So, yes the dogs were called off but it does not mean that Apple did not misrepresent their product.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
It's not 63+63+63, the colors combine together, they don't have to have the same values at the same time. At no point does that make 190 colors, or 190 patterns.
Also, there are 64 combination possible in 6-bit. 0 to 63 inclusive.
The total number of colors is 64*64*64 = 262144 for each cluster of 3 elements, which is what you are describing eventually. but there aren't 190 colors under any measure.
You are being very selective in your arguement. You are "clustering" three sub-pixels together to get a perceived color. This is allowed because the human eye can not percieve the individual red, green and blue sub-pixels. So if clustering from a spatial standpoint (adjacent sub-pixels) is acceptable, why is clustering from a temporal standpoint (a series of pixels in a short space of time rather than a short space of distance) not acceptable if the human eye can't percieve the difference?
If fact, I could argue that your spatial clustering is less effective becuase if I get close enough to the screen I can see the individual red, green, blue sub-pixels.
Look at this smiley I got news for you, your monitor is not emitting any yellow light. Now, look at your monitor and see who manufactured it. You may want to consider a lawsuit because they said you got more colors than your monitor is physically capable of displaying.
If you have an 8-bit monitor, it is only capable of emitting light in 768 different colors. The other 16,776,448 colors are being percieved by you but don't actually exist! They are created by selectively blending those 768 colors. What difference does it make how I blend them (either spatially or temporaly?)
Fair enough. Yes they settled. If Apple had a case, you know they would not have bothered and would have trumpeted this case as Apple being picked on but won. Settling simply one side had the other over a barrel but the stronger side could drag this losing case out forever. So, yes the dogs were called off but it does not mean that Apple did not misrepresent their product.
You are making an assumption though as you do not know the details of the suit. The media doesn't get access to the details I believe when a suit is settled.
If you're speaking of your own impression and not basing anything off of the original suit then that's for the courts to decide and how you and Apple present your cases. You seem to talk like you're sure Apple is in the wrong...why not take it to court if you're that sure?
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Perhaps the double-negative threw you off, but when someone actually agrees with your larger point, you should thank them (rather than trash them), no?
I have a PhD in cognitive experimental psychology (University of California, 2005) with a specialization in cognitive neurophysiology and visual perception.
[blah blah blah]...
Okay, mister fancy degree, if you want to fight this battle, I'm game. I don't have a PhD, but I do have a degree in Physics, so I understand your argument about Cones, wavelengths, the Visual Cortex, and the like. I've studied these concepts thoroughly enough to not be phased at your attempt at reader bamboozlement.
Are the techniques of dithering, temporal dithering, faster-than-human framrates enough to trick the human eye into believing the display shows millions of colors? In most cases, yes. So is it fair enough to say that [6-bit plus dithering plus temporal dithering plus whatever else} = {8-bit true millions of colors}? When it comes down to the mechanics of this display, the answer is no. They are fundamentally different, regardless of whether or not it's detectable or not.
As technology continues to progress past the the limits of human detection, we are at the mercy of manufacturers to tell us the truth about what we are really getting. Sure Intel can tell us they've moved to 45nm production, but how many people can just whip out their electron microscope and verify this? Sure Apple can offer a 120Hz display, but who has a high-speed camera on hand to check it just to make sure?
So regardless of the fact that humans may not be able to detect differences between a 6-bit plus [yadda] and an 8-bit is irrelevant. The display is simply incapable of emitting millions of different-wavelength photons (if you want to get technical) per pixel. So Apple has marketed faslely. It would be right of them to state to that it's 6-bit dithered millions, versus native millions.
I don't think it's absurd to call them on such a detail. If Intel were to sell a 65nm CPU as a 45nm CPU of identical performance in every way, would you not still consider it false advertizing?
Of course this entire argument is a sham anyway, since our displays only emit red, green, and blue photons, period. Perhaps this factoid should be clarified as well.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Check before you speak... as of 10 seconds ago the iMac specs page reads, "Millions of colors at all resolutions" and the MacBook and MacBookPro specs page still lists "supports millions of colors."
Nice little attempt at disinformation...now how are you any more credible than the folks being called MacZealots in this discussion?
If you have an 8-bit monitor, it is only capable of emitting light in 768 different colors.
