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.
Class Action Lawsuit over Apple MB and MBP Displays?
- Thread starter SpaceJello
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Appple is not perfect but everyone with a "complaint" ( and I use that defining term very loosely) needs to take a chill pill.
I mean, am I just incredibly blessed with Apple products or what?! I've had 7 of thier laptops and all have been charmers.
I jumped on the MacBook bandwagon the day they were released. Then I started hearing about this problem that problem-I bit my nails waiting for mine to come thinking I'd made a mistake to buy one.
But no, like every other Apple laptop it has worked perfectly. No moo, no dead pixels, no discoloration, no high heat, no splitting seams, no bulging batteries, no graininess, no whine, no scratching DVD/CD writer, no mushy click button, no wearing off of the black, no scratches...
Does anyone see a pattern here!
So you had ONE intel Apple laptop and you think you represent majority?
Note we are not complaining about PPC laptops, for the most part.
Therefore I suggest you read a little, before BSing.
And no, I don't see a pattern. There has been one data point, does not represent jack.
Sorry Jagmeister, but you are way off. It's great that your computers have all been perfect. It's been established that the screen problems began with the MBP generation, all based on Intel chips. The PB generations were mostly excellent, as many here already attested.
So you happened to get a good MBP, great. I'm sure many others did as well. But many didn't, which ought to be obvious by now. Most MBP screens I've seen have back-lighting and vignetting (dark corner) issues, which may bother some but not others. A smaller percentage appear to have the graininess/sparkly problems as well.
Apple has itself started to recognize all these issues:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=929126&tstart=0
In addition to these aspects, this lawsuit is centered around the color issue: 6-bit color leads to much greater color banding and poorer quality images than would occur if the screen actually displayed 24-bit color as implied and stated on its web site. This case is about false advertising and Apple not delivering on its rather vaulted promises.
And the screen is the only issue here, not heat, or discoloration or whatever - so please don't equivocate, it makes you and your argument look really dumb. Nobody here is complaining about the heat.
Maybe it grates on your nerves to see anyone complain about anything, typical of the 'suck it up' mentality. Fine, but don't start complaining when someone doesn't toe the line. Practice what you preach and suck it up.
If you consider a 19" notebook using a desktop-fab panel on mobile hardware a notebook computer, I'll concede that point.
Toshiba uses Matsushita panels. Here is the Matsushita panel page. As you can see, like Samsung and Chi Mei and LG-Phillips, all 262,144 colors (apart from the 19" (!) product).
As with the Toshibas and Acers, you're mistaking support for 16.7 million colors for the ability to display 16.7 million colors. All you've demonstrated is that the way computer makers market these products isn't clear to you or to others. This is just like TVs with "1080p support" that don't have 1080 vertical lines. They support the input fully. It's unclear and unnecessary.
That fact I agree with. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it false advertising. Humorously, he models you've specified are plausible false advertising, and Apple's developer technote is plausible misrepresentation.
You've yet to produce one. The panel manufacturers themselves don't claim to make them. The 19" you linked to is a possible exception, but that is a desktop panel in a mobile enclosure.
That claim is not made in an advertising capacity, so it's not subject to the UCL. It's also not in this complaint (for exactly that reason, or possibly because the research clerks didn't find it). If you want to start a separate misrepresentation claim for that final remark, go talk to a lawyer. It remains, as always, not on-topic for the complaint this thread is about.
You might want to research what a strawman argument actually is. This suit exposes a questionable practice in the industry, but in order for the pieces to fit together, if you're making a case about making products with inferior color potential to competing products, you need to have a superior competing product. Whether or not the same panel is used in other computers is irrelevant and not part of any point made here--that's your straw man.
There hasn't been a non-dithering panel used in notebook computers yet, again except the 19" desktop piece and a possible typo. If you really think that a 19" "notebook" can impact the claim, then perhaps you need a visual aid: Dell XPS M2010. If you can call this 19-pound behemoth with available internal RAID a "notebook" then okay. But I certainly can't.
So far, yes. I have repeatedly asked for a notebook panel, specified by the panel manufacturer itself, which is an 8-bit display. The closest produced is a typo and a 19" converted desktop panel. I'm still sitting comfortably on my point. I've now provided four (that's right, four) major panel manufacturer links, with over 100 notebook panels in production, all capable of 262,144 colors (and one evidently capable of 1.607 million colors, by the book).
