MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Frigtards. I hope they get slammed the same way that Lerach finally did.

When you get to be a bigger dog, everyone wants to take you down.

It's simple - if you don't like the monitor, don't buy the friggin' computer!

Guess it comes down to "the eye of the beholder"... and such a wast of time!

I stopped caring when the screen went glossy. I do not want a glossy iMac period.

Brian, you have been heard on more than one occasion referring to your life partner as stunning.

The court of humanity finds you contemptuous.

Mar 31, 08 - 04:00 pm Comment from: Willie G

Well, ok, there's one side of the story... now we need to hear the other side aka Apple's response. As with all things, somewhere between the two sides, one will find the truth...

Mar 31, 08 - 04:05 pm Comment from: Amazin1

One day I had like nothing to do, so I was counting the colors I could see on my iMac screen. I got to 262,140! For love of money I could not find the other four colors the lawyers claim are possible! I am going to see Dewey, Cheatum and Howe tomorrow about starting a lawsuit. I am thinking there is a potential for another classless lawsuit here!

Mar 31, 08 - 04:13 pm Comment from: Macromancer

this shiat has got to stop.

Mar 31, 08 - 04:20 pm Comment from: KingMel

I chose to pay extra to get the big 24" screen primarily because it is 1920x1200, which supports 1080 HD, and because it looked great to me in terms of color, contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc. In addition, the resolution permits side-by-side page views at reasonable scale, which is great for document reviews.

When I was shopping for my Mac I noticed that the 20" iMac did not look as good, although to my untrained eye it still looked to be accessible. When the new iMacs were released, I recall Mac discussion threads comparing the iMac screens to the corresponding Apple Cinema Displays, and the 20" iMac did not fare well. But the ACD's are targeted towards professionals and the iMacs are targeted towards consumers. In addition, the 20" iMac is priced at the low end of the Mac range.

This dispute appears to me to be very similar to the dispute regarding the Macbook LCD displays (6-bit, not 8-bit). If the lawsuit is successful, the only people getting significant money out of it will be the lawyers. The class representatives will get a token amount (perhaps $10K or less), and the people who bought the 20" iMacs in question will get an Apple coupon good for a discount (say $50) that might be limited to purchases of computers or displays.

I think that Apple should be more transparent in its marketing. It is critical for Apple to maintain the trust of the consumer, in my opinion. But is Apple's display marketing any different from that of any other vendor?

Q: What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his/her neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.

Q: Why is going to a meeting of the Bar Association like going into a bait shop?
A: Because of the abundance of leeches, maggots and nightcrawlers.

Q: What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road.
A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.

Did you ever see all milk gallon containers filled to the exact same point "1 gallon" no some are under some are over, wow lets file a suit.

well...

perhaps the lawsuit is based on fact...

I don't pretend to know enough about it make an informed comment, but if the monitor isn't capable of "millions of colors"... as advertised... I'd say they have a case...

Mar 31, 08 - 04:34 pm Comment from: Dsquare

Fools of America....

Well, it's a shame that Apple made the claim, really. I would tend to doubt that the human eye can discern more than a quarter million colors really. I guess the question is, how much injury is done by this white lie. $40 dollars worth? These guys are trolls. As far as the inferior viewing angle, I think Apple does outline differences between the two in the tech specs.

Mar 31, 08 - 04:42 pm Comment from: Crazy Ed

This is a drawback to Macs getting more popular. Hopefully the quality compromises stop here.

Mar 31, 08 - 04:47 pm Comment from: Rory Misener

@Steve: Try looking at the 20" from an angle other than straight on. You'll notice that the colors start to shift at only a slight angle. Contrast this to my 20" Dell LCD, which I got for $350 well over a year ago and is much more usable than the iMac display.

If you look at previous generation iMacs, the different sizes of displays were usually pretty similar in quality. That's simply not true with the current iMacs. Apple fouled up, and this is the kind of thing that could easily hurt their reputation for quality products.

One more thing, pertaining to the argument about price points: the price change for upgrading to the 24" iMac with all other specs equal, $300, happens to be the same as the gap between the 20" and 23" ACDs. You can't tell me that Apple couldn't afford to source a better 20" panel for the iMac. This is simply a huge corporation cutting corners on expensive, and supposedly premium, products.

