There are 10 reader comments
41 03 2003 1:41PM
The last one does beg a question, though: why is it fine for Apple (or their advertising subsidiary, or any corporate entity for that matter) to plaster their ads all over construction sites, abandoned buildings, walls, etc. but it is termed "criminal vandalism" when it's an individual "marking up" the same space?
It's also excellent that the google ads tend to be for stencils...
37 03 2003 3:37PM
That was my question as well. I emailed the site author. It is curious. I don't see it as "fucking dumb" or "criminal vandalism." But then, I am not a lawyer.
05 03 2003 4:05PM
Maybe Apple got permission to put up the ads? I'm pretty sure that Apple isn't into graffiti.
33 03 2003 5:33PM
Apple (and any other company that puts up "indie" ads like that) don't pay for that advertising space. That's why it's not illegal to take those off the wall, or to stencil over them.
52 03 2003 5:52PM
I thought "unreplaceable" was referring to the fact that, when that video was filmed, the best deal possible from Apple was the same price as buying a new iPod; therefore it made little sense to "replace" the battery. Might as well throw the damn thing out, buy a new one and magically your strangely-high shipping and handling costs disappear.
41 03 2003 9:41PM
I think unreplaceable refers to the fact that Apple doesn't send hundreds of AA batteries into landfills with every iPod it sells.
11 04 2003 3:11AM
I don't think it's true that $255 is the same as a new iPod. While it was too large of an amount of money, it was cheaper than the smallest iPod that Apple offers, and that doesn't take into account if you had a larger one. At least Apple realized their mistake and offered a lower price. Also, there are third-party services to replace the battery that are cheaper and they have been around for a while. I think this guy was just frustrated and either didn't take the time to find alternate solutions or was still angry that it was more difficult than it should be. It's certainly understandable, but his reaction was excessive.
07 04 2003 9:07AM
There's finally a "note" fromthe filmmakers on the site conceding that the situation has been remedied and that Apple's current solution is fair.
Now if I could just stop all of my PC-lovin' friends from forwarding me that link....
04 04 200311:04AM
Unreplacable most likely refers to the fact that it would violate the warranty for a user to replace it. Of course, if it's under warranty, it's replaced for free, so I don't think that matters.
$255 has always been cheaper than the cheapest iPod Apple has ever made, but it was an Apple tech support person who suggested it was probably better just to buy a new iPod.
Most importantly, these boys appears to be the only ones who have had an iPod die after just 18 months. Everybody else I know is still charging along just fine after two years.
In fact, I know several people that have taken in their iPods after the warranty has expired and still had them replaced or fixed for free, though I know others haven't. Perhaps if they had tried at an Apple store instead of calling on the phone, there would be no misleading movies floating around the net today. :-)
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
Roland13 03 2003 1:13PM
Classic. I like the one about the 12-month 1 year warranty best.