Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple sued over 'inferior' panel in 20" iMacs
- Thread starter MIDI_EVIL
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you kidding? Our studio is full of 20" white iMacs.
They're damn good machines perfect for professional design work.
The aluminium may be a different story, but I still think it looks fantastic and love the glossy screen. Hence why I have one at home.
I always noticed that the older gen 20s had better screens than the latest ones. I say people need to deal with it. Apple has no obligation to lower the price without downgrading something in the machine. But then again, I have the iMac with the better screen so it doesnt affect me 
IMO, if you bought a 20in iMac and are only now unhappy with your purchase it's your own fault, and suing apple over it is just daft.
OK, so apple are make the product sound like more than it is, but i've never trusted adverts at face value, sure an interesting ad may make me investigate the product, if I want one i'll go out of my way to find a real world shop who stocks the item and look with my own eyes.
But, unfortunately in this era of mail order and internet shopping most seem to read the specs and act purely on them which never has, and never will make for a good buy decision
OK, so apple are make the product sound like more than it is, but i've never trusted adverts at face value, sure an interesting ad may make me investigate the product, if I want one i'll go out of my way to find a real world shop who stocks the item and look with my own eyes.
But, unfortunately in this era of mail order and internet shopping most seem to read the specs and act purely on them which never has, and never will make for a good buy decision
This means that the monitors have only the remaining 2% of the colors.
It's clearly an April's Fool!!!!
98% fewer colors = 100% - 98% = 2%
I don't know about all of you, but I have the 20" Alu iMac, and it says I have 32-Bit color on my LCD screen, which some out to 4,294,967,296 distinct colors, not the 262,144 that you guys are referring to. Sounds like some people have been made out to be fools?
Either that or my computer info is lying to me. I'm not sure which at this point...
Either that or my computer info is lying to me. I'm not sure which at this point...
This means that the monitors have only the remaining 2% of the colors.
It's clearly an April's Fool!!!!
98% fewer colors = 100% - 98% = 2%
8-bit panels have 16 million colors. 6-bit panels have just over 260,000.
(2.6x10^5) / (1.6x10^7) = 1.625%
So funny to see the whining of people getting exactly what they asked for: cheaper products that are made cheaply. Americans with the "Wal*Mart Syndrome" want ever falling prices, which forces lower quality designs that are outsourced offshore, and then we whine and complain about quality. Too funny.
Now granted, Apple can't advertise one thing, and deliver another. That is another matter altogether. But I can't help but feel that this is a case of people whining after the fact because they didn't turn on their brains and realize what "millions of colors" really means in this day and age of cheapening designs to achieve the lower prices that they themselves have demands.
Now granted, Apple can't advertise one thing, and deliver another. That is another matter altogether. But I can't help but feel that this is a case of people whining after the fact because they didn't turn on their brains and realize what "millions of colors" really means in this day and age of cheapening designs to achieve the lower prices that they themselves have demands.
I got my refurb 20" iMac today. Looks pretty good to me. I do see some minor contrast difference from top to bottom, but if I hadn't read about it then I most likely would never have noticed. The viewing angle isn't that great, but much better than the Macbook.
The 24" panel is better, but imo most folks are making the 20" panel to be much worse than it is.
The 24" panel is better, but imo most folks are making the 20" panel to be much worse than it is.
Wow... that is the most asinine American thing I've read on these boards... which is quite ironic considering that you're from the UK... meaning it's so easy to place blame on the consumer by calling them lazy or ill-informed when making a purchase.
First claiming that most companies don't advertise their goods properly... and secondly, somehow that reflects on the consumer as being their fault? That is absolutely asinine. While Apple stores are popping up all over the place, it's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry can run to an Apple store to check out an iMac before they buy one. A lot of people buy online, and those computers DAMN WELL better be exactly as the specifications online say they are.
Don't blame the consumer for being ripped off, and surely don't make it seem commonplace for corporations to falsely advertise clearly laid out specs on their website.
I always noticed that the older gen 20s had better screens than the latest ones. I say people need to deal with it. Apple has no obligation to lower the price without downgrading something in the machine. But then again, I have the iMac with the better screen so it doesnt affect me
Wow. That was a pretty useless comment. It's not a matter of having a lower-grade display... it's the fact that Apple clearly lays out on the specifications page for ALL iMACS that ALL of the displays support millions of colors. If your display shows only 2% of that amount, then Apple lied.