The real question is did people rely upon Apple's stated facts regarding their 20" iMac monitors, and were those statements correct? If people relied upon Apple's statements, and Apple lied, then Apple will be liable.

It's not a matter of "did the monitor look good to you in the store". Remember, quite a few, if not most, Macs are bought online, so the end user can't see them compared to other PC monitors.

Plus, it doesn't matter if you use an iMac for professional photo editing or consumer editing. If you decided to buy a 20" iMac instead of a 24" iMac because the screens were basically identical (as far as color display) but you didn't need the extra screen real estate, and Apple said both would display millions of colors, then you may be damaged because you can't edit your family photos the same as you would be able to on a 24" iMac.

Sure, this may be splitting hairs and technical, but if Apple is marketing its products with particular abilities, then those products had better have those abilities. If not, Apple's gonna pay.

That the 20" iMac dropped in PRICE by hundreds of dollars at the same time Apple adopted a less expensive "cheating" way of achieving 16 million colors.

Some "duping." Look at the iMac, and if you like the screen and the price, buy it. If not, don't get your panties in a twist because you don't like the fact that marketing materials have a positive spin!

Guess K.B.K is attempting to find another Ambulance

"Kabateck", eh? Sounds Klingon to me...

Wait 'til they figure out how the MBA is masquerading as a real laptop.... Lawsuits galore!

Just my $0.02

To all who are bashing the lawsuit:

If it was a lawsuit against Dell, most of you who are defending Apple would be skewering Dell.

And to those who say it's no big deal because reviews pointed out that the monitors weren't very good:

You've completely missed the point. If Apple lied about what it put into its machines, what's to stop it from claiming higher bus speeds than it actually puts into Mac Pros, or claiming 2 GB of on-board RAM when only 1.5 GB are actually there?

You've all heard of the slippery slope, and when companies start cutting corners and lying to consumers because they make a few extra bucks, the company starts very quickly sliding down the slope.

Look at Ford and the exploding Pintos: The bean-counters who were in charge at Ford when the decision was made NOT to add the protective measures to prevent these explosions did so because they calculated that the cost of lawsuits or other costs would be less than the costs to repair the Pintos. What they didn't factor into their decision were the punitive damages thrown at Ford when the jury found out that Ford cared more about profits than people's lives.

BTW, your gas tank on your car is now safer and unlikely to leak in a crash because of that case.

dats bs man.
i counted minez dee othah day an i mussa seen at kees 1,002,438 diffent colorz mang! i knowzit fo sho, uh-huh.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:02 pm Comment from: Macinfo

Somehow I don't think they are on the consumer's side, because every lawsuit they file costs the consumer, the only one that comes out ahead is them...

I have to say that I was disappointed that Apple went with such a cheesy display on the 20-inch. Contemplated getting a 20-inch iMac a couple months ago, and decided against it (I bought a MacMini and a third-party 20-inch screen instead). It is worth noting that on the Apple Store's refurb site, the previous generation 20-in iMacs tend to cost MORE than the current ones -- I believe this is directly related to the screen quality (which was good on the previous generation).

Apple has always had a reputation for very high quality color displays, all the way back to their first appearance in the mid-1980s. The decision to go with the TNF screens is a sad one.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:11 pm Comment from: Spark

@Macromancer

"Then you shouldn't be using an iMac, which is a consumer, non-mission critical machine..."


BINGO! Displays are like televisions. Regardless of the specs, you have to go view it for yourself to make an informed decision. I have both a 20" and 24" iMac. I've seen the difference, but the 20" is obviously the low budget entry machine, and anyone truly dependent on critical color matching would never opt for this machine. The 20" machine is fine when you are sitting in front of it doing most common home functions, including iPhoto and iMovie; the images look fine.

This one actually has merits.
The 20" is indeed inferior to the 24" and both past displays - keep the glossy vs matte out of it.
If I stand and look at the 20", if there's a dialog box or window or any other element that casts the shadow, it must be looked at directly, or you see this hideous outline.
It truly is bad, and if this suit goes anywhere, I'm going to ask that my 20" be replaced with a 24" - I'm happy to pay the difference.

Don't be so quick to put down something - I hate lawyers as much as anyone, and that's the problem with previous "Cry wolf" suits against Apple, now that there is one with merit, it goes unnoticed and mocked.

