Sidebar Sidebar
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

harcosparky said:
Awwww shucks man .... we all want sumpin fer nuttin! :D

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.
Click to expand...

I realize that the US is sue-happy right now, but its pretty much the only course of action that gets a large companies attention, and if you love Macs you should WANT apple to be called out for providing a product that is not what it was claimed to be, as companies will try to get away with just as much as people will allow them to.

Its absolutely INSANE to side with apple if the reports are correct.......

"Awwww shucks man .... we all want sumpin fer nuttin! :D"

Are you kidding me? How about wanting what you paid for?
 
VoodooDaddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple charges a premium for their computers, this is fact. Paying that premium is mainly for the use of OS X, if it wasnt it, I really doubt youd buy a mac. Unless you do actual work that requires OS X and stability, you dont really need it, as windows can do the same no worse.

Now, I never said people shouldnt be buying a mac, so your response might be the most ridiculously skewed I've read on this board.
 
ungraphic said:
Apple charges a premium for their computers, this is fact. Paying that premium is mainly for the use of OS X, if it wasnt it, I really doubt youd buy a mac. Unless you do actual work that requires OS X and stability, you dont really need it, as windows can do the same no worse.



Now, I never said people shouldnt be buying a mac, so your response might be the most ridiculously skewed I've read on this board.
Click to expand...

I wont even touch the part in bold. Telling ppl that Windows is no worse.....

No, you never said NOT to buy one, but you questioned why the guy had bought one since hes not a graphics designer.


airjuggernaut said:
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..
Click to expand...

ungraphic said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Apple has always promoted their "superior" product, which is something that we're all reminded of by other mac users on this board and elsewhere. To have it turn out that their "superior" product is not only NOT superior, but far from it and then try to cover it up and hope no one notices...

Whether someone bought an imac for graphics is irrelevant; don't tell me that you're not disappointed that apple decided to cut corners and then not disclose the difference.
 
Wait a sec. Didn't the case about the MacBook displays (regarding the same issue of "millions" of colors vs. "thousands") just get thrown out of court? I can't imagine this will go too differently.
 
killmoms said:
Wait a sec. Didn't the case about the MacBook displays (regarding the same
issue of "millions" of colors vs. "thousands") just get thrown out of court?
Click to expand...

Nope. Apple settled out of court. Settlement terms undisclosed.

I can't imagine this will go too differently.
Click to expand...

Apple will settle out of court on this one too. I'd expect the iMac case to be
much stronger than the MacBook case. Virtually every notebook in the world
has a 6-bit display -- and always has.

In contrast, the 20" iMacs have always had professional-quality, 8-bit S-IPS
or S-PVA displays; and in the past, Apple has always disclosed color depth
information on all iMac models. The 17" iMacs were clearly specified (in the
Video Developer Note) as 6-bit+dither, and the 20" and 24" models were
clearly specified as full 8-bit color depth.

However, beginning with the ALU iMacs, Apple abandoned ethics and went
out of their way to conceal the 20" downgrade. The August 2007 section of
the Developer Note is a case study in carefully constructed weasel-wording
and half-truths:

"... display depths up to 24 bits per pixel ..." ....or NOT.


...break out your checkbook, Steve,

LK
 
I think they did this to make it thinner than the older one. They sort of did the same thing with the iPod touch
 
I have the 20 inch alum. iMac.

It's display is fine, as long as you are sitting at its optimum viewing angle which is: straight in front of it, and at least 6 feet back!

I actually loathe the display for image editing, and almost everything else except movie watching.

My personal recourse was go out and buy a much better display by HP (funny HP calls the display a Business-Class display, yet it is far better for the creative-class-types than the new imac 20 inch alum. display). My imac now sits off to the left of my HP display which is either s-ips or a-mva (honestly not sure which it is, but either is much, much better than the display in the imac 20).
 
doug in albq said:
I have the 20 inch alum. iMac.

It's display is fine, as long as you are sitting at its optimum viewing angle which is: straight in front of it, and at least 6 feet back!

I actually loathe the display for image editing, and almost everything else except movie watching.

My personal recourse was go out and buy a much better display by HP (funny HP calls the display a Business-Class display, yet it is far better for the creative-class-types than the new imac 20 inch alum. display). My imac now sits off to the left of my HP display which is either s-ips or a-mva (honestly not sure which it is, but either is much, much better than the display in the imac 20).
Click to expand...

So basically, your 20" iMac cost you as much as the 24"?

This is really shocking. Apple should be hanging their head in shame. I've been singing Apple's praises since I switched, berating Vista for the knock-off wannabe that it is and telling others they should switch. Now, I'm not so certain. Expecting consumers to pay more for inferior hardware just because it's compact and pretty, Apple may as well be spitting in upgrader's and switcher's faces, whilst counting their money.
 
The specs are what is important here, not the numerous and sometimes complex technicalities. If one looks at both models (20 in. and 24 in,. aluminium), besides the Colour matter, the angle of view does differ, the 20 in. being much lower and poor. Apple should amends it's publicity and verbose discretion.
I should have bought the 24 in. model… Apple should give buyers a way to upgrade.
 