Sorry to be such a technical bastard but actually it's still just the same three wavelengths in 256 different intensities each... Monitors only emit red, green and blue photons, period, and the different bits are the quantized levels of emission intensity.
Okay, mister fancy degree, if you want to fight this battle, I'm game. I don't have a PhD, but I do have a degree in Physics, so I understand your argument about Cones, wavelengths, the Visual Cortex, and the like. I've studied these concepts thoroughly enough to not be phased at your attempt at reader bamboozlement.
Are the techniques of dithering, temporal dithering, faster-than-human framrates enough to trick the human eye into believing the display shows millions of colors? In most cases, yes. So is it fair enough to say that [6-bit plus dithering plus temporal dithering plus whatever else} = {8-bit true millions of colors}? When it comes down to the mechanics of this display, the answer is no. They are fundamentally different, regardless of whether or not it's detectable or not.
As technology continues to progress past the the limits of human detection, we are at the mercy of manufacturers to tell us the truth about what we are really getting. Sure Intel can tell us they've moved to 45nm production, but how many people can just whip out their electron microscope and verify this? Sure Apple can offer a 120Hz display, but who has a high-speed camera on hand to check it just to make sure?
So regardless of the fact that humans may not be able to detect differences between a 6-bit plus [yadda] and an 8-bit is irrelevant. The display is simply incapable of emitting millions of different-wavelength photons (if you want to get technical) per pixel. So Apple has marketed faslely. It would be right of them to state to that it's 6-bit dithered millions, versus native millions.
I don't think it's absurd to call them on such a detail. If Intel were to sell a 65nm CPU as a 45nm CPU of identical performance in every way, would you not still consider it false advertizing?
Of course this entire argument is a sham anyway, since our displays only emit red, green, and blue photons, period. Perhaps this factoid should be clarified as well.
-Clive
Yet another failure to make a valid arguement... could you please point to a reference or source that shows Apple claiming the display was an 8-bit display? I don't believe they ever did. That negates your entire arguement.
But if you insist on bringing in "8-bit true millions of colors" into the discussion, I think the point being made is that even a true 8-bit monitor is "incapable of emitting millions of different-wavelength photons (if you want to get technical) per pixel", to use your own words. It can only emit photons in three wavelengths and 256 intensities per wavelength. For a total of 768 colors.
Of course this entire argument is a sham anyway, since our displays only emit red, green, and blue photons, period. Perhaps this factoid should be clarified as well.
-Clive
That is the crucial point (as others have also pointed out). Everything else is marketing.
There's nothing wrong with marketing. If Apple had said, "looks/feels like millions of colors and we'll bet your patootie that, in a blindfolded test, you couldn't tell the difference between this and actual millions of colors" it wouldn't have had quite the marketing ring to it.
So if all fast food joints sold you a beverage that they called "coffee," resembled the taste of coffee, but was actually concentrated monkey urine, you'd be okay with that?
...After all, only a bean connoisseur would actually know the difference...
I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for indutry-wide lying. Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right.
-Clive
Your argument is ridiculous. First of all, monitors capable of displaying millions of colors would need to have exited like your coffee but no such monitor has ever existed. Then, Apple would have to come along and sell a monitor only capable of displaying less then millions of colors (like your concentrated monkey urine) but claim it could display greater then millions of colors.
So as far as your argument goes, no company has ever sold real coffee since real coffee doesn?t exist, they have only sold concentrated monkey urine and named it coffee.
Sorry to be such a technical bastard but actually it's still just the same three wavelengths in 256 different intensities each... Monitors only emit red, green and blue photons, period, and the different bits are the quantized levels of emission intensity.
-Clive
I stand corrected on that technical detail.
But could you please stop flip-flopping on both sides of the arguement, I'm getting whiplash. \
That is absolutely an untrue statement. Settling in no way implies that anyone was "over a barrel". It simply means that it was cheaper for Apple to pay them to go away than to pay their attorneys to defend the case. Even when Apple won, the attorney and court fees could have easily added up to more than paying them a small amount of money. For all we know, Apple just refunded the cost of the laptops and some small "I'm sorry for the confusion" fee.
Companies do this all the time. Even if you know you have an ironclad case you could win, if it's going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so makes no sense when all the other side was asking for was something less.
