Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 08:47 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Apple I think we just found out why we aren't hearing more stories of exploding and burning iPods. Ken Stanborough had to throw his daughter Ellie's iPod Touch outside, because it got too hot to hold, and he could see vapour. Within 30 seconds, he could see smoke, he heard a pop, and the Touch went 10ft into the air. After contacting Apple, the company denied liability, but offered a refund. However, Apple said that in accepting the money, Stanborough was not allowed to talk about the existence of the agreement - or else Apple would sue him. Update: Apple told Sky News Online that the letter with the gagging order is standard practice.

Thread beginning with comment 376719
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: MS
by mrhasbean on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE: MS"
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

Apple's evil, on the other hand, is clearly geared towards *consumers* and *small developers*. They are actively going after them, trying to hurt them.


Wow, so let me get this right, you are claiming here that Apple are purposely building faulty equipment (actively going after them) that is designed to hurt people (trying to hurt people).

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[3]: MS
by OSGuy on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 10:38 in reply to "RE[2]: MS"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Wow, so let me get this right, you are claiming here that Apple are purposely building faulty equipment (actively going after them) that is designed to hurt people (trying to hurt people).

No, not purposely however when there is a possible fault with a product, it should be addressed and people should not be silenced/threatened.

Edited 2009-08-03 10:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: MS
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 10:42 in reply to "RE[2]: MS"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wow, so let me get this right, you are claiming here that Apple are purposely building faulty equipment (actively going after them) that is designed to hurt people (trying to hurt people).


No, I was talking about the evilness. In MS' case, threatening OEMs and such. In Apple's case, threatening to sue consumers, severely hurting developers in the App Store cases, and litigating to keep negative reports under wraps.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: MS
by mrhasbean on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 11:03 in reply to "RE[3]: MS"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

"Wow, so let me get this right, you are claiming here that Apple are purposely building faulty equipment (actively going after them) that is designed to hurt people (trying to hurt people).


No, I was talking about the evilness. In MS' case, threatening OEMs and such. In Apple's case, threatening to sue consumers, severely hurting developers in the App Store cases, and litigating to keep negative reports under wraps.
"

Ahh I see. Well that clears it up then. Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion without first getting all the information...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: MS
by andydread on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 12:43 in reply to "RE[2]: MS"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"Apple's evil, on the other hand, is clearly geared towards *consumers* and *small developers*. They are actively going after them, trying to hurt them.


Wow, so let me get this right, you are claiming here that Apple are purposely building faulty equipment (actively going after them) that is designed to hurt people (trying to hurt people).
"

I dont see any claim about apple PURPOSELY building faulty equipment.
I didn't see that implication in the post. The implication is that Apple threatening the customers and small developers with LAWSUITS. Stop trying to spin people's posts.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: MS
by sbergman27 on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 15:32 in reply to "RE[2]: MS"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Wow, so let me get this right, you are claiming here that Apple are purposely building faulty equipment (actively going after them) that is designed to hurt people (trying to hurt people).

Just a helpful tip. Deliberately "misunderstanding" what other discussion participants say, as you are rather obviously doing here, makes your own case look weak. Try not to employ that poor technique. Or at the very least, try not to be so obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 2