Let the iPhone class-action lawsuits begin
I hope somebody somewhere made a bit of cash from betting on when the first iPhone class-action lawsuit would appear, cuz this one gets us off to a strong start: Gizmodo is reporting that Jose Trujillo has filed a lawsuit over one of the most hotly debated un-features of the iPhone: its non-removable battery. Quoting from the lawsuit:The battery enclosed in the iPhone can only be charged approximately 300 times before it will be in need of replacement, necessitating a new battery annually for owners of the iPhone.How anyone could think the iPhone battery's longevity could be any different from the plethora of other Lithium ion-based devices we've been living with for so long is beyond me (especially since it's been officially put to rest time and time again), but I guess in today's world, someone had to fill the village idiot's shoes by using lies and mis-information to bring a lawsuit against this moment's hot new gadget. Anyone want to place bets on just how far this might get?
[via The iPod Observer]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tom Boucher said 5:23PM on 7-28-2007
This is just completely and totally idiotic.
I can't think of anything else to say but that.
I hope our justice system tanks him out the window. I don't think my wish will come true though.
Reply
Shreedhan said 5:54PM on 7-28-2007
Oh my god, what the he*l is going on? It's a standard Li-ion battery! Everything has them! You knew it was non-removable when you bought it. It's not like it was a surprise. Jeez, people now-a-days!
Reply
tommy said 6:02PM on 7-28-2007
i am moving to cali, taking their difficult ass bar exam, and going to work for one of these firms who take these class actions on because they are making a killing!
Reply
Eric said 6:07PM on 7-28-2007
The iPhone webpage has everything he's complaining about written down. The only case he might have is that they say "built-in" rather than "non-user replacable."
They even have a specific page dedicated to batteries.
Reply
Gman said 6:29PM on 7-28-2007
Here's my two cents, the guy has no case against a corporation's legal department...but wait, it's Apple's legal department, the idiot might just have a chance...Damn I should be working at Apple, we would fix the legal dept, make GPS navigation systems for cars, release joint software with Google, and encourage the hacking/tweaking of our products. Oh boy, what a life it would be!
Reply
Joe V said 6:34PM on 7-28-2007
Lawyers love class action lawsuits, while the plaintiffs themselves usually see very little.
First off, it's inaccurate: Apple says the battery will last about 400 charges before it STARTS to lose its charge capacity. It certainly won't be "necessitating a new battery annually." Second of all, has this guy or anyone else GONE through 300 charges yet? I didn't think so. When they do, and if the battery needs to be replaced, then maybe they'll have something. Until then, this is just some law firm fishing for a quick and easy settlement from a high-profile company to pad their pockets and their resumes.
Reply
Alex said 8:19PM on 7-28-2007
There should be fines for filing frivolous lawsuits like this.
I don't understand how any judge could agree to try a case about about something widely known, not to mention obvious, about a product before purchase. The simple solution iis don't buy it, or sell yours if that is unacceptable. Apple didn't trick anyone here, or say anything to the contrary of reality.
Reply
jack said 8:57PM on 7-28-2007
FYI...
300 charges before the battery capacity does to 80% of original charge.
Stupid people piss me off. Especially ones that don't know how to read Apple's disclaimer.
Reply
JeffDM said 9:34PM on 7-28-2007
"First off, it's inaccurate: Apple says the battery will last about 400 charges before it STARTS to lose its charge capacity."
The charge capacity goes down a very tiny bit with every recharge, and there is an aging effect as well, but a battery that's cycled every few days would have more charging effect than age effect. Your wording suggests it is sudden after a certain number of charge cycles.
Apple claims that at 400 charge cycles, the battery will probably be down to 80% of its original capacity. They don't give any information on the variability of capacity loss though, 80% seems a little high retention for that many charge cycles, that may be with optimistic assumptions.
Reply
Louis Duran said 10:53PM on 7-28-2007
It was an amazingly stupid idea of Apple to ship a non-replaceable battery. THey were just asking for trouble. Apple is a pretty arrogant company for being a niche PC maker.
Reply
Clark said 11:03PM on 7-28-2007
Every battery in every device made loses it's ability to fully charge after an extended period of time. The fact that you could expect to take the iPhone into a shop to have it's battery replaced is certainly something I would consider before purchasing the device. It really depends how great the in-store battery replacement service is.
Reply
mark said 11:06PM on 7-28-2007
@Louis
it might not have been a good decision, but it's certainly not grounds for a lawsuit.