You could be correct or incorrect. Unless either party releases the docs and findings we will never know. However, considering that these guys had pretty data supporting their case, maybe Apple did not want a big public case affecting the millions (?) if MBP's already out there. Maybe they staved off a class action lawsuit.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Could also be that Apple does not want a class action lawsuit. I will bring this up in the next board meeting and report back to you.
Photography by definition requires a camera to expose a light-sensitive material capable of later producing an image as a result of chemical reaction.
Again, I wish to be technical and note that the word "Photograph" is photo + graph. Graph = "something written"; photo = photons/light. Ergo, "photograph" litterally means "something written by photons/light." No chemicals required. Until recently, such a technique was our only choice for making a photograph, but that is no longer the case. I see no reason to cease calling a digitally-procured image a photograph, as it was the detection of light which triggered the recording of the device.
You could be correct or incorrect. Unless either party releases the docs and findings we will never know. However, considering that these guys had pretty data supporting their case, maybe Apple did not want a big public case affecting the millions (?) if MBP's already out there. Maybe they staved off a class action lawsuit.
That is very true. There is always the risk that despite mountains of evidence the jury will still come to an illogical conclusion. Just ask OJ...
Check before you speak... as of 10 seconds ago the iMac specs page reads, "Millions of colors at all resolutions" and the MacBook and MacBookPro specs page still lists "supports millions of colors."
Nice little attempt at disinformation...now how are you any more credible than the folks being called MacZealots in this discussion?
It used to be under the display heading as well. I stand to be corrected- sorry.
But perhaps you can also point me to the link where Dell states the same thing? I am trying to find it.
That is very true. There is always the risk that despite mountains of evidence the jury will still come to an illogical conclusion. Just ask OJ...
Or you could read the Downing Street Memo, the NIE, and a bunch of docs showing conclusive evidence but the wrong decision was still made.
In the case of Apple vs. two guys, Apple made an incorrect statement and these guys correctly called them on it. Period, point, blank. Everything else after this does not matter. Apple made a statement that they have to live with.
P.S. If she had been black, OJ would have never gone to trial. It is what it is.
Comments
So, yes the dogs were called off but it does not mean that Apple did not misrepresent their product.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
It's not 63+63+63, the colors combine together, they don't have to have the same values at the same time. At no point does that make 190 colors, or 190 patterns.
Also, there are 64 combination possible in 6-bit. 0 to 63 inclusive.
The total number of colors is 64*64*64 = 262144 for each cluster of 3 elements, which is what you are describing eventually. but there aren't 190 colors under any measure.
You are being very selective in your arguement. You are "clustering" three sub-pixels together to get a perceived color. This is allowed because the human eye can not percieve the individual red, green and blue sub-pixels. So if clustering from a spatial standpoint (adjacent sub-pixels) is acceptable, why is clustering from a temporal standpoint (a series of pixels in a short space of time rather than a short space of distance) not acceptable if the human eye can't percieve the difference?
If fact, I could argue that your spatial clustering is less effective becuase if I get close enough to the screen I can see the individual red, green, blue sub-pixels.
Look at this smiley
If you have an 8-bit monitor, it is only capable of emitting light in 768 different colors. The other 16,776,448 colors are being percieved by you but don't actually exist! They are created by selectively blending those 768 colors. What difference does it make how I blend them (either spatially or temporaly?)
Fair enough. Yes they settled. If Apple had a case, you know they would not have bothered and would have trumpeted this case as Apple being picked on but won. Settling simply one side had the other over a barrel but the stronger side could drag this losing case out forever. So, yes the dogs were called off but it does not mean that Apple did not misrepresent their product.
You are making an assumption though as you do not know the details of the suit. The media doesn't get access to the details I believe when a suit is settled.
If you're speaking of your own impression and not basing anything off of the original suit then that's for the courts to decide and how you and Apple present your cases. You seem to talk like you're sure Apple is in the wrong...why not take it to court if you're that sure?
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Perhaps the double-negative threw you off, but when someone actually agrees with your larger point, you should thank them (rather than trash them), no?
I have a PhD in cognitive experimental psychology (University of California, 2005) with a specialization in cognitive neurophysiology and visual perception.
[blah blah blah]...
Okay, mister fancy degree, if you want to fight this battle, I'm game. I don't have a PhD, but I do have a degree in Physics, so I understand your argument about Cones, wavelengths, the Visual Cortex, and the like. I've studied these concepts thoroughly enough to not be phased at your attempt at reader bamboozlement.
