backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by crystal clear.. on Aug 21 at 9:13 PM
iPhone battery target of yet another class action lawsuit

A class action lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges that Apple and AT&T mislead iPhone customers by not warning of the fees required to replace the iPhone battery and maintain service.

The suit, filed by Sydney Leung on behalf of iPhone users, seeks more than $5 million in damages. The legal documents, according to Computerworld, claims that the iPhone customer “was not informed at the time of purchase of the costs and procedures for replacing the battery.”

Furthermore, the suit seeks answers to whether Apple and AT&T “should have known that the time and expense of replacing the iPhone battery would affect initial sales of the iPhone.”

The complaint also believes that the iPhone battery must be replaced after 300 charges, incurring a yearly charge for the replacement part and the technician labor costs.

The lawsuit’s figure of 300 charges goes against what the manufacturer claims. Apple’s website clearly states, “A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles.”

Also, the alleged $100 yearly parts and maintenance costs are above those quoted by Apple. For those who require a new battery, Apple has its $85.95 battery replacement program. Under the program, customers would pay $79 plus $6.95 shipping in the event of an iPhone battery failure. And considering that users would be without an iPhone a week or more for repairs, Apple also announced that it would rent an iPhone ($29) to those who couldn't be without a phone.

iPhone users also now have a cheaper option with AppleCare coverage. AppleCare extends the iPhone's warranty from one year to two years and is available for $69, which covers the battery’s performance.

This is the second lawsuit filed against Apple for the iPhone battery since the device’s launch. In late July, Jose Trujillo filed a class action lawsuit also complaining about the limitations of the iPhone’s battery design.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Owned?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:06:41 AM , Rating: 5
Now, I will admit, I do dislike Apple. Not because of their products. But because their Marketing department has mastered talking out of their rear end. There's also the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, seriously. That guy could sell Ice to Eskimo'.

Back on topic, I love it when people wise up and sue Apple just like all the other PC makers. There was a time that Apple was so small and forgotten that nobody cared enough to sue them, but with rising fame, comes the inevitable lawsuits, gotta love it.




RE: Owned?
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2007 9:20:25 AM , Rating: 5
Realistically, even if the battery makes it two years, $85 to replace the battery ($114 if you don't want to loose cell service for a week or two) is ridiculous. A typical cell phone battery is $30-45.

Especially when you're already paying $500-600 for a phone. And what is their definition of a "properly maintained" battery? A lot of people come home every day and plug in their phone. While this may not be the best thing for maintaining battery life, people have the assumption that if you plug it in every night it should be charged and last.


RE: Owned?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Owned?
By Hare on 8/20/2007 11:10:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most battery designs work best when they are almost completely discharged and only then, recharged. This is what they are talking about by "properly maintained".

Nope. You are talking about Ni-Mh batteries but those aren't used anymore. Practically all mobile phones/pda's etc use Li-Ion.

Here's a clip from the battery university's pages
quote:
A lithium-ion battery provides 300-500 discharge/charge cycles. The battery prefers a partial rather than a full discharge. Frequent full discharges should be avoided when possible. Instead, charge the battery more often or use a larger battery. There is no concern of memory when applying unscheduled charges.


Here's the URL. Good stuff.
http://batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm


RE: Owned?
By Martimus on 8/20/2007 11:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
Not Nickle Metal Hydride, but Nickle Cadmium. You have those two confused.


RE: Owned?
By Hare on 8/20/2007 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, I was talking about Ni-MH that used to be common in cellphones (specially cheaper ones). The memory effect is not as bad as it is with Ni-Cd but still considerable compared to Li-Ion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_...

NiMH is better suited for low current devices (cell phones) but NiCd is better for high current devices like tools due to lower internal resistance.


RE: Owned?
By Martimus on 8/20/2007 3:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
NiCad also has a much better voltage curve while it is losing charge than Ni-MH. It is amazing how long it keeps the voltage at a high point, but then it drops off like falling from a cliff. Li-Ion is worse than NiCad in that respect, but Ni-MH is even worse than Li-Ion bateries. Of course NiMH has a better charge density than either Li-Ion or Ni-Cad, or at least it did when I was researching batery solutions for my data logger.


RE: Owned?
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, the discharge curves of NiCad and NiMH are fairly similar. Maybe you were thinking of Alkaline.

Further the Li-Ion charge density is higher than NiMH then NiCad. This has been the case for several years.


RE: Owned?
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
NiMH is fine for higher current devices, depending on the tradeoffs made in the design. It's just that some NiMH are optimized for higher capacity instead of current, or lowest cost possible. The primary benefit of NiCad in general today over NiMH is use at low temps.

There is no considerable NiMH memory effect in any typical use.