SB

This time, I have to fault Apple for this. For years, Apple has touted that their displays are the best in the industry. Up until the last iMac refresh, that was a true statement, but the current 20 inch screen is quite inferior to the 24 inch screen. At the very least, they should note that in the tech specs on their website. I'd be pretty irate if I relied on a 20 inch iMac for photography work, and the coloring was less than accurate.

My 20" iMac monitor looks lovely.

The good news is that a company is usually doing really well when a lot of people try suing it.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:25 pm Comment from: Madmax

This is hardly a revelation. There are many mac chat rooms that have been discussing this issue ever since they dumbed down the 20" monitor.

As always - caveat emptor - buyer beware.

hmm, i have a 24", not a 20" iMac. But I've seen the 20" iMacs at the stores, and they look almost identical. Whether it's an optical illusion (due to the gloss and black/silver frame) or not, these screens do look a lot better than prior screens. All color we see is based on the interplay of the primary colors, so it doesn't much matter so much as the mix is right. There are still some cameras at 6MP that are state of the art. It's not deceptive if it does a good job. I'd like to watch this case, I'd bet the jury will all run out and buy some 20" iMacs. They're a steal for the price, actually. As for the law firm, this is kind of a dirt bag case to be taking on, and I doubt they'll get certification of the class because I doubt a jury would be able to tell the difference between "hundreds of thousands of colors" and "millions of colors." The law respects the axiom: "where there's no harm, there's no foul."

Sorry to go against the grain here but I've owned every generation of iMac so far and I'm very disappointed with this latest one. It is by far the worst quality monitor they've shipped in quite a while. What you need to realize is that Apple did indeed deceive their customers here.

The lawsuit is right on. Because the screens of the 20 inch alu-iMacs are really shitty, compared both to its predecessor and the 24" alu-iMac. When you see the current iMacs beside each other, you'd have to be blind not to see the obvious differences: in the 20-incher the viewing angles are very narrow and the colors look really washed-out, whereas in the 24-incher the viewing angles are wide and the colors are really bright and vibrant.

The only problem might be that non-TN panels are apparently not available anymore in 20 inches, god knows for what reason. So Apple might actually be forced to use these cheap and shitty TN panels. However, if this is not the case, Apple's being a cheapskate and that is not acceptable. If it takes a lawsuit to change that, it's all good in my book.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:33 pm Comment from: Macromancer

" I'd be pretty irate if I relied on a 20 inch iMac for photography work, and the coloring was less than accurate."

Then you shouldn't be using an iMac, which is a consumer, non-mission critical machine. If you are a photographer and are that reliant on accurate color, you should be using pro level hardware.

This whole thing is ridiculous. If you see it in an Apple store and like it, then that is the final factor.

Damn! I am viewing this page (and mostly everyday on MDN) using the suspect in this case.

Hmmm. Got a 20" aluminum iMac and I think the display is great when compared to the competition at that price point. It was obvious from reading the spec that the monitor was downgraded from the previous generation. However, while the technical specs went down, the size went up and the price remained the same. For me, a non-photographer who uses my computer for basic stuff, it is a very nice machine. Especially fro $1300.

I'm having a hard time understanding where the lawsuit has any merit.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:41 pm Comment from: Greg L

Well, I suppose it must always be “buyer beware” but I expect better of Apple. If they say “displays millions of colors”, I don’t expect it to be via 6-bit dithering. That is simply intentionally misleading the consumer. Apple knew it and hoped they could get by with it. I shouldn’t have to wonder if Apple is trying to pull a quick one on me.

I never put any credence in viewing angle and pixel refresh rates; what I see in the computer store is what I get. But it’s impractical to load in a copy of Photoshop and really give a computer monitor a thorough workout in the store to see if Apple is lying their faces off regarding bit depth. They deserve what they get with this lawsuit.

The displays in the current 20" iMacs are horrid. All you have to do is look at one side by side with the 24" and you can easily see the quality difference. The older white 20" iMacs did not have this problem, it's only the newer aluminum 20" models.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:42 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

mayday,

No, if they were smart and thought they'd have a chance at making money, then and only then would they have filed in Texas.
If, in fact they were idiots, they'd have filed somewhere more likely to have thrown them out in the streets.
You see, THAT would have been idiotic.
It's called logic, Watson.




