Apple hit with class-action suit over MacBook, MacBook Pro displays - Page 3

Yes. Refunds are tricky though in the USA and worldwide. Usually a 10-25% restocking fee applies. But clearly, yes, users would have to research screen appearance and so on. I held off buying a MacBook because I was unhappy initially with the screen appearance, and concerned about the MacBookPro screens. However I am no longer doing paid graphic design, and I love my MacBook Core[1]Duo, Core[2]Duo (on loan from work) BlackBook, and my previously (2 years ago) purchased Sony 17" 1280x1024 LCD.


Bingo.


Yes. Sadly this is the most likely case, though of course lawyers are an easy punching bag (they are scum though... ) ...Nonetheless it is good that this has been brought to light. It is a pity this is the only way these things become major news... I'm confused.

ArsTechnica, a site I respect, also has an article about the LCD bit depth controversy, plus they link to a page that shows you how you can find out what kind of LCD panel is actually in your MacBook or MacBook Pro.

The ArsTechnica article:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...k-pro-displays

Instructions on How to Find Out What Type of Screen Your MB or MBP Has:

http://peewaiweb.free.fr/


There's also an interesting free program called 'LCD Test' that includes a gradient test, helpful for finding out your display's true color bit depth:

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/15119


I personally don't even have a MB or MBP yet (just a lil' ol' iBook G4, sob sob), but this is getting interresting. Hope some folks post the results of their research and/or tests.

.

(edited out rant)

I used LCDTest 2.0 and the Samsung 15.2" LCD in my 1.25 GHz PowerBook G4 is obviously only 262k colors since you can see the banding. I doubt Apple has ever used a screen capable of displaying millions of colors, only 6-bit/channel. I used SwitchResX control panel, Export DDC to get the manufacturer code. Google the code and you can see who makes the screen.

Thanks to TBaggins for the post, above, with links to those things.

Hiro, I stand corrected. Who can you trust if you cannot trust lawyers? What have we come to?

Like others, because Apple fits the pattern so well, I assumed that Apple sold an overpriced computer with "outdated or sub-standard parts", increasing its profit margins while other computer manufacturers increase their market share by cutting prices agressively and offering new features from the likes of the Santa Rosa platform.

Was I wrong. This isn't the just released MacBook of May 2007. As foreseen by AppleInsider, it has none of the benefits and improvements of the Santa Rosa platform:



But hey. Apple is strong in education and you should judge the company by the way it treats students and consumers.

There is no way that other computer manufacturers are going to offer Santa Rosa mobile computers with Windows Vista to students and consumers while a greedy Apple is stuck in the previous generation. No, that can't be.

And don't say that Steve Jobs is the highest paid CEO in America, $650 millions for 2006, because he cares more about himself than what's in a computer for the buyers.

If you were to come to that conclusion, well you would be pretty close to the truth. But, that can't be.

That is what you think. I was involved in a class-action lawsuit against my former employer that netted me a six-figure settlement. It all depends what the lawsuit is about. Granted most class-action lawsuits are complaints over a small-dollar amount. Complaining about an industry-standard created display probably won't fetch much money. You might as well sue every computer company since they all use the same LCD's. Also, graphics professionals do not use laptops for color-critical work. Nor, are they advertised for performing color-critical work. Doesn't sound like the lawsuit has much merit.

Maybe because instead of taking Apple's word for it, other people are running the LCD diagnostic utilities as was pointed out in post #73 and tracing the LCD back to the actual manufacturer:

http://peewaiweb.free.fr/

"Yes that's right. 20ms response time, improbable viewing angles, 45% gamut (this is the pro version of the Macbook in case you forgot), and best of all: 262K colors ONLY!"

So much for the "only actual truth on the subject".


Quoted for truth:

http://peewaiweb.free.fr/

Who is forgetting "to actually check the facts" now? Who should be retracting now?

