Apple settles "millions of colors" class-action lawsuit

[AppleInsider]

Apple has settled with two professional photographers who had charged the company with falsely advertising the quality and capabilities of its MacBook and MacBook Pro notebook displays.

The out-of-court settlement, for which terms were not disclosed, brings to a close a 10-month old class-action lawsuit filed by San Diego, Calif. residents Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley.

In the suit, first reported by AppleInsider last May, the pair cried foul on the part of Apple's marketing lingo, which advertised that both the MacBook and MacBook Pro included displays capable of supporting "millions of colors" and offering views "simply unavailable on other portables."

Instead, they charge that the Intel-based notebooks were only suited to display the "illusion of millions of colors through the use of a software technique referred to as 'dithering,' which causes nearby pixels on the display to use slightly varying shades of colors that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it is not truly that color."

Greaves and Gatley, both professional photographers, argued that the misrepresentation was critical given that members of their profession rely on the accuracy of the displays for properly editing imagery. They asserted that, even at their highest resolutions, the notebook displays are unreliable for post-production purposes.

In addition to false advertising and misrepresentation, the photographers also charged Apple with violating the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act for its failure to properly address and rectify the situation.

There's no word yet on the steps necessary for other proposed class members to take advantage of the settlement.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[JohnnyKrz]

Good for them. I think this is one case Apple deserved to lose. Especially in the MacBook Pro, I would expect better quality displays. It almost seems like this should have been cause for class action since they deceived everyone who bought one.

[Cubert]

From what I have read, Apple's claims seem to be industry standard. This is kind of like the issue with 1GB of disc storage really being 1000 MB and not 1024MB.

Apparently, Apple makes claims on the "millions of colors" exactly the same way other laptop manufacturers do.

[Hattig]

Clearly a case where there was no financial benefit to continuing with the case, even though Apple were clearly not in the wrong.

If you want to see a bad laptop screen, look at Dell's offerings. My work Dell D820's screen is terrible, far far worse than my iBook's screen which is two years older yet somehow (temporally?) dithers the screen correctly.

Remember that all colour LCD screens can only show three colours - Red, Green and Blue!

Sure, each can be shown at different brightnesses (typically 64 levels of brightness on a TN display) and the colours are arranged to get 64*64*64 spatially dithered colours, which is extended by further spatial and temporal dithering in a way that the human eye cannot detect (although it can be done incorrectly or badly or left out).

Temporal dithering is easiest - you can get 13/128ths by simply temporally dithering 6/64ths and 7/64ths brightness, for over 2 million colours on screen. You can also show the first 1/4 of the time, and the latter 3/4 of the time to get 27/256ths, allowing you over 16 million colours. There are advanced algorithms to randomise the temporal and spatial dithering so the eye doesn't pick up patterns as well. Clearly these are broken on the Dell D820 Maybe they were broken on the MacBook as well? Maybe it was a software issue in the driver...

[unimatrixZxero]

I think this would mean that every manufacturer of TN-Panel TFT-displays would have to include a disclaimer about what they think millions of colors would be.

[Squirrel_Monkey]

I think Apple should stick out their neck and address this. Given the number of creative professionals who use Apple hardware and the professional appeal of the MacBook Pro, they should say something about this limitation. I would like to know if OEMs are working on true 8-bit-per-color displays in the space that would feed notebooks.

[Akanbe]

Doesn't this also affect iMacs as well? I have a 20" and I know I've seen "millions of colors" under color options in the system preferences as well.

[msantti]

Maybe these two pricks should have researched things a bit better.

They are "professionals".

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Akanbe

Doesn't this also affect iMacs as well? I have a 20" and I know I've seen "millions of colors" under color options in the system preferences as well.

The current 20" model does use a dithering panel type, but the control panel isn't the same. I have a true 8 bit per channel disply and it says the same thing.

[jasenj1]

Originally Posted by Cubert

From what I have read, Apple's claims seem to be industry standard. This is kind of like the issue with 1GB of disc storage really being 1000 MB and not 1024MB.

