Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jul 2009 18:20 UTC, submitted by tupp
Thread beginning with comment 374770
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple on the other hand try to use edgy hardware technology
( which is bound to be risky ), add to that that it depend on the
batch of production, combination of material and condition of use,
( which is bound to be risky ), add to that that it depend on the
batch of production, combination of material and condition of use,
LiIon/LiPoly is a safe technology as long as you don't buy the cheapest crap (which apple loves to do) and stick to the manufacturers datasheet (which i highly doubt apple is doing)
ignoring this 2 rules can give you some nice fireworks
I agree they failed miserably in this case, but if they were successful in that regard ( which I believe they are ) they would be called cutting edge. Instead they should track which batch of ipod nano got defect initiate a recall on faulty batch and investigate the subcontrator.






Member since:
2006-03-20
different industries,
As P&G provide different product related to health,
it is very risky to let a toxic product in the wild, and
short term toxicity is easier to test and proof
(long term effects on the other hand are impossible to do),
and accident are bound to happen but recall of the batch is the norm
in pharmaceutics.
Apple on the other hand try to use edgy hardware technology
( which is bound to be risky ), add to that that it depend on the
batch of production, combination of material and condition of use,
then you have an impossible test case, plus initiating a recall is costy
(even for Apple ), so considering the occurences and the impact
of the incident the only thing we will have is another restriction on
portable music player on the airplane.