That being said... the two LCD's (24 and 20) ARE different in manufacture, technology and in specs...
HOWEVER, you're gonna have a beeyatch of a time proving that consumers were "duped" into anything (my largest customer buys HUNDREDS of the things), and after reviewing what relevant info there is to this story, they didn't feel they were mislead in any way. The new 20" iMac COSTS LESS than the model it replaced, and that (and only that) led to their desire to buy the 20 incher.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:42 pm Comment from: obtusegoose

For $1,199, you should be able to 'accurately' edit photos on an iMac. Apple wanted to make an extra $50 or $100 profit, so they used the lower quality screens. Their specs say "Millions of colors at all resolutions". This is clearly not true. Dithering the colors on screen is not the same thing as "millions of colors". Apple is in the wrong, and they know it.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:45 pm Comment from: Jay-Z

@ Macinfo:

"because every lawsuit they file costs the consumer"

You are absolutely 100% correct. Who do you think pays the legal fees? Consumers, when companies have to raise the cost of their products and/or services to cover the legal costs.

Bottom line: go to the store, look at it, and if what you see is worth the price, then buy it. If not, put your wallet back in your pocket. It's that simple.

Why I tend to prefer Apple products over most others, I am a firm believer in truth in advertising, regardless of the company. IF, and that's a big if, the allegation is true, then Apple should get at least a slap on the wrist.

Everyone knows the lawyer is on no one's side by his own, but if Apple screwed up as claimed, I don't mind some lawyer making a few bucks off of it as a way of reminding Apple that they too have to play by the rules.

Apple is guilty of deception here and all regular MDN Mac fans will be letting themselves down is they do not join in condemning Apple and insisting on the quality we all recognise the company has built its reputation on. Responses here will sort out the REAL Mac fans from those who have an identical mindset to Windows Fanbois (hint: one will not hesitate to be critical).

I also think the 'glossy/matte' iMac debate DOES have a bearing on this. Many loyal Mac fans have been disappointed by Apple's disregard for the needs of mid-range creative business users - who (like myself) rely on a top quality matte screen in a midrange Mac box to meet their creative requirements. I for one abandoned purchasing the new iMac for this reason alone and feel let down by a company I always previously believed supported me. Apple could - at the very least - have recognised its low/mid-end pro-users and offered a matte iMac option for a premium. This 20inch screen fiasco now hardly surprises me (although it does sadden me).

Me? I'm now waiting to see what Apple do with the Mini Mac and my next purchase may - RELUCTANTLY - be one of those, with perhaps a nice matte 24inch monitor from Dell. Until recently I NEVER thought I would be uttering the words 'purchase' and 'Dell' in the same sentence!!! But times - and companies - change I suppose.

While the flaws outlined in this suit are basically accurate, they still don't merit a lawsuit. The deficiencies have been pointed out in virtually every review of the current 20" iMac both as compared to its predecessor and to the 24" iMac. A simple trip to an Apple Store or Best Buy would confirm the issue.

But at that point, the customer can mumble under his/her breath "Shame on you, Apple" and buy something else. It is the very reason I've held off on the iMac. My choice, as a customer, is either to go for the MBP or wait longer for Apple to release a better desktop. Not to sue.

Mar 31, 08 - 05:52 pm Comment from: Brau

I can almost hear the conversation between Al Gore and Steve Jobs when they decided to switch the new supposedly enviro-friendly screens:

"Hell, fudging the facts is just fine, Steve. Remember, we're saving the earth with these new screens, so being misleading is completely justifiable. Heck, I did the same thing in my own documentary. We'll just assert anyone who notices is skewing the facts, anti-Mac, a paid MicroSoft shill, and a gluttonous consumer."

Mar 31, 08 - 05:54 pm Comment from: mayday

Probably filed in Texas like the other idiots...

@Brau - excellent post!

Mar 31, 08 - 06:06 pm Comment from: lurker

Apple screwed up here. If their ad copy had just said something like "our clever software makes this 6-bit display look like it's displaying colors that it really takes 8 bits to display" then they would be golden. But not so. They relied on technical ignorance of the details of display design and specifications to put one past their customers. Shame on Apple, because it means the next time I consider buying one of their products, I need to approach them with suspicion, rather than trust. Sad, sad, sad.

Even if Apple did mess up, who's really gonna win here?

The lawyers would buy themselves new private jets, and the iMac owners would get $5 Apple Store certificates. Yay.