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,


RE: Owned?
By GlennAl on 8/20/2007 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was thinking (except, the correct syntax/grammar is, "They hurt you and _me_" not "...you and I"--objective case always takes "me" instead of "I"). :D


RE: Owned?
By Belard on 8/20/2007 4:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
The other part of this bull is...

When they BOUGHT the phone and tried to buy a spare battery - that was a HINT... You KNOW you can't replace the battery pretty quickly.

I know a lot of people who buy spare batteries so that if they are out in the "field" they have an extra one.

The GOOD reason the current IPOD doesn't have a uer-replacable battery is space. The batter is quite large and is using all the space it can. Making it removable means the iPhone woul be larger or less battery power.

It would require plastic around the battery and plastic between the battery and the rest of the phone.

Personally - I think the battery is a tad expensive... Typical batteries are $40~60.

AT&T should DO the battery replacement at their stores...
$60 for the battery, $10 to do it for you... out in 15 minutes.


RE: Owned?
By Omega215D on 8/21/2007 4:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
Your wrong with the IPOD battery. It is not that large. It is smaller than a typical cellphone battery. I know this because I had taken apart my sister's IPod after it got soaked so I could dry it up and get it working again which it did.


RE: Owned?
By gradoman on 8/20/2007 9:23:31 AM , Rating: 1
While I do like their operating system and product designs, I wouldn't be an idiot and buy an item like this with a battery that can't be replaced without totally destroying said item.

However, quite a number of the raving fans were shortsighted, and of course, they're now seeing there are issues. Folks like those that bought the current iPhone failed to see past their leader's Distortion Field.


RE: Owned?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 1
> "I [wouldn't] buy an item like this with a battery that can't be replaced without totally destroying said item..."

The battery can be replaced. Just not by you.

Personally, I'm very happy with my iPhone. The charge lasts me an average of 3 days, meaning it'll be over 3 years before I have to worry about replacing it. By that time, I'll want a new phone anyway.


RE: Owned?
By Netscorer on 8/20/2007 10:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. Most of the people who bougth iPhone are the ones who change their mobiles every 2-3 years. The battery will easily last that long, so objectively this is not an issue at all.
Subjectively, though, people are pissed off at Apple for coming up with such retarded feature and then announcing replacement price that costs more then my 2 last phones costed me combined.


RE: Owned?
By rcc on 8/20/2007 2:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Subjectively, though, people are pissed off at Apple for coming up with such retarded feature and then announcing replacement price that costs more then my 2 last phones costed me combined


In this era of battery operated devices, a consumer should be aware and asking questions about issues like this when buying. If you don't like the way it's built, don't buy it. It's really a simple philosophy, and it works. This whole idea about suing a company because their design doesn't work the way xyz thinks it should is total crap.


RE: Owned?
By Netscorer on 8/20/2007 8:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
I see you are smart enough to ask all 256 possible questions that a man can ask about battery operated devices.
C'mon man!

I am not defending the lawsuit - I think it's disgusting. But I am too not happy at how Apple treats its customers and nonone seems to care.
They did not announce iPhone specifications until the launch day using this as a marketing ploy to lure as many customers as they could have. The inability to change battery by yourself was not apparent initially and even once it was discovered that the battery is not going to be easily changed, people assumed that this would not be a big deal - say, how it is not a big deal to change battery in your watch. Only several days after the launch did Apple announce it's 'battery exchange' program for the price you and your friends could have a nice dinner in a resaturant.


RE: Owned?
By rcc on 8/21/2007 12:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
Apple specifically designed the iPhone to have a non-user replaceable battery. A Prius has a non-user replaceable battery.

Yes, most phones and battery operated devices have user replaceable batteries and it's a great feature. It also places limits on device construction, battery shape, life, etc.

I'm sure it was a 50/50 thing with Apple's design team. Make it bigger, or have less talk/operation time; coupled with a steady revenue stream for replacements. But that is their decision to make.

As has been mentioned, this is not the first Apple product designed this way. The iPod is similar. It shouldn't have been a surprise.

No, I probably wouldn't have asked all of the 2560 possible questions. However, battery life, recharging, and replacement, are at the top of my list. ie. Do you sell spare batteries, how much are they, are they in stock. "No?", "I can buy a spare? Why? Oh, ok". "How do I recharge on the run?. It's not rocket science.

As far as the inability to change the battery by yourself not being apparent. If there is no pop off battery compartment plate, it's a good indicator. If the battery is not shipped external to the phone, it's a really good indicator too. If someone isn't technically inclined, perhaps they should get help before buying techie toys.

On a separate but related issue, I'd be really surprised if Apple doesn't market an external battery extender similar to the one for the iPod in the near future.

