Why is the battery soldered into the IPhone ? Bitch ! ;)
Skybuck Flying
(Apple sued over IPhone ! Bitch ! ;))
I knew Apple would get sued over this as soon as I read about this battery
issue.
One question on my mind is:
Why is it soldered in ?
Why can't the battery simply be removed ?
Very strange.
Bye,
Skybuck.
Skybuck Flying
I myself would not have made the mistake of buying on IPhone if I was
interested in buying a mobile phone ;)
However my mother may have.
Here is how my mother might have bought it and be deceived:
1. Mum goes to store.
2. Mum sees nice phone.
3. Mum thinks ohhh nice looking.
4. Mum thinks it's got all these nice features.
5. Reseller thinks: HA ! A sucker which doesn't know about the battery
issue.
SELL SELL SELL SELL.
6. Reseller doesn't tell mum about the battery issue.
7. My ends up getting a contract and the phone etc.
(When company's have you on contract they think they can mess with you
anyway they want LOL except with me and other smart people <- block bank
account that's my advice for ya ;))
Anyway the story goes on:
Reality:
8. Now my Mum comes home... and I tell her mum... that's a crappy phone.
9. Mum doesn't care and still uses it.
Alternatively reality:
10. Mum does not have smart son.
11. Mum uses phone for one or two years maybe even less.
12. Battery goes dead.
13. Then mum suddenly finds out the battery is non replaceble.
Alternatively reality 2:
14. Mum damages phone in an attempt to get battery loose.
Alternatively reailty 3:
15. Mum does not want to send her precious phone back to some factory. She
doesn't trust she will get her phone back. All important information is in
there.
16. Mum is stupid, doesn't know how to operate the phone except make a call
and maybe make an sms... Mum doesn't know how to get info out of phone.
Question:
How to fucking backup the IPhone's data ? LOL.
17. Mum is now stuck in a shitty situation. She can't afford to loose all
the numbers.
18. Mum finally decides to write down the phone numbers. Loss of time oh
well.
Alternatively reality 4:
19. Mum does not know the data will be erased.
20. Mum's data is erased.
21. Mum looses all her contacts information <- very sad.
Alternatively realitiy 5:
22. Mum returns phone to the store after smart son said it's crap.
23. Store does not return money, Store does not terminate contract.
24. Mum needs to pay up.
Here's where skybuck says: Fuck you people. Block their bank account fuck em
:)
Only if I would be sure to win ofcourse in a possible lawsuit or something
anyway.... :)
25. Terminating within a certain grace period should definetly be possible.
Possible damages:
1. Loss of time.
2. Loss of contacts. <- damage to her social network.
3. Loss of life quality. <- missed oppertunities for social engagement.
4. Loss of money. <- anti competive battery program. Only Apple's batteries
will do.
5. Loss of phone in mail system.
6. Damage to phone during transport.
7. Loss of phone, replaced with damaged phone.
8. Loss of money. <- Only AT&T will do, anti competive program.
Me wonder if the battery will explode because of missing metal shell.
Wow that would be something wouldn't it if these things start exploding next
to somebody's head LOL.
What a joke.
Bye,
Skybuck.
Gary Tait
@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl:
> Why is it soldered in ?
>
> Why can't the battery simply be removed ?
>
That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
Joel Kolstad
news:Xns997E5BE2EADC4...@142.77.1.194...
> That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
> batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
iPods aren't designed to have their batteries replaced either. A lot of
manufacturers proceeded to follow Apple's suit and now there are many MP3
players without replaceable batteries (especially smaller, simpler models
where adding removable batteries really would tend to impact cost and
styling).
Since there is plenty of precedent for releasing products with (relatively)
non-replaceable batteries and making no significnat mention as such on the
product's packaging (think... electric razors and toothbrushes...), I predict
that Apple will prevail with nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- if even
that.
linnix
wrote:
> "Gary Tait" <classic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns997E5BE2EADC4...@142.77.1.194...
