Apple Tries To Gag Owner of Exploding iPod 475
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the streisand-this dept.
from the streisand-this dept.
David Gerard writes "The Times in London reports that Apple attempted to silence a father and daughter with a gagging order after the child's iPod music player exploded and the family sought a refund from the company. Well, at least they're not Microsoft. Or something."
It turned me into a newt! (Score:2, Insightful)
Customer service is a cost. But it also buys goodwill when done right.
It's sad that Apple has done this and marred their customer-centric aura. However, such settlement terms are really par for the course.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
What customer centric aura? Apple have been pulling stunts like this for a long time now...
The only reason I have an iPod touch is, at the time I got it, nothing else really fitted the bill for what I wanted.
Is this uncommon? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Times has learnt that the company would offer the family a full refund only if they were willing to sign a settlement form. The proposed agreement left them open to legal action if they ever disclosed the terms of the settlement.
I don't see where it says they can't say the iPod exploded.
I do see where it says they can't disclose the terms of the settlement, which is absolutely normal and common as far as settlement language goes.
Was there something newsworthy here that I missed?
iDiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, such settlement terms are really par for the course.
Do you have examples of other companies doing this? Note, he wasn't asking for compensation, just a refund.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
What customer centric aura? Apple have been pulling stunts like this for a long time now...
The only reason I have an iPod touch is, at the time I got it, nothing else really fitted the bill for what I wanted.
So you only purchased it...because you liked the product.?
Sounds like apple made a product that you wanted. Sounds like they design with the consumer in mind.
Apple vs. Microsof (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always thought Apple was just as greedy and immoral as Microsoft.
Re:Is this uncommon? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never heard of anyone having to sign anything when given a refund (for whatever reason), let alone not being able to tell anyone about the simple existence of it (see later - it's not just the terms, but "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential").
Did anyone claim "they can't say the iPod exploded"?
Was there something newsworthy here that I missed?
I find it ironic that when there'd bad publicity for Apple, we hear pleading that it's not newsworthy. Well, every Iphone story we get day after day isn't really newsworthy - the Apple publicity works both ways.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sensationalism ftw! (Score:3, Insightful)
The letter also stated that, in accepting the money, Mr Stanborough was to "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential", and that any breach of confidentiality "may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties".
Gag?! Sensationalism ftw!
Where I come from we call that buying silence. Everyone tries for that stuff, if there wasn't Apple nobody would care.
The real story here is that we have an exploding iPod and pictures of the result.
Re:Is this uncommon? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Times has learnt that the company would offer the family a full refund only if they were willing to sign a settlement form. The proposed agreement left them open to legal action if they ever disclosed the terms of the settlement.
I don't see where it says they can't say the iPod exploded.
I do see where it says they can't disclose the terms of the settlement, which is absolutely normal and common as far as settlement language goes.
Was there something newsworthy here that I missed?
Even if a gag order is a normal part of a settlement, it is an unwanted part and an indication of a business which does not value its consumers. A business to asking someone to keep quiet in order to have a problem resolved is pretty arrogant.
Re:Apple vs. Microsof (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always thought Apple was just as greedy and immoral as Microsoft.
SOMEBODY has to pay for Steve Jobs' liver...
Tell me again (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me again why Apple's not Evil ?
Re:Is this uncommon? (Score:3, Insightful)
A business to asking someone to keep quiet in order to have a problem resolved is pretty arrogant.
To honest consumers like you and me and them? Sure. But the article notes that this is more common on older iPods (imagine that - fancy newfangled batteries are more prone to trouble as they get older?) and from a corporate lawyer's viewpoint, having settlements and their terms made public only increases the risk of people running 250V through their years-old iPods in hopes of getting a shiny new one.
Re:Surprises me this doesn't happen more often (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iDiots... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What if this happend on an airoplane? (Score:2, Insightful)
Li-Ion batteries contain a lot of energy, and they will (not may, WILL) occasionally do this. The frequency depends on the quality of the plant that manufactured the battery, but even the very best plant will put out batteries that will do this from time to time. Put any weight on the battery, or don't allow it to dissipate its heat while in use, and the battery suddenly becomes a prime candidate for a meltdown, and possibly a catastrophic one.
Frankly, I'd be FAR more concerned about, say, your average "long battery life" laptop. If one of those suckers goes up, there's a lot more battery to go "boom", a lot more fumes released, etc. An iPod/iPhone has a small enough battery that any physical harm would probably be limited to the owner and maybe their seatmates, and the fumes would be dissipate pretty quickly. A large laptop battery could cause harm over several rows, and possibly even cause some minor damage to the aircraft (nothing it couldn't land with, but enough to cause a divert).
Given the minuscule chances that any one battery will decide that it wants to go "blammo", the risk is about as statistically significant as hitting the lottery. If you short, compress or overheat the battery, you increase your chances somewhat, but still we're talking lottery statistics. But the risk is real, and it exists in every device containing a battery (and especially Li-Ion).
no the real story is why has it become acceptable (Score:1, Insightful)
to hide the truth simply because it might hurt a corporation?
