By SteveJack
The semi-annual “fiery iPods” articles have begun circulating again.
Rather than give the recyclers like the Times Online and others the hits, let’s just take a look at the source of the recent spate of articles.
The current batch of Ooh-iPods-Can-Catch-Fire-And-Apple’s-Trying-To-Cover-It-Up yellow journalism originated on July 20, 2009 from KIRO-TV out of Seattle.
Out of Seattle. Seattle, Washington. 
Amy Clancy reported for KIRO 7 Eyewitness News, “An exclusive KIRO 7 Investigation reveals an alarming number of Apple brand iPod MP3 players have suddenly burst into flames and smoke, injuring people and damaging property.”
Wow. That sounds bad. And “exclusive,” no less. But, what’s Amy’s definition of “an alarming number,” exactly? For that I had to wade through some 22 paragraphs (of a print article written by a TV reporter, no less). I deserve hazard pay. Anyway, so, what’s Amy’s definition of “an alarming number,” exactly? Fifteen. Yes, 15 incidents. Out of 218 million iPod units sold to date. That’s quite the small percentage; statistically insignificant, in fact. I’d use my iPod touch’s calculator, but I’m afraid that trying to calculate so small a percentage might cause its battery to suddenly burst into flames and smoke, injuring me and damaging property.
Does this statistical insignificance deter Amy Clancy working out of that TV station that’s based in – ahem – Seattle? No, of course not. Here’s how she reported it:
“The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released more than 800 pages which reveal, for the very first time, a comprehensive look that shows, on a number of occasions, iPods have suddenly burst into flames, started to smoke, and even burned their owners.”
“The documents… included more than 800 pages of information…”
See, more than 800 pages. Eight hundred! But, again, despite the long-windedness of the CPSC report, only 15 incidents. I would suggest that one of the real stories, besides Apple’s stellar, unbelievable and nearly-perfect record with what are historically finicky and problematic lithium ion batteries, is that some government agency felt it necessary to waste U.S taxpayer’s money to produce 800 pages in order to report 15 incidents.
Anyway, somewhere in the middle of her rather long “exclusive” about nothing, Clancy also slipped in, “So far, no serious injuries have been reported to the CPSC.” Along with, “the current generation of iPods uses a battery which has not been shown to have similar problems.”
Sheesh, this “exclusive news” just keeps getting more and more unremarkable.
According to the KIRO story, “It took more than 7-months for KIRO 7 Consumer Investigator Amy Clancy to get her hands on documents concerning Apple’s iPods from the Consumer Product Safety Commission because Apple’s lawyers filed exemption after exemption.” According to The Times Online’s Murad Ahmed, who just today referenced Seattle Amy’s report and also searched far and wide to find someone in the UK with a defective battery in their iPod, Apple offered 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.”
According to The Times Online, “The case echoes previous circumstances in which Apple attempted to hush up incidents when its devices overheated.”
Ooh, sounds ominous, except that this is standard legal procedure that any company with even a partial clue would take in such a circumstance. And, in the case of Apple, where anything, even the statistically insignificant, obviously, is cause for attack, it would be foolhardy not to take such a precaution.
So, to recap:
• 800 pages! Did you hear me? 800 pages! (Just wanna make sure you got that.)
• iPods suddenly burst into flames and smoke, injuring people and damaging property!
• Well, okay, there were only 15 incidents in the report, but never mind that, the report was over 800 pages!
• Apple has sold 218 million iPods to date, so 15 out of over 218,000,000 units is statistically insignificant and likely the best ratio, by far, of any other company that’s ever used lithium ion batteries in any similar (and, likely, dissimilar) product.
• Of those 15 cases out of 218+ million units sold, no serious injuries have been reported.
• Current generation iPods use batteries which have not been shown to have similar problems.
• Apple offers refunds with a standard confidentiality agreement in order to protect themselves from exactly the type of yellow journalism that I’ve just finished exposing here.
KIRO 7 Eyewitness News’ report – Think Before You Click™ – is here.
Email KIRO TV’s Amy Clancy via
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
Don’t laugh folks. It’s an “alarming number” of devices if you happen to have the one napalm covered iPod stuffed down your pants.
I read this on other blogs as well. Steve Jack is right. This is yellow journalism to its core.
15 out of 216 million = 0.000000069444444 or 6.9 X 10^(-6) %!!!!1
“Journalists” all too often find the flimsiest of “facts” to back up their stories. But fifteen is certainly more than the number of complaints that were filed with the FCC over Janet Janet’s “wardrobe malfunction” and we saw what a mess that was. BTW, zero (0) complaints were filed with the FCC. A non-issue concocted to drive focus/attention away from the Iraq mayhem/killings/fiasco.
