It seems like a hard surface, because at around :20 when the tip of the Kindle touches the surface...The plastic on the tip shatters and you can see a small white debris cloud. I don't think that would happen with a rubber mat.

If anyone ever wonders why a device that costs $45 to manufacter is sold for $200... you can thank whiners like Paul Gowder.

People who use threats of legal action in place of personal responsibility disgust me. The man admitted he dropped it and yet he feels entitled to compensation for his own act.

Does anyone actually wonder why lawyers (and those who pretend to be lawyers) are so dispised?

You are completely wrong.

In fact, they would and they do. Apple regularly rejects items under warranty if you have set off internal and/or external water detection markers. They may also have internal accelerometer measurements. The Kindle may have such implementations as well.

This is precisely because everyone who breaks their personal electronics says "Uh, I didn't do nothing" or in this case "I did something but your video said it would survive."

I bet you my broken iPod that examination would show the guy is full of crapola.

Momentum might be relevant, but for that we would need to know the arrangement of objects in the messenger bag: in particular, did the other hardware hit the kindle, or did the two objects hit the ground separately?

To my surprise, despite falling off my car at 25 MPH, it had only a single (minor) dent and no damage that prevented it from functioning.

And as he said, the $200 was for his time and hassle, and ALSO to compensate for the fact that his replacement Kindle would still be less durable than advertised.

If you think of a graph of e-books over time, it would go upwards until reaching the capacity of the reader. At no point could you say "Here is where the user had all the books they needed".

And forensic examination? Come on. If this did become a class action, tests would be done to determine the Kindle's durability. No-one's going to waste their time trying to prove how it was actually dropped.

Anyway, why speculate on how the OP's letter might be wrong in a totally different situation? His response is clever precisely because it was appropriate and successful in this case.

If it looks like a standard Kindle dropping two feet onto a tile and surviving, then that's what it is, and that's the promise Amazon are making.

The alternative would allow advertisers to display all sorts of features, and then claim "ah well, that was a specially reinforced model, dropped under lunar gravity onto a block of invisi-foam."

Where did you get 'under any circumstances' from?

He describes the way he dropped his Kindle as similar to the drop in the video, and that's why he expected it to survive.

People who buy the Kindle are paying for a logo. And beyond that the fact that it doesn't have it's own memory card slot makes me wonder why in the world people buy it.

Someone finally got some justice.

@Rachacha: I don't think it matters what else was in the bag. From what I can gather from the letter, the fact that it was in the messenger bag and what else was in it is a moot point, since the amazon rep didn't dispute his version of events, and instead chose the reason for denying warranty as the kindle dropping at all.

You forgot dropping the Kindle above a giant fan, where the upstream wind matches or is close to the speed of downward gravitational pull.

@HogwartsAlum: That seems to be the trouble for me, I've chipped one of my bowls and busted the handle off one of my "onion soup" bowls. I super-glued the handle back on and it just recently popped off again. Might try gorrilla glue next.

I am surprised there was not a non disclosure attached to the payment. Amazon get ready for the flood of lawsuit threat letters. How long before the drop video disappears?

@unpolloloco: Not nice. Please allow the poster to maintain his sense of superiority even if his sarcasm sensors are out of whack. He might need the ego boost.

What exactly that warranty would be in this case is a question. The OP would claim that the warranty is that the Kindle is very durable. True Amazon would claim no warranty (though that argument would likely fail). Amazon would further argue if there is a warranty it is not as encompassing as the OP claims.

That would take on to roughly the MTD. At that point it would be determined how broad the warranty was. If it was held that Amazon is warrantying that the Kindle is highly durable it would likely then be for the jury to decide whether the trauma was covered under that warranty. Yes the burden is on the OP to show the device failed under the terms of the warranty but if the court determines the warranty is very wide that may not be such a hard case. If the court determines the warranty is narrow - then true it would be a difficult showing.

(As I said in another commnent) even if a court said the video was an express warranty, the burden would be on the consumer, not Amazon to show that the device failed under those conditions. Good luck with that, right?