>
> > That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
> > batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
>
> iPods aren't designed to have their batteries replaced either. A lot of
> manufacturers proceeded to follow Apple's suit and now there are many MP3
> players without replaceable batteries (especially smaller, simpler models
> where adding removable batteries really would tend to impact cost and
> styling).
Yes, we are thinking along the same line. We can cut production cost
by if our device's batteries are fixed. But we don't need the
customer to return the device, we can just need to send out a
disposable replacement electronics and battery module.
>
> Since there is plenty of precedent for releasing products with (relatively)
> non-replaceable batteries and making no significnat mention as such on the
> product's packaging (think... electric razors and toothbrushes...), I predict
> that Apple will prevail with nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- if even
> that.
The problem with Apple is that the iPhone is tied to the phone
service. Do you need a second cell phone when the iPhone is out for
"maintance service"? Or, should every customer buys two iPhones?
Perhaps that's the goal of Apple.
Joerg
> On Jul 31, 9:09 am, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Gary Tait" <classic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:Xns997E5BE2EADC4...@142.77.1.194...
>>
>>
>>>That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
>>>batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
>>
>>iPods aren't designed to have their batteries replaced either. A lot of
>>manufacturers proceeded to follow Apple's suit and now there are many MP3
>>players without replaceable batteries (especially smaller, simpler models
>>where adding removable batteries really would tend to impact cost and
>>styling).
>
>
> Yes, we are thinking along the same line. We can cut production cost
> by if our device's batteries are fixed. But we don't need the
> customer to return the device, we can just need to send out a
> disposable replacement electronics and battery module.
>
And (hope to) create additional business profits from such "service".
Problem is that at some point word gets around that there may be a
competitor who allows the use of a somewhat standard battery, at least
one you can buy at stores like Batteries Plus. After that many customers
don't buy the semi-disposable stuff anymore (I don't). Then your luck
runs out ;-)
>
>>Since there is plenty of precedent for releasing products with (relatively)
>>non-replaceable batteries and making no significnat mention as such on the
>>product's packaging (think... electric razors and toothbrushes...), I predict
>>that Apple will prevail with nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- if even
>>that.
>
>
> The problem with Apple is that the iPhone is tied to the phone
> service. Do you need a second cell phone when the iPhone is out for
> "maintance service"? Or, should every customer buys two iPhones?
> Perhaps that's the goal of Apple.
>
--
Regards, Joerg
linnix
wrote:
> linnix wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 9:09 am, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Gary Tait" <classic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Xns997E5BE2EADC4...@142.77.1.194...
>
> >>>That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
> >>>batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
>
> >>iPods aren't designed to have their batteries replaced either. A lot of
> >>manufacturers proceeded to follow Apple's suit and now there are many MP3
> >>players without replaceable batteries (especially smaller, simpler models
> >>where adding removable batteries really would tend to impact cost and
> >>styling).
>
> > Yes, we are thinking along the same line. We can cut production cost
> > by if our device's batteries are fixed. But we don't need the
> > customer to return the device, we can just need to send out a
> > disposable replacement electronics and battery module.
>
> And (hope to) create additional business profits from such "service".
Just reasonable cost recovery. We don't need to "rob" the customers
like Apple ($79 for battery?). We don't need to have usage
disruptions by returning the devices. The customer can just pre-order
the "tune-up kit" in advance. The "tune-up kit" contains degradable
transistors (as others complainted) and batteries. It would not cost
much more than buying from stores. The button cells costs $2 to $3
each in stores and $0.2 to $0.3 wholesale. We can provide at
reasonable price of $5 to $10, including two cells and electronic
board.
> Problem is that at some point word gets around that there may be a
> competitor who allows the use of a somewhat standard battery, at least
> one you can buy at stores like Batteries Plus. After that many customers
> don't buy the semi-disposable stuff anymore (I don't). Then your luck
> runs out ;-)
But people are still buying inkjet printers, plasma TVs and cars.
They all need regular "tune-ups". It depends on how much you charge.
