backtop


Print 166 comment(s) - last by gstrickler.. on Aug 11 at 7:12 PM


Apple reportedly sent a letter to the UK owners of an exploded iPod Touch (owner and iPod pictured here), demanding threatening legal terms or offering no refund. The owners -- a father and his 11 year old daughter -- refused the "disturbing" legal terms and have received no refund.  (Source: Steve Morgan/The Times)

Another image of an iPod Touch, which reportedly caught fire and burned a hole in a car seat.  (Source: DailyMail)
Legal threats were not enough to silence the truth

Apple's iPhones and iPods have been known to have overheating problems, at times bursting into flames.  Apple is reportedly doing everything in its power -- or more aptly in its army of lawyers' power -- to keep these relatively infrequent incidents away from the public eye.

Ken Stanborough, 47, was among the victims of an exploding iPod and legal ploys by Apple.  Mr. Stansborough bought an iPod Touch for his 11-year-old daughter.  When holding the iPod one warm day last month, it began to overheat.  He states, "It made a hissing noise.  I could feel it getting hotter in my hand, and I thought I could see vapour."

The father resorted to playing hot potato with the iPhone, tossing it outside.  He reports that "within 30 seconds there was a pop, a big puff of smoke and it went 10ft in the air."

He contacted Apple, hoping for an apology, or at least a refund.  After speaking with several departments, he spoke to an Apple executive on the telephone, however, they wouldn't promise him a refund.  According to the Times Online, he instead received a letter offering him a refund only if he signed some very restrictive legal terms.

Apple agreed to reimburse the £162 he paid at UK retailer Argos, but demanded that he "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential."  Violation of this gag-order, according to Apple, "may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties."

Infuriated at the outrageous response, Mr. Stansborough, who works in electronics security, refused and never got his refund.  He states, "I thought it was a very disturbing letter.  They’re putting a life sentence on myself, my daughter and Ellie’s mum, not to say anything to anyone. If we inadvertently did say anything, no matter what, they would take litigation against us. I thought that was absolutely appalling.  We didn’t ask for compensation, we just asked for our money back."

An Apple spokesperson said they could not comment on their case as they had not yet seen the iPod.  Apple's second generation Nanos were known to infrequently overheat, catch fire, or otherwise explode.  That problem appears to have reappeared in the current iPod Touch/iPhone.  In South Korea some iPods are being recalled for overheating.  The Japanese government recently issued a warning about iPods potentially overheating.  And in Ohio Apple is being sued by the mother of a child whose iPod Touch reportedly exploded, burning his leg.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The girl in the pic
By NullSubroutine on 8/3/2009 3:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
The girl in the pic is only 11? Is it just me or does she look a little older than that?




RE: The girl in the pic
By mattclary on 8/3/2009 4:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's called makeup. ;)


RE: The girl in the pic
By 16nm on 8/4/2009 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Makeup or not, she certainly looks eleven years old!!! Hello.


RE: The girl in the pic
By Adonlude on 8/4/2009 6:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure she's eleventeen.


RE: The girl in the pic
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2009 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 5
She is cute as hell, and I doubt she is 11


RE: The girl in the pic
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/3/2009 4:19:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

She is cute as hell, and I doubt she is 11

<steps out from behind the corner>
Why don't you have a seat over there. Please have a seat.
<waves papers>
So what did you think you were going to do here today?
<Cheezew1z69 protests>
Well then why did you carry out all these chat conversations? Explain that?
<Cheezew1z69 gets up to leave>
Before you go, there's something I should tell you -- I'm not a police officer -- I'm Chris Hansen, and this is a special for Dateline NBC. You're going to be on TV.
<Cheezew1z69 runs out the door only to get slammed down by cops>


RE: The girl in the pic
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2009 4:21:25 PM , Rating: 5
OH NOEZ! It's Chris Hansen! I came for the cookies, I swear! :p


RE: The girl in the pic
By quiksilvr on 8/4/2009 2:59:47 AM , Rating: 5
GIGGITY!


RE: The girl in the pic
By arazok on 8/4/2009 9:20:53 AM , Rating: 3
Hey baby, wanna see my exploding iPod?


RE: The girl in the pic
By xsilver on 8/4/2009 10:36:39 AM , Rating: 5
nano?

or shuffle?


RE: The girl in the pic
By RivuxGamma on 8/4/2009 10:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
There aren't really any brownies!


RE: The girl in the pic
By mattclary on 8/3/2009 4:21:41 PM , Rating: 3
HAHAHA!!! ++


RE: The girl in the pic
By Lerianis on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: The girl in the pic
By Breathless on 8/3/2009 4:55:47 PM , Rating: 5
you are a douchbag.


RE: The girl in the pic
By Sulphademus on 8/3/2009 4:57:11 PM , Rating: 4
Best be over 18 if youre going to be making sexual advances on Mr Hansen like that!


RE: The girl in the pic
By invidious on 8/3/2009 5:00:21 PM , Rating: 5
I must say I did not expect this to turn into a pedofelia discussion when I clicked on a link about exploding ipods. But I guess I underestimated our trolls here at DT.

Bravo.


RE: The girl in the pic
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/3/2009 5:00:40 PM , Rating: 5
I'd hardly call sexual exploitation of an 11 year old "NORMAL". I would instead argue that you have a mental illness and need treatment.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexuality -- it can be heterosexual or homosexual. I have no problem with people's sexual preference, but I have a big problem with sickos who think its okay to sexually exploit children.

