Another lawsuit claims Apple, AT&T weren't forthright about iPhone batteries

Apple and its batteries just can't seem to catch a break, eh? This go 'round, Sydney Leung has filed a class-action complaint that reportedly accuses "both Apple and AT&T of fraud in neglecting to inform potential iPhone buyers of the costs involved in maintaining a working battery for the iPhone over the course of the handset's lifespan." The angered individual and his legal team are purporting that the iPhone's battery "lasts only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely," and also argue that Apple and AT&T didn't address this issue until after customers had made their purchase. Of course, Apple specs show that the battery in question is designed to hold a full charge for between 300 and 400 cycles, while still holding a majority of that charge afterwards, so unless Mr. Leung's (and a few others, too) battery mysteriously conked out after that oh-so-critical 300th charge, we're failing to see what ground he's standing on.

[Blair @ Aug 17th 2007 11:46AM]

This stuff is just ridiculous. Where is the injury? Oh there isn't one...dismissed Ms. Leung.

[tizzyd @ Aug 17th 2007 12:50PM]

This guy not only piles it high, he makes it talk. The judge should prejudicially dismiss the suit and have him pay all attorney fees. He's suffered no damage--at least yet, Blair notes--but more importantly, his damage will be minimized during replacement (hey, not the best scheme, but he does not loose the value of the phone).

[james @ Aug 17th 2007 11:46AM]

these people are morons. batteries die, that's why they're batteries.

but it is outrageously greedy to manufacture a phone w/out a user-replacable battery. and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for this except pure greed on Apple's part.

[Peter @ Aug 17th 2007 11:48AM]

actually... it would have made the phone thicker... so... wrong.

[james @ Aug 17th 2007 12:06PM]

u actually believe that Peter? cause there's a TON of phones that are much thinner than the iPhone and all of them have removeable batteries. what they COULD have done is make the entire back plate removable (a la HTC Hermes) and make a long thin battery. or keep the existing battery and make it easy to swap out (like the iPod). problem solved.

don't believe the Jobs jive, man. its greed.

[E-Rock @ Aug 17th 2007 12:05PM]

Apple, masters of style and functionality, couldn't make a battery that pops off the back without making it thicker? Absurd.

Say that they didn't want to, or admit that it was a profit driven decision, but don't appologize for them by saying it was impossible.

[Mike @ Aug 17th 2007 12:14PM]

It's an enormous pain in the ass to get user removeable batteries and their compartments certified by various regulatory bodies. It can cause delays in the product release as a custom battery has a huge lead time, leaving next to no time to get it certified.

Delays are often costlier than a handful of ticked off customers, so I can completely understand Apple's decision.

[Chicksta @ Aug 17th 2007 12:16PM]

I can agree that you may not be able to think of another reason, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I had wondered if they were afraid of issues w/3rd party batteries; an iPhone w/an exploding battery would be front page news, and the small text about it being some third-party product would not help their image (many people still think of the Sony battery problems as reflections of Dell and Apple). I don't think that's a good enough reason, but maybe it was part of their rationale.

[Richard Lai @ Aug 17th 2007 1:37PM]

Apple is an iCon. So yeah, you're absolutely right.

[shamrock593 @ Aug 17th 2007 11:48AM]

Leave them alone already!

/Apple fanboism

[rossmcnaughton5 @ Aug 17th 2007 11:56AM]

america loves their lawsuits.

[Matt @ Aug 17th 2007 1:04PM]

Exactly, and I hate that a few nut-jobs have to give the world that impression. If your phone explodes while you’re holding it by your ear that's one thing, but a class action law suit over a weak battery (that everyone was already aware of) is completely ridiculous. He/She should be deported on grounds of embarrassing the rest of us with his/her lame since of reality.

[Vincent @ Aug 17th 2007 11:59AM]

I would like to see this Mr.Leung one day... and punch him in the face.This guy is soooooo stupid. is that possible? having No life like this? wow..

[Bad Beaver @ Aug 17th 2007 12:04PM]

Pointless clutter
keeps lawyers
in bread and butter

[Erik @ Aug 17th 2007 5:27PM]

I call BS on this one. I have experience in this. You have the same number of regulatory groups to go through having a removable battery then having a non removable battery. In fact apple most likely didn't even have to get the battery itself certified since its made by SOMEONE ELSE.

[required @ Aug 17th 2007 12:14PM]

is it wrong to be proconsumer and anticorporation?

[CraigJ @ Aug 17th 2007 12:17PM]

not wrong but stupid. corporations are not always wrong / guilty, and consumers are not always right / innocent.

[required @ Aug 17th 2007 12:37PM]

stupid? a corporation is merely a legal entity.