I'm not trying to beat you up over this. I just get tired of all the "they didn't design it the way I wanted it so I'm going to sue" crap. It's the individual consumers money, it's up to him/her/it to protect it and or spend it wisely. The seller is there to make money, not to see that the buyer gets the most for his. Happily, there is definite crossover in that most sellers realize that that keeping the buyers happy is a door to future sales; but that is their problem/lookout.


RE: Owned?
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 1
Maximum Battery Life
iPhone offers up to 8 hours of talk time,(1) 6 hours of Internet use,(2) 7 hours of video playback,(3) or 24 hours of audio playback(4) on a full charge at original capacity. In addition, iPhone features up to 250 hours of standby time.(5)

Charge Cycles
A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs.

Let It Breathe
Charging your iPhone while in certain carrying cases may generate excess heat, which can affect battery capacity. If you notice that your iPhone gets hot when you charge it, take it out of its case first.


http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html


RE: Owned?
By Martimus on 8/20/2007 12:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is very nice for you. I would rather avoid spending $600 every two to three years to buy a new phone. There are much more pressing things to be spending that kind of money on in my life. That is a lot of money to drop at such a regular interval for a cell phone. Of course, I am trying to buy a house, so all my extra cash is going toward the down payment.


RE: Owned?
By rcc on 8/20/2007 2:22:27 PM , Rating: 3
So don't buy it? A lot of us have other things to do with our money. Life is full of choices, exercise your freedom of choice.


RE: Owned?
By MonkeyPaw on 8/20/2007 10:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.”


Does any other phone follow these guidelines when you buy it? I just don't understand. If you want practicality and a reasonable cost in a cell phone, you most certainly don't start by spending $500-600 on a phone. Maybe I'll go purchase a 2900XT and sue ATI because it made my electric bill go up when they never told me that it would.

Again, this lawsuit won't stick. iPods still ship without replaceable batteries, no matter how "outrageous" people think it is. Besides, when was the last time that early adopters didn't pay the price for poor design? People camped out for a status symbol and now they feel slighted. They're right, it's not worth it--it just didn't take trial and error for some of us to figure that out.


RE: Owned?
By Oregonian2 on 8/20/2007 1:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
When I bought our last few cell phones (Motorola and LG), at no time was I told about replacement battery procedure nor cost of same. I did check on the web, including to see what the batteries went for from "regular" and ebay sources -- but the seller at the cell-phone buying store said nothing (not that I asked, but I was not told). Maybe I can sue Motorola and LG for a few cool million?


RE: Owned?
By cbo on 8/20/2007 11:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That guy could sell Ice to Eskimo'.

Love it or hate it that what make Jobs good at his job. His a hustla baby (Sorry Jay-Z reference).

Also apple sues so many people on the QT (avoiding the criticism that MS gets)its good to see them on the receiving end.

Finally this is good for the public. Normally I am against all of these lawsuits, but at least the designers might have this in mind when the next version comes out.


RE: Owned?
By Freze on 8/20/2007 12:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That guy could sell Ice to Eskimo'.


If he called it iIce or iFreze, anything is possible


RE: Owned?
By Hare on 8/20/2007 1:41:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
at least the designers might have this in mind when the next version comes out.

I'm pretty sure they have thought about it. Let's face it. Most people don't replace their batteries during the lifetime of the device. Built-in battery also makes the device more sturdy. No hinges or doors. Apple is not the only manufacturer who's made a cellphone without a changable battery (see design phones from LG and Samsung).

Sure it's less practical but I personally wouldn't say it's such a bad design choice. I honestly can't think of anyone buying a 600$ phone without checking the specs. It's not like Apple kept the battery issue secret. I think that the person should be given a refund and that's it. Forget larger compensation. They could have returned the device after noticing it had no user changable battery.


RE: Owned?
By TomZ on 8/20/2007 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you - in my experience, by the time I need a new battery, I also need a new phone, either due to the phone being old/obsolete or the phone being just plain broken. (E.g., my last phone died when I jumped into a pool with phone and clothes on to save a 2-year old - not mine - who had fallen in.)


RE: Owned?
By HardwareD00d on 8/20/2007 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
sue your momma!


At Least They Tried...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2007 9:21:30 AM , Rating: 1
A device with a screen the size of the iPhone and a battery as small/thin as the iPhone's is lucky to have that long battery life even.