Just because some 11 year old tries on their mommy's makeup doesn't give you the right to make a pass at them. While I agree there's a legal grey area (sex between mutually consenting 15 and 16 year olds), to argue that Chris Hansen is evil for denying adults the ability to take advantage of 11-13 year olds is not just wrong, its disgusting.

It's not like adults can't find other willing adults to have sex with. Trying to justify pedophilia is appalling.

I suggest you seek therapy, before you wind up on the wrong side of the law.


RE: The girl in the pic
By icanhascpu on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: The girl in the pic
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2009 10:07:22 PM , Rating: 5
Wanting to stick your d*ck into some child that hasn't even finished puberty is even more sick. They got what they were asking for and then some. Go Hansen! Good lord, there are plenty of mature, grown women out there. Those dudes need to grow a pair of nuts and go ask some of them out.


RE: The girl in the pic
By quiksilvr on 8/4/2009 3:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
Its thanks to that show that these sex offenders were made public. Its not meant solely for entertainment, its meant for educating people about this reality.


RE: The girl in the pic
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 9:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, they could've crammed more sex offenders into each show if the cops just burst in right away instead of his condescending *interview* and scolding attitude.

Not that these pervs deserve any better, but they'll get plenty of "attention" in prison, no need to offer up a judgemental model for couch potatoes to follow because as soon as you do that you find the dumber of the couch potatoes forget things like innocent until proven guilty and start attacking people because they ASSUME everyone is a potential child molester when in fact, not everyone who comes into contact with children is.


RE: The girl in the pic
By Belard on 8/4/2009 8:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Huh?

Are... Are you one of those guys that ended up on his show?

I thought it was rather sick myself... seeing grown mean just walk into the house, waiting to get some action. They've done it before (famous words are "This is my first time!" - yet they were not nervous coming into the home of a "13" year old girl).

Anyone catch the EP when the creep takes his clothes off, in the kitchen! Or the other perv who got busted, not once - but twice! The 2nd time was withing a few days of being on camera the first time.


RE: The girl in the pic
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
I do think it wrong to make advances on a 13 year old girl, but there is something else to consider.

Years ago, before modern technology made it easier to survive, girls were getting married and having children far younger than 18. Today, girls are going through puberty younger than they did long ago.

Your great great great grandfather may have married a 13 year old, or your great great great grandmother might've been 13. To me the issue is one of emotional maturity and of course having going through puberty, with the emtional maturity aspect meaning the young man or woman is mentally aligned with taking the needed measures to support a child whether pregnancy be intentional or accidental, that they are aware of the consequences of their actions.

Obviously the majority of predators are not caring about consequences, but this particular behavior has to be seen as separate from merely preferring a mate that is young (but still through puberty).


RE: The girl in the pic
By William Gaatjes on 8/8/2009 7:07:47 PM , Rating: 3
True.

While in those times two similair aged individuals choose for eachother out of love it was also very common that a young girl married an older man to ensure the future economic situation of the entire family. There are many reasons why this kind of behaviour was and still is exhibited. But even though, at those times the older but wealthy man himself just wanted offspring to continue the bloodline. That says enough, a young girl turning into a woman to give birth to his children.

Very different from pedophiles just wanting to get laid.
A pedophile has no interest in such manners. He just needs his kick and has no control over him self anddoes not have the desire to control himself (Rare occasions aside...).



RE: The girl in the pic
By SiN on 8/4/2009 9:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think some people here are right about it being made into entertainment is sick.

It should be done behind closed doors and the police should take care of the matter. Not plastered over the TV.

I hate peados. never mind wanting to see them being made into a show... unless their balls are hooked up to car batteries.


RE: The girl in the pic
By username21 on 8/4/2009 1:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there is one very important use for there being a show like this, and that is people can find out who is a pedo, just in case one ends up in their neighborhood.


RE: The girl in the pic
By HoundRogerson on 8/5/2009 1:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.sexoffender.com/

This should help much better than a show thats on tv once in a while.


RE: The girl in the pic
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense, the odds of seeing a pedo on the show that's in the neighborhood are remote, and anyone interested can just consult a local sexual predator's database to see ALL the pedos, not just the ones that made the cut on a tv show the night they happened to be watching.


RE: The girl in the pic
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 9:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
While you are correct, you can't blame a person who ends up with a child because they looked and said they were older. You can blame them for sticking around after finding out though.


RE: The girl in the pic
By Breathless on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: The girl in the pic
By parge on 8/3/2009 6:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Its at times like this that Dailytechs voting systems fails us.

Maybe if your Ipod explodes the chemicals turn you into a peadophile?


RE: The girl in the pic
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2009 10:08:58 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe his ipod will explode and burn his testicles off so some of our children will be spared from his exploits...


RE: The girl in the pic
By spread on 8/5/2009 10:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's a new feature...


RE: The girl in the pic
By shaw on 8/3/2009 10:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
ROFLMAO! Oh my god!! I love you! LOL!


RE: The girl in the pic
By Icehearted on 8/4/2009 1:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
I so wish I could vote you higher than 5. I almost never laugh out loud at posts, but you got me!


RE: The girl in the pic
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/3/2009 4:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Famous last words...


RE: The girl in the pic
By callmeroy on 8/4/2009 8:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
As an uncle to several nieces and nephews this is even more disturbing considering they range in age from as young as 5 up through to 25.

The one that boils me blood the most (referring to after I read threads like this) that I think of is my 16 year old niece.....she loves to put on the makeup and look "more mature" -- she's someone you could easily take for a 19 year old when she's all dressed up. I tell her all the time to tame it down a bit cause she'll attract the scum of the earth....I'd pretty much pummel a pedophile to death if they touched her or anyone of my nieces or nephews.