I noticed that my screen was grainy a couple weeks after I bought it. On OSX it wasn't too bad, but boot into XP and shades of blue and grey looked horrid. I was replaying Deus Ex at the time, a pretty dark game. I noticed that certain pixels were consistently lighter than the rest and never moved... It was like they changed color to match the surrounding pixels, but were always off by a shade or two. I can't remember the exact hex code, but there was one color of dark gray in particular that looked absolutely horrid in XP. About 1/10 of the pixels were a lighter shade than the rest... In OSX? Didn't look bad. What do I think? Dithering.

Took it in to a Genius, "I don't see it."

Of course, I have no way of testing this again and taking pictures of it or anything as my laptop has been stolen. Shit.

If anyone actually bothered to look at Apple's own discussion boards before leaping to the defensive, they would see there has been a raging battle this last year about this exact subject. Apple has 3 different suppliers for the screens, and quality varies. My brand new MBP is getting its screen replaced under warranty, because I took it back in less than 2 weeks and complained about the crap screen. The Genius agreed with me. Just because you got a good one does not mean that somebody else didn't get burned. There are other issues I am surprised the lawsuit fails to mention: Highly uneven backlighting with strong vignetting & banding. Here is a digital photo I took of the screen, centered dead on 90 degrees to the screen, which shows why I am getting a new screen:

Bad Screen

Absolutely pathetic. So fanboys, get a life. Apple ships crap sometimes. Those too stupid to know the difference live with it. At least Apple is fixing the problem in my case. Gotta give them credit for that.

AFAIK, the human eye can distinguish 256 seperate shades of grey (or shades of any single colour for that matter). On a three channel display device like RGB, that equals 16,777,216 separate colours (which is where the 16.7m comes in).

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.
When I saw the MacBooks and MBPs at the official Apple press meeting on the MB launch day here in Switzerland, the displays were superb. And my Dad's Rev 2 MB has crystal clear colors as well.
Anyway, Americans would sue the shoe company after slipping out on an icy stairstep, that's got nothing to do with rights or lawfulness, that's simply a new industry branch for losers to quickly squeeze some money out of big companies.

Going through some of the links in that thread, there an article in wiki that mentions all the 4 major LCD panels manufacturer... Whether it's Samsung or Philipps or others, it doesn't matter, almost none of them are 8 bit capable, so:
1- Apple is not using sub-par panels... they're just using the same ones as the competitors... the only difference could be in the dithering software to make it look like it's displaying millions of colour (and then what's the problem if it works...)
2- other competitors are also sometimes advertising millions of colour, so should we sue them too?

But then, what would the marketing say: "capable of millions of colour through an advanced software solution"?

I agree that the displays in MB/MBP are not very good. They are unevenly lit and have bad viewing angle. I hope the next generation is better.

Ok, MacBook Pro 15 has used both Chi-Mei and Samsung displays in the past. I don't know if they've been updated or not, but at least one of the Samsung TFT modules used was the LTN145X7 - L02, HERE. That particular display is, apparently, capable of only 262k colors.

The Chi Mei displays used are in the N154C series, HERE, which you can see are all 262k color displays also.

I don't know what is in my MBP as I haven't taken it apart to find out. I also don't know whats in the MacBooks.

If that's what causes the grainy texture (I'm not convinced it is, since it really appears to change depending on what viewing angle I'm at. Seems like its part of the screen finish.) then that kinda torques me off. I really doubt that that's the case though, as the human eye, I've been told, has a lot of trouble distinguishing the difference between 262k and millions.

And yet, if you advertise it, it aught to be the real deal. Dithering or not. I'm an amateur photographer, and was rather irritated when I discovered that this grainy texture made my MBP unsuitable for fine editing. In spite of that, though, it seems to still be true that if you want really high grade color accuracy, you still have to go with CRT monitors. LCD tech just isn't there yet. Guess we'll see how this plays out.

Celemourn

News to me that we should sue Apple for false advertising... as if no other computer makers does similar practice. News to me that we have false advertising in this world at all!

As others have said, if any self-proclaim "Professional" needs to rely on a laptop to "display" colors accurately really needs to get out of whatever they are doing. I'm in publishing and I have yet to meet anyone in my profession that doesn't know desktop monitors and laptops are not color accurate... that's why companies spent thousands of dollars to get color calibrated monitors and softwares.