Joel Kolstad
news:1185903679....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The problem with Apple is that the iPhone is tied to the phone
> service. Do you need a second cell phone when the iPhone is out for
> "maintance service"? Or, should every customer buys two iPhones?
> Perhaps that's the goal of Apple.
As others have pointed out, it is quite odd that Apple doesn't make the
battery swap something that can be performed at their stores... you go in,
hand the guy your iPhone, come back an hour later, and -- poof! -- new battery
installed, no significant impact due to being without phone service. (Anyone
whose life is disrupted by a planned phone outage of an hour *does* need two
phones. :-) ) Hopefully Apple will wisen up and take that course... perhaps
they figure they couldn't immediately due to the need to train techs or
something?
linnix
wrote:
No, it's purely for the money. They can train someone to solder in a
couple of hours, if they really want to.
Robert Baer
"No user serviceable parts"?
If it is soldered in, there is at least one damn good reason: to
prevent idiots like you from messing with the goods.
mi...@sushi.com
I think it is reasonable for the electric toothbrushes to have no
replaceable batteries. Given the wet environment, if I had to
manufacture such a device, I would want it completely sealed.
In defense of the electric shavers, you can replace the batteries. It
just isn't a drop in solution. Philips has done a good job in fuel
gauging and battery technology in general. I can't recall how long
I've been using my Philips electric razor with lithium polymer
battery.
Regarding Apple, there is no defense for their crappy engineering.
Joerg
Depending on how much up-time you get out of it $5-$10 may still be a
lot of money. For a rechargeable it sounds ok though.
>
>>Problem is that at some point word gets around that there may be a
>>competitor who allows the use of a somewhat standard battery, at least
>>one you can buy at stores like Batteries Plus. After that many customers
>>don't buy the semi-disposable stuff anymore (I don't). Then your luck
>>runs out ;-)
>
>
> But people are still buying inkjet printers, plasma TVs and cars.
> They all need regular "tune-ups". It depends on how much you charge.
>
Not me :-)
Except cars but there I make sure it's simple and low maintenance. All I
have needed in ten years was one new battery and a set of new tires.
Oh, and I did have an Inkjet and I got really good at refilling
cartridges with an ordinary syringe and ordinary ink from the store. I
used them until the faces began to scrape off. Cheapest per-page printer
I ever had.
>
>>
>>>>Since there is plenty of precedent for releasing products with (relatively)
>>>>non-replaceable batteries and making no significnat mention as such on the
>>>>product's packaging (think... electric razors and toothbrushes...), I predict
>>>>that Apple will prevail with nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- if even
>>>>that.
>>
>>>The problem with Apple is that the iPhone is tied to the phone
>>>service. Do you need a second cell phone when the iPhone is out for
>>>"maintance service"? Or, should every customer buys two iPhones?
>>>Perhaps that's the goal of Apple.
>>
BTW, I don't own an iPod, iPhone or any of that stuff and I don't plan to.
linnix
> >>>Yes, we are thinking along the same line. We can cut production cost
> >>>by if our device's batteries are fixed. But we don't need the
> >>>customer to return the device, we can just need to send out a
> >>>disposable replacement electronics and battery module.
>
> >>And (hope to) create additional business profits from such "service".
>
> > Just reasonable cost recovery. We don't need to "rob" the customers
> > like Apple ($79 for battery?). We don't need to have usage
> > disruptions by returning the devices. The customer can just pre-order
> > the "tune-up kit" in advance. The "tune-up kit" contains degradable
> > transistors (as others complainted) and batteries. It would not cost
> > much more than buying from stores. The button cells costs $2 to $3
> > each in stores and $0.2 to $0.3 wholesale. We can provide at
> > reasonable price of $5 to $10, including two cells and electronic
> > board.
>
> Depending on how much up-time you get out of it $5-$10 may still be a
> lot of money. For a rechargeable it sounds ok though.
Rechargeable doesn't cost that much either. For a $5 retail coin
cell, we can get it for a little over $1 wholesale. Furthermore, you
can get much higher than the 4mA standard current (we need 8 to
10mA). We are looking hard into getting them instead of disposable
cell. The issue is whether to build-in the charger or a standalone
one.