They are a plague on society so much that their are other criminals that I think are ABOVE pedophiles even.


RE: The girl in the pic
By Targon on 8/4/2009 9:14:56 AM , Rating: 5
Not to defend the scumbag pedophiles out there, but there IS a problem out there where these underage girls are the ones initiating a lot of this crap these days. If you were single and a woman you think looks like she is 18 or above starts flirting with you, would you worry you were being set up, or would you go with it?

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of pedophilia, but at the same time, if it is initiated and drawn to its natural conclusion by someone who is underage, without the knowledge of her true age, who is at fault here? Who is taking advantage of who when that happens? At that point, do you lock up your young niece for her own protection since she MIGHT be the one trying to get an older man into bed with her?


RE: The girl in the pic
By JediJeb on 8/4/2009 10:35:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you were single and a woman you think looks like she is 18 or above starts flirting with you, would you worry you were being set up, or would you go with it?


First of all I would want to know here long enough to know her true age and many other facts. There is a discussion over in the space updates article about humans being above animals in their thinking, but what I am seeing in this thread makes me doubt that. The ones who argue that it is the girls fault for flirting or that "it is natural just do it" are showing they have no more self control than any basic animal and should be treated as such when they commit those crimes. I agree with either the Swiss or Sweeds( cant remember which it is now) that have the one strike rule on sex crimes, castration on first offence, and they have less than 10% repeat offenders.


RE: The girl in the pic
By William Gaatjes on 8/4/2009 4:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
I am amazed you got rated down while Targon is rated up.
It seems at least 3 people have been in the situation that their penises was thinking for them.

I agree fully with you tho. Nobody can make me believe that a girl from 16 looks that much different from a girl of 18 years or a 17 year old girl looks a lot younger then a 19 year old girl. With or without make up, everybody can see she is young and therefore should at least find out how old the subject of attraction really is.

To all hungry people reading: Fast action can be fun, but when you meet the wrong woman, you might regret it.
Better use your proper head and have more fun afterwards.


RE: The girl in the pic
By JediJeb on 8/4/2009 5:13:42 PM , Rating: 3
Sadly the days of when a male human could be called "a Man" or " a Gentleman" are quickly disappearing. Seems Darwin got it wrong, men don't come from apes, apes come from men.


RE: The girl in the pic
By William Gaatjes on 8/5/2009 1:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
:-)

I would think of the bonobo apes then ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_...


RE: The girl in the pic
By callmeroy on 8/4/2009 11:25:59 AM , Rating: 1
I hear what you are saying and its a plausible situation. There is however a fine line between fantasy and reality. This is a line that is easier for some to keep in perspective than others. The first thing to accept is that we as humans are sexual creatures - anyone that denies that is in a form of denial I never even heard of before. As such its within the bounds of normal behavior (derived from the behavior displayed by the majority of the populace of a specific sex and age group in a similar situation) to look at an attractive woman who at least appears to be someone mature. I'd further be lying to you if I never thought in my mind "wow she's attractive for her age" upon seeing one of my nieces 16-17 y/o friends before. Why? First relating back to normal behavior, second as I said the young girls today often look 2-3 years older than they really are.

However, this all explained and said --- is where the maturity and sense of decency in the adult in such an encounter is supposed to take over. I see nothing wrong with a grown man looking at 17 y/o girl and thinking she is beautiful.....however taking it beyond that line of just thinking "man she is really nice looking, especially for her age" --- beyond that, its time for you as the grown man 10, 20, 30 years older than her to control yourself gain perspective, think of what you are doing...if any of this takes you longer than even a single minute, or if you keep dwelling on it, that is likely signs of you having some deeper issues. That is not normal.

The good old line of "but she was asking it for" doesn't fly in these situations as far as I'm concerned. Who's the adult here after all, or are you just going to prove that wonder stereotype women love to say about us in regards to thinking with the wrong head?

That may be funny for a movie, not when one of the younger (under-aged) girls involved in such situations happens to be a family member that you care about.

That's a whole other issue for a whole different thread --- how we now live in the world of excuses....


RE: The girl in the pic
By redbone75 on 8/4/2009 9:32:11 AM , Rating: 5
I am an uncle several times over, even a great uncle. What boils my blood the most are not the kids who behave and dress in ways that would attract attention from those outside their age range, but the parents that have not been responsible enough to raise those kids properly.

We can't always protect our loved ones, but one of the best things we can do is arm them with the knowledge necessary for them to make wise decisions of their own. Yes, allow your child freedom to grow, but reel them in when you need to. True parenting is true love.

As for the girl in the pic, she looks more like an exploding ipod model than an exploding ipod victim; however, she definitely looks far too young for grown men to think of her sexually, thus she should look the part! It seems more like the parent is looking to get her discovered than to rally support behind their case.


RE: The girl in the pic
By callmeroy on 8/4/2009 11:48:23 AM , Rating: 1
Couldn't agree more (and I'm also a great uncle myself, oldest niece has two kids).....

Three out of my four siblings that are parents, are wonderful parents and are raising their kids very well IMO. My second oldest brother though (he's the dad of my 16 y/o niece mentioned in my first post btw) he's a great brother, a hard working man, by most accounts if you knew nothing else about him and just met him say as a new friend or co-worker you'd say he's a good guy.