I think Amazon is in the clear. There would have to be widespread Kindle failures for implied reasons of shock and impact for that video to be "on trial" so to speak.

"I have to agree with Billy. The video is basically an express warranty."

I disagree. The video promotes the device's durability. It does not warranty that the consumer has no reasonable expectation to care for their device or that Amazon will reimburse any customer that claims they dropped the device at the same height.

Further, the OP provides no evidence of how he dropped the device. Let's pretend this became a gazillion dollar lawsuit. Wanna make a bet that forensic examination casts doubt on the OP's claim he only dropped it two feet?

Even if a court said the video was an express warranty, the burden would be on the consumer, not Amazon to show that the device failed under those conditions. Good luck with that, right?

I think Amazon is in the clear. There would have to be widespread Kindle failures for implied reasons of shock and impact for that video to be "on trial" so to speak.

That's my take...

- He broke the device.
- He made a somewhat dubious claim legally that the device failed to meet Amazon's claims
- Amazon wrote him a $400 check for what is generally known to be a "nuisance claim."

Companies write checks like this all the time. They get hassled for legitimate claims and hassled by people claiming the product caused cosmic radiation to corrode their brains. The companies pay out. It's just easier for them to make you go away.

I don't think these folks are heroes. Mr. Paul probably could have gotten his Kindle replaced by simply writing a letter to Jeff Bezos.

And the truth is, I'm not really sure he deserved to be reimbursed for anything. As I said, his claim that Amazon represents it will replace any products not surviving a drop is probably not going to hold up. If you have a commercial showing a product is durable, then does not legally translate into the company guaranteeing to replace a product when the consumer is at fault.

They gave him $400 because it would have been more expensive to deal with him.

@Rachacha: The Kindle MAY experience those forces, depending on where in the bag it was. You claim that it as a fact, that it "experienced an impact force 10 times that of the Kindle alone with all other factors remaining equal", a thoroughly unsubstantiated claim.

Unless you saw the packed bag, you have no idea if the Kindle was on top, bottom, or to the side of the laptop. With the padding in the bag, I could claim that it experienced less impact than the video and still broke -- also an unsubstantiated, but just as valid, claim as yours.

Now the letter writer is also making claims, but he is more knowledgeable than you on the topic and Amazon decided to pay to make him go away.

and also why there needs to be a law that pictures are actually of a real corresponding sandwich, or (not quite as good but better than the current status quo) just words with no picture representation. Selling based on lies and fabrications should NOT be an accepted reality, it should be fraud punishable by fines. Just because you have settled and sold your soul for nothing doesn't mean I or anybody else should.

Consumers have a right to know not only the ingredients in and volume of their damn food but the quality of preparation too.

I'm not saying he's to blame, but I don't think Amazon was in this case. I also think the 400 is overkill, a new Kindle would have been fair.

Personally, I will never buy it. I spill stuff on my books because I read while eating. And of course, in the tub; disaster waiting to happen. *shudder*

Except he would be unable to prove that nothing was sitting on the screen and that nothing subsequently landed on the screen. In fact as per his description, that is what it sounds like. Something smashed the screen and it can no longer fully works.

An increase of a penny across the board on all prices would likely result in reimbursement for the company for all these settlements and then some. No consumer would really care, but the net effect is that everyone ends up paying more for other people's accidents and/or abuse.

Maybe the guy should buy a replacement and a better padded bag???!?!

I still find the idea of the kindle stupid because reading books that aren't teardown manuals or c# books feels stupid to me. Maybe non-fiction; no book has ever made me re-evaluate things regardless of the awards it's author covets.

Besides..."Movies give twice the knowledge in half the time!" (+1 if you get the quote)

Or at least a friend with a law degree who's willing to write letters for a price.

actually $400 < 2 hours of their GC's time.

Anyone notice the irony? In Dr. Suess' "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" the Nook was a creature that can't read...

A simple video showing a drop test introduces way too many variables into the picture, and really shouldn't be used as any kind of proof of durability.

That said, I'm not sure that they'd win in court. That video is pretty convincing evidence that the device was "Advertised" as being able to withstand a fall onto a hard surface.