Joerg
Probably a wall wart charger that already has all the agency blessings
is best. Built-in chargers mean a lot of UL, CSA, VDE, TUEV hassle.
Check with Panasonic. I believe they make industrial grade coin cells
that can stand more than 4mA.
Joerg
> On Jul 31, 9:09 am, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Gary Tait" <classic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:Xns997E5BE2EADC4...@142.77.1.194...
>>
>>
>>>That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
>>>batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
>>
>>iPods aren't designed to have their batteries replaced either. A lot of
>>manufacturers proceeded to follow Apple's suit and now there are many MP3
>>players without replaceable batteries (especially smaller, simpler models
>>where adding removable batteries really would tend to impact cost and
>>styling).
>>
>>Since there is plenty of precedent for releasing products with (relatively)
>>non-replaceable batteries and making no significnat mention as such on the
>>product's packaging (think... electric razors and toothbrushes...), I predict
>>that Apple will prevail with nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- if even
>>that.
>
>
> I think it is reasonable for the electric toothbrushes to have no
> replaceable batteries. Given the wet environment, if I had to
> manufacture such a device, I would want it completely sealed.
>
Interestingly ours (Philips Sonicare) came with instructions how to
change them. When one croaked I tried it and found it was all potted up
with epoxy. Inside there was AA cells but with solder tabs.
> In defense of the electric shavers, you can replace the batteries. It
> just isn't a drop in solution. Philips has done a good job in fuel
> gauging and battery technology in general. I can't recall how long
> I've been using my Philips electric razor with lithium polymer
> battery.
>
> Regarding Apple, there is no defense for their crappy engineering.
>
--
Regards, Joerg
Joerg
> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> (Apple sued over IPhone ! Bitch ! ;))
>>
>> I knew Apple would get sued over this as soon as I read about this
>> battery issue.
>>
>> One question on my mind is:
>>
>> Why is it soldered in ?
>>
>> Why can't the battery simply be removed ?
>>
>> Very strange.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Skybuck.
>>
> *NOT* strange; What do you not understand about the (outside) warning
> "No user serviceable parts"?
Fair enough. However, from an attorney's point of view this begs a few
other questions such as:
a. Was that statement prominently visible on the shrink-wrapped box it
came in?
b. If it wasn't, was the buyer adequately informed about the fact at or
prior to purchase?
c. If the buyer wasn't informed about it, was the buyer entitled to a
full refund if he did not like the inaccessible battery?
d. Is the statement on the phone itself large enough so it had to be
noticed right after unpacking? (a little fine print on the back next to
the FCC cert number most likely won't cut it)
e. Pulling hairs here but that's what they'd be doing in court: Can a
state-of-the-art cell phone generally be expected to have a battery that
can be bought as a spare part and is installable by the user?
I am pretty certain a jury would gravitate towards a "yes" for e, after
the attorney argued along the lines of "just like a car can be expected
to have a user accessible spare tire" and so forth. From then on things
would become rather ugly.
mi...@sushi.com
wrote:
> m...@sushi.com wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 9:09 am, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Gary Tait" <classic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Xns997E5BE2EADC4...@142.77.1.194...
>
> >>>That's Apple for you. They, for some reason, don't want users replacing
> >>>batteries. Likely Planned Obsolescence.
>
> >>iPods aren't designed to have their batteries replaced either. A lot of
> >>manufacturers proceeded to follow Apple's suit and now there are many MP3
> >>players without replaceable batteries (especially smaller, simpler models
> >>where adding removable batteries really would tend to impact cost and
> >>styling).
>
> >>Since there is plenty of precedent for releasing products with (relatively)
> >>non-replaceable batteries and making no significnat mention as such on the
> >>product's packaging (think... electric razors and toothbrushes...), I predict
> >>that Apple will prevail with nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- if even
> >>that.