Re:Surprises me this doesn't happen more often (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
I go through a lot of Apple hardware in the course of my business. Any time I have a problem I try to walk into an Apple store to get it taken care of. Their face to face CS is excellent, over the phone is pretty much the same as everyone else.
This is not unusual for companies that position themselves as high end brands. If you can pull it off, pretend you are going to buy a Cartier watch in a Cartier store and they'll outfit you with a Cohiba to smoke and some high end scotch to drink while you make up your mind. Free shoe shine. Ridiculous stuff.
Apple the new Microsfot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Standard Operating Procedure (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, and more importantly, it's pretty standard for a company to require non-disclosure when a settlement agreement is made. In fact, I'd wager that 99% of all settlement agreements made have a non-disclosure clause and the 1% that don't are made by people without a clue.
A settlement implies compensation, not a simple refund. They are legally obliged under consumer law in this case to give a full *no-strings* refund. If they had *also* offered compensation for the inconvience etc. *then* they would have been entitled to ask for non-disclosure in exchange.
Essentially they were trying to con the customer into signing an unnecessary non-disclosure in return for nothing at all, and hoping they were unfamiliar with consumer law.
This negates your entire argument, which smells badly of desparate fanboyism.
Re:Is this uncommon? (Score:3, Insightful)
It does seem like it was a standard settlement boilerplate, and the family misinterpreted it. Mind you, companies are happy to barf legalese at us when we can misunderstand it in their favour, so I'm happy to see someone misunderstand that legalese in a way that harms a company's PR.
Re:Apple vs. Microsof (Score:5, Insightful)
How is being known as a company that issues gag orders when their products are dangerously defective "in the best interests of the stockholders"?
You'd think building a good corporate image and excellent customer service would be in the best interest of the stockholders, since such companies are more successful long-term.
This is one of the reasons I think we should have high capital gains taxes on ALL short-term gains. Do it on a sliding scale. 90% for a month, 80% for 3 months, 60% for 6 months, etc.. going down to zero for very long term investments.
I bet these shenanigans would stop quickly if LONG TERM growth were rewarded, and short term gains ignored.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:iDiots... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why aren't they? The Streisand effect is only a Slashdot meme in name, it is fairly common sense that this sort of thing would happen in an age where information travels as rapidly as it does. Why doesn't anyone at the legal team think about things a little bit before they act? It would be in everyone's (yes, even the lawyers') best interest to use a bit of common sense in these sorts of things.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they design with the consumer in mind.
Delivering products that have the consumer in mind, and having corporate policies that also have the consumer in mind are two entirely different things! I'm sorry, Apple fans, but Apple is just as hognoxious as Microsoft in many respects. Better quality products? Sure, I suppose. Less bloodthirsty management? Nope.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with your methodology in determining that they are a good company from your experience is the fact that you paid twice as much for the computer. Of course they are going to be "nice" to you for paying 2x the cost, they love people like you. You could have gotten a similar experience (except without the wait or multiple returns) by purchasing TWO of the same non-Apple computer. When the first one started to go tits up, just swap it out for the second one and you've a) fixed the problem yourself, b) not had to wait for the repair.
Alternately, you could have put 1/2 the cost in a savings account for those 2.5 years, earned some interest, and then purchased a new non-Apple computer that is 4x the speed as your previous one with 8x the RAM and 4x the hard drive space for the same or less than what you put in your savings.
So yeah... just because they "treated you real nice like" doesn't mean they didn't rape you.
Re:iDiots... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is Tech people aren't in the marketing department of Apple. It's normal Business School folks that just happen to be working at Apple. They don't have a clue about computers just as much as the average Joe American.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
I was disappointed in the response by Trading Standards, who compared to other consumer protection bodies around the world are generally good eggs:
"The Trading Standards Institute said that it could not comment on whether such letters were standard across the industry, but that it could understand that Apple would want to protect its reputation by trying to reach a confidential settlement."
Apple isn't trying to protect its reputation. Apple's reputation INCLUDES exploding iPods - albeit a pretty small number of them. What Apple's trying to do by gagging people whose iPods explode is FALSIFY its reputation; making it appear that the problem doesn't exist.
I hate to say it but, there appears to be a little wriggling worm at the center of that nice shiny, tasty-looking apple.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with this sentiment, and as someone who owns a lot of Apple gear, I'd add that my experience has been pleasant insofar as the electronics works well, but their customer care leaves much to be desired. I also think Apple's iCulture of iSecrecy has gone iTooFar. The need to control every aspect of the user experience leads Apple to do evil things (whereas Microsoft, on the other hand, is just evil).
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's assuming you were born into the Apple Hegemony.
I personally find OS X to be user unfriendly.
Finder is the chief offender in making for a User Hostile interface.
Re:iDiots... (Score:1, Insightful)
You say that as if you are forced to do those things every day, when in reality they are unnecessary or, at best, very infrequent actions. You also forget that these things also make it possible to make your computer to work the way you want it to, not the way some company dictates. With an Apple, you either work their way or you don't work at all. With a PC, Windows or *nix based, you can pretty much customise anything you want.
