I think what some people may be missing here is that not everyone has the same screens with their MBPs. The 15 and 17 inch models each use two different panels (by Au Optronics and Samsung), and each individual computer varies in terms of how well the screens are engineered into the laptops themselves.
Some people (many, probably) simply got the short end of the stick with their particular screens, in terms of back-lighting, soft corners, graininess, etc. I've seen about 50 different MBPs in the last 6 months, having been to 7 different stores (don't ask), and many of them had obvious lighting problems, and some were pretty much duds. But many were also pretty good, with fairly even lighting, corners, and no graininess at all.
However, many people order their computers online through the excellent Apple store without feeling the need to go into a retail outlet, especially if there isn't a store nearby. And if you've owned an Apple laptop before, it would be likely that you would have approached your online purchase with confidence, as in most cases Apple has produced very solid laptops in the past.
Here is where the false advertising comes in. People who buy MBPs are looking for top quality and are willing to pay for it. Judging from previous Powerbooks (which used 8 bit panels) and from the claims on the website about millions of colors and unsurpassed quality, it stands to reason that many people took that at face value and thought they were going to get something that they didn't actually get.
Simply put, Apple has falsely advertised their laptop screens. Yes, they can claim millions of colors with dithering, etc, but it's disingenuous and misleading nonetheless. If you factor in the other screen issues (which only some will have) then it's pretty obvious why some people are going to be upset.
Returning the MBP (or exchanging for another) consumes a lot of time and effort, and Apple has to agree to this as well. I'm sure many have been able to resolve their issues by getting refunds or exchanges, but not everyone. I myself exchanged my first 17" MBP (with a Samsung LC60 panel) for a new one with an AU Optronics LC62 panel. The first one was fine but had two dead pixels and dark corners. The second had no dead pixels but really horrible and uneven back-lighting.
What did I do? Well, the laptop was perfectly fine in every other way so I decided to lump it and just keep it. Since I spend the majority of my time at home, I bought a Dell 2407 WFP monitor for use at home, where I do most (but not all) of my work.
That was an expensive solution, but I simply didn't have the time or energy to fight it any more. But I wouldn't expect others to do the same if they aren't happy with their laptops. I wouldn't expect them to lump it just because I did.
I applaud the people behind the class action suit. I doubt they or anyone else is actually expecting to win any money out of this. They are spending their time and money and probably won't get anything (except a lot of chastisement, it seems) in return.
Who wins? The lawyers, of course. But not just them. Future Apple customers win too, because a lawsuit like this and threads like these can help people educate themselves about precisely what they are getting when they shop with Apple. And maybe, just maybe, Apple will stop being so vague (for people like me who like to see exact technical specifications rather than feel-good hand waving) and start being accurate and honest. They've been fudging this one for far too long, and I thank someone for having the gumption to call them on it.
Apple, not all of your customers are fanbois or retards. If you want to keep us picky (i.e. intelligent) customers, give us the tools to make accurate decisions when researching your products. In this case, the screen model number, manufacturer, and technical specifications should have been included on your website. Neither your Geniuses nor your Customer Service nor your Applecare engineers were able (or willing) to tell me who made my computer screen and what the actual specs were.
Other MacRumors members actually had to boot into Windows and run diagnostic software to extract this information, which had to be cross-referenced to the manufacturer's webiste.
Hardly upfront if you ask me.
Bravo to those who've had the courage to stand up for themselves. They are exercising their rights, a point sorely missed by the naysayers.
