Ok, this story amused the crap out me!

In particular, I loved this quote:

quote:64bdbf33d1"Unlike the iPod, the iPhone is obviously intended and marketed as a device to be utilized for a broad range of business-related purposes, and on a constant basis," the letter said. "We can only assume that Apple and/or AT&T intend to provide a replacement battery at no charge for the actual life of the phone."[/quote:64bdbf33d1]

Considering that when the iPhone was introduced 6 months ago that there was absolutely *{size:18px}NO [/size:64bdbf33d1]*sign that Apple was going to deviate from their iPod strategy of not making the iPhone battery user accessable, any one who assumed that Apple would replace a battery for no charge is EXTREMELY naive (I have more choice words, but I shall refrain). I guess that assuming made those folks a you know what! I further note that my Treo (which does have a user accessable battery) does not have a provision that Sprint or Palm will replace the battery for no charge. While I won't have to send it back to them, it STILL costs ME money to get a replacement battery. And batteries DON'T last for ever.

I also was amused by:

quote:64bdbf33d1The New York complaint was similar to a class-action lawsuit filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Cook County, in Chicago. That suit charges both Apple and AT&T with hiding the battery replacement cost from customers until they had already purchased an iPhone. It also alleges that users will have to pay that charge once every year, since the iPhone battery is rated for 300 recharging cycles.[/quote:64bdbf33d1]

While Apple certainly did not announce a cost of battery replacement, I would argue that anyone buying such a device KNOWING that it did not have a user accessable battery and NOT knowing the replacement cost is doing so at their own risk. So, but the it *WAS *known it did not have a user accessable battery like the iPod (part of the reason I had no interest in buying one), so that means that one will have a cost associated with replacing the battery including labor costs to install the battery potentially. Considering that Apple already has a battery replacement program that cost $60 (if I recall correctly), I find the $80 for a replacement battery for the iPhone not suprising at all.

The only thing that suprised me was the fact that the battery was soldered to the phone, making it MUCH more non-user replaceable (I certainly am NOT inclined to approach my $600 phone with a soldering iron if I had bought an iPhone).

In the end, while I do believe that Apple could have been a little more upfront with people on some stuff, I also fully believe that people *KNOWLY *walk into buying an iPhone blind. Saying that Apple hid details is a little misleading. The simple solution would have been to NOT buy the iPhone right away and wait until Apple released a little more information. No one force any early iPhone adopters from buying then...they could have waited.

---

[soapbox] Backup good...no backup bad!! [/soap box]

I think that it's more because latches and sliding covers spoil the elegance of all Apple products. I own an iPod, and I must say that I can't imagine it with a battery compartment (where would you fit one one a Nano, anyway ;-)For corporate users, on the other hand, I agree, that disconnectivity is not allowable. But, since the battery is not likely to run out in a year, as stated, I think that paying 80$ occasionally is not a big deal.

All but one commenter grasps this, but I will repeat it. The article is full of errors. One of them is that the iPhone battery will need replacing after 300 charges. That comes from the complaint filed by plaintiff in the lawsuit, not the specifications for the iPhone, which are 80 percent of capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles. The lawsuit has been a laughingstock at just about every site aware of it because the plaintiff and lawyer obviously did not do the slightest research before filing it.

The specifications for the iPhone were available before its release. You can read there here:

[url]http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.htm_l

No intelligent consumer should have difficulty understanding why the battery is not user serviceable and that it is not expensive.

Hi USmanz1969. Your post is not related to the topic. It seems like you have an actual question or concern about your iPhone. I have moved it to the appropriate iPhone forum and created a new thread for you.

Click on this link to access the thread.

---

This is my personal Dream PC: http://forums.pcworld.com/blogs/mphenterprises/2007/12/21/my-gift-to-myself