Apparently, Apple makes claims on the "millions of colors" exactly the same way other laptop manufacturers do.

And because everybody lies Apple should get away with it, too?

This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be done to keep manufacturers honest.

- Jasen.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Cubert

From what I have read, Apple's claims seem to be industry standard. This is kind of like the issue with 1GB of disc storage really being 1000 MB and not 1024MB.

Apparently, Apple makes claims on the "millions of colors" exactly the same way other laptop manufacturers do.

So much for the "Think Different" mantra then. They can say they're better than everyone else, but then selectively default to industry standard shenanigans when it suits them.

But I really don't see the GB thing being a problem, it's the computer that doesn't report that properly. The display makers/sellers make the distinction harder to understand than it needs to be, much like how the USB association allowed or made the full speed / high speed shenanigans.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Cubert

From what I have read, Apple's claims seem to be industry standard. This is kind of like the issue with 1GB of disc storage really being 1000 MB and not 1024MB.

Apparently, Apple makes claims on the "millions of colors" exactly the same way other laptop manufacturers do.

1GB = 1000MB.
1GiB = 1024 MiB; 1MiB = 1024KiB; 1KiB = 1024 Bytes

It's a naming scheme (scam), but it's legit. At least they print on HDD boxes that 1GB = 1000MB.

Originally Posted by msantti

Maybe these two pricks should have researched things a bit better.

They are "professionals".

Pardon? Those two pricks are, technically, correct. While the human eye interprets the display as showing millions of colors, the display isn't actually capable of showing millions of descrete colors. This causes a problem when a photograph on screen is printed in CMYK color.

How would you like it if you had wedding pictures taken by these two "pricks," they looked great on screen, but when printed, the colors were all out of whack?

Originally Posted by jasenj1

And because everybody lies Apple should get away with it, too?

This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be done to keep manufacturers honest.

Thank you. I applaud anyone who has the guts to stand up against Apple on such a web forum. Prepare to be chastized.

Some people just don't understand that Apple isn't "the Way the Truth and the Light" for every single product it produces and service it offers. Yet there are so many blind followers...

-Clive

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by msantti

Maybe these two pricks should have researched things a bit better.

They are "professionals".

So, pray tell, if we assume that I'm buying a new Apple laptop, how do I find out which panel it will use for its LCD?

/Adrian

[mr_cazorp]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

While the human eye interprets the display as showing millions of colors, the display isn't actually capable of showing millions of descrete colors.

Actually my human eye clearly sees the awful dithering on these screens. I recently bought a MacBook and was stunned to see the banding and artifacts all over the place. This is not a minor issue. For people here to dismiss these two guys as "pricks" seems awfully fanboyish to me. And a rejection of reality.

These screens are an embarrassment. Apple should be required to recall these laptops and/or amend their marketing materials and OS to reflect the truth.

[Endo]

What the heck??? Every "Professional" photographer knows that you will NEVER get true colour representation from a screen. Especially for $2000 a system.

These two are just on a money grab. Every PC manufacturer advertises "millions of colour". Apple only did what is industry standard for displays.

It is really sad when a legal system allows for these kinds of frivolous suits to even be considered. The term Caveat Emptor seems to have no meaning to some people.

-Endo

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

1GB = 1000MB.
1GiB = 1024 MiB; 1MiB = 1024KiB; 1KiB = 1024 Bytes

It's a naming scheme (scam), but it's legit. At least they print on HDD boxes that 1GB = 1000MB.



Pardon? Those two pricks are, technically, correct. While the human eye interprets the display as showing millions of colors, the display isn't actually capable of showing millions of descrete colors. This causes a problem when a photograph on screen is printed in CMYK color.

How would you like it if you had wedding pictures taken by these two "pricks," they looked great on screen, but when printed, the colors were all out of whack?



Thank you. I applaud anyone who has the guts to stand up against Apple on such a web forum. Prepare to be chastized.

Some people just don't understand that Apple isn't "the Way the Truth and the Light" for every single product it produces and service it offers. Yet there are so many blind followers...

