« Diebold fights transparency at all costs | Main | Google gets cash hungry »
Is Apple's volume patch an admission of guilt?
Apple yesterday released a software update that allows consumers to tune down the maximum volume level of their iPod devices.
The timing of the release is questionable. Apple is currently facing a lawsuit that alleges that the iPod caused some users to go deaf.
The iPod maker didn't mention the suit in its press release. But the opposing lawyers made sure to link the two (press release - subscription required), and claimed that the move amounts to an admission of guilt.
"It is good to know that Apple finally acknowledges that there is a serious flaw with its iPod product," said Steve Berman, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
He also made sure to point out a serious flaw in the patch: it only works on the iPod Nano and "fifth generation" iPods, locking a large group of iPod users.
"Unfortunately, this patch doesn't help the millions of people who own older models -- it is a jack-legged workaround that falls well short of what consumers demand and deserve," Berman was quick to point out.
It may be up to a judge or jury to decided if the patch amounts to an admission of guilt, but it certainly doesn't help. Apple either must be very sure of its case, or is confident that it will reach a settlement very soon.
March 30, 2006 at 09:34 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24766/4563106
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Apple's volume patch an admission of guilt?:
Comments
In federal court, a concurrent attempt to mitigate damage is not admissable as evidence (and therefore, cannot be used as evidence of an "admission of guilt"). Lawyers can make this claim effectively in the court of "public opinion", but the claim has no bearing on what the jury will hear.
Posted-by: XYZ | 31 Mar 2006 00:27:13
This class action lawsuit is utterly ludicrous. The kinds of SPL required to cause permanent hearing loss in seconds or minutes is painful to experience. Nobody could listen at those levels without knowing they were risking their hearing.
That Apple responded so quickly to the criticism is a testament to their desire to please. That the attorneys responded so quickly with their spin is a testament to their desire to win at all costs -- forget about common sense, logic, or integrity.
I don't know of any device that tells you how long you can hear it operate at a certain level without causing harm. I've never bought one anyhow; and I've bought some serious audio equipment, and power tools as well.
The iPod experience is firmly rooted to the internet. If a user is concerned abou their hearing, it wouldn't take but a moment to learn about SPL and its relationship with deafness.
Posted-by: Catch 22 | 31 Mar 2006 00:30:22
An admission of guilt? Um, shouldn't the "less intellegent" people who don't know that 1000dB's of sound a centimeter from your eardrum be the guilty ones? I mean, people, read the newspaper. It's pretty well know that blaring music can damage your ears. It isn't Apple, Sony, JBL, or anyone else's fault. Apple wants to make a safer product. Was GM putting airbags into cars an admission of guilt that cars are unsafe? No. Cars have the potential to be unsafe, but it goes back to the user. Airbags are just added protection in the event that things go wrong.
Posted-by: Onyx | 31 Mar 2006 01:36:31
When a lawyer says fixing a product is an admission of guilt I have to wonder whose side she is on. I, for one, would not like to see that idea become legal precedent for future problems.
Posted-by: Javier | 31 Mar 2006 03:41:55
In Europe on the other hand, we're trying to "pump up the volume" of the iPod, cause we thing it's not loud enough...
Check the URL, it's a little tool called volumebooster.
Posted-by: damaded | 31 Mar 2006 13:44:46
Spanish