I'm really somewhat torn on this one, though I still think that it's a bit overkill to expect them to replace the product for free because he dropped it, even if it was advertised as being durable.

You can say with certainty that the customer, not Amazon, is responsible for packing and transportation of the device once it's in the customer's hands.

I think that is hard to determine. We no nothing of the forces involved. It would be impossible to speculate. For all we know, the Mac Book landed on the Kindle or something in his bag was between the screen and the ground or another object. Either would go beyond the durability implied in the video.

They probably decided, based on the content of the letter, it would be cheaper than to appear in court. Not that they thought they would lose.

It is quite possible that the Kindle was at the top of the bag, experiencing only the added force of whatever fabric was above it and benefitting from the cushioning of the padded bag at the point of impact.

It's possible the Kindle experienced more force than the one in the video did, but that cannot be stated with anything approaching certainty. The range of potential forces on the Kindle exceeds the implied warrantee at the top end, perhaps, but is cleanly below it at the bottom end.

So, if the Kindle is not designed to be dropped from two feet without expecting damage, perhaps it's more than a little inappropriate to provide a video of the device being dropped from two feet and implying it suffered no damage.

It's strange that you say "if something doesn't perform as advertised...you're entitled..." but then say "not everything that breaks is the fault of the manufacturer". Both are absolutely true. But again, when the type of damage is specifically shown to be damage the device is capable of sustaining, but the device doesn't survive, then the device isn't performing as advertised.

(Since few accidental falls occur over rubber mats, it's not unreasonable to think something more typical like a messenger bag would perform a similar role)

Amazon shouldn't have paid him shit.

So he still has his old Kindle, which the whole story could have been a lie to get a second Kindle, or did he even owned a Kindle in the first place, and he just wanted a free one.

Amazon *could* argue that the OP's Kindle wasn't dropped at the right angle for "durability" or that the floor was different, or the height was off (or whatever). But they're not arguing with the OP that his Kindle should have survived the drop as he described it.

If they hadn't make that video, I would completely agree that it's not Amazon's problem. But they did. They'd be hypocrites to not stand by their product.

I say this as a 3/3 lawyer.

If you read the Amazon comments on Kindle, there are many indicating that, if dropped, even from a low height, the Kindle can break. It has a glass screen; it is perhaps the major weakness of this product.

The same is obviously true of a laptop and other electronic equipment. The differenc may be that the Kindle is sold as a reader ... a book replacement. even with a cover ($30 extra), it is slippery. If you fall asleep with the Kindle on your lap, you may wake up with it lying broken on the floor.

For $60.00, Kindle buyers can get an extra year warranty and ONE drop and break no-questions-asked replacement.

The next generation will be plastic and I suspect at that point, the problem will pretty much go away.

@econobiker: My problem with the Kindle is that I don't have to pay any extra to read regular books. I understand that Amazon needs to make money off a pretty expensive thing to produce, but I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on a Kindle because the only thing it does is let me read books.

@Rachacha: You can respond to anyone, delete the html tags and it'll still show up in this particular post.

@H3ion: per my comment above: What tee's me the most about Kindle is that now that we seem to FINALLY be moving to one integrated digital thing to do everything - phone/computer/games/camera- after years of all that separate and now here is Kindle yet another thing to carry about and recharge and worry about breaking...

Hopefully both readers use the same source so we don't have a bluray vs. hddvd or vhs vs. beta type battle of the e-book readers...

@vildechaia:
Real books FTW!

@vildechaia:

Tree killer.

Have you not knowledge that you must worship to the digital god of closed application information resource requiring energy harvested from the wind and sun (as least as soon as those are efficient enough- sticking with coal and nuclear power electricty for now...)

What tee's me the most about Kindle is that now that we seem to FINALLY be moving to one integrated digital thing to do everything - phone/computer/games/camera- after years of all that separate and now here is Kindle yet another thing to carry about and recharge and worry about breaking...

I'm most interested in the Nook's ability to lend e-books, a feature the Kindle sorely lacks.