Pretty standard stuff to require a settlement and confidentiality agreement to replace a defective item, particularly if it was out of warranty (which it likely was) or if an injury was involved or a threatened lawsuit. I’m sure it included a release of all liability as well.
People seem to forget that these devices need a way to dissipate heat, and that having it in a tight pocket, under your pillow (remember the guy in France with the iPhone?), or otherwise putting it where heat cannot escape is a bad idea.
BTW, the percent of defective iPods is 0.0000068807339, just in case anyone wanted to know. Calculated on my iPhone 3GS with a non-flaming battery.
There is one of these stories on MacWorldUK this morning. Someone in the UK who dropped their touch and then it burst into flames. Apple got involved and gave them a new touch and a non-disclosure. I’ve had 6 iPods over the years and never a problem, but that’s just me.
@Bizlaw:
Your results are correct… statistically insignificant.
Even if this wasn’t about the iPod, this would be a stupid, stupid waste of journalistic time and money. I’m about as far away as you can get from Seattle, but isn’t there any other problem a reporter there could have spent 7 months on?
I’ve had a nano that went through a full wash and rinse cycle in my laundry machine. I’ve had no problems with it after letting it dry for a few days.
This family must have gotten the limited edition Hand Grenade version.
My trousers burst into flames and I don’t even own an iPod!
Where do I sue?
Amos,
I for one would like to see more Janet Jackson-style wardrobe malfunctions.
Just for interest, I read a number of comments to this article at their site. Over all the readers said it was an OK article but went overboard vs only 15 cases….. So, are average people getting smarter, or just more vocal. ???
My post:
This was an interesting article but….
after thinking about it for a minute, 15 out of 200,000,000. And if you want to prevent this kind of thing, all you have to do is recall and prevent from being manufactured….. any device with a battery.
You know, everything, including cars. And according to Wiki, there is a car fire every 96 SECONDS. Yes seconds. Guess we will have to recall all cars. Yep. Walking for everyone.
OK, that is a bit overboard, but after this article, I can see why Apple and other companies remain very secret. Its not about hiding anything. The Government makes them report items….. see the 800 PAGES of data. But rather to keep small tv stations and papers from blowing something small into an evening news story (if it bleeds, it leads).
Yep, great reporting. Now, I still agree with the article in general. Information is good. But one should at least PRETEND to try to be non-bias about the article.
Just a thought.
en
The number doesn’t matter at all. What matters is the cover up. If Apple is trying to cover up even one instance they are in the wrong.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article6736587.ece
“Apple offers refunds with a standard confidentiality agreement in order to protect themselves from exactly the type of yellow journalism that I’m exposing here.”
Bull. They “offered” a confidentiality agreement in order to protect themselves from class action law suits.
MDN has a point that the journalists are going for clicks and ratings. And as we all know, that’s something MDN would never ever do…
Apple is a great company but if they’ve harmed someone, I hope they own up to it in a responsible way. That said, the people that got “burned” shouldn’t get rich off of it and in cases where there is no physical harm, a refund should be enough. But a confidentiality agreement, I don’t think so. I wouldn’t sign such a thing either.
MDN, you provide a good service for finding articles about our beloved Macs and OS X. I often find your commentary lacking.
They tried to do a similar study on the Zune — but they couldn’t find enough in actual use to use as a valid statistical sample.
@rws:
If you read the report from the UK it appears that the iPod was dropped some time before the explosion. At what point does Apple continue to have responsibility? If companies make foolproof products only fools will want to use them.
This presumption that big corporations are always trying to gouge consumers and no consumers or lawyers ever try to gouge corporations is pretty inane.
I love your statement that it was a coverup to protect against a class action lawsuit. There were 15 documented incidents with apparently no damage other than to the devices. Any lawyer who took this on trying to get class action status would find themselves bankrupt in no time.
“They tried to do a similar study on the Zune — but they couldn’t find enough in actual use to use as a valid statistical sample.”
I believe the number of flaming iPods and sold Zunes is the same, isn’t it?
@Digital Mercenary,
I should have said to protect themselves from the “possibility” of lawsuits.
“This presumption that big corporations are always trying to gouge consumers and no consumers or lawyers ever try to gouge corporations is pretty inane.” I think you’re trying to read something into my statement that isn’t there.
I do think that “IF” Apple did create a product that caused harm to an individual they should own up to it.
“If you read the report from the UK it appears that the iPod was dropped some time before the explosion. At what point does Apple continue to have responsibility?”
So you think that all iPods that have been dropped should be disposed of? Really a question for the courts and not what I was trying to get at.
“Apple offers refunds with a standard confidentiality agreement in order to protect themselves from exactly the type of yellow journalism that I’m exposing here.”
I say, the journalists were the least of Apple’s concerns.