Everyone will have different experience with Apple products, I have been a Apple user since their B/W models and OS 6. My Powermac 7600 lasted over 7+ yrs and went from OS7.6 to OS9. My 2001 white iBook just died last month because I'm still using the original battery. Perhaps I should sue Apple for not making battery lasting forever?

My point is, if every disappoint consumer goes to sue a company when does it end? In this case of suing over false-advertising on laptop display... I would chalk this one up as ignorant end user's fault for not knowing the limits of their own tool and unrealistic expectations.

I don't know how that's an argument, Apple never said that their battery lasts forever.

Apple does say that their panel quality is better than anything you can currently find in any other competing product, which isn't true as other competitors do use the same panel.

LOL Jeff, you don't get the sarcasm in my post do you eh? If end user isn't "smart" enough to distinguish the difference between false advertising and their own lack of research and unrealistic expectations.... pointing fingers at the maker doesn't help solve their work problem does it? Which company you know doesn't false advertise and claim at any point their products are better over competitors?

OK, then, my mistake, but Apple did make some pretty clear claims. Not meeting those claims isn't a cause to say "well, everyone else does it too, so STFU". With respect to the screen quality, there were several examples given where the competitors don't try to make the same outlandish claims for the same display panel.


I don't really don't think that's an excuse on any company's part, but I don't remember any major company stretching the truth as thin as Apple has in many instances.

I have a simple solution for all you guys who are so disgruntle about Apple product because you got burned at one point or another.... *gasp* boycott it ok?

If everytime I get a penny when a weather station that claims to forecast "accurate" weather report but fails every other day, then I would be a rich man right now. Better yet, I can boycott that station or accept the simple fact most thing in life isn't as people claim them to be.

Beyond that, am I the only person here that thinks suing these gaint companies over such trivial matters doesn't make them stop from "stretching the truth" in advertising? Take some personally responsibility for not doing enough product research ok? With so much information available out there, I'm really surprised we have so many "victims" here.

That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.


I would agree, but you also apparently haven't read much of this thread because you'll find more agreement. A lot of people mentioned that lawsuits don't solve problems, and class action lawsuits are even worse. If you aren't going to research what's in this thread, I don't see how you have a moral high ground to denounce others for not doing their own research.

You are right weather is a natural event, however, who gave News stations to the right call themselves "Accurate Weather Station/report"? Who says you have to believe/trust their forecast? You DO! You, the end user. They don't hold a gun to your head. Likewise, Apple isn't holding anyone hostage on buying their products. If you are sooooo unhappy with Apple products return them, report them and move on with your life. Really just boycott them, stop reading Appleinsider ok?

If these falsely advertised Apple laptops/products are only $1 from the dollar store would anyone here complaint or even file lawsuits? Hack no, because there would be no incentives, nor refunds. This is never about seeking "justice" and punishing Apple or any company that practice false advertising. Punishment is putting these companies out of business, not slapping them in the hand, ask for refunds and "rephrase" their advertisements. Who are we kidding here?

You make me laugh with your comebacks and this isn't the first time. Apparently, I'm not allow to "repeat" what has been said? Apparently, repeating = not reading the entire thread? LOL!

Listen/read carefully, I'm not here to "denounce" anyone. I'm voicing my opinion on the subject just like everyone else. However, you can't handle what I have to say.

I own a older PowerMac 17inch and have been thinking of the MBP as a upgrade. I may save for the deaktop instead. I have a point to bring up that seems to not have been said on this thread. The LCD display may be a 6-bit one but I doubt very much that the video display tech is limited to that. A test for you MPB owners:
Connect another display to your MPB - it should be a 20" or larger LCD or a CRT display.
Put the MPB in mirror display mode.
Choose or make a image with a color gradient - the color picker in most programs will work fine.
Compare the two displays.
If the dithering on the 6-bit LCD is poor you should see a difference between the LCD display and the external display. This should even work with the s-video out which should not be bit limited either.

The next test shows is with just your LCD and shows the quality of the dithering on your display. Pur a picture or gradient or other image on the display. go to display preferences and dial the display down to thousands from millions. See how much a difference it makes.