>
> > I think it is reasonable for the electric toothbrushes to have no
> > replaceable batteries. Given the wet environment, if I had to
> > manufacture such a device, I would want it completely sealed.
>
> Interestingly ours (Philips Sonicare) came with instructions how to
> change them. When one croaked I tried it and found it was all potted up
> with epoxy. Inside there was AA cells but with solder tabs.
I'm using a Braun 3D (something like that). I don't believe it can be
opened, but it has been running more years than I can recall.
sleb...@gmail.com
Well, it is actually VERY strange why people are making such a big
fuss over this. When Handspring came out with the Visor Edge (which
IIRC predates iPods by several months) nobody complained that it
doesn't have user replaceable batteries.
OK, so that's not a phone but when later Palm released the Treo600
built-in, non user replaceable batteries, nobody complained. But
suddenly when Apple releases the iPhone without user replaceable
batteries it gets sued and state governments (well, at least one state
government) start asking about it ... well over 3 years after
precedent.
If you try to rationalize it by saying that the iPhone is expensive it
must be noted that the Treo 600 debuted at $449 subsidized, just $50
shy of iPhone.
Another strange thing I find is that some of the loudest voices on the
net complaining about the iPhone are people who doesn't own and
doesn't plan to own one. Is "Apple bashing" the new "Micorsoft
bashing" these days?
Joel Kolstad
news:V%Qri.246$3x...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> I am pretty certain a jury would gravitate towards a "yes" for e, after the
> attorney argued along the lines of "just like a car can be expected to have
> a user accessible spare tire" and so forth. From then on things would become
> rather ugly.
I expect the defense would be for Apple to be able to show *numerous* examples
of products that don't have user-replaceable batteries and don't bother to
state as much anywhere prominently. (Electric razors, toothbrushes, PCs,
iPods, PDAs, etc.) The big difference here is of course that this is a cell
phone, although I wouldn't be surprised if the defense argues that it's more
like "a PDA with cell phone functionality" than "a regular old cell phone," as
they probably couldn't find an example of the later without user-replaceable
batteries (maybe some really cheap phones in other countries?).
If this really is about greed as people suggest, it seems to me that Apple
would still have their $79 "3 day mail-in" option for battery replacement or,
e.g., a $99 "1 hour service in the Apple store" option.
---Joel
Joel Kolstad
> Interestingly ours (Philips Sonicare) came with instructions how to change
> them. When one croaked I tried it and found it was all potted up with epoxy.
> Inside there was AA cells but with solder tabs.
Hmm... my Oral-B Triumph has instructions on how to remove the battery, noting
that doing so will permanently "disable" the unit... because you're ripping
off some power leads that are effectively then impossible to re-connect!
(Kinda like a bee dying after losing its stinger...) They even have a little
diagram of how you use a part of the base to open up the bottom of the brush.
Why do go through this rigamaole at all?
Because they say they're trying to be environmentally sensitive and would like
you to dispose of the battery separately from the rest of the brush.
@!#$@#$)
On the up-side, brush heads for the Oral-B are cheaper than those for
Philips...
linnix
wrote:
But this would defeat the purpose of cost and size reductions. I am
thinking in terms of a flat battery pack mounted directly on the PCB.
> Built-in chargers mean a lot of UL, CSA, VDE, TUEV hassle.
If we stick with USB charging and stay within audio frequencies, it
should not be too difficult to pass regulations. I am thinking about
a two stages booster. USB 5V to 10V booster for charging a 9V battery
and a 9V to 15V booster for the device. By the way, I don't want an
AM radio transmitter in the device (600KHz booster IC).
Joerg
Or go all out and use an ISM frequency like 13.56MHz if it has to be
really small magnetics.
[...]
Joerg
Yep, sounds like lip-service, doesn't it?
> On the up-side, brush heads for the Oral-B are cheaper than those for
> Philips...
>
We buy them when they are on sale :-D
Skybuck Flying
Even to lazy to brush their own teeth ?
Gjez ;)
Bye,
Skybuck.
Skybuck Flying
To people the iphone is like their little baby.