[crescentdavid @ Aug 17th 2007 12:15PM]

Caveat Emptor. Especially with Apple's history around batteries and gadgets. These are profit-driven decisions. Then, form does over-rule function. Voice activated dialing: too advanced for apple engineers.

[Ian @ Aug 17th 2007 3:58PM]

o my lord voice activated dialing?? why? to me thats got to be the stupidest thing on a phone these days. i mean ive tried and thought it would be kinda kool. but used it once or twice and found dialing the number to be faster or just set a speed dial number for people u call the most. So maybe they didnt add voice activated dialing for a reason... cuz it sucks ass

[KillJoy @ Aug 17th 2007 12:18PM]

What a bunch of whiners! Case dismissed. PS Get a life!

Cheers!

KJ

[brownc4 @ Aug 17th 2007 12:21PM]

Who could have possibly charged and discharged there iPhone 300 times since these came out in June?

[010111 @ Aug 17th 2007 2:36PM]

same thing i was going to say... it is *impossible* for him to have charged and discharged his iPhone 300 times since the release.

he isn't suing based on personal experience he is suing based on complete supposition and inference based on wording in a manual.

manuals which... tend to use fairly conservative estimates on all sorts of things in order to lessen potential liability.

anyone thinking the iPhone battery would last a million years and never need replacing apparently has never used a battery powered device in their entire lifetime. talk about naive.

that said... it really should have been designed with an easily removable battery like people tend to expect on a mobile phone.

but the non-easily-removability was not a top secret piece of information... it was reported on within minutes of the iPhone being announced in January.

[Samurai Jack @ Aug 17th 2007 12:25PM]

I for one am happy to let Apple recycle the toxic batteries so I don't have to. Or were you lot planning to just throw your user replaceable batteries in the trash?

[required @ Aug 17th 2007 12:45PM]

Do you really believe Apple is better at recycling than the average person is?

[Samurai Jack @ Aug 17th 2007 2:37PM]

Yes I do think they'll do better. Any corporate entity that wants to get paid to harvest the metals in their electronic waste (in bulk) will do a better job with toxics than I would with my one off batteries. Most companies these days really do more than just pay lip service to environmentalists because it's good for their reputations and their business.

[required @ Aug 17th 2007 3:51PM]

Samurai Jack, please don't tell me you think things like Apple uses recycled aluminum. In other words, you're corporate naivety is showing.

[Adam @ Aug 17th 2007 12:33PM]

Whether it holds 300 full charges or 300 million full charges Apple should have been open with the details. Waiting until after release of the phone is bad business practice no matter how you spin it. You can really tell who's side engadget is on too, almost Fox News'ish.

[dj-kenpo @ Aug 17th 2007 2:20PM]

it holds the same amount any lithium-ion does.

300-400 has not changed for the 10years + that li-ion's have been around.

should they speel out every other detial as well? "apple didn't tell me screens break if you hit them! I'm suiing them!"

apple didn't say you have to recharge it! that costs me money in my electric bill!

apple didn't tell me I needed a pocket! I don't have pockets!

I'm deaf, I hate apple, they didn't explain what a phone is!

li-ion's are this way in laptops, all ipods, and every other device that uses em.

if omeone is a tech n00b, they're a tech n00b, that's not apples fault.

[Adam @ Aug 17th 2007 2:28PM]

The argument isn't that the battery dies too soon, its that Apple held the information on how to replace it (and the associated costs) until after the sales rush. There is no good explanation for why a company would do that.

And I apologize for the Fox News comment engadget, I don't mean it, I don't wish that on anyone.

[Rand @ Aug 17th 2007 12:43PM]

@Peter: Coming from a PDA design background, (Yeah I've worked with HTC) a removable battery with the same capacity would have made the product thicker. Connectors and latches take up space. Also a removable battery has different safety concerns than one that isn't removable. Such as a hard pack battery vs soft pack battery. Removable batteries typically have a case surrounding the cell to protect them from getting pierced if someone sticks them in their pocket with keys or a pen causing a nasty thermal event in their trousers.

[tmichael @ Aug 17th 2007 12:45PM]

I can't stand these ridiculous lawsuits and the total waste of money and time of our legal system. Why not get involved in something that really makes a difference...not just your phone complaints. Do your research BEFORE you let someone swipe your card!

[Tim Burns @ Aug 17th 2007 12:46PM]

Isn't it a bit against the chemistry of li-ion batteries to hold a full charge after 300 charges? As soon as it's put together it starts losing capacity, sure the depletion is small at a low charge with proper handling, but it's still there.