His problem though -- he's a shitty father. Not because he doesn't love his kids or abuse them, but because he does nothing -- they pretty much do want they want. I (along with my parents, other brothers and sisters, heck even the older kids in the family) are at constant odds with him in regards to this -- there have been many times my mom has been in tears over this (she's the ultra sensitive type of mom). To this day its one of the "touchy topics" between me and my brother....even writing this makes me a bit pissed thinking about it....


RE: The girl in the pic
By epobirs on 8/6/2009 7:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
A pedophile would have no interest in your niece. By definition, the appearance of sexual maturity is the opposite of what a pedophile desires. They're seeking out pre-pubescent children for their targets.

Someone who targets semi-mature teenagers is an ephebophile, while those attracted to early pubescence (what used to be called teenyboppers in marketing) are hebephiles.

My brother has a daughter that age, too, and has had the same concerns. It seems like her entire social circle are in a race to see who gets knocked up first. But he is divorced from her mother, who is willfully blind to the issue. But since she is the youngest, pedophiles are pretty low on the list of concerns for his children.


RE: The girl in the pic
By A554SS1N on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: The girl in the pic
By Sazar on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: The girl in the pic
By mattclary on 8/3/2009 4:20:49 PM , Rating: 3
RE: The girl in the pic
By Sazar on 8/4/2009 12:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
Now I feel dirty :(


RE: The girl in the pic
By mattclary on 8/3/2009 4:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
She's pretty, but totally looks 11.


RE: The girl in the pic
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 9:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
RE: The girl in the pic
By A554SS1N on 8/4/2009 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
She looks alot younger in that pic, but the top pic does make her look older than she is. Must be the angle or lighting.


RE: The girl in the pic
By MadMan007 on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: The girl in the pic
By InvertMe on 8/3/2009 8:21:25 PM , Rating: 5
Equally as disturbing as...

What's the best thing about having sex with twenty eight year olds?

THERE'S TWENTY OF THEM!

Disturbing joke out of the way now - That girl looks pretty but VERY young. TOO young. Probably best just to leave the subject alone.

As for the story - Apple looks worse for these gestapo acts rather than just replacing defecting iPods and paying for any resulting damages. People would respect Apple more if they just manned up and did the right thing.

A classic example is the XBOX 360. Microsoft made a huge mistake in their QA of the 360 but spent a billion dollars and created a no questions asked return policy on defective xbox's manufactured within a certain time frame.

That's how you make loyal customers. None of this strong arm bull.


RE: The girl in the pic
By iamezza on 8/4/2009 12:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
But they weren't even good gestapo acts. They tried to keep it quiet and not let them talk about what happened but the only incentive was a refund? The owners were obviously rich enough to buy an iPod for an 11yr old so there was no way they would shut up for that amount. They should have payed them a large amount as 'compensation' if they wanted to keep it quiet.


RE: The girl in the pic
By themaster08 on 8/4/2009 5:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well, what more can you expect from the likes of Apple?

Even more reason to avoid them. This is just the absolute epitome of their business practices.

I wish the E.U. would hurry up and make themselves useful, and bring Apple down for the corrupt lowlives they really are.


RE: The girl in the pic
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 9:15:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The girl in the pic is only 11? Is it just me or does she look a little older than that?


No, you're just a bad man...


RE: The girl in the pic
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 9:20:07 AM , Rating: 4
Well, it just says 'owner and iPod pictured' and then lists the girl and her father as the owner...

I know this is a longshot, but in this day and age it could be the father :::)))


RE: The girl in the pic
By HotFoot on 8/6/2009 5:08:51 AM , Rating: 1
I'd say she's got 'potential' - she'll be gorgeous in 6 years and however many months it is until she's 18. =P


??
By ClownPuncher on 8/3/2009 3:45:25 PM , Rating: 5
Refund?? What a fool. Apple sold him a product that actually had more features than advertised. Free grenade function trumps any refund claims.




RE: ??
By encryptkeeper on 8/3/2009 3:54:40 PM , Rating: 4
Wanna blow something up? There's an app for that.


RE: ??
By Sazabi19 on 8/3/2009 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 5
Ya, the new "i-blow"


RE: ??
By Mitch101 on 8/3/2009 4:41:38 PM , Rating: 5
Is it on YouTube yet?

Person pulls out iPod on Airplane and people scream hes got a bomb!


RE: ??
By thekdub on 8/3/2009 10:26:03 PM , Rating: 5
Well, Apple has already admitted that the iPhone can be used for acts of terrorism. Maybe they meant more than just hacking into cellular networks.


RE: ??
By Chocobollz on 8/9/2009 7:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have a better idea! Why don't someone use its heat to burn some marijuana and when people see it, they will scream both!

People: He's got a BOMB!
Kumar: It's not a BOMB, it's a BONG!

:D


RE: ??
By Mitch101 on 8/3/2009 4:20:06 PM , Rating: 5
Supposedly if your wearing it at the time it burns an Apple Logo into your skin. Customer branding. Were are these peoples commitment to Apple when they toss them aside to burn?


RE: ??
By encryptkeeper on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: ??
By Rookierookie on 8/3/2009 4:41:30 PM , Rating: 5
Get a sense of humour. Or humor, depending on where you live.


RE: ??
By InvertMe on 8/3/2009 11:28:17 PM , Rating: 5
The wooshing sound is deafening!


RE: ??
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 5:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, his iPod musta blown up just as he was writing his reply..


RE: ??
By Helbore on 8/4/2009 2:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you are holding it against your forehead or the back of your hand.


RE: ??
By Jimbo1234 on 8/3/2009 9:12:08 PM , Rating: 1
+7!