@H3ion: It appears that he tried to get customer service to solve the issue but they failed so he brought out the big gun to prove to them why the issue should be addresses. By only pricing his request at $400 he made it very easy for Amazon to comply.

Kudos also to him as identifying the broken one as evidence so it doesn't disappear into the void though it is reasonable for Amazon to want it back.

I have worked warranty cases related to automotive and truck industry parts and the part supplier/ manufacturer usually wants the parts returned for failure review or to ensure they are not repaired/reused. In some cases the parts were sometimes too large to ship back so we had mechanics run the replaced parts over with forklifts and send digital pictures back. Conversely one oem manufacturer was paying a bunch of claims on a suppliers's parts and not sending anything back or any communication so it was a big mess when someone finally asked the right question. Recall is a dirty word in that industry especially for smaller suppliers which would fold up versus paying for a recall campaign...

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: Ewww... So they really can break? I was thinking that I might get those if/when I want to replace my dishes that I already have. We've broken a couple of things and because of the tv commercials (har har) I thought they weren't breakable.

Maybe you could send them a strongly worded letter with that clip of the runway models.

I don't think that any consumer electronics are designed to be bounced around or dropped from two feet without expecting any damage. Even the ruggedized computers that are carried by our service men and women are not going take unlimited abuse.

Amazon's ad, in my opinion, is akin to attaching a watch to an outboard motor. And the reason the Kindle bounces in the ad is because the surface is a rubber pad or a shock absorber.

If something doesn't perform as advertised, by all means, get recourse because you're entitled to what you were told you were buying, but not everything that breaks is the fault of the manufacturer and I think Mr. Gowder shared some responsibility here.

@TheUncleBob: I keep my kindle stored in the bottom of my bowling ball bag, and when I dropped my bag on the floor it crushed my Kindle. FALSE ADVERTISING /sarcasm

I made a post above that went into the math of the impact forces involved in a drop. The kindle in a bag with a 4.5lb laptop experienced an impact force 10 times that of the Kindle alone with all other factors remaining equal.

Way to go!

@pecan 3.14159265: I am not picking on your comment...I just needed someone to respond to.

The difference between the Amazon Video drop and the OP drop was the addition of a messenger bag (with some protective padding), and a laptop computer (and possibly some other paperwork, accessories and other personal items).

The weight of the Kindle is approximately 10oz (0.625lbs). When this is fropped from a height of 2 feet, the device experiences an impact force of 1.25ft-lbs.

A Macbook weighs about 4.7lbs. Adding the weight of the bag, the Kindle and other belongings, his pag likely weighed approximately 5.5lbs. When dropped from 2 feet, the bag and its contents experienced an impact force of approximately 11ft-lbs, almost ten times that of the Kindle alone. While it is reasonable to assume that the kindle will be dropped, Amazon can't anticipate every situation, and to design for an impact force 10 or 20 times (if I had a larger laptop computer) that of the device alone may be going to far.

The video and the OP's circumstances are not comperable, and therefore any claims of "false advertising" as noted in the previous comment thread can not be made.

Other people DO have a point in that there ARE idiots out there who don't know about gravity and fancy things like that.

@ThinkerTDM: The big hamburger serving clown got spanked years ago when their cherry pie food thing box had pictures of a bunches of cherries on it yet the actual cherry pie food thing had only one to three cherries or cherry pieces in it. I think I even remember Letterman disecting one of the things...

Unless you purchase accidental warranty/protection you and only you should be responsible for the damages.

@pecan 3.14159265:

That sentence (minus the bame) applies to about 90% of all settlements.

Look - Amazon nowhere says "you're right." All they say is, "OK, we'll pay." $400 just isn't worth the time to defend the lawsuit.

Now, if we had losing party pays, Amazon might well have said go ahead and sue.

This is a case of a lawyer being a lawyer and twisting things in a way that makes it difficult for amazon to say no. This is the sort of thing that increases costs to everyone and this sort of lawyering is exactly the sort of thing most commentators on blogs like consumerist usually rail *against*.

It's turncoat for people to like it just because it's a little guy winning against a big company rather than the other way around. It's still bad lawyering.