That 300 charge number sounds much too far fetched for my tastes, not that it makes this sort of judicial blackmail OK, but it's still a shady claim. As far as I know, it's impossible for a battery to hold a FULL charge for that long, and even less possible to know exactly how much charge it would hold after a couple hundred charges.

[Rand @ Aug 17th 2007 12:55PM]

You're right. And thats not what Apple is claiming. They are claiming the battery will maintain 80% of its rated charge capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles. Guess what? Thats standard for lithium ion battery specs from all major manufacturers. For notebooks, PDAs, whatever.

[Bruce Smith @ Aug 17th 2007 12:51PM]

Who cares I wouldn't buy a pencil from Apple!!

You Apple FanBoyz crack me up.

[Bruce Smith @ Aug 17th 2007 1:06PM]

Can you sav miniOne http://www.engadget.com/tag/minione

[Chris @ Aug 18th 2007 9:47PM]

Can you say no customer support?

[Michael Toye @ Aug 17th 2007 12:55PM]

300-400 charges full and then degrading performance from there?

Sounds a bit sh!t to me.

Go lawsuit man, go!

[Biffy @ Aug 17th 2007 1:09PM]

This isn't all that bad, I've had a few different phones with batteries that wouldn't hold a full charge for very long after 200 charges or less. In fact, I've never had a phone battery for more than half a year that lasted as long as when it was new.

[Andy @ Aug 17th 2007 1:19PM]

Its one thing when your regular phone lasts 300 charges, and each charge is a week, in this case 300 charges is probably less than a years worth of use out of the device (my iphone needs recharging every night, it does not make it til the next morning).
The other issue is with the closed system of batteries. Why not make it like any other cell phone out there with replaceable batteries and available extended batteries at retail, not through a shifty expensive mail in program. It works for ipods, because they are non essential devices, but a cell phone that holds all your contacts? Can you give that up for a week or more while its "in transit"?

[superseagulls @ Aug 17th 2007 12:59PM]

OK, so I'm English but live in the USA, so have the perspective of seeing the BS 2 year contracts that the US telcos offer versus the 1 year contracts in the UK.
IF you are going to sell a handset with a sealed battery on a 2 year contract you had better guarantee that handset for 2 years... ? I think he deserves a shot at this IF the batteries are dieing before the 2 year contract is up.......

[Christopher Kalanderopoulos @ Aug 17th 2007 1:44PM]

Anyone else realize that people just try to pump Apple because they're completely and unreverably LOADED... they think they can just take them for some cash... :S

[Ian @ Aug 17th 2007 6:51PM]

well wow you sure are smart arent you. yes some people tend to be a little better off then others who buy apple products. but i for one am not rich like you say. i cant go out and buy the latest and greatest from apple although i would like to. but i do own 2 apple products a MB and an ipod so shut the fuck up with ur damn comments you ass monkey.

not so much a fanboy just dont like people who bash companies cuz its the "in" thing to do

["Bob" @ Aug 18th 2007 11:45AM]

Ian:
He was saying APPLE is loaded, not the customers. Lrn2read

[spud boy @ Aug 17th 2007 2:01PM]

.
The life of a lithium ion cell is highly dependent on how it's treated. Leave it in a hot car for a few hours several times and you'll diminish the life greatly, even if it's not been cycled that much. Also, some batteries just die prematurely because of manufacturing defects.

The sealed battery in the iPhone is a major limitation IMHO. I don't think the lawsuits have merit, but Apple could have made the battery removable with virtually no sacrifice in thickness or cost.
.
.

[adam t @ Aug 17th 2007 2:01PM]

I really dont see what the big deal is here. apple covers the battery for a year, and 2 years if you have apple care. when a battery dies on any other phone you have to buy a new one to replace it when its out of warranty. you have to do the same with the iphone... you just cant do it yourself. why is this greedy?
people be crazy bout this battery.

[sean @ Aug 17th 2007 2:17PM]

It's greedy because contracts are TWO years, not one. Requiring I buy a guarantee to last the lifetime of the contract I'm indebited to, rather than covering the phone for the length of the contract you are required to sign, is shysterism.

[Shmoe @ Aug 17th 2007 2:02PM]

Fail to see what he's standing on? How about nealry every other cell phone out there has a user-swapable battery, something the iPhone should have had.

[dj-kenpo @ Aug 17th 2007 2:25PM]

it should have had it yes, but he knew that and bought it anyways. which says he was just looking to sue them. if I was apple I'd take them phone, give him the money, and tell him to shove it. done and done.

[Chris @ Aug 17th 2007 2:37PM]

Hey, here's an idea: Let's all file a class-action lawsuit against Energizer and Duracell. I don't think any of the batteries I bought from them still work.