-Clive

Great post Clive. Be careful though, the zealots will hammer you for having an independent thought and for finding fault with Apple. When "he who must not be named" speaks, they treat his every word as manna from heaven. Apple makes great products, hell outstanding products even but sometimes they make mistakes and lie to cover it up. To cast blame on two PROFESSIONALS that know better just feeds the Apple Fanboy mantra.

@JeffDM. Good post as well.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

How would you like it if you had wedding pictures taken by these two "pricks," they looked great on screen, but when printed, the colors were all out of whack?

But the problem isn't that they are displaying green when it is pink, etc. I'm sure these professionals had their displays calibrated correctly, and in that case the printing would look like what is on screen.
Black is still black, white is white, there are 62 greys in-between. Is there any need in their work to show all 256 levels of grey (even ignoring temporal dithering) exactly? There isn't. Because it's irrelevant to the overall image they're working on.

Now maybe if the screens had a very poor contrast ratio, there'd be an issue, or if the colour reproduction was low, like 40% NTSC gamut, there'd be an issue, and arguably it would be difficult to calibrate correctly in such a case. However in terms of photography, you're not caring about seeing 45/256ths and 46/256ths on screen. And that was the problem they had.

I'd also hope that they wouldn't do all their work on their laptops, because as professionals I'd expect them to have an expensive display back in the office that they used to check things were correct right at the end.

[msantti]

Originally Posted by Endo

These two are just on a money grab. Every PC manufacturer advertises "millions of colour". Apple only did what is industry standard for displays.

-Endo

Thank you.

This is what it is ULTIMATELY about.

Welcome to LAWSUIT NATION.

[Jimzip]

Originally Posted by mr_cazorp

Actually my human eye clearly sees the awful dithering on these screens. I recently bought a MacBook and was stunned to see the banding and artifacts all over the place. This is not a minor issue. For people here to dismiss these two guys as "pricks" seems awfully fanboyish to me. And a rejection of reality.

These screens are an embarrassment. Apple should be required to recall these laptops and/or amend their marketing materials and OS to reflect the truth.

I think you may have received a defective macbook actually.. Those symptoms sound like something isn't as it should be, if you're actually seeing artifacts and banding I'd take it in to an Apple store. Maybe check that there isn't any kind of super magnet lying around near where you use your MB too.. Your house doesn't happen to be near the Swan Station does it?

As for the lawsuit, I think it's a valid point. I think it's also unfortunate that the only way to make companies listen these days is by suing them.. I wonder how (if at all) Apple will rectify this. The MBPs are targeted towards these people. Professionals who need accurate colour representation. If that's not what they're getting then that's bad juju.

Personally I've never had an issue with colour on my MBP, of course I'm no photographer and I can't tell how many colours I'm looking at..

Jimzip

[MacLemming]

Originally Posted by Endo

What the heck??? Every "Professional" photographer knows that you will NEVER get true colour representation from a screen. Especially for $2000 a system.

These two are just on a money grab. Every PC manufacturer advertises "millions of colour". Apple only did what is industry standard for displays.

It is really sad when a legal system allows for these kinds of frivolous suits to even be considered. The term Caveat Emptor seems to have no meaning to some people.

-Endo

You waited almost two years to finally express your opinion. You should have been patient and waited a bit longer.

The colors aren't the only thing dithered around here.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Endo

Every PC manufacturer advertises "millions of colour". Apple only did what is industry standard for displays.

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

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Jimzip

I think you may have received a defective macbook actually.. Those symptoms sound like something isn't as it should be, if you're actually seeing artifacts and banding I'd take it in to an Apple store. Maybe check that there isn't any kind of super magnet lying around near where you use your MB too.. Your house doesn't happen to be near the Swan Station does it?

Magnets need to be incredibly strong to screw up an LCD display, it might even be unhealthy to sit near that strong of a magnet. It's not like a CRT where a refrigerator magnet can distort it. Even if it was, banding is a symptom of too low of a color depth. I'd double check the color depth setting in Display Preferences.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

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

The displays are showing millions of colours though. There is no lying.

