This is interesting and Im a lil concerned about iphoto effects. I havent edited any photo's since I got this 20" iMac to tell the truth.
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
So they are perfectly within their rights in this post to replace my 24" screen with a 6-bit panel.......
......... But they need to break out the checkbook for false advertising for the 20" iMacs in this post. I'm sorry - did you use the term weasel-words in one of your posts?
It's not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. There was generally about a $300 price drop in model-to-model comparisons when the Alum iMacs came out. The lowest slot went from $1499 to $1199, and Apple achieved this by dropping the processor from 2.16 to 2.0, and obviously by using cheaper LCD panels (the same panels that were used in the formerly cheapest 17" iMac). But they also put in a better graphics card, faster FSB, and a FW 800 port. Comparing other models up the line in the 20" & 24" also reveal about a $300 price drop across the board when comparing similar specs.
If you are going to compare the $1499 2.4 Ghz Alum iMac to the $1499 2.16 GHz prior iMac, you are going to have to acknowledge that the 2.4 Alum iMac comes with a bigger HD and a better video card with 2x the graphics memory than the old 2.16 Ghz iMac, as well as the obvious faster processor. So it is a little more complicated to make a direct comparison there.
So how's this different from the previous generation iMacs, with the TN panel in the 17 inchers?
Even then, one can still tell the 20" has a less capable screen by looking at the tech specs (particularly the viewing angles).
With previous iMac generations, Apple specified the color depth of each model.
"The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at
100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component ...
The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at
98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component ..."
With the ALU iMacs, Apple carefully reworded their tech notes to eliminate
the color depth specs and CONCEAL the 20" downgrade to 6-bit TN panels.
...pure scum-baggery and intentional deception,
LK
Happy with my 20" iMac
I made the switch to iMac in mid-Feb. I have 4 iPods and an iPhone and was very pleased, so I decided to make the switch to my first Mac. I bought a 20" 2.4 GHz and upgraded RAM to 4 MB from OWC. My family (wife and 2 young daughters) are doing things that they have never done before(movies, photo editing) on a computer. Yes, when I first got the machine it had a slight gradient, but I calibrated it and you reaaalllly have to want to find it to notice. Overall, I think the current iMacs look better and have better(newer) technology than the white ones. I have been so pleased that I have purchased the Time Capsule making my home transformation to apple complete. I think the price point and technology are right on target, just look at apple's increasing market share. If you don't like the current iMacs, don't buy one. As one of many new converts, I am a very happy customer. Now flame away.
I made the switch to iMac in mid-Feb. I have 4 iPods and an iPhone and was very pleased, so I decided to make the switch to my first Mac. I bought a 20" 2.4 GHz and upgraded RAM to 4 MB from OWC. My family (wife and 2 young daughters) are doing things that they have never done before(movies, photo editing) on a computer. Yes, when I first got the machine it had a slight gradient, but I calibrated it and you reaaalllly have to want to find it to notice. Overall, I think the current iMacs look better and have better(newer) technology than the white ones. I have been so pleased that I have purchased the Time Capsule making my home transformation to apple complete. I think the price point and technology are right on target, just look at apple's increasing market share. If you don't like the current iMacs, don't buy one. As one of many new converts, I am a very happy customer. Now flame away.
But not always. All 3 machines say "millions of colors". What do you know, every single iMac spec sheet says "million of colors". Gee, that's strange. I thought Apple changed things to be deceptive?!?
What was your source for "The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component"? You failed to post a link.
I have already cited the source, and YOU have re-posted it -- in one of
your huge, non-selective, all-inclusive quotes (of text that you obviously
didn't even bother to read). Please try to keep up.
LK
Neither, actually. Your computer info is just telling you what the graphics card is using internally. If you hooked it up to an 8-bit grayscale display, it would say the same thing. Also, 32-bit color doesn't mean 4 billion colors. It means 8 bits each for the red, green, and blue components, plus 8 bits that are just there to fill out 24 bits to 32 bits so you get a nice speed boost due to the way computer processors work. Sometimes those extra 8 bits are used for alpha channel info, but you don't get any more colors out of it than 24 bit, or 16.7 million.
Except in the case of the 20" display, where it's 6 bit color per component, or about 262,000 colors. The display takes the 8 bit per component color information from the graphics card and uses it to make a dithered 6 bit display in an attempt to simulate 8 bit color. However, dithering doesn't really make more colors. Unless you squint, maybe.
(Or the display was high enough resolution that the limitations of human vision would make the dithering indistinguishable, but it's not.)--Eric
is this why i'm disappointed with watching movies?
This is frustrating to me. I did alot of research and didnt see this before. When i went to the store i thought the video looked ok but now that i got a refurbished new generation 20" i dont even want to watch the movies on them cause they look better on my old tv. I think a 24" is too big for me, but i hate to pay more for an older computer. so wierd.
This is frustrating to me. I did alot of research and didnt see this before. When i went to the store i thought the video looked ok but now that i got a refurbished new generation 20" i dont even want to watch the movies on them cause they look better on my old tv. I think a 24" is too big for me, but i hate to pay more for an older computer. so wierd.
However, I was responding to clyde2801's post about the "least sophisticated customer." If such a customer is going to check the specs, he or she is going to look at http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html , not some Video Developer Note (which even I have never seen until you posted it in this thread). The older version of the aforementioned link on the previous generation iMac didn't mention the 6/8 bits per component information either, just "millions of colors" for the 17", 20" and 24" machines.
I will warrant a guess, and suppose that no one thought of suing apple for deceptive trade practices when the 17" was being made.
