Apple sued over 'inferior' panel in 20" iMacs

[MIDI_EVIL]

This is very interesting, it appears that Apple are using a panel which has 98% less of the colour spectrum that the previous generation had.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/01/apple_imac_class_action/

"Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144)."

 

[airjuggernaut]

I honestly don't see any of this inferior screen stuff. I'm not a graphics designer, so i wouldn't give a crap anyways..

 

[Livers]

While I'd agree to some extent that for the average user the screen quality is probably good enough, i still think it's a bit of a con that older versions of this product have a better spec. That just stinks of profit making and I'm glad it's been exposed. I've been hanging on for the iMac update otherwise I'd have gone for the 20" and would now be very peed off to be reading all this. Hopefully, the problem will be rectified in the new versions, whenever that may be. Until then, I'm holding off and before I buy I'll be double checking to make sure the screen has been improved.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

So where were they when the 17" iMacs had the "inferior" TN panel? Face it, the 20" is the new low-end iMac. Either deal with it or go bigger.

 

[Cave Man]

This is very interesting, it appears that Apple are using a panel which has 98% less of the colour spectrum that the previous generation had.

I don't think that's true at all. It's my understanding that all iterations of the 20" iMac used TN panels (6-bit) and that Apple uses dithering (either from the gpu or the panel's own hardware) to get 8-bit ("millions" of colors). The 24" iMacs have used S-IPS panels (8-bit) for at least the last two iterations.

 

[Lancetx]

This lawsuit doesn't really surprise me at all. All anyone had to do though was look at the 20" and 24" aluminum models side by side in the store to clearly see the massive display quality difference between the two. What Apple needs to obviously do is go back to using the same panels they did with the prior 20" models and get rid of this horrid TN junk they've switched to.

When I needed a new 20" iMac recently, I simply ordered the refurbished Late 2006 model instead, and the quality of the display on it is excellent as it definitely does not have a TN panel.

 

[Cave Man]

When I needed a new 20" iMac recently, I simply ordered the refurbished Late 2006 model instead, and the quality of the display on it is excellent as it definitely does not have a TN panel.

That's interesting. Can you tell us what panel it is?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

What Apple needs to obviously do is go back to using the same panels they did with the prior 20" models and get rid of this horrid TN junk they've switched to.

Why can't people accept the fact that the 20" is now the low-end, replacing the previous generation 17"? Nobody complained about the TN panel used in the 17".

 

[gkarris]

Hello...

Entry level Mac All-In-One...

Duh...

 

[Livers]

It would be nice to have the option of a 20" version with a better screen, the 24" is too big for my room but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to pay more for better quality on the 20" version. Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it should be of poorer quality,, IMHO.

 

[Killyp]

So where were they when the 17" iMacs had the "inferior" TN panel? Face it, the 20" is the new low-end iMac. Either deal with it or go bigger.

Apple didn't try and claim false with the 17" iMacs. They're saying the new ones can display millions of colours, which they can't, only thousands. To be honest only being able to display thousands of colours isn't very impressive for a desktop machine...

'Either deal with it or go bigger' - some of us actually can't go bigger. I can't fit a 24" iMac on my desk as my ceiling comes down behind the desk (attic room). Are you saying I should spend the money on a MacPro + 20" ACD instead? I can't afford it...

 

[doug in albq]

How about $200 in Apple Store credit for anyone who bought a 20 inch Imac with the misrepresented display specs? That seems about right for a settlement. I sure would like to know the terms of the settlement for the macbook lawsuit...

 

[gkarris]

How about $200 in Apple Store credit for anyone who bought a 20 inch Imac with the misrepresented display specs? That seems about right for a settlement. I sure would like to know the terms of the settlement for the macbook lawsuit...

Actually, I was a victim of HP's original Windows Mobile PDA, which they said can show thousands of colors, but the actual display can only show 256.

They simply gave people the chance to return it directly to HP for their money back. You had to pay to ship it back though...

 

[Pixellated]

And...

If you buy a 20'' iMac, you are hardly going to do pro graphics on it. If you were, you would at least get either a cinema display or a 24'' iMac.

 

[Lancetx]

Why can't people accept the fact that the 20" is now the low-end, replacing the previous generation 17"? Nobody complained about the TN panel used in the 17".

Because I owned one of those 17" iMacs for 2 years, and I can tell you that even those TN panels clearly looked far better than the current 20" ones do IMO, that's why.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Apple didn't try and claim false with the 17" iMacs. They're saying the new ones can display millions of colours, which they can't, only thousands. To be honest only being able to display thousands of colours isn't very impressive for a desktop machine...

The millions of colors claim is old and existed before the Alu iMacs debuted (whatever happened to the lawsuit on behalf of macbook owners?). Apple used the same claim across the board for the previous generation iMacs (which consisted of both TN and IPS panels) so I fail to see how this is different.