Next commercial
By sprockkets on 8/3/2009 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 6
Mac: Hi I'm a Mac
PC: And I'm a PC
PC: Hey Mac I heard your stuff "just works" and doesn't get any viruses, and your iphone and ipods dominate.
Mac: Yeah, that is true. I'm awesome!

(Small print jumps on screen)

PC: What's that Mac? I thought I was the only one who needed disclaimers?
Mac: It's our new policy. You see, our stuff isn't really trouble free, so we ask now when you buy an ipod or iphone that you never speak anything bad of our products, such as when they catch fire or cause a crater in your car seat.
PC: I see. Whoa I just saw some more come up!
Mac: Yeah, you see we also now make sure that if you jailbreak our iphone that you know that you are helping Bin Laden and the terrorists win.
PC: Do you know what our legal department does mostly?
Mac: What?
PC: Make sure we don't show outdated Mac prices on our commercials.




RE: Next commercial
By petrosy on 8/3/2009 7:23:25 PM , Rating: 5
Finally a good comment!

I would pay to see that ad.


RE: Next commercial
By TheEinstein on 8/3/2009 10:08:13 PM , Rating: 3
Dear Gawd,

I broke up laughing, this is pewpew pwn! WOWSERS BATMAN!

You sir deserve a +10!


RE: Next commercial
By futrtrubl on 8/4/2009 2:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
So they decided to go ahead with the roll-out of the iGag to end users after the bad reception its pilot program got from iPhone App developers? Inconceivable!!


RE: Next commercial
By Belard on 8/4/2009 8:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
How does one get a 6?


RE: Next commercial
By ertomas on 8/4/2009 8:41:21 AM , Rating: 3
By not asking how to get one!


RE: Next commercial
By rtrski on 8/4/2009 8:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
DT authorities can elevate if they like it enough. And this one certainly merited it. Bravo.


RE: Next commercial
By SiN on 8/4/2009 9:24:27 AM , Rating: 1
ah... i remember i got a 6 once... long long ago, but i can't find it in my post history.


RE: Next commercial
By DarkElfa on 8/4/2009 10:43:07 AM , Rating: 5
That commercial would have only been better if Apple would have pushed PC out a window after his last comment and Apple said:

"Oh Yeah, sometimes we handle it like that too."


RE: Next commercial
By namechamps on 8/4/2009 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
+1. Nice followup.


We'd do it different in the US...
By joex444 on 8/3/2009 4:08:05 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, an iPod messes up a car like that, no way there isn't going to be a lawsuit.

Asking for a refund for the iPod... how timid.




RE: We'd do it different in the US...
By joex444 on 8/3/2009 4:08:42 PM , Rating: 1
Its cheaper for Apple to replace the iPod not refund it. Maybe they would've replaced it without a gag order.


RE: We'd do it different in the US...
By plewis00 on 8/3/2009 4:33:27 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, I bet the father and daughter really want a replacement for their exploding iPod. I think I'd be pretty insulted and offended if they offered me that...


By monomer on 8/4/2009 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 4
"This one'll keep 'em quiet for good. Muahahahah!!!!"


By BansheeX on 8/3/2009 4:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just wait until one sets fire to someone's house and it kills someone.


RE: We'd do it different in the US...
By Jaybus on 8/3/2009 4:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wait until this happens with an electric or hybrid-electric car that uses the same Li-ion battery technology. A 100+ kg battery pack should make a spectacular fire, or even explosion, and be a much more interesting lawsuit.


RE: We'd do it different in the US...
By Sulphademus on 8/3/2009 5:13:16 PM , Rating: 5
Ford Pinto Hybrid?


RE: We'd do it different in the US...
By Jimbo1234 on 8/3/2009 9:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
Or a late 90's full size GM pickup hit from the side.


By knutjb on 8/3/2009 10:43:44 PM , Rating: 3
Only if you add the incendiary device to make it look more spectacular they way NBC(?) did on the trucks.


By Viditor on 8/4/2009 7:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
We already know the response...the same as all the many exploding car and truck lawsuits we already have.
Somehow I don't see the explosion of a battery being nearly as big as the exploding gas tanks...
http://peoriaaccidentattorneys.com/MotorVehicle%2F...


By LostInLine on 8/3/2009 6:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
the car picture is from a different incident.


is that her?
By wushuktl on 8/3/2009 3:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with the guy that Apple is doing something pretty crappy here... what is up with the picture that the daughter is posing for? Why does it look like that? Why does she look like that? To me, that is just as disturbing as Apple's refund terms.




RE: is that her?
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: is that her?
By joex444 on 8/3/2009 4:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
Read the article. Read the caption.


RE: is that her?
By jpbookkeeper on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: is that her?
By JoeRastro on 8/3/2009 4:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
Did we read the same caption?

quote:
Apple reportedly sent a letter to the UK owners of an exploded iPod Touch ( owner and iPod pictured here ), demanding threatening legal terms or offering no refund. The owners -- a father and his 11 year old daughter -- refused the "disturbing" legal terms and have received no refund.


RE: is that her?
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: is that her?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/3/2009 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Read the SOURCE article:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_...

quote:
Ellie Stanborough, 11, with the device. "It made a hissing noise and went pop"


RE: is that her?
By Nightraptor on 8/3/2009 6:22:29 PM , Rating: 4
I think the reason people are disturbed somewhat by this photo is because the way she is posed in the picture looks extremely similar to the way in which advertisers regularly pose attractive female models as a means to use sexuality to sell something or other. 11 year olds obviously shouldn't be used in such a manner. However, given the context it seems pretty clear that this is all incidental and not intentional as in the case of advertisements.


