Criticism and Incidents of The iPod Nano

The initial consumer response to the iPod Nano was overwhelmingly positive and sales were heavy. The Nano sold its first million units in only 17 days, helping Apple Inc. to a record billion-dollar profit in 2005.

Apple's release of the iPod Nano as a replacement for the iPod Mini was viewed by many as a risky move. Steve Jobs has argued that the iPod Nano was a necessary risk since competitors were beginning to catch up to the iPod Mini in terms of design and features, and believed the iPod Nano would prove to be even more popular and successful than the iPod Mini.

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, even when the backlight was on. Many have reported fine scratches on their Nano caused by microfiber cloths. Other owners reported that their Nano's screen cracked with no provocation. On September 27, 2005, 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. Apple started shipping iPod Nanos with a protective sleeve to protect them from scratches. In October 2005 a 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". Similar lawsuits were later filed in Mexico and the United Kingdom. As of early 2009, Apple is in the process of settling a court case over the scratched iPod Nano screens, it has been suggested for Apple to set aside $22 million to refund users. A Judge will need to sign off the terms by April 28, 2009. 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 days (when purchased through Apple retail or online) to 30 or 60 days.

Incidents

In Australia, an iPod Nano caught fire while being charged on a PC. Since the limited warranty was over, the consumer was not able to get a replacement right away.

Another iPod incident happened in the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport while a man was working in the airport.[18] His iPod Nano set his pants on fire. Apple Inc. refused to release a statement regarding this issue.

In addition, an iPod Nano sparked in Japan in January while it was recharging. Although no one was injured during the incident, Apple Inc. is currently investigating it. It was reported on August 19, 2008 that 17 incidents of abnormal overheating with 1st-generation iPod Nano units while recharging had been reported in Japan, including cases in which tatami mats had been charred.

source : wikipedia.org