Are the techniques of dithering, temporal dithering, faster-than-human framrates enough to trick the human eye into believing the display shows millions of colors? In most cases, yes. So is it fair enough to say that [6-bit plus dithering plus temporal dithering plus whatever else} = {8-bit true millions of colors}? When it comes down to the mechanics of this display, the answer is no. They are fundamentally different, regardless of whether or not it's detectable or not.
As technology continues to progress past the the limits of human detection, we are at the mercy of manufacturers to tell us the truth about what we are really getting. Sure Intel can tell us they've moved to 45nm production, but how many people can just whip out their electron microscope and verify this? Sure Apple can offer a 120Hz display, but who has a high-speed camera on hand to check it just to make sure?
So regardless of the fact that humans may not be able to detect differences between a 6-bit plus [yadda] and an 8-bit is irrelevant. The display is simply incapable of emitting millions of different-wavelength photons (if you want to get technical) per pixel. So Apple has marketed faslely. It would be right of them to state to that it's 6-bit dithered millions, versus native millions.
I don't think it's absurd to call them on such a detail. If Intel were to sell a 65nm CPU as a 45nm CPU of identical performance in every way, would you not still consider it false advertizing?
Of course this entire argument is a sham anyway, since our displays only emit red, green, and blue photons, period. Perhaps this factoid should be clarified as well.
-Clive
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Check before you speak... as of 10 seconds ago the iMac specs page reads, "Millions of colors at all resolutions" and the MacBook and MacBookPro specs page still lists "supports millions of colors."
Nice little attempt at disinformation...now how are you any more credible than the folks being called MacZealots in this discussion?
If you have an 8-bit monitor, it is only capable of emitting light in 768 different colors.
Sorry to be such a technical bastard but actually it's still just the same three wavelengths in 256 different intensities each... Monitors only emit red, green and blue photons, period, and the different bits are the quantized levels of emission intensity.
-Clive
Okay, mister fancy degree, if you want to fight this battle, I'm game. I don't have a PhD, but I do have a degree in Physics, so I understand your argument about Cones, wavelengths, the Visual Cortex, and the like. I've studied these concepts thoroughly enough to not be phased at your attempt at reader bamboozlement.
Are the techniques of dithering, temporal dithering, faster-than-human framrates enough to trick the human eye into believing the display shows millions of colors? In most cases, yes. So is it fair enough to say that [6-bit plus dithering plus temporal dithering plus whatever else} = {8-bit true millions of colors}? When it comes down to the mechanics of this display, the answer is no. They are fundamentally different, regardless of whether or not it's detectable or not.
As technology continues to progress past the the limits of human detection, we are at the mercy of manufacturers to tell us the truth about what we are really getting. Sure Intel can tell us they've moved to 45nm production, but how many people can just whip out their electron microscope and verify this? Sure Apple can offer a 120Hz display, but who has a high-speed camera on hand to check it just to make sure?
So regardless of the fact that humans may not be able to detect differences between a 6-bit plus [yadda] and an 8-bit is irrelevant. The display is simply incapable of emitting millions of different-wavelength photons (if you want to get technical) per pixel. So Apple has marketed faslely. It would be right of them to state to that it's 6-bit dithered millions, versus native millions.
I don't think it's absurd to call them on such a detail. If Intel were to sell a 65nm CPU as a 45nm CPU of identical performance in every way, would you not still consider it false advertizing?
Of course this entire argument is a sham anyway, since our displays only emit red, green, and blue photons, period. Perhaps this factoid should be clarified as well.
-Clive
Yet another failure to make a valid arguement... could you please point to a reference or source that shows Apple claiming the display was an 8-bit display? I don't believe they ever did. That negates your entire arguement.
But if you insist on bringing in "8-bit true millions of colors" into the discussion, I think the point being made is that even a true 8-bit monitor is "incapable of emitting millions of different-wavelength photons (if you want to get technical) per pixel", to use your own words. It can only emit photons in three wavelengths and 256 intensities per wavelength. For a total of 768 colors.
Of course this entire argument is a sham anyway, since our displays only emit red, green, and blue photons, period. Perhaps this factoid should be clarified as well.
-Clive
That is the crucial point (as others have also pointed out). Everything else is marketing.
