posted
Gee Thanks, Geoff. I was really getting excited about getting one of those for Christmas, too.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would Apple do that? Wouldn't they have the foresight to make it last longer than a year and a half?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are places where you can buy another battery for $50 and replace it yourself or have them replace it.
OR, apple now allows you to extend your warranty to 2 years for $60 that will cover battery as well as breakage.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(i posted quickly to get the info out there quickly)
I've had an ipod since Jan '02. It probably doesn't have the same battery life that new ipods have. I don't know how much worse, but not enough to make me actively notice. I use it somewhat infrequently, for long car trips. My music-listening varies from month to month.
My brother's macrumors site has a polls section. Out of the 1600 people who own an ipod and responded to the poll, 1131 haven't had any service for their ipod (aka, they don't need any). 124 report battery problems.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Battery replacement costs $99, which is still pretty outrageous. For older models, some places apparently sell replacement batteries starting around $50.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just got off the phone with a technician...
For $50 you can buy an extra year of protection, which includes battery replacement. After that, you can get the battery replaced for $99, which although unreasonable, is about the cost of a laptop battery.
So, I think i'll go ahead with my purchase plans. ....
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
The fact that the batteries are not warranted beyond a year is data. The fact that they are hard to replace is data. The fact that they cost an absurd amount is data.
Frankly, I think it was a clever bit of corporate protest.
posted
The only part of their presentation I think they should change is the amount, as that is demonstrably false. They could just put a bit of text on their site pointing that out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The fact that the batteries are not warranted beyond a year is data. The fact that they are hard to replace is data. The fact that they cost an absurd amount is data. <<
They didn't spray-paint "the iPod has a one-year warranty and replacement batteries are absurdly expensive" on signs. They spray-painted "the iPod's batteries last for 18 months," which is rather inconveniently only true in their particular case. They didn't check battery prices or installation with anyone other than Apple. Why not just present tabulated statistical data from a survey of iPod users? Well, I guess they'd have to actually conduct such a survey in order to do that. And the survey would have had to actually confirm their hypothesis, too. It's easier to just spray-paint stuff on signs.
I have exactly the same problem with Bowling for Columbine. Sensationalism without substance. It's not that message that I take issue with, it's the presentation.
Sadly, I'll bet that page has seen far more hits (~50,000 when I visited) than a page detailing the results of a survey of iPod users that showed an average battery lifespan of 18 months would.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the spray-painted message is anecdotal. But in the video you get to hear the phone call as well. (Is the phone call fake?)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not. But they neglect to mention – as has already been posted to this thread – that replacements can be had for as little as $50 US. If the battery's price was the focus of their ire, then they should have been spray-painting "the iPod's batteries are overpriced." I don't even ask that they qualify that with "if you buy them from Apple and have Apple install them for you." Basically, I like to see statements that are made backed up.
I think they're just annoyed because their iPod died and they're too lazy to look for third-party solutions; they'd rather just blame whoever's convenient.
It doesn't help that I don't think much of their chosen medium, though.
posted
So, half-truth and misleading anecdote is only okay if you are a big time company? Why is it okay for those in the link to spread misleading information, and not okay for this guy? Both are using anecdotes. Both have holes that you could drive a truck through in the anecdotes. What is the difference? Production quality?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to recounting a particular anecdote, that guy decided to spray paint a statement all over apple's ads as if it were a fact, when it is purely anecdotal. Furthermore, nothing apple suggested was demonstrably false, as something he suggests is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Why is it okay for those in the link to spread misleading information, and not okay for this guy? Both are using anecdotes. Both have holes that you could drive a truck through in the anecdotes. What is the difference? Production quality? <
Where did I say that I thought Apple's marketing wasn't hyperbolic? I must have missed that.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said you did. However, there seems to be quicker and more angry uproar over this than Apple's ads.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er... there was a substantial uproar over the SPEC benchmarks that Apple did when they launched the Power Mac G5. Actually, you should really be linking the G5 page rather than the Switch page. Apple makes much more hyperbolic claims about its hardware than about its software – they've done it with every new PowerPC chip since the 601, and people always complain.