Correct me if I am wrong, but all the discrete components in the iPhone are lower power/lower speed flavors, so they can't save much more on this side. I even heard some people carping about the iPhone's processor being underpowered...well at least, it IS lower clocked, or this situation could be even worse. You can play with sleep modes/standby, but with that big a color screen, if you are heavily using it, the prospect of designing a system that will allow the battery to last 2 yrs is very slim. The Apple uses a slower network, which many complain about, to provide more power savings. Good article here:
http://anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3036
...so I would say Apple did make an honest effort at power consumption. BUT, maybe Apple was a bit overambitious in what they hope to squeeze out of the little device.

Now I do agree to an extent that Apple should have been more up front about this and probably lumped it with the initial contract/phone purchase, so the suit does have some merit.

Still, if you were willing to shill out 500+ dollars and sign a huge contract for this state-of-the-art device then 79 more dollars is not a HUGE deal. Anyone who buys an iPhone now, anyhow should be aware of its limitations, as the hardware/software is still rough in spots and has some conspicuously missing features. Great article on the pluses and minuses here:
http://anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3027

One other way the suit carries some merit- I guess it is one more good warning to scare off the casual consumer who doesn't really need this kind of bleeding edge/state-of-the-art tech and just needs something simpler and more reliable. iPhones do look like a lot of fun, though, and I hope to pick one up ONCE the next generation of hardware/software iPhones/iPhone imitators comes out at lower prices! Unfortunately (and ironically), the suit may take money from developing improving the iPhone's hw/sw, including power consumption/battery life...now lets hope that doesn't happen!




RE: At Least They Tried...
By A5un on 8/20/2007 10:33:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Still, if you were willing to shill out 500+ dollars and sign a huge contract for this state-of-the-art device then 79 more dollars is not a HUGE deal.


So it's okay for automaker to make cars that'll need replacement engines at roughly 16% of their retail price? Apple has provided various excellent products in the past, but this new iPhone is just a disaster.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2007 10:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
The same criticism were made about the ipod battery, this is nothing new. I clearly said, it is my opinion that where Apple was in the wrong for not disclosing this fact clearly.

But honestly, a battery replacement is to be expected. To use your example, its like if you bought a really fast sports car... you can expect to pay more for gas both via gas mileage and via premium fuels. You can also expect to pay more for parts if it is a foreign sports car. These costs could certainly far surpass 16% of the cost within a lifetime, so to answer your question:

quote:
So it's okay for automaker to make cars that'll need replacement engines at roughly 16% of their retail price?


Yes, on a luxury item. And a 500-600 dollar phone is most definitely a luxury item.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By A5un on 8/20/2007 10:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I forgot to support my argument by the fact that it'll need the replacement in at most 2 yrs depending on how often you drive. If you were to buy a Ferrari for $200k, I'm almost certian that you're not going to pay for a replacement engine every two years at $32k, especially when this is required even if you had maintained the car meticulously.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2007 11:02:28 AM , Rating: 1
The battery is the fuel, the engine is the cpu more aptly...but anyways.

If that is your point, then cell phones in general really are complete rubbish, as they usually last only a 2-4 years, even if relatively well cared for (my two year phone is having serious issues). No car needs to be replaced this frequently unless it is a lemon.

So you are comparing Apples and oranges (whoops pun!), but my comment on the principle of paying a premium for replacement/power (be it gas or battery) for a LUXURY item, in my opinion stands.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By A5un on 8/20/2007 11:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hahah, Apples and oranges, good one.

Maybe the gas tank should be the battery? The gas tank stores the fuel as battery stores power? So, a $32k gas tank?

I guess we'll never agree on this. And I'd say cell phones batteries in general are complete rubbish.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2007 1:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well at least we agree on cell phone batteries being rubbish =] Mine is about to die and my phone is very minimalistic, to say the least, so it has no real excuse for its failure.

I didn't mean to try to win points or anything with the gas vs. engine comment, and your example is probably better than mine. Also I agree that your argument is a fair one: the batteries price point shows and inherit flaw/weakness of the system.

I agree that its not good, my point is more that the power storage technology just isn't there for a device of this type, which is the essential problem. I would certainly agree that it is a poor bargain pricewise as well, something which I think we can agree on. What I was trying to say was that if you had to design a phone with the iPhone's screen/useage with as small an allowed battery size given the internals and the slim design, you are unlikely to be able to get longer battery life without making the device larger to house a larger battery.

My point was never to argue the phone's value, but simply to state that given their design with massive color screen, touch input, etc., there was no escaping power requirement problems.

This discussion is getting me voted down like crazy so I might as well quit while I am ahead (or behind...). If I had a vote on the topic I'd give you one, for a fair debate!


RE: At Least They Tried...
By Keeir on 8/20/2007 12:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
at most 2 yrs


Okay, taking the most battery draining activity of the Iphone, Internet Usage.