There's nothing wrong with marketing. If Apple had said, "looks/feels like millions of colors and we'll bet your patootie that, in a blindfolded test, you couldn't tell the difference between this and actual millions of colors" it wouldn't have had quite the marketing ring to it.
Wait....
PS: As old Hindu wisdom goes, all is maya anyway.
So if all fast food joints sold you a beverage that they called "coffee," resembled the taste of coffee, but was actually concentrated monkey urine, you'd be okay with that?
...After all, only a bean connoisseur would actually know the difference...
I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for indutry-wide lying. Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right.
-Clive
Your argument is ridiculous. First of all, monitors capable of displaying millions of colors would need to have exited like your coffee but no such monitor has ever existed. Then, Apple would have to come along and sell a monitor only capable of displaying less then millions of colors (like your concentrated monkey urine) but claim it could display greater then millions of colors.
So as far as your argument goes, no company has ever sold real coffee since real coffee doesn?t exist, they have only sold concentrated monkey urine and named it coffee.
Sorry to be such a technical bastard but actually it's still just the same three wavelengths in 256 different intensities each... Monitors only emit red, green and blue photons, period, and the different bits are the quantized levels of emission intensity.
-Clive
I stand corrected on that technical detail.
But could you please stop flip-flopping on both sides of the arguement, I'm getting whiplash.
That is absolutely an untrue statement. Settling in no way implies that anyone was "over a barrel". It simply means that it was cheaper for Apple to pay them to go away than to pay their attorneys to defend the case. Even when Apple won, the attorney and court fees could have easily added up to more than paying them a small amount of money. For all we know, Apple just refunded the cost of the laptops and some small "I'm sorry for the confusion" fee.
Companies do this all the time. Even if you know you have an ironclad case you could win, if it's going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so makes no sense when all the other side was asking for was something less.
You could be correct or incorrect. Unless either party releases the docs and findings we will never know. However, considering that these guys had pretty data supporting their case, maybe Apple did not want a big public case affecting the millions (?) if MBP's already out there. Maybe they staved off a class action lawsuit.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Could also be that Apple does not want a class action lawsuit. I will bring this up in the next board meeting and report back to you.
Photography by definition requires a camera to expose a light-sensitive material capable of later producing an image as a result of chemical reaction.
Again, I wish to be technical and note that the word "Photograph" is photo + graph. Graph = "something written"; photo = photons/light. Ergo, "photograph" litterally means "something written by photons/light." No chemicals required. Until recently, such a technique was our only choice for making a photograph, but that is no longer the case. I see no reason to cease calling a digitally-procured image a photograph, as it was the detection of light which triggered the recording of the device.
-Clive
You could be correct or incorrect. Unless either party releases the docs and findings we will never know. However, considering that these guys had pretty data supporting their case, maybe Apple did not want a big public case affecting the millions (?) if MBP's already out there. Maybe they staved off a class action lawsuit.
That is very true. There is always the risk that despite mountains of evidence the jury will still come to an illogical conclusion. Just ask OJ...
Check before you speak... as of 10 seconds ago the iMac specs page reads, "Millions of colors at all resolutions" and the MacBook and MacBookPro specs page still lists "supports millions of colors."
Nice little attempt at disinformation...now how are you any more credible than the folks being called MacZealots in this discussion?
It used to be under the display heading as well. I stand to be corrected- sorry.
But perhaps you can also point me to the link where Dell states the same thing? I am trying to find it.
Nice little attempt at disinformation...now how are you any more credible than the folks being called MacZealots in this discussion?
How come my mistake is called by you an "attempt at disinformation" ?
You did the same thing a couple of posts before but did anyone slander you the way you have tried to do me?
read this and think before you put your foot in your mouth again
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/bu...=1&oref=slogin
I stand corrected on that technical detail.
OMG- an attempt at disinformation!!
That is very true. There is always the risk that despite mountains of evidence the jury will still come to an illogical conclusion. Just ask OJ...
Or you could read the Downing Street Memo, the NIE, and a bunch of docs showing conclusive evidence but the wrong decision was still made.
In the case of Apple vs. two guys, Apple made an incorrect statement and these guys correctly called them on it. Period, point, blank. Everything else after this does not matter. Apple made a statement that they have to live with.
P.S. If she had been black, OJ would have never gone to trial. It is what it is.