Coffee comes from coffee beans, it's a stupid example. It's more like being sold kenyan coffee, when in fact it is ethiopian. It's still coffee, it's from the same general area, and the difference is from the species, soil, water. 8-bit native panels with slow response times versus 6-bit with fast response times (that allow temporal dithering that emulates 8-bits to the point that most people can't tell the difference).

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Zandros

So, pray tell, if we assume that I'm buying a new Apple laptop, how do I find out which panel it will use for its LCD?

If it's a laptop, it has a 6-bit display. I don't think any laptop uses 8-bit displays. Did you ever wonder why Apple's Studio Displays cost 3 times as much those you find at Best Buy? It's because they're using true 8-bit displays.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Hattig

Black is still black, white is white, there are 62 greys in-between. Is there any need in their work to show all 256 levels of grey (even ignoring temporal dithering) exactly? There isn't. Because it's irrelevant to the overall image they're working on.

Well, yes there is. Any gradient from black to white will show banding. 62 is not enough greys. However, for the most part temporal dithering takes care of it for all but the most demanding proofing tasks.

[fARGINaPPLES]

Originally Posted by Jimzip

Maybe check that there isn't any kind of super magnet lying around near where you use your MB too.

Sometimes when i get home, i forget to take the super magnet out of my pocket. lmao!

fARG

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

1GB = 1000MB.
1GiB = 1024 MiB; 1MiB = 1024KiB; 1KiB = 1024 Bytes

It's a naming scheme (scam), but it's legit. At least they print on HDD boxes that 1GB = 1000MB.



Pardon? Those two pricks are, technically, correct. While the human eye interprets the display as showing millions of colors, the display isn't actually capable of showing millions of descrete colors. This causes a problem when a photograph on screen is printed in CMYK color.

How would you like it if you had wedding pictures taken by these two "pricks," they looked great on screen, but when printed, the colors were all out of whack?



Thank you. I applaud anyone who has the guts to stand up against Apple on such a web forum. Prepare to be chastized.

Some people just don't understand that Apple isn't "the Way the Truth and the Light" for every single product it produces and service it offers. Yet there are so many blind followers...

-Clive

And as I am sure you know, the accuracy from computer screen to paper is not just CMYK conversion ... can any computer display take in to account GCR, UCR, Dot Gain, paper discoloration, humidity ink spread, poor inks ... need I go on? I am sure anyone who relies on a computer screen for printed output is delusional. I owned a company that specialized in press to computer profiling. It is far from simple and good luck to anyone expecting a perfect match be it on a MacBook Pro or a calibrated monitor on a high end Scitex Scanner.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Hattig

The displays are showing millions of colours though. There is no lying.

No, it's showing less than millions of colors and tricking the human eye into perceiving more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditheri...age_processing ... First sentence: "Dithering is a technique used in computer graphics to create the illusion of color depth"

The display is not actually producing millions of discrete colors, it's producing less than that and dithering.

Originally Posted by Hattig

Coffee comes from coffee beans, it's a stupid example. It's more like being sold kenyan coffee, when in fact it is ethiopian. It's still coffee, it's from the same general area, and the difference is from the species, soil, water.

I hate people who pick apart analogies for technical flaws. IT'S AN ANOLOGY. IT'S TO MAKE A POINT, WITH A SIMPLIFIED HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.

What a headache.

Originally Posted by Hattig

8-bit native panels with slow response times versus 6-bit with fast response times (that allow temporal dithering that emulates 8-bits to the point that most people can't tell the difference).

So you agree that the MBP panels are NOT actually producing millions of colors? What are we fighing about then? Apple's documentation says nothing about temporal dithering, it says the display produces millions of colors, which is a lie, K.O. End of Match.

-Clive

[owacle]

So the focus on whether this claim was legit or just a money grab seems to have stalled on the FIRST part of the case. The millions of colours part. What about the 'offering views "simply unavailable on other portables."'. Anyone care to take a stab at that one? Seems like that one is a little harder to excuse. If I was under the impression (as, say, a professional photographer) that the apple displays were better than on other portables and then paid a premium for that quality, I would also be pretty annoyed to discover they are the SAME as other displays. Anyway, what do I know...