RE: is that her?
By troysavary on 8/4/2009 4:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hate to disappoint you, but a lot of those models posed "sexually' to sell you stuff are not a lot older than 11. Models tend to start their careers around 13 and many are washed up not long after 18. Modeling is an industry that preys on young girls and then spits them out as soon as they age a bit. The big names that continue to have careers much past 20 are rare.


RE: is that her?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 6:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I really don't think that pose is suggestive in any way. Sure she has a bit of make up on, probably because she was having her picture taken for the papers.

But to claim it is somehow sexually suggestive is off the wall. I really don't see that it is at all. Without trying to be smart, I believe you are seeing something that isn't there.

Maybe you actually find girls of this age sexually attractive but have managed to repress this almost all your life. Congratulations if you have. But in no way is that picture sexually suggestive.


RE: is that her?
By mattclary on 8/4/2009 9:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. She is pretty and has on a little makeup for a publicity photo. A long shot from "suggestive".


RE: is that her?
By Nightraptor on 8/5/2009 12:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Also on another note I would say she has a lot more than a "little" makeup on. Clearly she has eyeliner, mascara, blush, and lipstick and probably has things like concealer and foundation on as well. I also appears highly likely to me that her eyebrows have been plucked. If this were an advertisement I could see no purpose for this other than a disgustingly perverse attempt to sex up an 11 year old


RE: is that her?
By myhipsi on 8/4/2009 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problem is that "cheese" thought the girl in the pic was hot, and now that he's been informed that she's actually only 11, he's in denial!

Though, I will say, with the photo set up the way it was, me thinks daddy is trying to get daughter some exposure for a future job in the modeling biz.


RE: is that her?
By Nightraptor on 8/4/2009 10:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
First off nowhere in my post did I say the photo was "suggestive". Many photos that use attractive female (or male) models to sell items wouldn't be considered suggestive on their face. Rather advertisers simply have a attractive model hold their product in an effort to associate their product with what is attractive and what is "in". It is suggestive without really being suggestive.

Secondly as many others here have pointed out the shot looks like something you'd use to sell yourself as a model. In it's context this is probably incidental, though there is always a chance of a father trying to get his daughter into modeling. However, if this photo was an advertisement for the Iphone with Carmen Electra using the same pose, same facial expression, etc., holding a intact Iphone no one would debate whether or not their were sexual connotations even though the photo itself wasn't blatantly suggestive. All I'm saying is that 11 year olds shouldn't be modeling in a manner which has an inherent air of sexuality to it. As another poster pointed out unfortunately underage girls are far too often posed in advertisements that are blatantly sexual (in fact it's so pervasive I would bet everyone of us has seen an advertisement and thought "she's hot" without even knowing "she" is under the age of 18).


RE: is that her?
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
I propose there is nothing wrong with thinking a pre-18 yo woman (post-pubescent) is hot, but in this case there wasn't a body shot. Thinking it and acting on it are entirely different matters.


RE: is that her?
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
I totally disagree, young girls OFTEN try to be sexually suggestive, imitating adults they see on TV or in magazines, or Myspace or wherever!

Maybe some are so ignorant to not know about sexuality yet, but with all the sexuality in the media, tv, certainly on the internet, would you really believe they are oblivious to it in any modern culture?


RE: is that her?
By Lerianis on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
Airport Security
By Hakuryu on 8/3/2009 4:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder when airports will start confiscating iPods and iPhones.

If my 90 year old great aunt has to take her shoes off because one idiot tried to make his shoes into a bomb, isn't it logical that something that does explode should get confiscated?




RE: Airport Security
By MadMan007 on 8/3/2009 7:52:23 PM , Rating: 3
After taking a recent airplane flight (btw security was not a problem and very fast to get through) I was thinking the same thing after looking around and how many people had gadgets. I guess they figure a normal gadget isn't enough to blow a dangerous hole in an airplane but a terrorist wouldn't use a normal device would they.


RE: Airport Security
By SpaceJumper on 8/4/2009 4:53:20 PM , Rating: 3
It is easy to take the iPod touch apart (by twisting) and manually shorted the battery. The battery has about 10 watts of energy (3.7V and ~3Ah). It would ignite in 5 seconds with explosion and fire.
Other gadgets are harder to take it apart but the iPod touch is easy.


RE: Airport Security
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:23:44 PM , Rating: 3
The battery has no protection circuit built in? Pretty crazy considering what they cost.


RE: Airport Security
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
The really troubling part is that such devices with metal cased batteries could easily be made into a bomb, that some of the batteries could hold explosives and the remaining batteries be used as the ignition system... and it could look relatively normal to a scanner.


uhhh.. back on topic?
By Richlet on 8/3/2009 4:37:13 PM , Rating: 5
Please? About the article, not the photo of a child?




RE: uhhh.. back on topic?
By Souka on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: uhhh.. back on topic?
By Rhl on 8/3/2009 5:59:04 PM , Rating: 5
When did DailyTech become PedoTech?


RE: uhhh.. back on topic?
By mindless1 on 8/5/2009 10:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
Remember that a fair % of dailytech participants may not be much over 11 yo themselves. On the internet everyone is just lines of text.


BELKIN
By Final8ty on 8/4/2009 5:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
The car seat pic on close inspection the device has BELKIN written on it.
http://static.autoblog.nl/images/wp2009/iPhone%20s...