It's both, as my post, had you quoted both portions, identified. The question of fact is whether or not the panels produce millions of colors. The question of law is whether or not Apple's advertising of "millions of colors" can be applied to a false advertising claim and whether the "unavailable on other portables" claim is subject to the UCL or merely legal and substance-free marketing hyperbole.
The argument does not become "dumb". It points out that the list of complaints has been long but probably not as justified as the constant whining on list such as these.
Compaints grate. No, have had desktop issues which required long tedious arguments with Apple to get resolved.
If "most" MBPs have the issues why did anyone purchase one knowing and seeing these problems? Oh, yes, I'm sure the Apple store only had perfect units on display.
There MAY be some validity to the lawsuit but really. Here's a question - is this issue new to Apples laptops or is this the way they have always handled the number of colors?
Impartial View
I've read a good percentage of this thread, and I can say that most people are allowing themselves to be governed by ethos, rather than logos. When looking at this topic, it's important to remember that personal problems, no matter how great or grave, are anecdotal evidence. Unless we have more product-wide information (ie broad surveys that are properly conducted), we really have no idea how many people are having problems with their mbp screens.
However, to those that have had problems with their screens, I have to say that Apple ought to replace the screens. Poor picture quality, uneven lighting, whatever it is, should have been dealt with in a better fashion. Apple should have been more willing to help those customers who have paid $2000 for a laptop and expect it to perform like a $2000 laptop.
As for false advertising, I believe that matticus008 has pointed out why it isn't false advertising in the clearest way possible:
I've read a good percentage of this thread, and I can say that most people are allowing themselves to be governed by ethos, rather than logos. When looking at this topic, it's important to remember that personal problems, no matter how great or grave, are anecdotal evidence. Unless we have more product-wide information (ie broad surveys that are properly conducted), we really have no idea how many people are having problems with their mbp screens.
However, to those that have had problems with their screens, I have to say that Apple ought to replace the screens. Poor picture quality, uneven lighting, whatever it is, should have been dealt with in a better fashion. Apple should have been more willing to help those customers who have paid $2000 for a laptop and expect it to perform like a $2000 laptop.
As for false advertising, I believe that matticus008 has pointed out why it isn't false advertising in the clearest way possible:
This is used all the time by companies, and it doesn't make it wrong. Consumers have a duty to themselves to do research, and once in a while, crack open a dictionary. Support and ability are vastly different. Any consumer who is going to be buying a $2000+ laptop should be aware of its every attribute, if they don't care to find out, then they have no right to complain that they were misled.
Here is the rub, it's not something that will be readily apparent until you have spent some time with the specific system and have tried ( usually in vain ) to calibrate the display. I did not personally run into the problem until I got CS3 and independent of any reading on this topic I knew something was wrong with the way the colors were coming out.
Don't get me wrong, I think the lawsuit is bunk. Apple has, for the most part, gone out of it's way to satisfy customers that had a problem with the quality of the displays and this lawsuit will probably stop those concession cold in their tracks while the lawyers make tons of money.
Personally I don't know if dithering is the real culprit in these cases, as many have pointed out previous generations had dithering but they also had a fraction of the complaints as well. I think they are sourcing low quality panels ( or poorly QA'ed panels ) that have crappy color balance and when you add color correction to dithering you end up with this mess! As I have pointed out this is a problem that does not become apparent until you spend some real time with the unit doing color work.
I plan on posting a few examples soon since I found a way, using preview, to show how off the colors in a standard MBP are.
I've had many more macbook pros and macbooks in the past year than I've had computers since 1992 when I got my first one. Probably ten at this point. All the MBPs (purchased at different times from different stores with very different manufacturing dates) and all the LCD replacements offered by Apple have had the same issues everybody is talking about: grain, uneven illumination, banding, poor viewing angles. I believe that my sampling, given the time between purchases, the number of units and Apple's replacement LCDs, is pretty clearly indicative of a larger and much more widespread issue. I could be dismissed as being overly picky, but up until the last generation of powerbooks I was satisfied with my powerbook displays - they were not very bright, but they were uniform, had good color reproduction and no grain at all. There is a very discernable different in quality between those displays and the current ones, leaving aside the difference in brightness.
