does it assure any advantage to the consumer?

NO

does it take more money to the “Apple system”?

YES

does Apple make it QUITE clear it is a particular solution (compared to the whole rest of phones)?

NO

do you still love Apple?

GO TO A REHAB

Rich

PS: Even after so many days of iPhone launch, about 100% of our website’s mobile traffic is coming from pocket PCs and blackberries.

its. a. phone. for the love of pete!

yes they do die out eventually, my old Samsung doesn’t last the week like it used too, you seeing lawsuits?
okay, the battery is fixed inside, so is the ipods and for 40$ you can get it done by your local geek shop in a years time when your battery is not even close to dead.
Why worry that in 2 years your battery might be dead? looking at the speed people are putting down 600bucks…
Steve will launch his iPhoneNano and people will buy it again! with still 80% of their battery left!
and yes the spanish dude did have his 5 minutes of fame, give the little child something to play with…

Seeing your comment that they are a publicly traded company and must be responsilbe destroyed any type of credibility you had in making an argument. To think that someone like you actually reads Techcrunch is an insult. I understand the arguments for both sides. Apples, legally, and Jose’s frustration as a consumer. All I see on these comments is people bashing Jose for suing a corporation that has had previous Battery life issues on their devices. Had Jose’s name been Arrington, im sure posters would reason and see his perspecvtcive and make some type of intellectual conclusion that yes, maybe it is unfair, or just give their two cents in a more aceptable manner. People here have posted about his ethnicity, his last name etc., so there is no denying that his name had influenced some readers.

It is quite humanly possible for someone to want to sue because a corporation as big and “responsible” as Apple (who by the way bashes MS foe being square, sells people on Apple being different, more artistic, more subjective) doesent allow for the image they are trying to portray to the masses.

Arguments can be made for both consumer and coproration…..so be easy fellas.

July 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Tony, please… “assuming the product works the way it is supposed to is very pro Apple/Corporation”. Save your lefty anti-consumer corporate fear for someone else. Yes, I assume that the product will live up to its specifications, because Apple is a publicly-traded company and can be held responsible for the claims they make. If the iPhone batteries do not live up to Apple’s stated specifications, then Mr. Trujillo would have a reasonable case to bring against Apple, but a pre-emptive class action suit against a theoretical battery problem that cannot yet possibly be proven is a waste of the court’s time. Also, the fact that he has named AT&T in this suit should show you what is true goal is… $$$

At least Jose has something going for him, he could be president one day. Distort the facts to suit your goals, preemptive strike, everyone thinks your a moron. Jose for 08′

People are getting dumber and dumber and getting rewarded for it. Ridiculous.

The average Joe doesn’t buy a $600 cell phone with the intent of replacing it’s battery every year. Granted, the average Joe doesn’t buy a $600 cell phone, but if any of you really think this wasn’t a deliberate attempt on Apple’s part to keep their hands in your pockets, then gimmie a call because I got bridge in Brooklyn I’m willing to sell you.

With that said, I think the lawsuit is frivolous because all Jose had to do was take the phone back (albeit, with a 10% restocking fee which, in my opinion, is just as frivolous as his law suit). Bottom line, screw Jose, Apple and AT&T. They’re all greedy.

With Apple, it seems only aesthetics count.

Why am I not surprised? Not that I support stupid lawsuits but there is a point there - why doesn’t Apple the take time to build a better battery instead of plunking down all of this fancy technology on batteries built on 19th century technology?

You think they would’ve learned from their iPod issues!

I wasn’t warned that I shouldn’t put it in a microwave oven. No sticker, no little pictogram in the user guide.

Anybody wants to join me?

Or is it that they’ll just do whatever they get money for?

I hope they hit him with both barrels. Lawsuits like these make everything we buy more expensive, tie up our legal system and take the place of interesting posts on Techcrunch.

Also consider this fact about battery life. Has Jose T proven that the iPhone has already failed after the claimed 300 charges? Furthermore, what quantifiable damage did Apple’s ‘claim’ cause during his (I assume) 5 weeks of use? And what has AT&T got to do with battery charges?

My dear Tony (38), I’m not a corporate-kisser, I do acknowledge the battery issues such as being non user-replaceable. But to choose to sue a company rather than completely return a product on the basis of an issue that, at the moment, is abstract AND unquantifiable at the moment, is dubious.

So to the people who completely and undeniably side with Mr. Jose T. I have two good pieces of advice:

(1) Get a real job, money from lawsuits are still iffy.
(2) Get a life, you can even organize it with your new iPhone

…$75,000… Good Lord!

I sourced the original appearance of this from CNET to Gizmodo to MSNBC, with links to actual battery info from Apple:

http://joemaller.com/2007/07/2.....e-round-2/

Quite true, but understand that there is such a thing as ‘consumer responsibility’… do you blindly fork over $400-$500 without checking the merchandise first? This guy IS NOT a victim, he is an extortionist and/or opportunist. period. I will smash Jose BECAUSE I read the argument he presented, it was pretending to be informative and at the same time, misleading.

Not everyone has the money to throw at things without at least getting useable details about it, especially an IT gadget that DOES require some obvious thought before any purchase is done. If the phone was like under $75, then maybe your argument would be stronger.