise be smart and send devices of
that nature in to the companies that make them for proper
service.

You expect to be able to service your new high end hybrid cars
that have comlex battery assembly in them? I don't think so.
The Prius has a monster battery assembly if I recall using only
ONE example. I don't think this user could change that out of
his, not to mention the majority of us would even WANT to.

get to reality.

[lmasanti]

I have the right to "NOT BUY"

quote:
Why is it OK for Apple to put out a non-consumer friendly
product? Customers have a right to speak up if they are unhappy
with a product.

The best way to tell Apple that this is not a consumer friendly
product is not buying it.

Why blame Apple of the buyer's stupidity?

People do that all the time. Ask Bill Gates about the Zune!

[sroussey]

I got that beat

I got that beat, just take a look:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/62534/thread/1179504144/

[robbtuck]

Apparently Apple hasn't figured out...

...how to make a battery door. It astounds me that they don't allow users to replace batteries. How stupid! You can have great design and still find a way to incorporate a battery compartment.

[texasags]

Not a good reason to sue

I understand your opinion. I personally don't care that much about the battery being replaceable. I have NEVER replaced a battery in any cell phone I have ever used, and I have had some for as long as four years. I usually charge them every night.

I just don't think this guy has grounds for a suit. He could have asked about this when purchasing the phone or he could have looked at the demo units in the store. If it was that crucial, he should have verified this before purchasing. Just because he wanted one right away and didn't take the time to investigate is his fault, not Apple's.

Someone should sue Honda since stability control only comes on V6 Accords. One could assume that ALL Accords would have that feature. Maybe that person dealt with the internet sales person and never read a brochure. Is that Honda's fault?

[mvora]

Apparently you haven't figured out...

that if they made the battery user-accessible, the phone would
have to be thicker.

[texasags]

Still not right

When the iPhone arrived, Apple said the lithium-ion battery that ships with the iPhone would start to lose capacity after 300 to 400 charges.

This is still not correct. Apple stated that the iPhone battery would retain 80% capacity after 300-400 FULL CHARGE CYCLES. This means that the battery has to use the equivalent of 100% of its capacity to count as one cycle. If you use 20% of the capacity of the battery per day, it will take five days to go through one charge cycle.

[texasags]

Oops.......

I am sorry. I completely missed the line in the article about the full charge cycles. I could have sworn it was not mentioned the first time I read the article (was the article edited???).

Once again, if I missed it, I am sorry.

[beubanks7507]

Why....

do you feel the need to harp on the one physical "design flaw" in
an otherwise physically perfect device. And I really don't count
this as a design flaw because, as has been stated previously, the
majority of people don't replace their batteries anyway. In
addition, it wouldn't do well to have a battery compartment
because that would have increased the size of the device. Apple
would have had to make a separate compartment to isolate the
battery from the LCD and all of the hardware. This would have
probably increased the size by about .1 to .2 inches. While this
does not seem like a lot, in a device that is being marketed as
one of the slimmest, smallest smart phones on the market, it
makes a big difference. Otherwise, if the battery was user
replaceable, it would have to void the warranty anyway because
Apple couldn't verify that the electronics weren't damaged by
unexperienced hands removing the battery.

Also, there is one piece of disinformation on this thread. The
battery in the iPhone is soldered on the motherboard in the
device I believe. I am not sure why Apple designed the device
this way, other than for slimness maybe, but that is the reality of
the device. The vast majority of people are not up for
desoldering/soldering components on on a motherboard. I
don't know many people other than professional techs that are
up to this even among the computer inclined.

[scweezil]

logic

maybe he should have taken the phone back if he didn't want it.

[ZuneChannel]

"Worst Lawsuit Ever"

Yeah, I'm sure that this piece would have had this same title if Zune was at issue. Heaven forbid someone take on Jobs and the children throw a tantrum.

Gene from ZuneChannel.com

[meshugge]

what else is new!!!!!

This is so like the cell phone industry - a "captive" audience. The lawsuit is, in my humble opinion, extremely frivolous; and ought to be thrown out immediately, and the attorney who filed sanctioned and forced to pay Apple's legal fees.

That being said, if you DO NOT like the way that product is made, THEN DON'T BUY IT.

If the idea of you being tied to AT&T for 2 years does not sit well with you; THEN DON'T BUY IT.

If the thought of dropping $500 to $600 for an iPhone seems too damn much, THEN DON'T BUY IT!

If, and more likely, WHEN iPhone sales begin to tank because of consumer dissatisfaction, then MAYBE Apple will hear the message.