But hey, continue to be smug since you have an older 20" iMac. We're all so happy for you
Suggest you check the spec sheet for your own iMac, Einstein. If you ever
need a warranty repair, Apple is perfectly within their rights to replace the
LCD on your 24" wonder with a 6-bit "millions of colors" Wal*Mart special:
"24-inch (viewable) glossy widescreen TFT active-matrix
LCD, 1920 by 1200 pixels, millions of colors"
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
...now, what were you saying about brains?
LK
So you have proven that Apple hasn't falsely advertised on the 20" and is giving 24" owners more than they promised to boot, then? Nicely done.
There is a difference between supporting and displaying colours. In theory, the panels do support the full gamut (the display happily accepts all the colours from the GPU), but only displays a certain amount.
If a panel could only display 262,000 colours, you would certainly notice a degradation in a lot of photographs for example, so I'm sceptical.
There are so many agencies where this is NOT true. The 2006 Intel iMac is an awesome machine, far better than whats come out in recent times. At the place I used to work they gave a choice and EVERYONE picked the iMac. At work I have a MBPro and a ACD but prefer my 2006 iMac at home by leaps and bounds.
Thats a rather sad attitude, considering a lot of people, if not, most (as it should be) that buy a mac buy it to produce some kind of creative work.
Why did you buy your mac?
While I completely resent your anti-american generalities
I agree with everything else you've laid out.Its repulsive that people in this thread would blame the consumer and pretend like its ok to falsely adverise your product.
This is simple, DID THEY, or DID THEY NOT, make false claims about the product they sold?
Its as simple as that. No BS about entry level this, lower prices that. Those comments are all garbage and have zero bearing on this issue.
I have enjoyed the apple products I have bought, but it certainly doesnt mean I have to back every decision they make, or come to thier defense if they do something shady, which they seem to have done in this case.
I haven't been here in a while and I have to say some of the behaviour here protecting Apple is so blinkered that I'm glad I've spent my time elsewhere.
This hurts Apple because I've personally been persuading work colleagues to get an iMac, but most have been looking at the 20" model because they can't justify over a grand. Now I'm going to have to break it to them that Apple would rather save a few quid and falsely advertise. I know at least one that will now spend their money elsewhere, and probably on a Dell.
I've been fortunate enough to have a wife that persuaded me to go for the 24" model otherwise I would be in a similar boat to others who got the base model. I say similar, because I can bet that any compensation that might be forthcoming for 20" model owners wouldn't make it here to the UK.
I will be very careful with my next Apple purchase that is for sure.
Bad Apple. Bad!
This hurts Apple because I've personally been persuading work colleagues to get an iMac, but most have been looking at the 20" model because they can't justify over a grand. Now I'm going to have to break it to them that Apple would rather save a few quid and falsely advertise. I know at least one that will now spend their money elsewhere, and probably on a Dell.
I've been fortunate enough to have a wife that persuaded me to go for the 24" model otherwise I would be in a similar boat to others who got the base model. I say similar, because I can bet that any compensation that might be forthcoming for 20" model owners wouldn't make it here to the UK.
I will be very careful with my next Apple purchase that is for sure.
Bad Apple. Bad!
The prior model 20" white 2.16 GHz C2D iMac was the exact same price ($1,499) that the current 20" 2.4 GHz aluminum model costs now, and it had the better quality S-IPS panel in it. So if they could make a sufficient profit using that panel before, they obviously still could now.
WTF?? So only ppl that produce "creative work" should be buying Macs? So ppl that only use it for music, email, internet, digi pics, shouldnt buy? This might be the most ridiculous claim Ive ever heard on this board.
Awwww shucks man .... we all want sumpin fer nuttin!
Filing a lawsuit is something ANYONE can do ..... prevailing is another story.
I am reminded of another lawsuit someone filed against a manufacturer ... one that I thought was well deserved. It was a case where a product was claimed to be poorly designed, and could well have resulted in injury. ( a motor vehicle case ) It never made it to trial.