I think they do try very hard to make people satisfied. They did with me, but they don't have good replacement displays so either you get a 17" or a 13" or you get another poor display.
The fact that others do it doesn't make it right either. Consumers should be protected by consumer laws that regulate how companies advertise. In many other countries, you are not allowed to advertise with false or deliberately misleading claims. Apple has clearly tried to hide the truth about these displays and just because others do the same doesn't mean it's alright. Consumers should be able to believe the specifications companies give for their products and not have to dig into forums like this to get the truth. How can you say that it's up to the customer to do research to uncover the lies of a company? That doesn't make any sense.
From Apple website:
13.3-inch (diagonal) glossy widescreen TFT display with support for millions of colors
So if display is 6-bit, it doesn't support millions of colors. But...
"For example, dithering might be used in order to display a photographic image containing millions of colors on video hardware that is only capable of showing 256 colors at a time".
Now, does it make sense?
13.3-inch (diagonal) glossy widescreen TFT display with support for millions of colors
So if display is 6-bit, it doesn't support millions of colors. But...
"For example, dithering might be used in order to display a photographic image containing millions of colors on video hardware that is only capable of showing 256 colors at a time".
Now, does it make sense?
ok, i stopped reading after several pages of posts, but to those of you saying that dithering is fine because we're already looking at 3 sub-pixels and calling them one "pixel," so the dithering is just more of the same, I feel you should be corrected.
dithering is effectively the same as localized interlacing. remember interlacing? Do you really want to look at an interlaced screen again? LCDs were supposed to mark the end of interlacing.
If a pixel is switching between two 128-shade RGB color combinations, that is visibly and inherently inferior to a pixel that is showing a constant 256-shade RGB color combination.
Apple markets their "pro" products as exactly thatpremium products with a premium price for creative professionals and serious amateurs.
To those of you saying that "supporting millions of colors" is technically not the same as "displaying millions of colors," I ask you if you'd be making the same argument if the displays were 4-bits-per-sub-pixel but accepted a 24-bit color image and dithered it? Or a 2-bit, 8-bit compatible display? The argument for 6-bits is exactly the same.
My 50" plasma TV uses sub-pixel dithering to achieve up to 10-bit effective color. But since it's 50" diagonal, and I don't sit 12-18 inches away from it when viewing, I can't see the dithering. This is a welcome and acceptable reason to use dithering (it also extends the live of the plasma by reducing the likelihood of burn-in). In a laptop screen on a "professional" device that advertises support for millions of colors, but doesn't mention anywhere on their site that "support" is purely academic, this is not acceptable.
dithering is effectively the same as localized interlacing. remember interlacing? Do you really want to look at an interlaced screen again? LCDs were supposed to mark the end of interlacing.
If a pixel is switching between two 128-shade RGB color combinations, that is visibly and inherently inferior to a pixel that is showing a constant 256-shade RGB color combination.
Apple markets their "pro" products as exactly thatpremium products with a premium price for creative professionals and serious amateurs.
To those of you saying that "supporting millions of colors" is technically not the same as "displaying millions of colors," I ask you if you'd be making the same argument if the displays were 4-bits-per-sub-pixel but accepted a 24-bit color image and dithered it? Or a 2-bit, 8-bit compatible display? The argument for 6-bits is exactly the same.
My 50" plasma TV uses sub-pixel dithering to achieve up to 10-bit effective color. But since it's 50" diagonal, and I don't sit 12-18 inches away from it when viewing, I can't see the dithering. This is a welcome and acceptable reason to use dithering (it also extends the live of the plasma by reducing the likelihood of burn-in). In a laptop screen on a "professional" device that advertises support for millions of colors, but doesn't mention anywhere on their site that "support" is purely academic, this is not acceptable.
Keep in mind also that the only people that usually benefit substantially from class-action lawsuits are the lawyers and the original plaintiffs (those that filed the lawsuit.) It's obscene. I was once sent a check for 37 cents. I had another for calling cards that allotted me 50 cents for each $50 card I had purchased previously. In each of these cases the lawyers made hundreds of millions.