RE: Owned?
By Omega215D on 8/20/2007 5:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
I had an iRiver CD player that ran on NiMH and it would be a pain in the ass to recharge because the machine would have to discharge the battery first before charging them which can take up to 5 hours.


RE: Owned?
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
That was just a product design flaw, it could have easily recharged without discharging first. The only time it is important to discharge NiMH before recharging is if it's being put through one full cycle to revive a cell that had sat idle for a long time. Cells seeing regular use will only have their viable lifespan shortened by needless discharging before recharging, nothing else positive about it and it may actually have further consequences in that discharging before recharging could only result in the cell being even hotter during recharging (if any change in temp at all, it would depend on the rate).


RE: Owned?
By Omega215D on 8/20/2007 9:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
The manual and many forum members stated that to get a long life from the NiMH it would have to be discharged before charging due to the "memory" effect.

The machine was designed to discharge any remaining power before charging so I doubt it's design flaw.


RE: Owned?
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, the battery is nowhere near this expensive for a similar sized cell. Probably under $7 in volume, maybe under $3. You still have to account for the handling, disassembly and installation but IMO all of this should've just been avoided by using user replacable battery design.


RE: Owned?
By Chadder007 on 8/20/2007 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
The only time ive had problems with Cell Phone batteries is when I have left the cell phone out in the car during the day in the cold or extreme heat. This is what can really wear down a battery.


RE: Owned?
By SeeManRun on 8/20/2007 3:59:14 PM , Rating: 3
People that pay 600 for a cell phone should expect to pay more for the phone's battery. Would you expect someone to buy a Porsche 911 and then go to Napa for all their parts?

The iPhone is not a typical phone, so why should it have a typical battery? And the people that filed these lawsuits claiming that Apple didn't disclose this information when they bought the phone, had to have been lined up or went in on the first day of sales, because the info about replacing the battery came out a day or so after the phone went on sale. If you are such a tech nut that you go stand in line or just go buy a 600 dollar phone on the first day its available, then you probably did some research on the device first.. And knew about the battery. And if you didn't, you should have, so tough luck!


RE: Owned?
By mindless1 on 8/20/2007 8:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if you are qualified to work on a Porsche and Napa has the part (and quality) you need, you'd be better off doing that than taking it to a stranger. Car mechanics don't own your car and will not give it the TLC you would.

The iPhone has a battery that is not particularly special relative to other phones except Apple made a design choice which we now see is irritating and costly to consumers. If you feel the tradeoff is ok, it's a good product per your subjective needs. Some people disagree and while I think they should have educated themselves more pre-purchase, I also feel that this situation with the battery is significant enough that Apple did not do enough to make prospective consumers aware of it. Some things about products are assumed to remain "like others in the class" until stated otherwise. Not just stated but prominently so.

When you write "tough luck", that's fair in some ways, but it's also reasonable to assume based on past phones and batteries that there would not be this undue expense, that even if some retail price quote in marketing materil was high, real prices would be more reasonable.

I'm suggesting that while those who pay 600 for a phone then the fees to make use of the features, are more likely able to afford a high priced battery, the replacement battery should still be priced reasonably for what it is.

Does a Porsche 911 buyer think it's ok to pay $30 a quart for oil and several hundred more to change it? I doubt it.


RE: Owned?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:22:13 AM , Rating: 5
> "I love it when people wise up and sue Apple"

$5M in damages, plus probably a million in attorneys fees...for allegedly not being told your battery wasn't user replaceable? From someone who almost certainly did know this before he purchased? And even failing that, he assuredly knew it immediately after purchasing. AT&T has a 14-day return policy on the iPhone. If you're unhappy with it, you can return it for a full refund and cancel the contract.

This suit is just another fishing expedition by an ambulance-chasing, venue-shopping scumbug of an attorney, hoping to get a quick payout. These suits don't hurt companies that much; they just write them off as the cost of doing business. They hurt you and I though, as that overhead gets added into the cost of each and every product we buy. It's a hidden tax, that keeps getting larger each year.


RE: Owned?
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 12:03:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AT&T has a 14-day return policy on the iPhone


Now they sell them cheap & maybe even more cheaper sooner or later.-

Apple Certified Refurbished iPhone



Refurbished iPhone, 4GB

• Save 21% off the original price
Original price: $499.00
Your price: $399.00

Free Shipping

Refurbished iPhone, 8GB

• Save 17% off the original price
Original price: $599.00
Your price: $499.00

Free Shipping



http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A...


RE: Owned?
By crystal clear on 8/21/2007 9:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
I posted this comment even before the article-

"Apple Rolls Out Refurbished iPhones For $100 Less"

appeared on the site.

Only to find this comment rated down.

Conclusion-There are quite a few here,

who are just not fit to vote-for that you need brains,