If you take off your “Apple can do no wrong fanboy” glasses you might see what I’m trying to say. MDN’s commentary is often off-base.
I find this all odd. I used to follow CPSC recalls and if this were all true, I would think CPSC would have brought Apple to the table with a recall of some kind. It has companies recall products if they catch on fire even if people are not harmed.
Macs gaining too much marketshare? No problem! Change the way we measure market share.
Fixed!!
iPods have too much market share? Zune in the toilet? No problem, start circulating articles that iPods BURST INTO FIRE AND KILL PEOPLE!!
Done!!
Facts? What are those?
yea dude, saw the fiery ipods in seattle, bitchin’ concert
or was that portland ?
naw, portland was where we caught the screamin’ zunes
and my asshole burned for a week
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the 15 victims of this “exploding iPod danger!!!” voluntarily agreed to Apple’s sinister “exploding iPod coverup!!!”.
They could have sued for astronomical amounts of money and there are no shortage of lawyers who would jump at this chance, but to them this is apparently so *not* a big deal that they’d rather accept a simple refund and an NDA than raise a stink over it. Even a small one.
Your hysterics ring hollow.
Hysterics? Prove it. What in any of my writings sounds such? Nothing.
Learn to read. It doesn’t matter what those “15” decided to do. That wasn’t my point. I’ve made it clear.
The only thing ringing hollow is your ability to be objective. (and possibly read)
So its a good news for Osama Bin Laden. He can now orders iphones for terrorist and used them as sucide bombers. LOL.
@rws
you all are making assumptions about each others comments that the writer did not intend “So you think that all iPods that have been dropped should be disposed of? Really a question for the courts and not what I was trying to get at” Thats now what he said and you know it. You are just trying to make things up.
we are trying to make the argument that Apple is covering up nothing. They even said “no serious injuries have been reported.” and dont try to give me “well it could have happened and no one reported it.” If something blew up in your hand you go to the hospital and it gets reported.
It is not Apple’s fault if the lithium ion batteries, which are known to act up, accidently smokes or catches fire. Their production methods are not 100% accurate. There will be an occasional mishap. but to say they are trying to cover up a 0.0000068807339% error in manufacturing is I think a bit of a stretch. And how do we know for sure that in these cases that the device was in perfect condition. If someone drops something and then it burst into flames how can the company be held responsible? It was very nice of Apple to offer a full refund. and of course they are going to make sure that the consumer isnt going to sue them, that is standard practice in any business.
And Apple did not force them to sign anything. They could have just as easily gone and found a lawyer to take their case instead of signing Apple’s agreement. And Apple has not officially responded to any of these accusations which I take to mean that they do not think any of this is actually worth refuting because these reporters are grabbing at air. They dont have any hard evidence of anything (accept, i guess, 800 pages of “analysis”).
and to say that MDN’s commentary is bias and lacking is a slightly hypocritical statement. Of course MDN is going to be biased. Its like getting mad at Fox News for spinning everything to the right. They are a republican news station of course they are going to spin everything to their point of view. It is our job as an intelligent citizen to be able to see through their biased reporting and look only at the facts and make decisions for ourselves.
That being the case we should look through all these words that the reporter uses to make everything sound like the world is going to end. She uses those words to stir up emotions and make a good story out of it. Then you go and look at the facts and realize it is not that big of a deal.
Pulling directly from her article:
“‘a number of accidents in which iPod Nanos’ overheated and sparked, injuring two people.”
The reporters in Japan used phrases like “a number of” even though it was only 2. Which technically 2 is a number. But when someone says a number of things went wrong. You generally think more then 2 things went wrong.
“That’s what I’ve been afraid of, is that that could have been a dead child because Apple didn’t care to fix it.”
I still dont understand what exactly these people think that Apple can fix? I would like to see some reports on other mp3 devices that have burst into flames as well and see if it is actually only an Apple iPod occurrence. And also to see the percentage of their devices catching fire vs devices sold.
She then goes on to say that Consumer Product Safety Commission officials said “the number of incidents is extremely small in relation to the number of products produced, making the risk of injury very low.” Then she starts quoting the burn victims parents who say that it should be recalled. So s is trying to make the case that ordinary people who 1. do not have any experience about legal matters or any precedence of other devices being recalled for similar reasons and 2. are the victims. OF COURSE the victims are going to want it to be recalled… actually she wasnt even talking to the victims she was talking to their parents. It makes sense that the parents of a child who’s iPod just burst into flames and melted would want the device recalled. The reporter picked the most hysterical and biased people to get comments from so she has at least a couple quotes that support her claim, even if those quotes are not actually from an expert with knowledge of any kind with these sort of things.
There are just so many holes in her article I dont see how anyone could say that Apple was covering up anything.