Besides which, "that guy did it too" doesn't make what the first person did okay.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
fwiw, I have no real feelings regarding the iPod. I don't have any mp3 player or equivalent. I'm just debating for the heck of it.
That being said, fugu, I'm not bothered by the fact that they spray-painted on the posters. I don't see this as vandalism. Frankly, I see flyers and posters posted on walls of abandoned/condemned buildings as being vandalism themselves, and I don't think they're entitled to any sort of protection.
Similarly, as far as I'm concerned, people who put flyers on my windshield are guilty of littering.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the spray-painting about as annoying as I find the posters themselves. I do own an iPod, though I bought it used.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was okay, either. It's obviously not based on fact. However, I do feel the guy has a valid gripe. It's not Earth shattering, though, and is certainly not getting network coverage. People making extreme claims not entirely based on truth seems to be a hallmark of the internet. I'm saying is that this doesn't seem a big deal, and not something to be upset with to any degree. This is what happens when an unsatisfied customer decides that they want to share their dissatisfaction with as many people as possible, regardless of how representative it is.
Off-topic, but will this guy get litigation thrown at him now that he's been shown to be the one painting all those ads in NYC?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really have a problem with the spray painting either, I was mainly bringing that up to illustrate the difference.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> This is what happens when an unsatisfied customer decides that they want to share their dissatisfaction with as many people as possible, regardless of how representative it is. <<
Right, and what I'm saying is that it's a stupid thing to do. They could easily have solved their problem in far less time than it took them to do their spray-painting and film it, and instead of paying for hosting and bandwidth they could have bought a new battery from a third-party vendor. I don't consider it a "clever corporate protest" as Icarus does.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their statement is true - assuming the call is not a fabrication. Apple used their support guy to try to sell them a new iPod, relying on a pricing policy designed to induce just such behavior. This is skeezy.
The fact that 3d-party vendors have moved in to take advantage of Apple's skeeziness does not change the fact that the Apple corporation has either an abusive pricing policy on their batteries or an incredibly poor design that creates obsolescence within 18 months of purchase.
If batteries wear out that quickly, they should be user-replaceable. Considering iPods are about $250 and they contain an actual hard drive, I doubt Apple’s price is close to reasonable.
Spray-painting is vandalism and wrong. Posting their video on the Internet is good.
posted
You spoke of their pricing policy in the present tense. At the present time, apple has a significantly better pricing policy. The guy hasn't put a disclaimer up, which is "ok" if his purpose is to drive people away from iPods, but disingenuous if he wants people to know all the facts of the matter (which he suggests is his desire).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A customer should be able to call a corporate support line and believe the answer. He should not have to go do research to find 3d-party solutions nor continue to check with the company when he's taken the time to try to get what should be the definitive answer.
Maybe Apple changed their policy because of this guy's video. If so, then I'm doubly glad he posted it. Apple should also contact this guy and tell him they've changed their policies. And, if they're at all marketing-saavy, give him a free battery.
Dagonee PS, and $99 still seems outrageously high. It's a lithium ion battery, for crying out loud. It's not made of gold.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> He should not have to go do research to find 3d-party solutions nor continue to check with the company when he's taken the time to try to get what should be the definitive answer. <<
His warranty had expired. At that point, he wasn't even entitled to support.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, perhaps they did change it. Which is one reason I think it would be best for him to put up a notice of that change, since he can be proud of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One year on my iPod and no problems. My wife put on the the top of her list an iPod and said either I get her one or the day after Christmas she goes out and buys one. Guesse what she is getting for Christmas.
On a side note, it is through my iPod that I got introduced to OSC. I downloaded Enders Games from audible.com and went through the entire Ender and Shadow series.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:twinky His warranty had expired. At that point, he wasn't even entitled to support.
I’m not talking about legalities here; I’m talking about treating your customers right.
His iPod wasn’t working. He suspected the battery. He called Apple to find out about getting a new battery. They told him it would be just as cheap to get a new iPod as it would be replace the battery.
Designing a $250 electronic product to wear out in 18 months is not a fair business practice. I can’t believe people are defending Apple’s original policy on this.
posted
I don't think anyone's defending Apple's original policy. It sucked. Big time.
However, it's not the policy today, and it's misleading to say it is. It's still a pain to spend between $50-$100 to replace the battery, but that's a far cry from $250. Also, it's only a small percentage of the batteries that die after 18 months. Does it suck? Absolutely. Does it happen to every iPod out there? Definitely not. Their spray painting, while rather clever, was inaccurate and misleading.
posted
good lord. i think a lot of the responses to this thread were by people who didn't read the whole thread.
You can replace the battery on your own. On all models. You can purchase the battery from a 3rd party for $50, or you can probably find the battery from a manufacturer for slightly cheaper. If you want, Apple will replace the battery on all models for $99. if you want, you can extend your warranty from 1 year (it originally was 90 days but is now a year) to 2 years for $60.
Hardware breaks. Batterys are sometimes crappy. Sometimes batteries can be made to last longer depending on usage. Laptop batteries, for example, are notorious for getting worse and worse over time. Ask anyone who owns a laptop. Batteries are not infallible.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shhh, Tom! Can you hear that? It sounds like.... yes, it is! Some 12-year-old script kiddie in Wichita is about to bring down your entire network! Quick, update! Update like the wind, before the update servers are brought to their knees!
posted
Hmmm.... To dobie or not to dobie, that is the question...
Sadly, as of yet, don't have any good blackmail pictures of Pod on my computer. Well, that and since a good portion of people probably don't know who Pod is any longer it would be pointless. And I hate dobies.
Yep, not that hard of a question. *Shuts up now and goes back to bed*
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*rolls eyes* Yes. Of course. Because, y'know, the price you pay for using the world's most popular desktop operating system is being a ripe target for hacking, whereas the price you pay for being an iPod owner is, well, $99 for a new battery every two years.
Sheesh.
Seriously, I don't want to turn this into an Apple vs. PC thing -- especially not after I've been beating my head against all the crippling networking bugs in Panther for the last two weeks -- but I DO wonder why you Mac users take it all so darn personally. I mean, you and twinky are both reacting as if somebody's kicked a puppy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
My digital camera broke today. It's five months old. I was taking photos, and when I turned on my camera to take some more, the lens motor started making unpleasant grinding noises. The lens extended, retracted, extended, retracted...
I called Sony up (I have a DSC-P72) and after a long wait (and troubleshooting), discovered that the "Labor Cost" is $150 plus $21 for shipping and handling.
That's right. "Parts" are free for the first year after purchase, but Labor is only free for the first 90 days. The camera was $300, and to fix it five months after I bought it, it will cost $171.
Suffice it to say, I didn't agree. I'm trying a few local repair shops. If those don't work, then I'm likely going to get a new camera down the line from somewhere other than Sony.
My previous digital camera was from Olympus and lasted 3.75 years before breaking. I'm pretty disappointed. I think the iPod-Hating-Gods are out to get me.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:[b][/b] So because you hear about one iPod that wears out after 18 months, you assume that the company has designed the iPod to wear out after 18 months?
Wow.
Did you here the part in the call where the support guy was not surprised by the fact that the battery had worn out in 18 months?
I don’t care what other solutions were available. He called what should have been the definitive source on the matter. They tried to rip him off instead of informing him of the reasonably priced alternatives. He decided to bitch about it.
Welcome to consumer protection in the Internet age.
posted
Having done tech support, that doesn't mean a darn thing. You always act alike the customer's situation is normal (with a few exceptions), especially when you're trying to get direct them towards sales (oh, everybody pays for that kind of attitude).
I'd like to point out (to Tom, for instance), that I do consider it outragreous what apple does even now (as I stated in my first post on the subject).
I also consider it outrageous to continue spreading disinformation about the situation, especially when you're the one getting righteous about the situation (speaking about the person in the video here). If you want to be righteous, that pretty much obligates you to keep the facts as straight as possible and not mislead people merely because it makes things seem worse than they are.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, Tom, but could you please point out exactly where twinky or myself say that Apple is the innocent victim here? From what I see, neither one of us is blindly defending the company, merely pointing out that the video is inaccurate.
I found your question about twinky's motivations snide and uncalled for. *shrug*
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
