IPod Nano: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:26, 2 January 2006

Revision as of 07:36, 3 January 2006

Line 36:

Apple's release of the iPod nano as a replacement for the iPod mini is viewed by many as a risky move. The mini was not only Apple's most popular MP3 player, it was still the world's best-selling player up to the end of its lifespan and sales of the mini did not appear to be slowing down. [[Steve Jobs]] has argued that the iPod nano is a necessary risk since competitors are beginning to catch up to the iPod mini in terms of design and features, and believes the iPod nano will prove to be even more popular and successful than the iPod mini. Analysts see this as part of the corporate culture of Apple, which relies heavily upon innovating to continue appealing to consumers.

Within days of the nano's release, some users reported damage to the nano, suggesting that the LCD screen had become so scratched that it was unreadable. Other owners reported that their nano's screen cracked with no provocation [http://ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/ipod-nano-screen-complaints-abound/]. On [[September 27]], Apple confirmed a small percentage ("less than 1/10 of 1 percent") of iPod nanos shipped with a faulty screen and agreed to replace any nanos with cracked screens, but denied the iPod nano was more susceptible to scratching than prior iPods [http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09/27/nanoscreen/index.php]. Apple have now started shippngshipping iPod nanos with a protective sleeve to protect them from scratches. In October 2005, a [[class action|class action lawsuit]] was filed against Apple, with the plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for the device, legal fees, and "unlawful or illegal profits" from sales of the iPod nano. Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim that the devices "scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen on the nanos unreadable, and violating state consumer protection statutes" [http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1340]. Similar lawsuits were later filed in [[Mexico]] and the [[United Kingdom]] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4417344.stm]. Some commentators such as [[BusinessWeek]]'s Arik Hesseldahl have criticized the lawsuits. Hesseldahl dismissed them as "stupid" and suggested that they benefitted "no one but the trial lawyers," but also suggested that Apple could have avoided litigation by offering "full refunds on unwanted nanos" instead of charging a re-stocking fee and lengthening the return period from 14 (if bought online) or 10 (if bought at retail) to 30 or 60 days. [http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc20051027_665544.htm]

==External links==