Right now, I am watching to see what the FCC will do as far as the rules for the auction for the 700 Mhz band; will Google and its associates get what they want, and perhaps BREAK the stranglehold on broadband. Right now, the only real choices are between CABLE (broadband) and TELEPHONE (DSL) monopolies. Really, what competition is there????

Google has asked for 4 requirements, two of which the FCC seems to be inclined to do, and two they are not so inclined to do (one of those being allowing wholesale access.)

The Telcom Act of 1996, required incumbent telephone companies (read: former monopoly) to allow access to competitive local exchange carriers. However, this requirement DOES NOT apply to those incumbent telephone companies that chose to install 'fiber to the home' (Read: Verizon FiOS). This allows the incumbent telephone monopoly to EXCLUDE (or charge HIGH wholesdale rates to) competitive local exchange carriers from their new 'fiber to the home' installations. Reports of Verizon techs cutting the abandoned copper lines to customer's premises have recently surfaced in the media. This is another example of the telcom companies wanting to keep their monopolies secure from competiton.

Hopefully the FCC does not continue on this path; and implement rules requiring those companies that choose to install 'fiber to the home' to provide competitors access to their networks. To put competition into this new wireless band would benefit CONSUMERS; not the telcom monopolies.

My two cents.

[taoman1]

You're so right

Your "two cents" is a lot more important than this lawsuit story. I have my concerns regarding Google but i hope they have victory in this matter.

[JimDibb]

Verizon cutting copper is not news

"Reports of Verizon techs cutting the abandoned copper lines to customer's premises have recently surfaced in the media"

This may have just surfaced in the media but it's a well known practice in FIOS forums if you look. Why would they leave the old copper wires? 99.999% of people that get FIOS will never look back. Removing those pairs provide more usable pairs for people that don't want FIOS and do want DSL from other providers. I'm sure verizon isn't running new copper wire just so other companies can provide service. And you don't want the old wires to get accidentally connected back up and feed your FIOS dialtone back out to the street.

If Verizon is footing the bill for all this new infrastructure, then they should be able to sell it however they want. There's nothing that stops a competitor from installing their own fibre network, is there?

[acezsoft]

Get a life!

This might justify his thinking. It's an honor in Japan if a spectator at a baseball game gets hit by a baseball. If the same thing happened in the US, they would be calling their attorney.

Bryan
http://www.acez.com

[wolfchef]

lawyers

There is a group of lawyers that frequent a diner I go to for breakfast daily. I also see them at a local nitespot. They jokingly asked if there was any place they could go where they would'nt run into me... I them to go to hell, they'ld never see me there!

[geoff4178]

That's nothing compared to this one!

You want to see the most crocked thing to ever pass through a court of law in the state of Queensland in Australia! Go and look up the case of Macbeat Enterprises MacdDonald Vs Beattie 2003 to see the most croocked bunch of lies ever assembled for a court case. The guy running the court case was in bankruptcy and acting as a Director when he should have been right out of the equation, under the backruptcy act 1966 he wasn't allowed to do it and he should be in jail for the lies the bastard told to steal my father-in-laws business. This bloke has constantly harrsed us by driving past the house and stoping outside to intimidate but the police can do nothing about it. He is the most crooked piece of S*** on this planet! Do not deal with his tyre company based in Brisbane Australia...if you want to know who it is just email me at [e-mail] I will give you all the facts. thanks for reading.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: Worst lawsuit ever

OK, perhaps the lawsuit got some facts wrong and that's fine to point that out.

However, what's this thing with Apple making products where you have to go to THEM to get a replacement battery? First iPods and now iPhones?

I've been a big fan of Apple's for years now, but I don't like that aspect of either piece of technology at all. I thought the iPod must have been a special case or something, but now it looks like they're starting to make a habit of it.

We shouldn't have to send units back to Apple for what SHOULD be a simple battery replacement. We should be able to replace our own batteries and purchase them for the most competitive price.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[sciflyer]

Bang-up Job....

Kudos to that gentleman for attempting to screw over CRapple just like that company loves to screw over the average, ignorant, everyday person that completely worships that company, with their proprietary "crapulence". Cheers....to hoping CRapple stock drops! Also, F jobs, and all supporters.

[vcaobest]

"This case arises out of Defendants' purposeful and fraudulent concealment to purchasers of its iPhone cellular telephone that they will be required to incur an annual fee of $85.95 as part of Defendants' battery replacement program," http://www.vcao.net Drury or someone at his firm wrote in the introduction to the complaint."