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Well, yes there is. Any gradient from black to white will show banding. 62 is not enough greys. However, for the most part temporal dithering takes care of it for all but the most demanding proofing tasks.

So what if there is banding on screen, when you view it on the expensive monitor back in the office it won't be there, and if it is printed it won't be a problem because you would have calibrated the display anyway, so that grey on screen is that grey on paper. For photographs you're not worrying about differences of 1/256th in levels, you're worrying about the overall photo or portions of a photo, and you can do that on a 6-bit panel with temporal dithering. Maybe Photoshop needs an "exaggerate levels" editing mode, because clearly some people would need that even on an infinite colour resolution monitor.

And Apple's calibration technology is very mature, so that would be an identifiable advantage of the Mac's otherwise identical 6-bit laptop panel over the same panel in a Windows system.

Sure, we'd all like 10-bit panels with >100% NTSC gamut, but back in the real world ...

I just can't see where Apple lied, although I can see that they could have been more open up front about what they meant. Millions of colours? Yes. Better than other computers - arguably with calibration ...

[purpleshorts]

Nope. Beg to differ. I love Apple, and have bought almost every model since my 1984 Plus, but they know better than to say "millions" when they mean "thousands."

"Millions of colors" as traditionally used by Apple means, and has always meant, "the ability to display millions of colors simultaneously." Not every device does that, some display less. Since 1984, we have progressed from black and white (1 bit) machines to 256 color/gray (8 bit) machines to machines capable of displaying thousands (16 bit) of (simultaneous) colors. This laptop apparently still does. Then we stepped up to millions of (simultaneous) colors - (32bit). This laptop apparently did not, but someone at Apple wished it to appear to.

So Apple bent a definition. Some one called them on the lie. Perhaps this seems a frivolous lawsuit. Still, I wonder who will keep them honest on specifications. What mechanism besides lawsuits would stop them from other deceptive claims?

Would it be any different if this were about deceptive RAM claims? What if the spec for RAM included not only the actual hardware RAM, but also the"virtual" hard drive RAM as well? Would that be okay? Would it be reasonable to claim, say 6 gig of RAM on a machine with only 4 gig of physical RAM?

Or are specifications FACTS?

IMHO, specifications should be factual. To hedge on specs is deceptive. And unfortunately, a lawsuit like this is the only way to reign in overzealous (non-factual) specifications.

Dollars are something everyone understands. No color theory there. What if Apple submitted a written offer of 4 million for your fancy house, but on closing day only paid you 4 thousand? Would that be okay? Would you say, "Well, that's all I really need, anyway? Thousands, millions, whatever." Most would probably insist on a literal definition of "millions."

Video display systems differ in other ways... speed, resolution, and number of colors they can display simultaneously. The lawsuit is not about whether the human eye can be tricked by dithering, it is about whether the human consumer should be tricked by false claims.

[audiopollution]

Originally Posted by purpleshorts

Or are specifications FACTS?

IMHO, specifications should be factual. To hedge on specs is deceptive. And unfortunately, a lawsuit like this is the only way to reign in overzealous (non-factual) specifications.

Good post.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Endo

These two are just on a money grab. Every PC manufacturer advertises "millions of colour". Apple only did what is industry standard for displays.

It is really sad when a legal system allows for these kinds of frivolous suits to even be considered. The term Caveat Emptor seems to have no meaning to some people.

If I made a living needing millions of colors for my whatever I would hardly call this lawsuit frivolous.
Every PC manufacturer? Is there a link where Dell etc advertises products as having "millions of colors"? I thought that was an Apple slogan primarily. You see it under every product heading, clear as day. I just can't find this on PC's websites. Thank you.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

No, it's showing less than millions of colors and tricking the human eye into perceiving more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditheri...age_processing ... First sentence: "Dithering is a technique used in computer graphics to create the illusion of color depth"

The display is not actually producing millions of discrete colors, it's producing less than that and dithering.

A 6-bit TN panel can show a total of 190 colours.