@Moosehawk: I guess I am still confused at how they are different.
1. They both are trying to get someone to buy a product.
2. They both show a product that doesn't exist- a cheeseburger that looks good, a kindle that can survive a drop.

Also- the kindle was probably made in China, by workers making less than a burger flipper.

So, I stand by what I said in my original post: all advertising are lies- without regard to the actual cost of the product.

The same can be said for EECBs, and it's not necessarily true. It only ceases to work if they call your bluff and discover you are, well, bluffing. If people write letters like this and fully intent to follow through with any threats made, the letters will continue to work.

@H3ion: It has been announced. It'll be $259.

@pecan 3.14159265: This is one of my favorite "Me and My dad" stories:

My dad and I were shopping at Sams for Christmas gifts for our extended relatives. We were down the kitchen aisle and I said, "What about that bowl, Aunt Rhonda could use it maybe." it was just a clear glass mixing bowl.. and my dad picked it up to look at it and somehow accidentally dropped it.

The floor inside Sams is concrete.

That bowl bounced atleast 5 times, with a huge THWWAANGG sound for each bounce, but it did NOT break.

We were both laughing so hard.. mostly of embarassment. With a noise like that everyone looks at you. Dad picked it up off the floor and carefully put it back on the shelf. "That's a nice bowl, for somebody else."

He dropped his bag and was pissed that he was going to be forced to shell out some $$ to replace his Kindle that HE broke. So he used his legal knowledge and crafted an arguably legitimate claim that Amazon found sufficient to warrant a $400 check. As 2/3 of a lawyer, I think the general idea is brilliant and creative, albeit a bit sleazy. However, as a general consumer, I think this is overkill and that his expectations for the durability of consumer-grade electronics, especially when pitted against concrete, are too high.

@TheUncleBob: I don't think Paul is necessarily in the right entirely, but I think Amazon just wanted to make him go away.

thank you.

Ummmm, parachute.

@ubermex: Unless the bag somehow hit the ground at terminal velocity, no. It should have fallen at a releative speed if not less. If you can make an object fall at terminal velocity by simply dropping it within a height of 3 feet then I need to contact you so I may make a lot of money and retire.

@LVSinner: This makes sense, since one of Paul's arguments was that his Kindle didn't bounce like it did in the video. If it was a rubber mat, it would bounce.

@kexline: I personally thought this was enough of a sarcasm tag, "If I'm going to be clumsy enough to drop expensive electronics, I make them fall as slow as possible." but clearly I was mistaken. I still found it funny :)

You know, I bet this guy is surprised when the McDonalds cheeseburger he ordered looks nothing like the one in the picture.

Most people realize that advertisments are all lies.

@dragonfire81: Since false advertising is illegal. I think this is a pretty explicit warranty of durability.

This is made of all kinds of awesome. Kudos to Amazon for using some logic and just going with it.

Awesome that this guy got what he expected, but even more awesome that Amazon complied. Them losing $400 but keeping a customer and generating positive PR about this is infinitely greater than keeping $400, losing a customer, and getting a TON of bad publicity like so many others have.

@nonzenze: As the company who manufactures (not literally, it's probably subbed out) and whose name is branded on the product, they are making themselves liable for the durability and reliability. I don't see how this is raising prices for anybody. Someone is taking advantage of the claims of durability they made in the video. It did not perform as advertised. What's the problem?

@DannyJD: They dropped the kindle from what appears to be two feet. Paul says his Kindle dropped from what appears to be two feet. There shouldn't have been a difference in impact because you can't drop anything faster - you can throw it or push it, so it hits the ground harder, but you can't drop something and will it to get to the bottom faster.

You don't seriously think making Amazon pay is anything different than making Amazon's customers pay, right? Every penny that Amazon pays out is a penny paid in by someone buying their stuff.

I wonder if that other guy is regretting getting Amazon to take back their money from his wife's dropped Kindle.

Damn. Just Damn. Law school rules!

While I applaud the guy for what he did, since when are we supposed to believe all the product claims we see/read/hear in marketing?