I guess the suit may be de-railable cause Apple can claim the MPB can display millions of colors, just not on it's own LCD.

Agreed. And I think its such a cop-out to fall back on the "Well, everybody else does it!" or "Companies lie, get used to it!" cliches.

Suuuure, companies lie, cheat, steal... unless they know they're going to be held accountable. And 'everyone else does it' has ever been the whiny excuse of the criminal or the jerk, trying to excuse their own piss-poor behavior. Apple can obviously do better than that, and should be held to a higher standard than that.

So really, regardless of its merit, I have zero problem with the class action lawsuit, because stuff like this keeps corporations on their toes. And its not like they don't have the resources to represent themselves well... tens of billions of dollars in yearly revenues would seem to take care of that.

Thus, there's really no need for us to 'defend' Apple, as Apple can defend itself quite excellently. At the same time, people should not pile on and Apple-bash, as it remains to be seen how valid the suit is. Open minds, people.

.

As opposed to the Swiss, who are content to get by hoarding Nazi gold? \

Every nation obviously has its issues. No need to hurl stones, unless you live in a non-glass house, and no one really does.

.

Running a third party utility that checks on hardware boot reports without actually having current reference board drivers? You call that fact? Hell, even that site says they aren't sure that it's not a bootcamp issue, which it probably is.

Apple states 24 bits per pixel. Not 16.7 million color displayable. That categorically states an 8 bit per channel pixel display. The software utility reports are just speculation since all the boards are custom tweaked for Apple, even if they start with Intel reference designs. Until someone pulls a display out and gets a hard part number that is a low bpp display this is just so much hot air.

That is a bad backlight. Not an LCD problem, but is a valid "display" problem. Fluorescent backlight quality control is hard, and one of the reasons Apple is moving to LCD backlights.

Actually, the author of the site in question seems pretty sure that its NOT a Bootcamp issue. What he actually said was that Apple Store London told him that it was probably a Bootcamp issue, something that the author of that site clearly does not concur with.

I'm not saying that Apple is wrong or right here, I'm simply saying that you misunderstood the guy's 'English as a second language' writing (he's not a native speaker), which is understandable... I didn't get what he meant the first time either, on the passage where he talks about Apple Store London. \

.

Ouch. From LCDs to Nazis in 3 pages. Business as usual here on AI Forums.

English is not my native tongue as well, so I think I made more sense from this French guy's page :-) The situation was like that:

1) he used some PC utility (ASTRA32) under bootcamp to read EDID information from the monitor

2) he found Samsung's model number of the screen and checked the web to discover that this is in fact 262K display

3) he went to 'genius in London' and asked him: why exactly Apple writes about 'Milllions' while the screen can do only 262K? And was told that PC utility reads wrong data, because Windows utility under boot camp can not be trusted. This is hardly the case, because the utility should get data directly from the screen's EEPROM, not from driver or from BIOS/EFI firmware emultaion.

I think this happened because Apple stuff is not properly trained how to deal with the situation and just found the first opportunity to blame the result on Windows support limitations...

As for the Apple's Developer Note -- this one is mostly for programmers who want to know capabilities of interfaces the hardware has. So, they speak about graphic card rather than the screen itself in passages like "display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions" for MacBook and (it is more obviuos here because of '3D accceleration'): "the display supports 3D acceleration and display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions" for MacBook Pro

Speaking about the screen itself they use more evaisive phrases like "the 17-inch MacBook Pro supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 110 dpi and shows up to millions of colors".

I do not think that the situation with 17-in MBP is quite different from the one with 17-inch iMac for which they state more clearly: "the 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors" -- these 6-bits there they mention there are just to differ 17in iMac from 20-inch model with "the 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors".

Well, I do not insists that I understood these Dev Notes right because my own English is rather poor... :-(

WOW, you seem to be the first person to have found a confirmation that some Apple products (17" iMac) use 6 bit displays plus dithering and that others (20" iMac and 24" iMac) use 8 bit displays. For the MacBooks and the MacBook Pros Apple's language is more evasive (saying up to 24 bit). Either they simply had wanted to conceal that 6 bit-ness by vague language or (I rather doubt it) they have different suppliers, some providing 6 bit and others 8 bit.