Reply
J said 12:20AM on 7-29-2007
Brilliant idea - sell a $500 phone with a one year battery and a two year contract. Hmmm. still not enough. We need more..........Say, let us make the battery inaccessible and charge $100 for replacing it....Great..we are on the right track...What else can we squeeze??... I know. Let us charge for a replacement phone while we replace their old battery!
On a more serious note, just mentioning the facts does not absolve you of all crimes. IMHO selling a one year phone with a two year contract is an unfair business practice.
Reply
Andrew said 1:35AM on 7-29-2007
@louis
Yes, Apple is an arrogant company. Those who follow the news know that. However, it would be more 'amazingly stupid' if you'd bought an iPhone without knowing it didn't have a replaceable battery. Caveat Emptor applies to the buyer, not the seller.
Reply
paul said 2:06AM on 7-29-2007
What a bogus class action suit. I mean if there was some ground to stand on and there was actually an issue, or something Apple promised that wasn't getting delivered that would be one thing, but this is totally ridiculous.
First of all, they are estimating 400 charges, BEFORE you get to the point where you might get an 80% charge. second of all, this is a f**** Li-ion battery, and this is standard life span for a Li-ion battery. Finally, this doesn't mean the battery won't be usable, it just means that you'll have to charge a little more frequently. And then you always have the option of the DOCUMENTED fix, which is to replace the battery. And if you crazy enough to buy this early and buy a 1.0 product, you'll probably be in line to buy version 2 or version 3 before this even comes about.
Come on, if you're going to scrape for some free cash, at least go for something real, a real issue. Otherwise, you're just wasting time. Also, go buy another phone if you're going to distract Apple from doing what they're going to do anyway over time--improve the battery.
Enough said on this bogus claim.
Reply
Mo said 8:10AM on 7-29-2007
@J: Yes, that's right. The facts stated are incorrect, though. The battery DOESN'T need replacing after a year. After 400 _full_ charge cycles (which may be a year, may be less, may be longer), the battery's capacity will be down to 80%, which hardly necessitates replacement.
And yes, they do mention all of this; they have a web page specifically for this information, and yet people still think it's “after a year the battery needs replacing”.
It may not “absolve” them, but it does in legal terms: they've done nothing to mislead anybody, though they have done something that some people might not buy their product because of.
Reply
basscadet said 9:37AM on 7-29-2007
it is so simple: you read ALL the reviews that say "battery is built in and not user replaceable" and if you son't like it, you don't buy the damn phone. Nothing secret there, although it is a rather bad decision to make it like that (worked for the ipod though). (by worked I mean "Apple makes xtra money by replacing them inhouse")
Reply
Jonathan Baldwin said 9:47AM on 7-29-2007
I'm going to sue car manufacturers because after driving a new car off a forecourt a driver will only get so far before they will have to refill their petrol tank!
And they'll have to keep doing it!
Why don't car manufacturers tell you this???
Oh, wait...
Reply
Louis Duran said 2:02PM on 7-29-2007
Forget about lawsuits... the non-user replaceable battery, the associated costs and the $499 entry price, and the lack of corporate e-mail is going to relegate the iPhone to being a niche player cell-phone. Compared with some of the better designed Blackberries and Windows Mobile 6 PCs, the nifty, eye-candy GUI and iPod compatibility won't be enough to make the iPhone more than 2-3% share of the market. I'd consider an iPhone at a price point closer to $350. If you look at the iSuppli BOM breakdown cost of the iPhone (and accept it) Apple still makes decent money at that price.
Reply
koreyel said 3:25PM on 7-29-2007
Over at AppleInsider there is this:
A discussion thread on Apple's support website contains a large number of reports of the stand-alone power unit permanently losing its ability to recharge the phone. Plugging the iPhone directly into a USB port charges the device without problems, according to the anecdotes. Other testers have tried replacing the dock-to-USB cable and different wall outlets, ruling out other factors that could prevent a steady power supply.
Let me be the first to say, as a rabid-docile member of the Faithful, that $t. $teve would never ever in a million years try to tether buyers of any Apple Products to a charging system that doesn't work!
I AM OUTRAGED that some people think this so!
My iPhone's iBrick is working just fine!
[Note to anyone out there who remembers anything from 10 years ago: Remember the jokes about having to put MicroSoft gas in a Microsoft Car! How soon we forget...]
Reply