The IT Nerd

Owners of first generation iPod Nano’s should read this post on the Apple website. There is a worldwide replacement program for owners of these iPods that’s meant to address the fact that they might overheat and catch fire:

Apple has determined that, in very rare cases, the battery in the iPod nano (1st generation) may overheat and pose a safety risk. Affected iPod nanos were sold between September 2005 and December 2006.

This issue has been traced to a single battery supplier that produced batteries with a manufacturing defect. While the possibility of an incident is rare, the likelihood increases as the battery ages.

Apple recommends that you stop using your iPod nano (1st gen) and follow the process noted below to order a replacement unit, free of charge.

I’m not sure how rare this is. I’ve written about problems in Japan has had problems with this generation of iPods before and there have been similar reports elsewhere which includes a similar recall in South Korea when the government forced them to do it. Clearly there’s a major problem with this iPod. I might have given them a free pass on this if they dealt with this sooner. But it appears that they decided not to for whatever reason. That really looks bad on Apple.

Apple really have a lot of issues that they have to deal with. First there’s “antennagate” and now there’s a report that an iPod overheated in a Tokyo subway causing a delay. This hasn’t been the first time that this has happened:

Apple, the world’s largest technology company by market value, has come under scrutiny in Japan since the trade ministry last month ordered it to improve safety warnings following cases of overheating in its first generation iPod nano music players.

There have been around 60 such incidents in Japan, including four cases involving minor burns, according to the ministry.

Apple for its part has had no comment. But in Japan, Apple has offered to replace batteries in iPods:

In a brief statement Tuesday, Apple Japan acknowledged “very rare cases of overheating” in some units sold between September 2005 and December 2006, and said the malfunction links back to a specific battery supplier, which it didn’t identify. It also offered to replace the batteries of the affected first-generation devices.

I’ve previously noted that Apple has threatened owners of iPods that exhibit this behavior. Not only that, they’ve apparently attempted to keep the media from investigating this in the past. So it will be interesting to see how Apple deals with this so that this doesn’t turn into “batterygate.”

Methinks “The Steve” needs to have a chat with his iLawyers. Why? Simple. The Times in London reports that Apple attempted to silence a father and daughter with a gag order after the child’s iPod music player exploded and the family sought a refund from the company:

The Times has learnt that the company would offer the family a full refund only if they were willing to sign a settlement form. The proposed agreement left them open to legal action if they ever disclosed the terms of the settlement.

Lovely. But there’s more:

The letter also stated that, in accepting the money, Mr Stanborough was to “agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential”, and that any breach of confidentiality “may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties”.

“I thought it was a very disturbing letter,” said Mr Stanborough, who is self-employed and works in electronic security. He refused to sign it.

“They’re putting a life sentence on myself, my daughter and Ellie’s mum, not to say anything to anyone. If we inadvertently did say anything, no matter what, they would take litigation against us. I thought that was absolutely appalling.

“We didn’t ask for compensation, we just asked for our money back,” he added.

Because of this, Apple has just become the latest victim of the Streisand Effect as this has become more than just a Times of London story. For example, this Google search brings up a ton of hits on this story alone. Not to mention a Google search of blogs.

That’s not exactly positive press for Apple now is it.

Apple via another story had no comment other than this:

Apple denied its response had attempted to gag the family when Sky News Online contacted them, instead describing it as “standard practice to have a letter of settlement”.

I’m sure it is, but I guarantee that it isn’t being seen that way right now. If you factor in what I told you in this post from last week, Apple seems to have a major PR problem on its hands.

Amy Clancy of KIRO 7 TV in Seattle recently investigated reports of iPods overheating, smoldering and catching fire. The complaints, made to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, amount to over 800 pages of documentation covering 15 incidents. Here’s the kicker. Apple’s iLawyers repeatedly tried to prevent Clancy from accessing this info under a Freedom of Information Act request.

That doesn’t sound good for Apple, and the optics of using the iLawyers to stop this info from coming out suck. But it may actually be worse that that. Consider the following:

• A Korean newspaper says that Apple has apparently agreed to recall first-generation iPod nanos sold in South Korea following four reports of the device’s batteries overheating or exploding. Although Apple denies any specific recall or change in its policies.
• Japan warned iPod users in that country of a similar risk a year ago.
• There’s an Apple support document from last year that talks about this issue.

So does Apple have some sort of problem on its hands? At first glance, it seems so. But in the absence of hard facts, that’s hard to say. One thing is for certain. Until facts come out to either prove or disprove this, this won’t be good for the public perception of Apple Inc.

The Interwebs have been buzzing with news of the “authentication chip” inside the new Apple headphones. To try and put the issue to rest, BoingBoing managed to talk to an Apple PR droid employee and got this response:

Just spoke with Apple. There is no encryption or authentication on the chip, so clones could conceivably be made, just not with “Made for iPod” official certification. And now we know!

Great. But it still means that there’s still an “Apple Tax” on accessories as to make them work right and more importantly to get people to have the warm fuzzies when buying them requires paying money to Apple so that you can license the technology. Plus by doing so likely keeps the iLawyers at bay if Apple ever decided to become draconian when it came to accessories that didn’t have their stamp of approval.

Frankly, I didn’t care if their headphones had some sort of DRM scheme or not. What I do care about is the fact that my choice of headphones is being restricted by Apple because they want to keep the cash rolling in to buy Steve Jobs more black turtleneck shirts charge accessory companies licensing fees which get passed onto consumers. So what my feelings were in my original article still stands. I won’t be buying the iPod shuffle and nether should you as a closed ecosystem is not in the best interests of all concerned.