Besides, the truly tech savvy would never say that their computer getting in the way is a bad thing. Part of the joy of using a computer for a techie IS having the computer get in the way.
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it ever annoy you when on second down an NFL linebacker tackles a running back behind the line of scrimmage and comes up pumping his fist in the air, as if he single-handedly won the Super Bowl?
Does it ever bug you when a major league soccer player scores into an empty net and runs the field with their shirt over their head, as if the Copa Mundial is theirs, alone, for eternity?
And in both cases, they are merely doing their job to expectations?
We're so ill-served by coporations that when one just does the right thing, we celebrate it as a happening. So much so that we even celebrate when one would offer to fix a problem they know about, have avoided a complete resolution to, and decries their supposed technological brilliance and superior engineering.
I do this too. My new Bluetooth headset is fritzed. I was honestly suprised the company didn't even squeak, but asked me to mail it back for a new one. I was gassed. Then I realized, hey, they should do that, it was about 3 weeks old. Well, we'll see.
Re:Is this uncommon? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a lot of people aren't getting is the role the legal system is playing here.
If this were merely a "refund" as you suggest, the courts wouldn't be involved at all. They are, becasue it's a settlement agreement. Apple is trying to get by with their end of the settlement being a refund of the purchase price, which is insane... but then the family doens't have to accept the settlement, do they?
Which brings us to why this is not, as the headline, summary, and article all try to mislead you into thinking, a gag order. I do find it interesting that none of them actually use the phrase "gag order" - choosing instead "tries to gag" and "a gagging order" - strongly suggesting IMO that the author knows full well that it isn't a gag order, but is deliberately trying to mislead readers.
Again this is because of the role of the court. A gag order is imposed unilaterally. The party subject to it doens't get to agree or disagree; they obey or they are in violation of a court order. If the family had agreed to and accepted the settlement (which they apparently didn't), then the court would enforce the terms they agreed to. If they tried to violate the confidentiality terms, then a gag order might be issued.
Being offered a settlement you don't like is a world different from being silenced by an order of the court. It's also a world different from negotiating a refund without court involvement.
Re:Exploding ipod? Don't worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I trade-in my 72 downloads for a female virgin? Actually I'll just settle for any female around age 20 and less than 140 pounds
140lbs sounds great until you realize she's 4'9". Never mind the fact that if you are chosing a partner based on age and weight you are bound to be very disappointed.
Aside-
I don't understand the male obsession with virgins. They're messy.
They are also typically disease free, not played out, and won't know enough to realize you suck at intercourse.
Aside -
I don't understand the male obsession with 20 year olds. They don't know shit!
Re:Is this uncommon? (Score:1, Insightful)
(imagine that - fancy newfangled batteries are more prone to trouble as they get older?)
You say that like having a consumer device degrade into a bomb is commonplace.
[H]aving settlements and their terms made public only increases the risk of people running 250V through their years-old iPods in hopes of getting a shiny new one
Wow. Just...wow. The amount of delusions you're having to pile up to keep Apple guilt free in your mind is just astounding.
Keep fighting that good fight!
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:3, Insightful)
Such settlement terms are par for the course if you sue them. But if you ask for a refund? Just a "Hey, this thing you sold me blew up. Can I have my money back?" incurs a lifetime of legal liability if I tell anyone about it?
May as well just sue them then, get a judgment, and be able to tell everyone about it. Or tell the world and then demand your refund (which you're still entitled to).
Re:It turned me into a newt! (Score:3, Insightful)
I buy car insurance and have never used it either, except I don't consider it getting nothing in return.
Depending on the cost of the warranty it may or may not be worth it from a pure financial stand point.
Re:Consumer protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it expected to explode violently when dropped?
No. There are tens of millions of iPods out there. Lots of people must drop them. If they were expected to explode when dropped, the streets would be littered with singed and blood-spattered white earbuds, and Apple would have had their asses sued off ages ago. However there is a possibility that anything with a lithium battery could explode violently if dropped, faulty or not.
If so are there warnings?
I'm sure that buried in amongst all the warnings about not playing music too loud, not crossing the road while listening to music, not inserting iPods in various bodily orifices, not eating iPods, not garrotting people with the headphone cord, not touching the live wires if the charger breaks, not hacking people to death with a machette (while listening to an iPod) there is something on the lines of "if iPod starts making a hissing noise and smoking, do not hold it up to your ear" - although the victim in this case seems to have worked that one out for himself.
That's kinda the problem with the zero-risk society.
If not, perhaps it was a defect?
Perhaps. Perhaps that was why Apple offered to give the guy a refund? The real question is, was it a systematic defect affecting all iPods - or is it just that Apple is a more tempting target for journalists and ambulance-chasers, and whenever some cheap no-brand kit goes kaboom it doesn't make the Times?
OK, that's a sign from above... (Score:1, Insightful)
Modding down by Apple fanboiz in 5...4...3...
Apple Has No Clothes (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, what a surprise!
Re:Exploding ipod? Don't worry! (Score:2, Insightful)