Another class action against Apple is not a good thing for anyone other than the lawyers and original plaintiffs. Actual users might get $25 worth of iTunes or something. In return, the prices will increase on apple products and the stock price might take a hit.
Dave
Another class action against Apple is not a good thing for anyone other than the lawyers and original plaintiffs. Actual users might get $25 worth of iTunes or something. In return, the prices will increase on apple products and the stock price might take a hit.
Dave
That's still a bad anecdotal argument. Even if you had some bad luck, and had some bad computers, that doesn't give us any kind of broad spectrum data. Ten units out of hundreds of thousands sold is a terrible sample size.
If they did try to satisfy people, then a lot of posters on these forums are being dishonest. But again, that's all anecdotal, and prone to self-selection bias. People who had bad experiences are going to tell us about them more than those who had good experiences. As for having to settle for a different screen, that does suck.
No, what makes it right is any dictionary and the fine print at the bottom of the advertisement. I'm not telling customers to begin a 60 Minutes investigation or anything, but a little research goes a long way. Any responsible consumer does research before making a big purchase, and professional users should be even more aware of the subtle differences between products. A good consumer would have found out what "supports millions of colors" means, and would have known that it does not mean "Displays 16 million colors." Consumers should be protected against false advertising, ie, if the mbp only had a core duo instead of a core 2 duo, or if the Superdrive wasn't really 6x. These would be cases of false advertising, not the wording Apple uses, which is industry standard, so every other laptop maker ought to be named in this suit.
I'm acctually not troubled that the lawsuit was filed, because I, and almost no one on this forum, knows enough to say that the suit is "bogus." We're just discussing the nature of false advertising. I highly doubt all displays will be recalled. It's more likely that Apple will settle the case quickly and try to sweep it under the rug.
Nintendo Vs Apple PR
It's interesting, while not exactly the same issue (they are apples and oranges literally) but since Nintendo and Apple are always being compared for service and innovation its interesting to see how both company deals with negative press and lawsuits.
Brand new Nintendo DS lites were plagued with hinge being broken within a month or so use when it came out last year. Complaints started online with people posting pics etc. Nintendo rather quickly issue a statement though not directly recalling these units but suggested people to call in if they have problems and many people's DS lites were replaced (mine included). I wasn't given hassle at all by the Nintendo customer service when I called in.
Complaints and discussions on Apple's Macbook and Macbookpro displays have been online for sometime now from grainy texture, uneven lighting and dithering problems. Many people posts their accounts of trying to get Apple to repair their displays or exchange them with no luck and often getting rude service by Apple geniuses and so forth. There are accounts of disappearing discussion threads on Apple's support site. Now we have a lawsuit about these displays. But Apple has yet to make a statement if any at all about this...
It's interesting, while not exactly the same issue (they are apples and oranges literally) but since Nintendo and Apple are always being compared for service and innovation its interesting to see how both company deals with negative press and lawsuits.
Brand new Nintendo DS lites were plagued with hinge being broken within a month or so use when it came out last year. Complaints started online with people posting pics etc. Nintendo rather quickly issue a statement though not directly recalling these units but suggested people to call in if they have problems and many people's DS lites were replaced (mine included). I wasn't given hassle at all by the Nintendo customer service when I called in.
Complaints and discussions on Apple's Macbook and Macbookpro displays have been online for sometime now from grainy texture, uneven lighting and dithering problems. Many people posts their accounts of trying to get Apple to repair their displays or exchange them with no luck and often getting rude service by Apple geniuses and so forth. There are accounts of disappearing discussion threads on Apple's support site. Now we have a lawsuit about these displays. But Apple has yet to make a statement if any at all about this...
Well, in what area doesn't Nintendo own Apple? All Nintendo products are good, all work, all have very nice prices, the support and warrantys can't be beaten. I guess the market model with small increamental updates of old products are similair but with Nintendo the prices aren't fixed all the time.
There are three phosfor pieces on a CRT aswell so what's the difference? Also it's not "higher resolution", just sharper image, which is because that the LCD only does one resolution and doesn't have any form of mask/grill in front of it I suppose. It's not like you can set each of those three subpixels to white on an LCD.
