So some attention-deprived class action lawyers are suing Apple because of a false statement about iPhone batteries that appeared in a sensationalist article a few weeks ago. Patrick commented on my previous post with a link to a Business 2.0 posting about this. I’m sure it’ll be all over the press in the coming days.

Gizmodo summed this up perfectly with “dumbtastically stupid.” That phrase could also apply to Business 2.0, but would need a few other clauses added to cover petty, wrong and dull. Oh, and broke. And clueless. Reinforcing all of that, this bit of the Business 2.0 posting stood out as just pathetic:

My memory is not what it used to be, but I seem to recall that it wasn’t until after the iPhone went on sale that Apple issued a formal description of how many times the battery could be recharged before it might need replacement, in which case there might be something to the complaint.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt, you are getting paid to blog, how hard is it to use Google? Or, you know, just remember something that was a huge stink in the area you cover professionally just two and a half weeks ago? You are paid to blog. Find the damn link. Here: Apple – Batteries – iPhone.

Apple’s battery page clearly states:

A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs.

I’m pretty sure this all started with Kent German and Donald Bell’s original iPhone review for CNET, also published by CNN:

Unfortunately, the Phone does not have a battery that a user can replace. That means you have to send the iPhone to Apple to replace the battery after it’s spent (Apple is estimating one battery will keep its full strength for 400 charges–probably about three years’ worth of use).

That slightly misleading paragraph, which implies the battery will be spent after 400 cycles, first echoed by Gizmodo, was later breathlessly parroted and made more dire by MSNBC’s Bob Sullivan:

The iPhone battery will only survive about 300-400 recharges, the company says.

Well that’s just completely wrong. Bob seemingly didn’t bother to check his facts against the original source. Gizmodo at least had the good sense to recant. John Gruber of Daring Fireball named Sullivan Jackass of the Week, the title could have gone to any number of people.

Apple has sold over 100 million iPods, none of those have had user-replaceable batteries. That obviously hasn’t stopped what seems like every fourth person on the sidewalk from buying and using iPods.

Frankly, I doubt most people ever change the battery on their cell phones and Apple discovered this during market research. I don’t ever recall doing so with my RAZR, for the most part I just charged that POS every night. I had a spare for my previous LG, but never used it. The iPhone’s fixed battery was most likely a well-founded design consideration reinforced by the unmitigated success of the sealed-battery iPod.

This whole mess should have been pretty much dealt with a few weeks ago. Jason Snell thoroughly covered this in MacWorld back on July 12th. Yet I was talking with a friend about the iPhone earlier this week and she brought up the 300 charges number.

No one ever sees corrections in the news. If a story gets in the paper, no matter how wrong, people will believe it and very few will ever find out that the truth was largely contradictory.