 

[G-Force]

The $1199 iMac wasn't even possible without a TN-panel I think. It's indeed just like the 17", those had TN-panels so they could be offered for lower prices.

They should complain about those gradient issues many iMacs still have.

 

[ChrisA]

Why can't people accept the fact that the 20" is now the low-end, replacing the previous generation 17"? Nobody complained about the TN panel used in the 17".

Yes they did I don't think ths is the firt lawsuit. The problem is not just accepting the fact that a it's a low-end system. The problem is with Apple's advertising that the screen can do "millions of colors". When we read that we assume it means what it says. If Apple said clearly that it was a 6-bit per channel display then there would be now grounds for complaint. But they clearly said "millions".

 

[3lutz3toe]

I’m pissed. The bottom line is that Apple should have disclosed this instead marketing as if they were the same. It might be low end but for the price it aint.
Shame on Apple. Glad I’m holding off from buying for home. (Had to get one for work though).

 

[VoodooDaddy]

I have a 20". Straight on the screen looks fine to me. Yes, if you get at an extreme angle there is discoloration. But I dont use my iMac at ANY angle but straight on so its really a non-issue to me.

Nearly every company does this. Used cheaper parts for lower-end products.

 

[ChrisA]

The millions of colors claim is old and existed before the Alu iMacs debuted (whatever happened to the lawsuit on behalf of macbook owners?). Apple used the same claim across the board for the previous generation iMacs (which consisted of both TN and IPS panels) so I fail to see how this is different.

Not all TN papnnels are 6-bit per channel. The LCD technology and the digital to analog converter are independent parts. Weather it is TN or IPS in an independent design decisoion from the number of bits per chanel. However it you are trying to save money using both TN and a 6-bit DAC saves you the most. Looks like Apple went the cheap route all the way around but "forgot" to say this on their web site

 

[Leon Kowalski]

It's my understanding that all iterations of the 20" iMac used TN panels (6-bit)...

Dead wrong. Prior to the latest ALU crap, all 20" iMacs used professional
quality S-IPS or S-PVA panels -- at least as far back as the G5.

My 20" 2.16GHz C2D has an LG.Philips LM201W01. That's an 8-bit S-IPS panel ....

...exactly the same panel as the 20" ACD,

LK

 

[gnasher729]

I’m pissed. The bottom line is that Apple should have disclosed this instead marketing as if they were the same. It might be low end but for the price it aint.
Shame on Apple. Glad I’m holding off from buying for home. (Had to get one for work though).

You make three completely unfounded assumptions here: First, you assume that the reporting actually truthfully corresponds to the actual case (and didn't for example leave some tiny, but important bits out to make for better reading). Second, that the claims of the lawyers suing Apple are in fact true and a correct representation of the actual situation (and surely they wouldn't try to show Apple in the worst possible light to win their case, right? ). Third, that there are actually any unhappy customers behind this, and not just a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawyers who are not interested in any benefits for consumers, but just in making a quick dollar.

What these lawyers want is to put pressure on Apple by making gullible consumers holding off from buying so that Apple loses money and pays the lawyers to go away. It seems that they achieved the first bit, at least in your case.

 

[Sun Baked]

Apple is allowed to change the specs on their machines, upgrading and downgrading parts.

If not ... everyone who wanted a ATI GPU instead of an Nvidia unit (or the other direction) would be able to sue. As would everybody who bought a MacBook with integrated graphics and thought that was a downgrade from the previous iBooks.

Plus, if you read any of the info on the net about the machines ... people did complain a lot about the viewing angle on the new display, along with the shiny glass panel.

 

[gnasher729]

Yes they did I don't think ths is the firt lawsuit. The problem is not just accepting the fact that a it's a low-end system. The problem is with Apple's advertising that the screen can do "millions of colors". When we read that we assume it means what it says. If Apple said clearly that it was a 6-bit per channel display then there would be now grounds for complaint. But they clearly said "millions".

The industry wide method that everyone uses goes like this: Eight bit panels can show 256 x 256 x 256 different colours. Six bit panels with dithering can show 253 x 253 x 253 different colours, and six bit panels without dithering can show 64 x 64 x 64 different colours. So if you see an LCD screen advertised as "16.7 million colours" then it better be eight bit; if it is advertized as "16.2 million colours" then it is most likely six bit with dithering, and "250,000 colours" or whatever they write would be six bit without dithering (never seen that one advertised).

If anyone advertises a monitor as "millions of colours", I'd expect six colours dithered (because anyone having eight bits would obviously advertise "16.7 million"). If that is what Apple has done, then I don't think the lawyers have a chance of winning the case.