RE: BELKIN
By damianrobertjones on 8/4/2009 6:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Someone previously posted that it's a belkin cover for the unit. So.. it's still related to applee etc


RE: BELKIN
By ertomas on 8/4/2009 8:49:15 AM , Rating: 3
There you have it.

The iPod didn't blow up by itself.

It had a 3rd party thingy that covered the invisible air vents on it causing the nuclear battery to go into critical mass.

PS: It does have a nuclear reactor inside. It's what justifies the price tag...


RE: BELKIN
By Helbore on 8/4/2009 2:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
...and why its of such interest to the terrorists.

Bin Laden: At last, we have NUCLEAR BOMB!!!

<goes running down street away from the Apple Store, laughing like a madman>


Fits
By CalWorthing on 8/3/2009 3:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
Recent road-trip with my 1st gen 'Touch playing tunes via an AUX plug & using lighter-adapter for power. After an hour or so, picked up the 'Touch and was shocked by how hot the thing was. Very hot. Disconnected power supply and the unit cooled to the usual 'warm'.

With the common use of external power (in vehicles) & of accessory plastic/rubberized covers, easy to imagine the heat being much more (unable to radiate off) with the poss. of fire.




RE: Fits
By Screwballl on 8/3/2009 4:24:56 PM , Rating: 5
I hear that attaching a Zalman 9500/9700 or Thermaltake Big Typhoon cools them down a few degrees. the trouble is getting the proper fan power adapter to connect to the 12V outlets.


BELKIN
By Final8ty on 8/4/2009 5:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
The car seat pic on close inspection the device has BELKIN written on it.
http://static.autoblog.nl/images/wp2009/iPhone%20s...




RE: BELKIN
By Final8ty on 8/4/2009 5:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
Damn it! sorry all


RE: BELKIN
By Final8ty on 8/4/2009 5:36:10 AM , Rating: 3
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process...

Well that clears that up, its still Apples fault.


iPod or iED
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 8/3/2009 4:36:54 PM , Rating: 4
Eh, my zune is nice and cool and has been playing all day :)

Her iED must have been put together in Iraq.




RE: iPod or iED
By walk2k on 8/3/2009 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
You still bought a Zune.


Ornery
By DanoruX on 8/3/2009 3:58:08 PM , Rating: 5
Clearly Apple is out to get people with their remote-detonating iPods. Think about it - the high cost of apple hardware financing hidden GPS locators in every iPod only to be able to make them explode whenever Mr. Jobs wishes to crush more infidels.

Hallowed are the Apples. All hail the iFather. Blessed are the appleseeds.




BELKIN
By Final8ty on 8/4/2009 5:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
The car seat pic on close inspection the device has BELKIN written on it.
http://static.autoblog.nl/images/wp2009/iPhone%20s...




RE: BELKIN
By damianrobertjones on 8/4/2009 8:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's a Belkin Cover for the Apple device (Not sure where my first reply to this went?)


By Nobleman00 on 8/4/2009 3:29:51 PM , Rating: 4
Terrible Terrorist: My iED app can set off infidel iPhones in their pockets and burn their bums.

N00B Terrorist: There's an app for that?

Terrible Terrorist: There's an app for that.

Apple Announcer: ...And if you need to detect a nearby iPhone and hack it to upload the iED app, there's apps for that too.

US Soldier #1: My iPhone can detect iED's and disable them.

US Soldier #2: There's an app for that?

US Soldier #1: Yes goddammit, I just said there was.

Apple Announcer: ...And if you need to hack the iED to disable it, there's an app for that too... oh wait, you said that already.

Terrible Terrorist: Aha! There is an infidel iPhone nearby, say goodbye.

US Soldier #1: Soldier, you have an iED in your pocket!

Terrible Terrorist: Explode!

US Soldier #1: Disable!

Terrible Terrorist: Explode!

US Soldier #1: Disable!

Terrible Terrorist: Explode!

US Soldier #1: Disable!

[All iPhones overheat, take out the iRaq cellular network, then explode]

Apple Announcer: ...If you want to take a picture of hundreds of mini-mushroom clouds over iRaq, upload them to facebook, and tweet about it, then ... agh, gurgle.

N00B Terrorist: [shoots apple announcer] SHUT UP ALREADY!




So...
By gmljosea on 8/3/2009 7:35:29 PM , Rating: 3
We got iPods that explode and iPhones that could be used to collapse the cellphone network, apple should be included in the list of terrorists groups :)




Now, imagine yourself in an electric car
By borowki2 on 8/3/2009 7:50:02 PM , Rating: 1
The car's been park under the sun all day. It's 100? outside. You walk in and turn the key. Suddenly, you hear a hissing sound from the car's Li-ion battery pack, which is, I don't know, maybe 10,000 times larger than the one in an iPod...




By SpaceJumper on 8/4/2009 4:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Only if the electric car is made by Apple.


Scary stuff
By aguilpa1 on 8/3/2009 3:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
..., yet I am sure some mindless apple zealot will jump in to defend the "good" name of apple.




RE: Scary stuff
By encryptkeeper on 8/3/2009 4:04:33 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry, Pirks will come to the rescue.


RE: Scary stuff
By Pirks on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Scary stuff
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Scary stuff
By Pirks on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Scary stuff
By SilthDraeth on 8/4/2009 1:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks is part of Apple's legal team, I wouldn't mess with him...

In all seriousness, there are a lot of zealots on these forums for one thing or another, In this case were there isn't really any opinion of Apple Sucks because of xyz features, but a reporting of an incident, and Apple's response, of course Pirks won't jump in and defend Apple.


