I do not see any other stylus in the market that is as precise and well to work as the adonit when it comes to drawing and painting. Adonit takes the cake. The problem I have is the adonit definitely scratches my screen protectors, and I even bought the scratch resistant, crystal clear, 1 per $17 screen ones and I still get scratches. I thoroughly clean my screen and my stylus disc, not just that but I have a spare disc and it is causing the same issues... Seems adonit will scratch my protectors no mater what. I suppose the only thing I can do is replace my protectors once every 3 months or so. Im sad, because I see drawing tablets use similar stylus' and their users dont seem to be complaining.

I would love to buy the pressure adonit stylus, but $99 for a tool that scratches the hell out of my protectors seems like I am just condoning this destruction and I cant do it.

I think it is pretty clear that the disk itself won't scratch the glass, but I suspect that it will 'scratch' the oleophobic layer on top of the glass (the fingerprint reduction coating).  Throughout this discussion, I haven't seen it brought up, and I think it may be getting lumped in with scratching the glass. 

After a bit of use, when I turned my ipad off, and the light hit it just right, you could read entire words perfectly.  You couldn't feel any physical scratches, and you couldn't see anything wrong when the screen was turned on, but it was a bit disconcerting.  Even if I hadn't been able to find an acceptable screen protector, I would have continued to use my jot because I consider it *way* more useful and valuable than the oleophobic layer. 

Thanks God I've read it before start actually using this thing. Instead I've tried JotPro on my iPhone4 which has little scratches already. The result is impressive. Every, I should write it bold, every small speck of dust, even invisible, under the disk will definelty scratch your screen. And when there is absolutely no any dust on the disk and on the screen, it's true that the disk itself isn't scratch the iPad or iPhone glass.

So using the screen protector is a MUST if you're using Jot Pro. Just because you can not even see if there any dirt on the disk or not. Invisible hard dust will scratch and it will be better if it scratch protection film rather the expensive glass.

Sad but true, just for me 30$ pen is absolutely useless and probably will go to the wardobe box.

Hi Jon.

Saw the post about the updated language and wanted to say that it looks much clearer that way.

As stated previously, I appreciate your taking the time to listen to our concerns on wording.

Will do Jon, Thanks

Interesting insights from the lawyer, Jon, and Chris.

I have to be honest, if Jon and Chris are in the right, we have a serious gap on consumer expectations. A major major glass. Somewhere in Chris' post about static electricity and plastic via other stuff and types of glass and etc, I definitely went cross-eyed

Its a bloody stylus. I can't tell you how little time i put into research (beyond what was on the product page) for a 30 dollar item when it was already reccomended to me. Again. Its fine this is an outcome of the product, but to for me to know the physics on static charge's and stylus materials and the effect that has on screen scratches (drastically raising their frequency) is an absurd assumption. I still cant figure out why this screen scratches, but my windows (on my apartment or car) never seem to scratch despite my constantly cleaning them, people getting their hands on them, constantly opening/closing, etc.

Again I am not a tech guy. Just a guy who was recommended a product. Maybe I dont fit your customer base?

I have not forgotten to talk directly to support in e-mail. Gotten a little lazy after so many bad picture attempts. Hoping to get to it for memorial day (if work will let me breathe for a moment!)

Back from my trip.

I tried taking some photos but its hard to get the screen to show the scratches without the pictures getting a glare. Anyone have any tips?

After experimenting with nearly every styli created and the tragic loss of my real stylus - iFarady, I thought the Jot Pro deserved another look. I will not do so after reading this thread.  I'm appalled by representative Jon's (Jon) carefully worded responses. However, I have no stake the outcome, well, other than entertainment. 

I’m a lawyer, and Jon is not only taking your money but also calling you an idiot for mistakenly attributing liability. Hopefully, someone will take my discussion further and seek counsel.  This is a viable claim.  It is important to note, Jon does make several valid points regarding product liability, but not once does he address the issue with evidence.  You're not asking the right questions.  Let me explain.

Procedurally, a couple of you should hire a lawyer with a history of successful class certifications (class action claims).  Companies factor litigation cost into fiduciary obligation.  Simple delays and placation will eliminate half of the claimants because it’s not worth the time and cost to litigate. While courts are reluctant to certify class suits, this might be the right one.  First, the controversy raises an interesting legal question that will reoccur without resolution, so the Court will likely hear the case.  Next, it set precedence for something that will replace computers, shortly. 

The short version, because I don’t have a stake in the outcome, I’m an independent tester.  Seek a products liability firm with a solid reputation for class action certification. The issue is valid (ripe), it’s individualized and concrete harm for which a remedy is available. 

Jon's argument is quite simple: At a molecular level, basic laws of science prove that we are surrounded with an inescapable cloud matter.  Because the matter is so infinitesimally small, liability cannot be directly attributable to Jot.  Without certainty, how can a court justify damages?  It requires solid reasoning.   

Interestingly, the argument is sound and somewhat rock solid, to the layperson.  Can anyone prove that Jot is 100% liable?  Unlikely, contributory negligence weights heavily on redressability.  Without a definitive remedy, a court will dismiss for lack of standing.  Justiciability is too complex to discuss, but it is sufficient justification for a motion to dismiss on summary judgment. 

The counter argument is too simple that I fear I'm missing something.  However, I doubt it.  An analogy might be illustrative:  Mike is pointing a gun at Jon's head, but Jon told Mike that the gun was unloaded.  Sally, drunk, staggers by and bumps Mike causing the gun to fire, and unbeknownst to either of them, Sally loaded the gun earlier.  Jon dies from a head wound.  Because the shot was a head shot, it exited Jon’s head and ricocheted off the tree, striking and mortally wounding the drunken Sally.  Who is liable? 

Tough decision ... the more variable added to the hypothetical the more elusive a "right" answer becomes.  Below, I discuss how Jon uses ambiguous complexities to change the question in his favor with a strong variable: infinity. 

After summary Judgment, the claimant will present the facts. Team Jon will attempt to refute each one of them with complexity.  For example, if I say the sky is blue; he'll ask where, Seattle?  Alternatively, he might use “junk science” to ask, “how can we know with certainty that the sky is blue? Because microscopic particulate matter refracts sunlight, the sky appears blue but this is not factually correct.” What do you think?  Knowing this is true, is the sky blue? 

After our claim is made, team Jon is likely to invoke the long standing principles of contract law.  However, this will likely fail because of the inherent inequities in bargaining power, between a consumer and a behemoth company, Jot cannot be ignored.  Often, this is called contract adhesion.  Generally, adhesion contracts are standard form contracts and or warranties that are drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by the weaker party (usually a consumer in need of goods or services), who must adhere to the contract and therefore does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract.  This argument will prevail.  For a contract to be valid, consideration (bargaining) must be possible.   

Now the fun part, lets parse the language employed by Jon and determine what it is he's saying or not saying.  This is why most of you are frustrated.  He'll continue to do it until you give up. Do not do this. Hire someone like Jon that knows what Jon is doing.  Hire a lawyer. 

According to Jon, "it's possible to detect scratches on the …  [Jot's] disc's surface ... [but] invisible to the unaided eye, [but] … microscopic particles [do] adhere to the soft underside of the disc's surface and scratch it."  

The entirety of the issue turn on this statement.  Admission of possibility in first clause is key, but Jon tries to qualify or limit the assertion with an unsupported assumption.  Oops! However, since the company recommends a screen protector, as Jon professes, the consumer is perpetually at “risk of an inevitable scratch,” and therefore, Jon is not liable. Recall contract adhesion?  It must be clearly stated and not a mere recommendation buried in the product's website.  Moreover, note the use of inevitable: how long?  If he’s referring to an unidentifiable time-frame, it’s considered forever.  So yea, definitionally, he’s correct.  Finally, Jon completely misstates the law, but an excellent use of misleading rhetoric tries to hide his ignorance.  Note his lack of qualifying language, nothing he has written forces him into a position. 

Next, Jon argues that because the company has not received nor confirms any reports of disc protrusions causing the actual damage, then they don't exist.  This is art of argument 101.  It's called cum hoc ergo propter hoc meaning that a correlation of occurrences is not sufficient evidence to establish causation.  Refuting this is difficult because it never ends, 999 occurrences out of 1,000 proves nothing.  Numerous variable not factored into the analysis might be attributable to the cause, if not partially contributory.  Tough argument to make when a significant amount of factual evidence allow plausible inferences. 

Jon's entire argument is summarized thusly: "it is not our product that is scratching screens; it is environmental debris."  Love it.  Think about what his saying.  First he set up the pictures and planted the seed that they do acknowledge possible liability, allowing for sympathy.  Before you know it, his statement flips the script to supports his "alternative causation" theory.  

The introduction of microscopic environmental matter is significant because it is eludes qualification; it’s infinite.  Infinity has no beginning nor end.  Without those two components, logical reasoning cannot support inferential liability. 

In law, we use the colloquial principle: "laugh test."  If you cannot postulate an assertion without someone laughing, it shall never be used.  A few examples of where Jon forgot this principle: "Like other stylus manufacturers, … our website advising that if customers are not going to use a screen protector on their device, they need to keep their screen clean."  

Really?  Seriously?  He's using "other manufactures" to support his argument.  Note the lack of support with “other” makers. Does he mean Most, some, none, or all? Knowing this changes everything.  Exemplary use of ambiguity under the guise of evidence.  

Another example where the laugh test should have been used, "any glass screen which is not using a screen protector is going to be scratched eventually, regardless of the kind of stylus used, or even if only a fingertip is used. That is the risk you choose to accept when you decide not to use a screen protector."  I love this one.  So Apple, the manufacturing company that supports a parasitic company like Jot, is wrong? Is Jon explicitly saying: forget what apple recommends, we know better. Of course, Jot has done "extensive testing."  Again, the phrase is not defined, thus it’s both ambiguous and infinite.  

Finally, to prove that Jon is right, he offers you his own personal tragedy, "I experienced this myself with my own smartphone, which was scratched within four hours of purchase, despite the fact hat I had never used anything on it other than my fingertip."  Is he trying to garner sympathy or prove an assertion without evidence?  Both.  Again, art of argument 101, identify with you adversary, illicit sympathy.  Jon learned his lesson: always heed the conventional wisdom of others over a multibillion dollar company like Apple because clearly - Jot’s testing exceeds that of Apple’s testing.  Yea, right.  I’d love to read something about Apple asserting that a finger will eventually result in scratched glass.  This is poorly written and very transparent.  Look on the bright side, he's not calling you idiots, this time.  He's showing that someone with extensive knowledge like himself makes mistakes. 

While it's been fun, I'm losing interest after the paragraph above.  For a minute, I thought Jon might be the company lawyers since most responses are well written, dismissive yet ambiguous.  Fast forward to the end, if you’re sick of reading.

A few important quotes that need little explanation:

"we are able to have confidence in the knowledge that our stylus is not scratching screens, not only because of the extensive testing we have carried out, but also because of the independent tests which have been carried out on Jot discs which customers thought had scratched their screen. In every case it was clear, under magnification, that the plastic disc of the Jot was scratched."

According to Jon, you're wrong about the source of scratches because:

(1) extensive testing proves otherwise.  Another ambiguous and unsupported assertion both definitional and substantively.  What qualifies as extensive?  These are vital questions that have meaning to the layperson, but legally, without context, they are meaningless. e.g. after 5,000 complaints Jot cherry pick 5 styli and test three of them. Problem?  Yup, under plain meaning rule this qualifies as extensive testing.  Of those selected for testing, they test more than half of the lot, and the results prove Jot was not the definitive cause.  Are you buying this story?  I hope not.  

(2) we use an independent test.  This meaning an objective and neutral outsider did the tests.  I’m sure this is true, but Jot select the items tested, not the independent tester.  Apply the above rule and shown your results.

Nothing Jon has written is direct evidence over the issue of whether Jot is liable or the magic dust is the cause.  Until irrefutable evidence is provided, he’s working you until you get tired of it.  Textbook.  $250 is an odd number.  It’s large but not too large that consumers are guaranteed to litigate, and small enough that at some point, your time becomes more valuable than the effort.  Almost seems like a calculated risk, does it not? 

Here a good example of recharacterizing the question ask many have asked: 

"We never dismiss scratch claims by saying a screen 'will scratch eventually anyway'. What I have pointed out is that if you do not use a screen protector, then you have decided to accept the increased risk of your screen being scratched, and a screen without a protector is going to be scratched eventually, even if you never use any stylus on it at all."

Because he did not use qualifying language earlier, he’s right.  However, the plain meaning rule says otherwise.  

Here, Hamid is being overtly insulted

"Hamid, our Jot's plastic disc has been tested extensively, and we have sold tens of thousands of Jots. The fact that we still have only a tiny number of people contacting us about scratch claims, is further evidence that the Jot's plastic disc is not scratching the Gorilla Glass of people's screens."

Forget defining tiny, tell us what number would justify an inquiry?  The exact number. 50%? 80%? No amount would make a company question the lifeblood of its existence - until the litigation floodgate forced the company to act.

By now, you should be able to anticipate Jon’s responses before he does.  Try playing chess without prior experience, you lost before it began, he took your power,  

Never ask questions that you don’t know, at least tangentially, what the potential answers might be.  Force you opponent into a definitive position, then exploit it by using: ambiguity, infinity, and recharacterizing the issue in a manner favorable to your position.  All champion chess players, know their next six moves, and your next six even though you don’t know what they are.  Always anticipate and force your opponent into contrary positions.  Applied here, ask short and pointed questions.  Ask questions that require answers with qualifying words: how much, by whom, etc.    

"I have made the point repeatedly that scratching is inevitable with any stylus, if a screen protector is not used. However, it is completely avoidable by using screen protector. Any screen will inevitably be scratched regardless of whether or not a stylus is used, if a screen protector is not used."

Notice that Jon’s repetition has obviated the need to prove the assertion?  This is because omission is implicit acceptance.  He built this argument before many of you had even scratched your iPad.  

In closing, what ever you do.  Don't give up.  Don’t let Jon verbally annihilate you?  Use what I’ve written as a guide, and do it politely.  Identify the goal and focus on it.  Name calling and rudeness will not get you closer to the goal, and quite possibly, it will become another obstacle.  Jon does not care about you as a person, and anything you say will have little effect.  

A one paragraph summary of the legal dispute:  A paid B for C, but C damages D.

X is the cause of action - why you're in court.  A is you; B is Adonit; D is your iPad. 

X argues that B is liable for damages to D because but-for C no D would have occurred.  

Remove Adonit, the equation fails.  Establish but for causation for C (a proxy to B) You win. 

B characterizes the question as: since A failed to heed B warning, B is not liable for A’s misuse of C.  This is weak. 

Alternatively, if the court finds C did cause D to A's property.  B will argue that it is impossible to show that C is completely negligent for D to A.  

That's it.  At the very least, spread the word.  Tell everyone.  Public sentiment forces policy change.  Jon responses to many of you are simply repugnant.  I write someone else in the company because this affects sales, which have an impact on adonits existence.  Don't be intimidated or bullied, Jon lacks real skills.  If this is all they have to offer, this case is a winner every time, in every jurisdiction.

Good luck… I have screen shots, just in case this is removed.  My post will be remove quicker than the time it took me to write.  Hope it helps someone. 

Thank you Jon.

I think we have a disagreement on consumer expectations on product usage. I expect scratches over the lifetime use of my product. I do not expect them to occur so quickly through the use of a specific product.

My irk is that this could have been avoided by saying: Warning, use of this product without a screen protector will result in noticeable scratches on the screen.

I would have been warned and kept mine on, the company would have satisfactorily stated a known concern on its product, everyone is happy.

I  thank you for volunteering to look at the photos. I am traveling for a few days and will contact the help e-mail upon my return (can't load photos onto work computer). I'm not the best with a camera and my attempts to take a picture where one can clearly see the scratches have been a little troublesome.

My thanks again.

Hello Jon

I appreciate your willingness to allow me to state my case.

Would it help if i submitted a picture trying to capture the scratches just being caught on the border as well as the name of the app that I use for notes (so you can see why its just that edge?). I have to be honest though I get the feeling the response will be along the lines of 'it could have been caused by another device/natural use/etc.'

I have read your comments here and frankly its frustrating.

I am not a tech savy person (outside of the 'ohh cool!' or 'shiny!' factor.) I wanted a stylus. i frankly still dont understand why those old styluses from PDAs wont work. I don't really know what 'gorilla glass' is outside of the fact my ipad has it and it sounds strong.  I bought a cheap soft tip stylus because I didnt realize how hard it would be to write with. Amount of research? None. I just wanted a stylus and they sell for like 10 dollars.

I was told the Jot was a fantastic stylus. On a recommendation I checked it out and bought the product. I saw nothing on the amazon product page or this product page that stated scratching of the screen could occur with regular stylus use. Just a warning to keep your screen clean, which to me is something I'd do anyway (i hate smears/dust on my iphone).

Why was there an assumption that I would just know these things?  I just wanted a stylus to write with. How much background research was I going to do on a 30 dollar purchase? Do I expect scratches on my screen after i took my protector off? Absolutely, but so many within a short time period of owning both the ipad and the stylus?

I felt mislead. I went from being really happy to being kinda peeved. Like I said, I had a screen protector but took it off because of the grainy look ruining the ipad experience. Had I been aware at the purchase of the product that I was risking scratches so quickly, I would have dealt with the grain.

Thank you for the time to read my concerns and respond to my post. I find the defense of your product to be quite admirable, and as i said, I did enjoy using the product.

I will see if I can get a clear picture taken with my cameraphone or something if that is helpful.

I am so frustrated from reading the responses to user complaints on this page -- Adonit / Jon, you are completely missing the point. Everyone understands that it's a piece of dirt between the disc and the screen! We get that! Yeah, it's not your plastic disc itself. But it's STILL an impossible-to-completely-avoid problem with your product. You may not be able to pay for our iPad screens, but what you can do, is admit that this is still a design flaw, say that you're working on it, and in the meantime, heavily advise your buyers to use a screen protector. I understand the issues of admitting fault for liability reasons, but look at how much Apple has gotten away with regardless of its many lawsuits. It's so not a big deal to have to use a screen protector if you can find the right one. I don't remember a screen protector anywhere in all of my research on this product; I even remember someone saying it didn't work well with a protector on a review (I found different results: it worked fine!).

But, what is appalling here is the ridiculous refusal to get real. Two of my friends have already said that they really like the Jot Pro they have borrowed from me to test: I don't tell them not to buy it because I know now revile the thought of it thanks to the scratches and this forum, but I tell them if they like it to simply get a screen protector. They have absolutely no qualms about that.

Sure, I'm pissed that my screen is scratched, but do I really expect you to pay for it or to replace it? No. Just warn your future customers and warn them well. People are out there thinking that Gorilla glass is indestructible thanks to some irresponsible articles/blog posts. It behooves your marketing and your risk management team to (1) tell them how wonderful your product is for all the reasons you love it, and then (2) tell them it comes with a small caveat that perhaps all users should respect, anyway. Perhaps sell it in a package with a screen protector, recommend one that works well with it, or even work with another company to give a coupon deal or something.

The responses here to those of us who are wanting some kind of apology or acknowledgement is just really childish. Makes me wonder if the Levi post was planted: I don't think I see any other happy camper on this page who feels resolved.

I feel a strong need to post my review from Amazon here (2 stars). It should give a good telling of the problem I experienced and I am hoping for resolution. 

"I liked this stylus. I really did.

Initially I had a screen protector on my iPad, ready to go from the day I purchased it. I had to take it off because the protector was making the screen look very grainy and hard to read with (also negating the benefit of having a 'retina' screen).

About a week after, I noticed marks on it that strongly resembled words, specifically along the right border (an app I use reserves that area for magnified writing)

The marks ended up being scratches. I went to the Adonit site and looked on their forum, but it appears they are saying it's not their product, but a result of static and particles. To be honest it really still is their product doing the writing and forcing the marks. I didn't have scratches on my backup stylus that I leave in my travel bag (softer tip) for when I need to draw something out using the center screen real estate which remains scratch free, making me think it's the hard plastic on the Adonit stylus causing the issue (thus it IS their product).

The description did say to keep your screen clean from particles and dust, but I thought that was so the writing would be more seamless (I figured they meant a lot of particles on screen will collect on the disk and then stop the iPad from registering contact), NOT that it would actually damage my property. I do follow that advice as much as I can but it is not possible to always be 100% dust free.

Had I been warned that no screen protector would have meant scratches, I certainly would have thought twice about removing the protector and make my eyes deal with the grainy retina look.

In all fairness I have to contact Adonit directly to seek resolution, but right now I am quite unhappy. I take really good care of most of my electronics. Yet now my father who has a year old iPad has a mostly blemish free screen, while my iPad, which is just about a month old, looks like I've had it for years (at least along the right border).

It's sad because until I noticed that, I wanted to give this product 5 stars because it's the best writing stylus I have encountered. But what is the point if when it is working normally, a direct side effect is screen damage?"

As per my review, this is my reaching out for a fix...

Apologies, forgot to add - for the comment about screen protectors being softer and more likely to scratch, that's completely wrong - they'll just scratch slightly worse than glass.  Regardless, a scratch is a scratch.. up the the consumer at the end of the day what is or isn't acceptable - I'd recommend sticking with rubber-tipped styluses until Adonit address this serious problem.

Appreciate you are trying to defend your product, however having owned 4 high-end capacitive styluses, I can say with 100% certainty the Adonit is *much* more likely to scratch the screen than any of the others.  The reasons are obvious, the very soft rubber tip of a capacitive stylus provides a pillow for any debris that might get in between the screen and stylus, making it far less likely to scratch (or if it did, the scratch a lot less serious) - the jot products have a solid disc, this is asking for trouble which is why until now other manufacturers have steered clear of such an exectution.  Posting all the pictures in the world of the stylus tip on this page makes no difference, it is not the 'disc'' scratching the screen that is in question.  It is of some surprise this requires explaining to someone who works for a Stylus company but I'm sure others will most certainly agree, it is not my word against yours, it's elementary physics.  I had to sell my Jot, it's useless until this problem is solved and I'd urge others to avoid it until the design flaw is addressed.  Again, just my 2 cents - if others want to give it a go and risk constant screen / protector replacement costs that's their privaledge!

I'd like to give my 2 cents to this as I've had the same problem.  I am a professional mobile developer and, while the idea of a disc-based capacitive stylus is inventive (and works fairly well, when it works), the whole concept is seriously floored.  I own a jot pro and an ipad 2 - I keep the screen very clean (and have a gumdrop case with plastic shield protector), however, no matter /how/ clean you keep your screen the Jot Pro *will* scratch it - even the slightest morsel of debris will get between the disc and the screen protector (and yes, it matters if you scratch your protector too, especially if you have to replace it once a month).  Also, if you write at even slightly the wrong angle (as I naturally do) the disc will not make flat contact with the screen - both of these worries are eliminated with a standard slim rubber-tipped capacitive sylus which, in fairness, gives almost exactly the same results without the problems associated with the Jot stylus.  Good idea, poor execution (but not sure how it could be executed well in the first place).  It's easy for Adonit to blame 'environmental debris', but this does not, and will not ever solve the fundamental problem that this this stylus is simply not practical, especially for its intended purpose which is spure of the moment note taking - if you work and live in a clean room (i.e. like those they build chips in at Intel), you're ok - anything else though, forget it.  I've replaced 2 screen protectors already in only 3 weeks of VERY careful use!

I have the same problem. I am really frustrated. After using the stylus for a while my iPad screen is now full of scratches. I don't think I could get as much scratches if I rubbed it in sand. It is a brand new iPad and I just paid $30 to ruin it. I think the idea behind jot is great but it should have been tested before. I hope you have a solution for this. We should definitely warn people not to buy this if they care about a scratch free screen.