6 hours * 400 cycles = 2400 hours (this should leave the phone below 80% but not by too much. Still usable at 4+ hours of internet usage on a charge)

Over 712 days, thats roughtly an average usage of 3.4 hours a day. Thats alot of usage!

To further your example, driving a Ferrari for 2400 hours at roughly 50 miles per hour would be 120,000 miles. Gosh, I might expect after putting 120,000 miles on my car in less than 2 years I would be required to put in ALOT of maintainence costs even if I washed the car frequently.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By djc208 on 8/20/2007 2:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
A more fitting example may be with oil or tires. You can't just take a $200,000+ sports car to your local Jiffy Lube and get a $30 oil change. They want synthetic oils and high end filters. The Ferrari Enzo oil change will run you $700+ http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/6734/ferrari... but this is a $650,000 car. If you have that kind of cash to drop on a toy then $700 isn't a big deal. The iPhone is the same type of animal, it's a high end toy and as such requires high end care.

What amazes me about this is that it shouldn't be a surprise. This is just iPod battery problem take 2. Apple didn't change to a user-replacable battery then so why think they will now?

I would think the real problem with not being able to swap batteries is not having a spare when you need it. If you are half way through your day and the phone dies you've got to teather it to some power source till it's charged instead of having a second charged battery handy to swap in. With the phone oriented crowd this thing appeals to, I would think that a minus.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 2:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's not really oriented to any crowd. It hardly replaces a regular cell phone, can't compete with Blackberries or Smart Phone's. I'm not really sure what the hell this thing is trying to compete with, but it is in a gimmick market all it's own.


RE: At Least They Tried...
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/20/2007 4:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It hardly replaces a regular cell phone


As far as I know, it makes phone calls, which would make it a replacement for a regular cell phone. And remember Apple doesn't really have to compete with anyone, they have the iFlock.

Vanilla


RE: At Least They Tried...
By rcc on 8/20/2007 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it's okay for automaker to make cars that'll need replacement engines at roughly 16% of their retail price?


They already make cars with fuel pumps that require you to swap out the entire gas tank to replace. And catalytic converters that require replacement of most of the under car exhaust system when they fail. And these are issues that you will never know as an eary adopter of the product.


$5 K horror story !
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 11:04:49 AM , Rating: 3
This guy is in a state of schock-

I finally got my first online bill from AT&T yesterday and it came to $5,086.66!!



http://www.arcdesignconsulting.com/iphone_horror.h...




RE: $5 K horror story !
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/20/2007 11:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
LOL!!!!!

God that is a riot. So much for that. I suppose the new rule of thumb, don't roam with an AT&T Device (iPhone especially).


RE: $5 K horror story !
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 12:21:20 PM , Rating: 1
Then get ready for another one-

A 300 page iPhone bill !

You can only see it to believe it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdULhkh6yeA


Let's see....
By jragosta on 8/20/2007 11:26:46 AM , Rating: 5
1. There were reports for months before the phone was released that the battery was not consumer replaceable. Even a minimal amount of research would have shown this before purchase.
2. The user had 14 days after purchase to return the phone if they didn't like it.
3. There is absolutely no evidence that the phones fail to meet the stated battery life. Someone made an assumption that the battery would be dead in a year, but I'm not aware of any evidence supporting that.
4. You can get a third party replacement of the iPhone battery for about $30.00.
5. The claim was that hundreds of thousands of iPhone users were affected. They never contacted me nor any other iPhone user that I know of, so where did they come up with that?

All in all, this is the case of a stupid, greedy person (and their attorney) trying to extort money from Apple.




Apple was well aware of this.
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 10:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
Apple cannot say they were not approached earlier on this matter-Read this & you will realize that they had enough time to get things sorted out.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/iPhoneLt...




Some reality..
By flint on 8/20/2007 10:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
I just checked my rechargeable shaver battery - not user replaceable and no note on the packaging. Same with with my trailer gas detector, my toothbrush, my car key fob etc etc
Since the plaintiff(being aware of a potential problem) will not be able to demonstrate that he took sufficient steps to protect himself at the time of purchase ie return it for a refund within the 14 day return period, this action will fail. That and the false statement that the battery is only good for 300 charges before needing to be replaced will consign this action where it belongs - in the bin.




By Christopher1 on 8/20/2007 11:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't even 400 charge cycles a little low for a rechargeable battery pack? My parents have had the same phone for nearly 3 years now, and haven't replaced the battery yet. It still holds the same amount of charge, discharges at the same rate, and gets the same amount of talk time.




The original
By crystal clear on 8/20/2007 12:31:08 PM , Rating: 1
This for those who have the patience to read it all-

http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/iphonelawsuit/




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki