Exploding iPod blows up in Apple's face
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 3rd 2009 2:02PM
posted August 3rd 2009 2:02PM
Now, it's no secret that lithium-ion batteries like those used in the iPod have a long history of overheating and exploding, and Apple's certainly had large-scale problems with defective cells -- the first-gen iPod nano has been recalled in Korea and Japan, for example. It's also obvious that the sheer number of iPods sold means there are more exploding iPods than anything else -- and while we're sure some accountant at Apple has a spreadsheet showing the exact failure rate is acceptable, all we've got right now is story after story of these things blowing up with zero context. So here's our suggestion to Apple: maybe instead of having lawyers draft individual settlement agreements full of impenetrable and scary legalese for each and every jilted iPod owner out there, why not simply fess up to the problem, let people know exactly how common it is and how to avoid it, and provide a dead-simple replacement option for people who've had their iPods go up in smoke? That would put everyone at ease, and make these types of stories much less likely to blow up in a media feeding frenzy. Or, you know, do nothing because overwhelming market share inevitably leads to arrogant laziness -- your call.
[Via TUAW]
Is the Apple Reality Distortion field close to collapsing?
Paul got you on that hush money comment. That is simply how it works when you go to a company and want money for anything that you claimed happened. They don't have to admit liability and you don't get to run around saying they are liable. We put language to that effect in all settlement agreements otherwise settling someone's claim would appear as an admission of guilt or liability.
Why this is news: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00596/p5ipod_385x185_596820a.jpg
Settle down, already. She's 11.
@Scuba Steve, read the articles on this, she was never in any danger. Her dad dropped the iPod, probably breaking the battery, so it started smoking, then her dad threw it out a door and it exploded once it hit the ground.
I am pretty sure all lithium batteries catch fire or explode when they are broke open.
As the fanbois would suggest: it's not Apple's fault but those cheap, crummy ASIAN battery manufacturers.
(of course, following Apple specs)...
It doesn't matter. You're buying the product from Apple. They are responsible...
I must be one of the lucky few that haven't had any of my apple ipods blow up. Whew!
I would like to have my iPod nano and touch replaced or money refunded at this point. They are clearly unsafe devices. Why is the FAA allowing them on airlines?
Maybe just maybe this and other similar issues wouldn't be so bad if Apple didn't seal the friken batteries into the devices. If a lithium ion cell is going bad there is no where for the expanding battery to go and so it builds up pressure until it pops hisses. There is no way to know if your battery is busting out of its casing or anything since its so tightly integrated and kept tight.
Can't wait until more of the Apple laptops with sealed in battery do the same thing just in a larger scale.
"...offering a full refund if the family agreed to keep the deal confidential. That's actually totally standard practice when companies settle out-of-warranty claims..."
That is news to me. At least in nordic europe that would be a new innovation from lawyers. I've never heard of anybody having to sign something like that or even suggested.
"The Trading Standards Institute said that it could not comment on whether such letters were standard across the industry..." says at the end so it sounds like it was news to the institute too.
Confidential agreements might be a norm in USA but not in europe. Or am I wrong?
Could we have a poll of countries where onfidental agreements are standard, out of quarantee or not.
Comment after this with a country and if you have been asked or heard of similar contract for refund. If you have been asked to agree to this was the case out of quarantee or not.
So comment with:
1. Country
2. Asked to sign a confidentially agreement
3. Out of quarantee or when quarantee was still in force
Unless you're a complete moron (possible), there's little to misinterpret in a letter which essentially says "Here's your money, because we're nice, now don't blab that we gave you this out of warranty because we're not admitting blame."
However, if you can throw terms like "it's a life sentence!" at a newspaper, you might get your name in print... which to a lot of people in my country, who apparently lead very dull lives, is very important. It's presumably cost them their refund though. Bargain, I guess?
@ Hawkman
Here in the UK we have something called the Sale of Goods Act. This supersedes any kind of warranty put in place by either the manufacturer or the retailer and basically can be boiled down thus:
- Anything you buy should last a 'reasonable amount of time', up to a maximum of 6 years (after which you're on your own).
- During the first year after purchase, any faults should be taken to the retailer first. During the first 6 months, it's up to the retailer to prove there wasn't a fault. After that, it's up to you to prove there was.
Now, this first section is up for debate and can be down to a judge to decide, but a common sense and general market approach tends to be taken - for example, a £10 budget toaster from Asda (Wal Mart) you'd be happy with anything over 6 months, to be honest. A £1500 OLED TV, you're talking the full 6 years. Something like an iPod would fall into the 2-4 year bracket, based on price and technological progression. So, regardless of whether it was in warranty or not, the iPod Touch should still be covered under the Sale of Goods Act, seeing as it has yet to reach its second birthday.
For this second section, this guy has loads of proof from around the world that Apple devices have had battery problems. It would be up to Apple or the retailer (Argos) to demonstrate that in fact, these incidents reflect a miniscule proportion of a percent, rather than a wide-spread defect. However, a judge is still likely to rule that merely dropping a device like an iPod should not reasonably be expected to result in any kind of fire, let alone an explosion. No other devices in similar product ranges (MP3 players, PMPs, phones, portable games consoles) behave in the same way when dropped.
So therefore, regardless of this device being out of warranty, and regardless of the father dropping it, Apple would likely be required under UK law to either repair or replace or refund as though there was a manufacturing fault, seeing as the Sale of Goods Act in effect 'extends' the warranty past the first year and dropping the iPod would not usually result in flames and total device destruction. Therefore, offering a refund on the condition that no mention is made of the incident is actually a contravention of the father's statutory rights, whereby he is entitled to a repair, replacement or refund for faulty goods.
In short, Apple should have apologised and sent a replacement with a simple "without prejudice to liability" cover note, rather than adding a 'no discussion permitted' clause.
No admission of liability, and no threatening behaviour from over zealous lawyers. Everyone wins.
According to the article, the condition was, "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential". Sounds ok to me; it's the agreement, not the incident. Standard out-of-court-settlement stuff, keeping mum about the specifics so that every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't expect cash for an old iPod. Plus, they get the money without, apparently, having to prove anything – so Apple can attach all the conditions they like. If the family don't like it, they can go to small claims and try to prove the iPod was defective.
I'm not saying this was handled as magnificently as it perhaps could have been; just as well or better than you'd expect, and nowhere near as badly as the gentleman involved would have us believe. I'd be chuffed to get my money back without any hassle, and I think any average person would be.
It may sound standard out of court settlement, in america, but its unheard of in europe.
In cases like this european distributors usually replace the product, for good will. They don't ask for gag orders or contracts.
Now that apple tried to use american modus operandi they were hit with 'Streisand effect'. By trying to control the publicity apple gave it more publicity. If they just had paid the girl, or given a new product only her friends had heard of the insident, less than a dozen people. Now its gawked by milloins.
And now that the explosions gotten this much publicity we can expect more people with exploded ipods to come forward. It doesnt matter how rare it is, there will be some and each will get their 15 mins. And each 15 mins is more bad rep for ipods.
All this publicity might make ipods electronics Ford Pinto.
Pinto has a reputation of being a fire deathtrap from the publicity of a court case. But in fact it wan't any worse than other cars of that time period. Just one court case gave consumers image pinto=fire. If apple doesnt change their policy ipods might go the way of pinto.
ok, this writeup came off too much like running to apple's defense.
Apple stock is probably not too valuable right now. Google Voice app rejection and exploding iPods in the news? It would be a shame is their investors weren't selling it off
Paul, no new apple gadget out for you to go wait in line to get tomorrow? If not, just die, you are not needed by us or Jobs.
Everyone hates lawyers... until you need one.
HUGE difference between "defective" and "exploding." Defective is a DOA unit, scratches, glitches, etc. Exploding is product liability, and is acceptable 0% of the time. In warranty or out. Dropped, thrown, dunked in water, etc. If the unit cannot handle conditions that are absolutely guranteed to happen very, very often without the risk of bodily harm, then the product should be recalled as it is dangerous. Apple should be giving these people refunds, new units, damages, and kissing their asses in repentant reverence, praying they do not sue.
i hate you.
seriously, why don't you go to TUAW and leave us alone? you only ever comment on Apple stories anyway, and i'm sure people there would like you a lot more.
love the writing. absolutely love it.
Oh my goodness! Apple agrees to a payout on an out-of-warranty iPod - those evil, evil Cupertino-residing bastards!
This poor family, who dropped their out-of-warranty iPod, then decided that a replacement new iPod for their out-of-warranty iPod was not enough despite it being more than they could have expected, then tried to shake down Apple for more money. That poor, honest family.
And The Times, bastion of journalistic integrity, doing their public duty by knowingly colluding with an individual in their attempt to defraud a company by using public pressure to force said company into an unreasonable payout. What a paragon of virtue The Times is!
This is all just nonsense. If idiots want to believe this stunningly moronic Apple-hate–mongering then they're welcome to ... that's why they're idiots, after all. But for anyone in the media to not recognise a shake-down attempt when they see it, or to confuse a gag order with a confidentiality clause in a proposed agreement, is beyond the pale.
iPlode
It really isn't going to take much to bankrupt Liverpool.
And I think they're already into cannabalism and (shudder) network television. Actually, scrub that last point. All the council houses will have a Sky dish on the side, paid out of their Benefits.
It seems the iGrenade app is a little too authentic. sos