My attitude is SO WHAT!!! When I purchased my iMac, the display looked miles ahead of what I was using before. It's clear and the colors look fine. As far as I'm concerned, I got what I paid for.
Despite the news, I will continue to enjoy my 20" iMac. I loved it yesterday and will continue today. I'm not saying what Apple did was right, but it's just not worth one ounce of life worrying about if I'm seeing 6 Million colors after enjoying this machine for several months already. I guess in some cases, ignorance is bliss.
Despite the news, I will continue to enjoy my 20" iMac. I loved it yesterday and will continue today. I'm not saying what Apple did was right, but it's just not worth one ounce of life worrying about if I'm seeing 6 Million colors after enjoying this machine for several months already. I guess in some cases, ignorance is bliss.
My attitude is SO WHAT!!! When I purchased my iMac, the display looked miles ahead of what I was using before. It's clear and the colors look fine. As far as I'm concerned, I got what I paid for.
Despite the news, I will continue to enjoy my 20" iMac. I loved it yesterday and will continue today. I'm not saying what Apple did was right, but it's just not worth one ounce of life worrying about if I'm seeing 6 Million colors after enjoying this machine for several months already. I guess in some cases, ignorance is bliss.
I don't think it's ignorance is bliss. It's just that the display looks great even if it's not the best display out there.
Some folks (many who don't own an iMac even) are (in effect) complaining about the difference between $8 million and $10 million dollars while failing to see that both amounts of money make you well off.
I just want my 20" iMac screen replaced
Perhaps, like a lot of things in the law, what it says is not what it's really about.
I've got a 20" iMac with a shocker of a screen. The top of the screen is too dark and the bottom of the screen is too light (small text breaks up and becomes unreadable). Similarly you can't get consistent colour across the whole screen. It's embarrassing to show anyone.
Maybe it's difficult to sue for using cheap-s**t components, but if you can show the company misrepresented the specs, you've gottem!!
There are a LOT of unhappy customers (you just have to read the Apple Discussion Forums - I wish I'd done it before I paid out good money). I've done the right thing - calls to Apple, explained my problem in their Discussion Forums and they've done nothing to help me.
If this gets a result, then maybe that's what has to be done.
I did not buy the cheapest model, mine has the same Graphics Card as the 24" models (and, as if that's even an excuse).
Plus, I never expected substandard components from Apple. Shame !!
Perhaps, like a lot of things in the law, what it says is not what it's really about.
I've got a 20" iMac with a shocker of a screen. The top of the screen is too dark and the bottom of the screen is too light (small text breaks up and becomes unreadable). Similarly you can't get consistent colour across the whole screen. It's embarrassing to show anyone.
Maybe it's difficult to sue for using cheap-s**t components, but if you can show the company misrepresented the specs, you've gottem!!
There are a LOT of unhappy customers (you just have to read the Apple Discussion Forums - I wish I'd done it before I paid out good money). I've done the right thing - calls to Apple, explained my problem in their Discussion Forums and they've done nothing to help me.
If this gets a result, then maybe that's what has to be done.
I did not buy the cheapest model, mine has the same Graphics Card as the 24" models (and, as if that's even an excuse).
Plus, I never expected substandard components from Apple. Shame !!
So the difference between their advertising of the old 17" and new 20" is nothing, then. They were both listed on the spec sheet the exact same way. So back to JayLenochiniMac's question - what is different? You said they changed the way the specs read. They have not. You are full of BS, and want to keep diverting away from it with comments like "try to keep up". No amount of "keeping up" will help with your hand-waving and back-peddling. You are contradicting yourself, and are so blind in your flurry of anger that you are not even making sense anymore.
And you did not post a source from Apple of the 6 bit dithering in the spec. Let's see that source........ what a surprise we haven't seen it yet.
Yes, he did and it's in the Video Developer Note link he provided in this thread. Says the following:
The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.
The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.
The point is Apple didn't mention the 6 bit dithering on the tech specs page for either the previous generation iMac or the current generation iMac http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
Um, yes... that's usually how it works. If one party isn't lying, the other party probably is.
this thread has quite a few apologists saying stuff along the lines of "but apple degraded the screens for your BENEFIT so they can put in better components" which quite possibly bull, most of the components used in the alu imac are considerably cheaper than their equivalents from the previous generation.
seriously, they should never have tried getting away with degrading the screen for a fatter profit margin,
seriously, they should never have tried getting away with degrading the screen for a fatter profit margin,
So the iMac specs use the same language as before "millions of colors", and Leon's entire beef this whole time has been that the video developer notes are deceptive? Seems pretty thin to me. I wouldn't want to stand up and try keep a straight face whole arguing that point in court.
I think your original question is still a good one: what changed from the old 17" to the current 20" that makes Apple so deceptive in changing they way they represent their panels? The specs read the same. The low-end model still has a 6-bit display just like before. Is it just the video developer notes? Is that all this is about? What a joke.
? Why didn't you return your iMac if it was that bad?
That's the first thing I would have done. The first day I would have returned it.
And there's no more unhappy customers now than before. There's always people complaining in forums. People that are happy are using their computers.
Or, they're complaining on the forums about the people who are complaining in the forums.
I'm just sayin'....
Ok so I have one of these 20" iMacs. What do I do?
I've never really noticed an issue before (I'm not the most astute person) but I am bit annoyed by this. Where do I go from here?
I've never really noticed an issue before (I'm not the most astute person) but I am bit annoyed by this. Where do I go from here?