RE: Scary stuff
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Scary stuff
By chick0n on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Scary stuff
By Pirks on 8/6/09, Rating: -1
In other news....
By chrnochime on 8/3/2009 11:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
A website called Giz**** tries to silence people who call them apple**** by banning them, succeeding in keeping their head buried firmly in the proverbial sand.

Back to your regular Apple-obsess...err I mean non-Apple obsessed news.

LOL




Sorry for the Multiples
By Final8ty on 8/4/2009 5:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Anyway a mod could delete them pls.




How the trendy have fallen
By Gymnogene on 8/4/2009 8:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that the cool, edgy, trendy, 'I just care about myself' attitude of Apple that so many people bought into boils down to nothing but fear, arrogance and a pathetic lack of backbone (which is essential to admitting when you're wrong, which I suppose also isn't cool).




You Get What You Paid For
By SpaceJumper on 8/4/2009 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
When you buy cheap product at high price, you get the worse of the extreme worse.




Who manufactured the battery?
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 7:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see, we have a small, portable, electronic device that is powered by a lithium ion battery, and a few of them have overheated and caught fire. Sound familiar to anyone? Sony laptops, Dell laptops, IBM/Lenovo laptops, Apple laptops, Toshiba laptops, etc. I believe we've had the same scenario with cell phones from Nokia, Sony/Ericsson, HTC, Samsung, and Motorola. I'm sure I've missed quite a few others.

Common thread? Defective batteries. Batteries manufactured by whom? Someone other than Apple.

There are essentially three ways to get a lithium battery to overheat, catch fire, or explode:

1. Overcharge it (over voltage and/or over current). Problem will most likely occur while it's charging, not hours after it's been charged.

2. Draw current too fast (e.g. short the battery terminals). Since the devices in question generally draw power significantly below the max for that battery (to maximize run time), this is a very unlikely source unless there is a defect with the device.

3. Expose the battery to excessive heat (e.g. leave in direct sun-light for extended period, leave it on/near a heat source, etc.)

1 and 2 could be the device manufacturer's fault or result from a device defect. #3 is a user problem (e.g. abuse).

If it's none of those (and there is not yet evidence to suggest that it is), then the problem is internal to the battery and the fault lies with the battery manufacturer.




By Kahnivorous on 8/4/2009 12:31:19 AM , Rating: 1
*Sigh...Vista...* I hope the owner posts some scans of any letters or emails he got from Apple. This would put Apple back in its place. As for any current or new portable device using more advanced power circuitry, there are some issues that are bound to "pop" up. Trying to bury it with legal jargon from some over zealous, over paid Apple lawyer is like Steve Jobs wearing a speedo on stage while trying to announce a new product launch at CES. You risk drowning out your marketing efforts with the obvious wrongs.

Is Apple trying to fail? I mean, is there some cool club for corporations that have failed from lack of proper leadership we don't know about? When is it cool to be this idiotic?




By SiliconJon on 8/3/2009 8:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
Can't you read?! It's ANOTHER incident, ID10T.


By rtrski on 8/4/2009 8:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
Give the guy a break. He probably realized that right after he posted. No reason to jump all over his ass.

(Wait for it...)


By PhoenixKnight on 8/4/2009 9:59:56 AM , Rating: 3
Both of the posts you replied to were posted by the same person. So, in essence, he's jumping all over his own ass, which is, admittedly, a disturbing thought.


By SiliconJon on 8/4/2009 12:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Folks around here just don't get my humor.


By rtrski on 8/4/2009 2:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I did - hence my 'wait for it' comment.... My post was another example of 'posting before reading' but tongue-in-cheek...

So I saw your weird self-referential humor and raised it. But the rest of the table had no idea what we were bidding on. :P


Dodgy reporting...dodgy incident...
By messele on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Dodgy reporting...dodgy incident...
By Synastar on 8/3/2009 5:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
The car seat picture is from a separate incident.


RE: Dodgy reporting...dodgy incident...
By tmouse on 8/4/2009 8:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
It's not common for an object to explode after being dropped. It's perfectly normal to try it after it has been dropped to see if its broken. Do you really automatically get out your insurance claim form without trying to see if it's working? Nowhere does it say they continued to use it for any time period after it was dropped, as a matter of fact the original article says after it was dropped he tried it, heard a hissing, saw some smoke and threw it out the door where it exploded; not a normal event to say the least. If you paid attention to the original article you should see where he contacted Argos and Apple not just Apple for a refund, he was probably directed to contact Apple by Argos. The article is not about someone looking for a refund, it is really about a company forcing a permanent gag order for a refund, which is most certainly NOT a common practice. The fact that several people have mentioned this gag order clearly shows evidence of a cover-up, there would be no way to know any actual numbers of these incidences. In the US even if a law was shown to be broken anyone who signed this type of gag order could not be compelled to testify and could not be protected from a civil lawsuit if they did.


RE: Dodgy reporting...dodgy incident...
By Helbore on 8/4/2009 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately, in the UK, a company can't legally gag someone if they are communicating information of public interest (such as hardware that is potentially harmful to cusomters)

They could have signed the document, taken the refund and then gone to the papers. If Apple tried taking the father to court, they'd get nothing but a big, fat investigation by trading standards for their efforts.

Would serve them right, too.


By tmouse on 8/6/2009 9:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
I believe this did happen in the UK and the father works in electronics security yet he felt that violating the gag order would result in litigation in the UK.


By KWRussell on 8/4/2009 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, the easiest way to get a -1 is to call out the author's obvious bias. God forbid somebody attempt to hold a DailyTech author accountable.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki