Lawyer: Apple ‘ignored obvious defects’ with iPod nano

News

Lawyer: Apple ‘ignored obvious defects’ with iPod nano

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the law firm representing plaintiffs in the iPod nano lawsuit against Apple, has sent out a press release announcing its claims. As reported last week, Jason Tomczak and other consumers have filed a class action suit over the iPod nano’s susceptibility to scratches.

Steve Berman, lead attorney in the case, says that Apple chose to ignore a design problem with the nano before it was released and has since downplayed the complaints from owners. “We intend to prove that in an effort to rush the iPod nano to the market, Apple ignored obvious defects in the design and later tried to cover up negative responses received from consumers,” says Berman. “We seek to recover money lost in purchasing this product as well as the $25 fee Apple has chosen to impose on those who have returned their product after it became unusable.”

The press release also attempts to describe the alleged defect with the nano. “Previous versions of the iPod separated the screen and controls from the case and was covered with a thick film of resin. In designing the nano, Apple reconstructed the housing into a seamless front where the screen and controls reside directly under a much less durable film of resin allowing irreparable damage to occur.”

The announcement goes on to say that “Apple knew the nano was defective, but chose to go forward with the release and pass the cost of replacing the defective device on to class members. The suit also claims that instead of admitting to the flaw after widespread complaint, Apple concealed the defect and advised class members to purchase additional equipment to prevent the screen from scratching excessively.”

« Slappa offers NBA iPod cases

Forums: TV & Video Forum, iPod box, Music, Eminem Ad »

Comments

41

I think the only ipod that didn’t scratches easily was the mini.

Posted by Macromedia on October 24, 2005 at 3:23 PM (PST)

42

Now, whether that rises to the level of violating consumer protection statutes is a whole other matter, but that is for a court trial to decide, not a bunch of jackasses with their noses up the brown hole of corporate America.

You CodeMonkey are a jackass

Nononsense has it spot on:

Because I value the things that I spend hundreds of dollars on enough not to drop ‘em in my pants pocket with the keys and the loose change.

i bet everyone who has a big ipod has a case for it thus the scratching wasnt so bad

nano is made of identical plastic - the reason they get so ###### is people have assumed they have bought another mini and treat their nano accordingly. no case etc. people didnt need to case their minis cos they were aluminium thus people have assumed they can do the same and not bought cases and their stuff got owned. ive had my nano 3 weeks and kept it in an ipod sock and refused to remove it from the box until the socks i ordered arrived and its flawless. it goes with me every day to college and is flawless.

seriously - how can scratches affect its usage unless you’re sanding the screens?

if you look out for your stuff then it will stay mint or if you’re an animal and keep it with no case in a pocket with change and keys you can just sue apple because they designed the ipod wrong?

only in america

Posted by Faster The Chase on October 25, 2005 at 3:51 AM (PST)

43

nano is made of identical plastic

Yes and no, from what reviews I’ve read so far.

The colored black/white material is supposedly identical, but how the actual nano (and reportedly the 5G as well) casing fronts are “layered” or sandwiched in the final product is apparently not.

Supposedly, there’s a clear finish layer that was originally intended to protect the colored plastic as well as the LCD itself, which according to a number of tech sites is ‘different’ from previous iPods. Unfortunately, the finished product ended up with this clear layer being far too soft to resist even the lightest abrasions. Hence we have the scratch magnet problem.

Oops. Send that chemist back to Polymers 101. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

One thing’s for sure. In twenty years, pristine nanos that are absolutely scratch-free will probably be worth a lot more than a pretty penny to all those future iPod collectors.

And you’re right…only in America. But is that really such a bad thing? If for nothing else, we may find out if Apple really DID let this product ship knowing full well that it was easily prone to damage. Or perhaps we’ll find out how incompetent their product testers really were.

Posted by flatline response on October 25, 2005 at 12:10 PM (PST)

44

Jobs is too much of a perfectionist, as is Jonathan Ive (i’ve met him) to ship a product if they thought it was truly defective

Posted by Faster The Chase on October 25, 2005 at 2:59 PM (PST)

45

I’m new here, but i’ve got to say. What the heck, y dont you just get one of the millions of scratch repair kits you can buy for $5 anywhere.

I’m thinking they will most likely come out with a 2nd generation for all you concerned. But thats just me. one of those posts from Nononsence was brill. well done, lol…

Posted by Joel... on November 18, 2005 at 11:33 AM (PST)

Page 3 of 3 pages < 1 2 3

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Recent Reviews

New Deals

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.

iLounge

News