This has probably been said but the sue party is stupid. Its right on the page of the store that DAYS theyre different. Thats how I found out.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
"Up to" 24 bits per pixel is technically correct, right? If so, there's no "not."
Click to expand...

For the casual reader, "up to 24 bits" is a weasel-worded
suggestion that there might actually be 24 bits (just like
previous iMacs) -- but when parsed by Philadelphia lawyers,
it actually guarantees that there are no more than 24 bits,
so even a 1-bit monochrome display would pass the test.

The 24" ALU iMacs actually have 24-bit panels (at least the
ones shipped so far), but 20" ALU iMacs have only 18 bits,
and NOWHERE does Apple specify (or even suggest!), that
the 20" and 24" displays are of vastly different quality.

..."technically correct" AND intentionally deceptive,

LK
 
To be honest this issue is why i've been fence sitting a bit on getting an imac. a 20" suits my needs (space wise, a 24" is simply too large for my work area), for the past couple of years i've been using a marvelous formac display which looks beautiful. Plugged into my macbook its quite clear which display is richer. i just use the macbook's display for chatting, and itunes management.

I was intending to hand down the formac to a sibling when i got the imac.

I might end up getting a single processor mac pro, or an older model refurb in order to keep a quality display.
 
Eh anyone disappointed by the screen has 14 days to return their iMac. I don't feel sorry for anyone that bought one and suddenly can't look at their screen.

I got one a few days ago and it's a pretty nice screen. I notice some color change from top to bottom because I've been trained by the internets on what to look for. But it's just not something that stands out.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
I see what you meant, but that's like saying your 2.0GHz iMac should be capable of running at 2.8GHz speed because Apple advertises as "up to 2.8GHz."
Click to expand...

I think the standard that apple will be held to is the 'least sophisticated consumer'. Such a person can look at the specs and recognize that the 20" has a smaller monitor than the 24". Such a person will NOT realize that the 20" has a less capable screen as well.

'Caveat emptor' applies as long as the merchant doesn't say anything false or misleading in order to make the sale.
 
doug in albq said:
I have the 20 inch alum. iMac.

It's display is fine, as long as you are sitting at its optimum viewing angle which is: straight in front of it, and at least 6 feet back!

I actually loathe the display for image editing, and almost everything else except movie watching.

My personal recourse was go out and buy a much better display by HP (funny HP calls the display a Business-Class display, yet it is far better for the creative-class-types than the new imac 20 inch alum. display). My imac now sits off to the left of my HP display which is either s-ips or a-mva (honestly not sure which it is, but either is much, much better than the display in the imac 20).
Click to expand...

I genuinely cant understand how you think the display is that bad. Had mine since they came out and think its excellent. Okay, whilst it could always be better for some people, I think for the £800 I spent on it, it looks fantasic and well worth it. I spent a few hours on a 24 incher in another office in Feb, and didnt notice a difference at all (mainly using browsers/MS Office).

EDIT: "fantasic" is not a spelling mistake, its a new word ive just invented. Honest.... Feel free to use it.
 
Leon Kowalski said:
Apple will settle out of court on this one too. I'd expect the iMac case to be
much stronger than the MacBook case. Virtually every notebook in the world
has a 6-bit display -- and always has.

In contrast, the 20" iMacs have always had professional-quality, 8-bit S-IPS
or S-PVA displays; and in the past, Apple has always disclosed color depth
information on all iMac models. The 17" iMacs were clearly specified (in the
Video Developer Note) as 6-bit+dither, and the 20" and 24" models were
clearly specified as full 8-bit color depth.

However, beginning with the ALU iMacs, Apple abandoned ethics and went
out of their way to conceal the 20" downgrade. The August 2007 section of
the Developer Note is a case study in carefully constructed weasel-wording
and half-truths:

"... display depths up to 24 bits per pixel ..." ....or NOT.


...break out your checkbook, Steve,
Click to expand...

No way, Jose. Two very different cases. One case is two guys who think they are treated badly. The other case is a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. That makes a huge difference. There will always be guys who feel treated badly, but in the end they are customers and you treat them as such. The other kind are leeches, and you treat them as such. If you give them blood, they only come back and want more.

The leeches come up with strong rhetoric (98% fewer colours, wow, that sounds bad), which has just the disadvantage of being wrong with any reasonable interpretation. Yes, Apple doesn't make clear that there are differences in the colour display, but Apple sells these monitors as having "millions of colours", and they have. Any reasonable person will agree that a monitor with say four million colours has "millions of colours" (some, but not all, might accept this for two million colours). If one monitor has 16.2 million colours, and the other has 16.7 million colours, one customer gets a bit more than he paid for, and the other gets a lot more. No-one loses out.

So instead of "break out your checkbook, Steve", I'd say "get them where it hurts them most. Do it for me".
 
Rustman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dell UK claims in their specs that _all_ their laptop monitors have 16.7 million colours, from the cheapest to the most expensive laptop. I am really, really curious how many colours these monitors really have. So maybe you should wait a little bit, try to find out what the _real_ facts are, and go from there.
 
cloudnine said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the display shows 16.2 million colours, then the lawyers suing Apple lied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back