The begining of your comment is exactly what I said.
And 16.7 aren't 16.2, he said all 18-bit panels where marketed as having 16.7 million colors, which they aren't.
If only they used something like:
http://www.nec-display-solutions.co...s__Main,spec=x__uk__en,docId=146180,group=all
NEC MultiSync® LCD2090UXi
"Highly innovative LCD monitor with A-TW-IPS TFT display"
I have also read some of this, frankly its too much to consume. Though I would like to make the point that if you are going to sue that a monitor "supports" 8bit but is not actually 8 bit, well they also say hey there is an 80 GB Hard Drive in the thing and advertise it, oh but wait when you get it home its 72 GB!! Right they figured 80 GB out based on saying that 1000 MB = 1 GB which is not true. We all know this. Its the same issue.
Xp looks better on it because XP looks like **** and looks fine on a thousand color scheme.
Xp looks better on it because XP looks like **** and looks fine on a thousand color scheme.
Well, it's not just a sample from one place. I've also seen MBPs in Sweden and England with exactly the same problems. And my own MBPs come from the Apple Store, Amazon and Tekserve during the spring, summer and autumn last year. I would say that although the sampling is very small, it is more likely to indicate a wider problem than to be attributable to just bad luck or a bad batch. Since I also had replacement LCDs that had the problem, I find it evidence enough that there is a wider issue here. Not to mention the many complaints online.
The problem is not that Apple doesn't try. They often do. The problem is that they don't have any better screens to replace the bad ones with. If they were able to , I'm sure there would be very few complaints.
The United States is a mess in terms of false and misleading advertising. The requirement that customers should read the small print or get screwed is beyond reasonable, especially when the small print is becoming more and more of a short treatise on how not to deliver on what at first glance appears to be a good deal. What about TV commercials, where the small print is flashed at you for a second and then removed?
All this would so easy to address if Apple wanted to. In fact, Apple could be praised as an honest and tell-it-as-it-is company - to distinguish itself from others who try to mislead. Just imagine, more detailed battery life measurements that take into account different usage patterns as opposed to the lie of 'up to 6 hours' or whatever it is. I was in an apple store a few weeks ago and an unassuming first-time buyer asked how long hte batteries last and was told around 5-6 hours. I immediately told her, in front of the genius, that she'll get max 3 1/2 hours unless she turned most things off and dimmed the display and didn't just stared at the computer. She was surprised, but then the genius tried to save face by saying that it was an estimate and that it depended on usage. BS.
Arguing that others do it and therefore it's okay for Apple to do it doesn't sound very convincing to me. I'm an Apple customer and I deal with Apple. If HP customers want to sue, they should do it.
I use the 2080UX+ and I love it... but it is just too bulky to shoehorn into a MBP of course.
You're confusing anecdotal evidence. Even if you bought a macbook from every country on the planet, your selection would be limited. The only thing you've proved is that you have bad luck when it comes to macbooks, that the problem is not in just one country, and that you perceive each of the screens to be bad. If we had a good, objective measure of "bad" then we would be able to ask more people about their purchases, and determine if the screen is really that bad.
Again, your perception of "bad" is driving this idea. If the screens are not what you expected, then demand your money back and buy a different brand. You don't have to buy an Apple laptop, there are other choices. If you want OSX that badly, then like I said before, write to Apple and tell them their screens are terrible. If enough people do this, and boycott the product, a change will occur.
Learn how to discern what words mean. "Up to" does not mean that such a thing will happen every time. If the right conditions are met, then it will. If the description had been "Average use gives 6 hours" then that would be false advertising. You wouldn't sue your professor because you got a C+ when the max grade is an A+ would you? If you didn't do the work to get an A+, then you can't expect an A+. Did the professor commit false advertising when he wrote on the syllabus that an A+ was possible? NO. If you make all your decisions based on advertising, then you are a fool. Outside research is your responsibility, not Apple's.
If the lawsuit is really about false advertising, then it should have included all manufacturers. It isn't right to say that only Apple should be named if many others are doing it. If this is seeking class-action status, then other computer buyers who have been dissapointed by their screens not being able to display 16 million colors should be included in the suit.