Would you send your little love baby back to some shit farting hufters ?
yahahahahahahaha.
Just to replace the diper ?
I-don't-think-so.
It's a huge insult to all tech lovers !
That's what pisses them off the most !
(And then you gotta pay for it too ! Extra extra extra hatefull ;))
Bye,
Skybuck.
Joerg
> "Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:V%Qri.246$3x...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>I am pretty certain a jury would gravitate towards a "yes" for e, after the
>>attorney argued along the lines of "just like a car can be expected to have
>>a user accessible spare tire" and so forth. From then on things would become
>>rather ugly.
>
>
> I expect the defense would be for Apple to be able to show *numerous* examples
> of products that don't have user-replaceable batteries and don't bother to
> state as much anywhere prominently. (Electric razors, toothbrushes, PCs,
> iPods, PDAs, etc.) The big difference here is of course that this is a cell
> phone, ...
Bingo! And that's what the whole thing will probably percolate up to.
Remember, most of the folks who'd take on something like that will be in
it for one reason: How to make a buck.
> ... although I wouldn't be surprised if the defense argues that it's more
> like "a PDA with cell phone functionality" than "a regular old cell phone," as
> they probably couldn't find an example of the later without user-replaceable
> batteries (maybe some really cheap phones in other countries?).
>
> If this really is about greed as people suggest, it seems to me that Apple
> would still have their $79 "3 day mail-in" option for battery replacement or,
> e.g., a $99 "1 hour service in the Apple store" option.
>
If I was an executive there I'd be feverishly working out something like
this before stuff hits the fan, not afterwards.
sleb...@gmail.com
Exactly the same situation as with the Treo 600 -- same price as the
iPhone and you also still had to pay for battery replacement and you
also had to send you Treo in to get batteries replaced. OK, for the
brave you could have opened the Treo's casing to replace the batteries
yourself once you know where to buy third party batteries on the net
-- but that's the same as with the iPhone.. both will void warranties
and both requires you open something that wasn't meant to be opened by
the user.
A couple of years form now we'll probably see sites on the net
selling third party iPhone batteries and instructions on how to do it
yourself -- same as with the Treo 600 (minus solder, the Treo used a
tiny connector).
And tech lovers back on 2003 loved the Treo 600. Indeed like the
iPhone it was for its time a big lust object. Yet there was no outcry
about non replaceable batteries. Indeed if you google for reviews on
the net even today, you still can't find anyone mentioning that the
Treo's battery is not user replaceable (I should know, I did it when
trying to confirm my statement but couldn't find it mentioned
anywhere. I had to SMS a friend who owned one to confirm it).
So the only difference I see between the Treo 600 and the iPhone is
that you mentioned that people treat their iPhone like their baby
(notwithstanding the fact that it cost the same as the Treo 600 did
when it came out). Which means this whole thing isn't an insult to
tech lovers. It's an insult to over-sensitive, crybaby yuppie fashion
lovers.
sleb...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:V%Qri.246$3x...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > I am pretty certain a jury would gravitate towards a "yes" for e, after the
> > attorney argued along the lines of "just like a car can be expected to have
> > a user accessible spare tire" and so forth. From then on things would become
> > rather ugly.
>
> I expect the defense would be for Apple to be able to show *numerous* examples
> of products that don't have user-replaceable batteries and don't bother to
> state as much anywhere prominently. (Electric razors, toothbrushes, PCs,
> iPods, PDAs, etc.) The big difference here is of course that this is a cell
> phone, although I wouldn't be surprised if the defense argues that it's more
> like "a PDA with cell phone functionality" than "a regular old cell phone," as
> they probably couldn't find an example of the later without user-replaceable
> batteries (maybe some really cheap phones in other countries?).
Example of a cellphone without user replaceable batteries: Treo 600
released in 2003 to rave reviews and absolutely zero complaints from
consumers about non user replaceable batteries. To top it off, the
Treo 600 debuted at a subsidized price of $449, about the same as the
iPhone.