One hundred and ninety. Black, and 63 reds, 63 greens, 63 blues.

Via the use of spatial placement of these colours, they can show 260,000 colours.
Via the use of temporal alterations of these colours, they can show 16.2 million colours in a way that the human eye cannot detect. However some screens clearly have issues that make the dithering (either spatial or temporal) noticeable.

[quote]
I hate people who pick apart analogies for technical flaws. IT'S AN ANOLOGY. IT'S TO MAKE A POINT, WITH A SIMPLIFIED HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.

What a headache.
[quote]

It was a really really awful analogy. It didn't even use a car, it compared COFFEE with MONKEY URINE SOLD AS COFFEE. WTF! It was retarded.

So you agree that the MBP panels are NOT actually producing millions of colors? What are we fighing about then? Apple's documentation says nothing about temporal dithering, it says the display produces millions of colors, which is a lie, K.O. End of Match.

-Clive

It's either producing 190 colours, or millions of colours, unless the panel's display controller was messing up the dithering.

[GQB]

What astounds me is not that Apple would pay out the go-away money, but the fact that, as reported in other accounts, 'evidence' included posts from forums such as this by the professional whiner class. Absolutely astounding, and horrible precedent.

As an aside, if dithering produces the impression of 'millions of colors', then as far as I'm concerned, it IS millions of colors. Has no one heard of Seurat? The colors are in your brain, not on the screen.

[ikir]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Thank you. I applaud anyone who has the guts to stand up against Apple on such a web forum. Prepare to be chastized.

Some people just don't understand that Apple isn't "the Way the Truth and the Light" for every single product it produces and service it offers. Yet there are so many blind followers...

-Clive

The funny thing is there are more people who criticize everything without knowing anything, but we must consider this right because supporting Apple is a "fan-boy" thing. Congratulatiosn really. LOL.

[Wiggin]

While I would not call this lawsuit "frivolous", I certainly hope the settlement was very small! Yes, it is industry practice to call dithered 6-bit displays as offering "millions" of colors. Some folks here suggest that Apple should be better than that and admit their displays use trickery to mimic millions of colors. And how exactly would you suggest Apple market that? How would that look to a potential buyer comparing a Dell to a Mac? Apple needs to be able to compete on a level playing field. They do that by following industry conventions for describing the capabilities of their machines. If you think that every marketing line you've ever read is 100% true, then you are a fool.

Apple never claimed it's laptop displays were 8-bit displays. Vision is all about perception. Above a certain refresh rate, human vision can not disinguish temporal changes in the color of a sub-pixel. If technology has advanced to the point of being able to take advantage of that, then it's great they do so. As long as you are able to perceive at least 1,000,000 color variations on the display (even if it's not 1.67 million as for 8-bit color), then Apple's claim of millions of colors is accurate (even if a little misleading in that poeple assume millions=8-bit ...it is marketing after all!). And as long as your system is calibrated (they are "professionals," right?), then what you see on the screen should be what you get in print...even if that means only 1,000,001 colors instead of 1,670,000 colors.

[echosonic]

when a "class-action" suit is won, everybody gets paid. the lawyers take 33%, and the CLASS gets the rest in a relatively even split.

When a suit settles, who gets the money, the class, or the lawyers and the two dickheads who started the suit?

[GQB]

Originally Posted by echosonic

when a "class-action" suit is won, everybody gets paid. the lawyers take 33%, and the CLASS gets the rest in a relatively even split.

When a suit settles, who gets the money, the class, or the lawyers and the two dickheads who started the suit?

It actually never achieved class action status...

From Fortune...
"Well, Greaves and Gately didn’t get their jury trial. Their lawyer told the Tribune that they weren’t able to pursue the case as a class action because it was difficult to find other people who bought Macs solely based on the “millions of colors” claim."

In other words they couldn't identify enough other buyers who were as stupid as they were.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Hattig

Via the use of temporal alterations of these colours, they can show 16.2 million colours in a way that the human eye cannot detect.

16.2 million is a BS number, it's a marketing number that's chosen to be less than that of the ~16.8 million that an 8 bit panel can show.