I think the cause of scratch screen come from static charge when use stylus long time enough and electric charge may build up and collect some particle nearby to it. So If possible environment shoud be clean from dust. So next time if I've got this Jot again then I absolutely install protective film. 

@Nick: They give you replacement discs or a complete refund of your paid stylus (as long as you bought the jot on their website and not anywhere else.. I have the bad luck that I didn't buy it through their website.. So i won't get a refund).

Of course this refund is NOTHING when this thing scratches your screen on a $500+ device like you said. Epic Fail I would say. I'm so angry...

Add me to the ranks of disappointed customers.  I love the design of the stylus but the fact that it scratched my brand new iPad has me seething.  I constantly wiped my screen and the disc with a microfiber cloth to avoid this but my efforts were futile.  How does Adonit compensate its customers when one of their products damages a $500+ piece of hardware? 

Unfortunately it happened to me as well. I even knew about being VERY careful with the little dirt/dust problem between the disk and iPad, checked my iPad and my Jot everytime before using and then it happend anway... while chilling on my couch.. writing.. then.. *SCRATCH*.

This is the new iPad, i own it for two weeks now, and I cannot be satisfied with a scratched screen on a brand-new tablet.
By the way, I've bought the Jot Pro stylus last week and only used it a couple of times since then and it already messed up. A few days ago I've even mailed your support with praise how cool this stylus was. That's pretty frustating and sad. I don't know what to do now. I've contacted your support and a staff member who is called  "Dee"  is assigned to my problem. Hopefully we find a proper solution...

Best Regards,
Nico 

What about the various posts in this thread?  It appears Bob had screen damage, and there was obviously something that happened to Levi's screen and you offered some resolution.  The images you provided (thank you) show scratches on the stylus itself, which would not bother me, and I assume don't effect performance, but there seem to be several users here with scratched screens...  The metal I can see in your images - is that completely contained within the plastic, or does it come through to the bottom of the stylus?  Just curious.  Again, I appreciate the dialog - most companies would not be so eager to engage current and (potentially) future users.

Oops - reread the threads and realized I mixed up the names.  Jon - can you fill us all in on what caused your product to scratch these various screens, and what can be done to prevent it?  Levi, how was this resolved to your satisfaction?  Kevin, has your issue been resolved?  I don't really want to have to use a screen protector - they are generally not needed, esp. when I keep my ipad in a case, but I can't risk scratching the glass.  

This really seems like the stylus product I have been looking for, but simply put, a scratched screen is not an acceptable risk.  

You can add me to the list of people who got their screen scratched by the Jot Pro stylus. I now have a 14mm long scratch. Fortunately, I read this thread before I started to use the stylus, so I mounted a screen protector to avoid permanently damaging my retina display. Thank God, I did that.

Now I can just change the screen protector, but that really makes me concerned if I dare to use this stylus anymore. 

I love the stylus in all other aspects, but this is for sure a deal-breaker! Can it really be true that one has to be worried about getting his screen scratched?

So I see that at least two people have had this issue, but I don't see any discussion of what caused it, or how to prevent it.  And how was this resolved to your satisfaction, Jon?  Did they replace your screen?  Nothing short of that solution would be acceptable to me if this product scratched my iPad.  How about you, Bob - did they solve your issue for you?

Jon, yes I'm more than satisified with out resolution!  I posted my comment to this post shortly after the incidident and before you and I had spoken.  You and your team went well above and beyond in making a not so great situation seem a lot better!  Despite what happened I am still a firm believer in Adonit's products and will continue to be a life-long customer.  Seeing first-hand the way Adonit treats it's customers has shown me that any problem can be worked through and you will all bend over backwards to make sure the customer doesn't feel poorly about their experience.  You just can't buy that kind of service!  Thanks again Jon!

This same thing happened to me and I'm shocked.  I'm a clean freak when it comes to both of my iPhones and my iPad 2.  While moving the stylus across the screen all of a sudden I felt a little friction.  I looked down and there was fairly large scratch about an inch long.  I just submitted a request for a rep to contact me and I hope that they do.  I just don't see how this happened -- because it happened at no fault of my own.