Comments on: iSue

By: LAN3

LAN3 — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:36:18 +0000

Apple may have not been forthright about the fact that only they (and, one presumes, AT&T/Cingular) can change the battery, but this is neither the first nor the last Apple music-player whose batteries are inaccessable to the user without damaging the unit. Most of the iPod batteries are made inaccessible or otherwise not serviceable by the user, and Apple got a bunch of bad press a year or two ago when a customer was massively overcharged for their battery replacement, forcing them to standardize their replacement charges.

Maybe there ought to be a “Due diligence” requirement for plaintiffs, suggesting that if they had properly researched the product and service, they’d know what they were getting into. The plaintiffs would then be obligated to find common sense if they hadn’t had it in the first place.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:13:02 +0000

Ryan, no, it isn't. Their specs say "A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles." Note that they are not saying that it needs to be replaced after 400 charges; they're saying it will still maintain 80% of its capacity at that. The number "300" was pulled out of thin air by the plaintiff. As for having to charge it every day, that rather depends on how much one uses it, don't you think? They tell you how much talk, standby, video, music, and internet use you get per charge. The charge for replacing it is $79 + $6.95 shipping, although if you want to rent a replacement iPhone for the three days they take, it's another $29. And putting aside the question of whether a consumer should do a little research before investing $2000 in an item (that's phone + contract), it's not as if it's free to replace a battery yourself.

By: Ryan Frank

Ryan Frank — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:16:06 +0000

Actually, the 300 charges for the life of the battery and having to charge it almost every day are part of the spec released by Apple itself.

I think Apple certainly did all they could to avoid pointing out that Apple itself needs to change the battery (at $89-$119 a pop I might add). While I’m not sure there is a basis for a lawsuit here, but it was pretty rude.

By: LAN3

LAN3 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:58:25 +0000

Are you daring to suggest that the laws of physics apply to Apple products too? That could be a very controversial statement!

This could push back the release of the water-powered iCar back at least another decade.