Joel Kolstad
news:1186010561.7...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Example of a cellphone without user replaceable batteries: Treo 600
> released in 2003 to rave reviews and absolutely zero complaints from
> consumers about non user replaceable batteries.
Thanks... I'm sure Apple will make mention of this, and the case will
*probably* be thrown out.
Joerg
Nope, a bit different. Treo was mostly bought by techies as you wrote.
They look at stuff and decide whether or not they can live with that. We
experience that every time we buy some tool and find out the merketeers
over-promised. Then we decide whether to keep it or not, in a calm and
rational fashion.
I am quite certain that iPhones are often bought by regular people,
including many who for financial reasons should not buy it. That's the
kind of clientele that really gets miffed if socked with an unexpected
additional expense. And it's also the kind of people who'll use the
battery as they please, basically like a gas tank. Batteries tend not to
live a long life that way.
lang...@ieee.org
> Joel Kolstad wrote:
> > "Joerg" <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
I believe I read somewhere that a battery change from apple would be
79$ and for an additional 29$ you get another iphone while they do
it.
several place will do it for less and for 20$ you can buy a new
battery the required tools and instructions as a kit
I guess the iphone is mostly a fashion accessory so Apple put form
over function, and it's probably be out of fashion and replaced with
something else before the battery is worn out
-Lasse
-Lasse
sleb...@gmail.com
> On Aug 2, 1:27 am, "Skybuck Flying" <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You don't get it.
>
> > To people the iphone is like their little baby.
>
> > Would you send your little love baby back to some shit farting hufters ?
> > yahahahahahahaha.
>
> > Just to replace the diper ?
>
> > I-don't-think-so.
>
> > It's a huge insult to all tech lovers !
>
> > That's what pisses them off the most !
>
> > (And then you gotta pay for it too ! Extra extra extra hatefull ;))
>
>
> A couple of years form now we'll probably see sites on the net
> selling third party iPhone batteries and instructions on how to do it
> yourself -- same as with the Treo 600 (minus solder, the Treo used a
> tiny connector).
>
HA! Better response than the Treo. We had to wait a whole year before
third parties started coming out with the Treo 600 battery replacement
kits. The iPhone has just been out for some weeks and there is already
one company selling a battery replacement kit:
http://shop.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?prod_id=02068
That green "spoon" thing is nice. An "unsnapper" would be useful for
more than just the iPhone. I wonder if they sell it alone. I wonder if
I can get it from my local electronics parts shop.
Jamie
> Hello,
>
> (Apple sued over IPhone ! Bitch ! ;))
>
> I knew Apple would get sued over this as soon as I read about this battery
> issue.
>
> One question on my mind is:
>
> Why is it soldered in ?
>
> Why can't the battery simply be removed ?
>
> Very strange.
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck.
>
>
worn out before the battery goes bad in 99% of them.
--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
Joerg
> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> (Apple sued over IPhone ! Bitch ! ;))
>>
>> I knew Apple would get sued over this as soon as I read about this
>> battery issue.
>>
>> One question on my mind is:
>>
>> Why is it soldered in ?
>>
>> Why can't the battery simply be removed ?
>>
>> Very strange.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Skybuck.
>>
> It's a throw away society, the Iphone will be obsolete or
> worn out before the battery goes bad in 99% of them.
>
>
Not all of society is. Some of the radios I regularly use are older than
I am.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Hello,
>
> (Apple sued over IPhone ! Bitch ! ;))
>
> I knew Apple would get sued over this as soon as I read about this battery
> issue.
>
> One question on my mind is:
>
> Why is it soldered in ?
>
> Why can't the battery simply be removed ?
>
> Very strange.
Its a design tradeoff. They don't need to build a battery compartment
that a user can open together with all the springs, contacts, latches,
etc.
The last phone I owned that needed a replacement battery was my Motorola
DynaTAC (the brick). Since then, batteries have outlasted the useful
life of my phones. Apple probably studied the tradeoffs and figured it
would be cheaper to solder in a few new batteries than build removal
capabilities into every phone.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no place like 127.0.0.1.