Sorry folks, but this isn't going to put a dent in any lawsuit. Apple still requires YOU to set the maximum volume manually. h***, if you couldn't be capable enough to read the manual where it says "Warning! Hearing loss if sound too high! Don't crank that volume up to 11!", then they're not going to be capable of doing this.

What apple would need to do is put a big freaking warning label right there on the front (or back, perhaps) that says "Warning! Sound might be loud and cause deafness!"

Of course, I'm planning on suing apple because their device causes people to lose concentration while driving and causing accidents. Its certainly not my fault that I slammed into that car. Its apple's fault for not warning me not to play with the ipod while driving...

DID YOU SAY SOMETHING????

It is a nice feature to add, as long as it's not mandatory. Good Go Apple.

How ignorant are you people who complain about the legitimate discourse of health in society?! You make the assumption that scientists and the French want to take all of your freedoms away. Well that ain't true, though it is politically convenient to make fun of the French for now.

Lawsuits are how society determines safety and security issues in a democracy. Laissez faire robber baronry and tyranny are the two other methods and they don't work without a police state, so take a historical perspective chill pill.

A voluntary, parentally controllable software solution is the correct one, but it took this long for Apple to make it available. That means that Apple was unaware of the problem and consumers had to get their attention. The system worked, quit complaining unless you have a better system.

As for the car governor analogy, that would be similar if we gave 10-year olds driver's liscences, but it isn't.

It is ALL about education - from smoking to seatbelts and laws in the end only are needed when education isn't sufficient or when people endanger the lives of others by disregarding them. So yeah, this is hardly as big as other issues, but think before slamming scientists as you use your computer and realize how many scientists and lawsuits have been needed to make writing opinions safe and possible.

Stupid, stupid complainers...

A voluntary, parentally controllable software solution is the correct one, but it took this long for Apple to make it available. That means that Apple was unaware of the problem and consumers had to get their attention. The system worked, quit complaining unless you have a better system.

I'd say that the system is seriously flawed if it took 27 years to figure out there was a "problem" and that the problem was Apple's. The iPod is far from being the first portable audio player with headphones (and for non-portable, we go back much further).

This isn't about education, it's about deep pockets -- finding them, suing them and then raking in the fees while each of the class action "plaintiffs" get a check for $2.30.

One of the reasons our society is falling apart is because of the predatory practices of lawyers. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Now, you need to sign a release for everything, post signs for every concievable issue, etc. In Pennsylvania, its virturally impossible to become a doctor today because of the high cost of insurance. Why? Lawyers. You dont like something? you sue. You feel slighted? you sue.

Granted, there are legitimate reasons for lawyers, but if you put a boiling hot styrofoam cup of coffee in your lap when driving, dont be surprised if your burn yourself. If you smoke, and you get lung problems, is it really RJR's fault? If you drink and crash your car, is it Budweisers fault? And the granddaddy of them all, for all you anti-gunners, if the gun kills, then it must be Smith & Wessons fault.

Personal responsibility., not the nanny state.

The general flavor of the commentary here is not that scientists are bad, rational discourse is bad, democracy is bad, nor that laws or bad... lawsuits whose raison d'être (the French aren't bad, either... most of the time) is questionable at best.

How long has mankind known that loud noises are bad for our hearing? If the '60s gave us nothing else, it gaves us an appreciation of the power of loud music to damage one's hearing (not to mention an appreciation for the effects of a variety of stimuli on the human body). While the style of headphones has changed over the last 40 years (though the best still look roughly the same), their effects on the human have changed little - and Apple has certainly not had any role in any of this.

Did Apple invent the headphones? ...no. Did Apple invent some form of headphones more dangerous than those of any other manufacturers? ...no. Did Apple invent the concept of portable music players? ...no. Did Apple invent a form of portable music player more prone to harm ones hearing than the players from any other manufacturer? ...no.

So why are we suing Apple again? ...oh yeah, because they were successful in creating a legal music download system and associated hardware and they have lots of money as a result.

This is what everyone is "complaining" about... the litigious leeches that have infested our culture, undermining the legal process and defacing the laws designed to protect us. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is those individuals who use the legal system like the lottery that we're all complaining about.

...little kids (8 years and under) who may not know it can hurt their ears even if told again and again. Anyone else should know better. While some suits are legit, the one causing Apple to issue this software update is not. If the judge has brains the suit will get tossed and the attorney will be fined for wasting the court's time and my tax dollars. I own a G5 60 and have yet to ruin my hearing. Been using headphone for years and still no permanent damage. If I do hurt my hearing I can look in the mirror daily and point to the one to blame. How can anyone be liberal or progressive these days when these people are so irresponsible? The suit makes me embarrassed to be human. Arf. Think I'll become a dog and lift my leg on the attorney's shoe.