They also state clearly that with the 6 bit display "the graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors". I don't know what that means exactly. Could it be that in order to show a color that can not be shown natively, each pixel (pixel defined by the black grid of the screen, I know that each pixels consists of three colors that are mixed) changes at a high frequency between two native colors giving the impression of a an additional color in between the two native ones?

Once again, congratulation for finding this. I think if this information had been available for the laptops (and not only for the iMacs) and stated in the technical specifications and not just the developer notes this lawsuit would not have happened.

And here is the link:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...uid/TP40003504

Good stuf. I investigate now.

Thanks! (In fact we should thank Hiro for quoting this Dev Note in first place :-) ).


This could be true to some extent.

While there are no 15 or 17 inch screens with more than 262K mentioned on LG Philips web page. Samsung's web site -- Samsung is (or was) the main supplier of at least 15" non-glossy screens for PowerBooks and MBPs -- lists more mysterious information:

http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTL...amily_cd=LCD02

Among majority of 262K models there is one ( http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTL...5/LTN154X5.htm ) that is claimed to have "1,670K" colors. It is unclear if Apple uses (or ever used) this screen (French screenshot shows newer LTN154X7 model in his MBP) and it is probably too heavy to be used in MBPs. Moreover "1,670K" sounds like a typo or error in Samsung's specification.

Nevertheless, Apple could consider using this or similar screen at some point, therefore -- developer notes speaks about resolutions and 3D acceleration of graphic card instead of number of colors the screen has...

MacBook Black 13" Core2Duo 2ghz 120gb HD
My ColorSync Utility reports 9C5F
My panel is LP133WX1-TLA1
This is LG Philips specified as 6-bit, 25ms response time... Mmmm
Link:
http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeCon...hilips_LCD.PDF

MacBook White 13" Core[1]Duo 2ghz 60gb HD
My ColorSync Utility reports 9C5E
My panel is N133I1-L01
This is Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), N133I1

I do not have the specs for Chi Mei but the LCDTest.app
shows "worse" artifacting/ banding than the 6-bit LG Philips.

Generally I am very happy with this Black MacBook Core2Duo (Rev B),
though my Rev A MacBook white above seems fine too. In terms of displays,
money I spent/ unit loaned from work/ etc.

In some ways I am quite thrilled and shocked to discover this 6-bit stuff.
Very surprised. I didn't even now LCD panel makers were doing 6-bit?
8bit-per-pixel I thought was long the standard. Looks like some cutting corners has happening.

It is tragic that a massive lawsuit has to be done for this to be discovered, but well \
Sorry for bad grammar. Brain fried today.

Here it is: http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/pr....jsp?size=13.3

For dead pixels, 6-bit color, etc, the 13.3" 1280x800 screen is pretty okay because of the size, and the intended target market for the MacBook.

The MacBookPro, however, for it to have 6-bit color, grainier screens, etc, is a concern. Also because of the bigger size, perhaps it is easier to see artifacts due to 6-bit color.

Honestly, (yes call me Apple Apologist) Apple has responded very well in the past with all the complaints etc. and stuff.

Again, the method of lawsuit and whatever may be dubious, but the end result is hopefully the MacBookPro really starting to get more PRO. Apple's margins on the MacBookPro must be prettydarn high.

Thanks. Mmmm 6 bit... \ ... I think I am going to sue all the LCD manufacturers for even making 6-bit panels ..... Weird. This whole 6-bit thing.

Well I dont know what all the fuss is about. I'm sure everyone will appreciate this but I'll say it anyway...

My Powerbook display (17inch, 1680x1050), my old Powerbook (15inchTiBook), my older Powerbook G3, my wifes iBook, and step-sons Dell... oh and all my handheld devices, my Televisions, camera LCDs etc all show only three colours.... Red, Green and Blue.

All the other colours are "percieved" and are made up of varying intensities of adjacent RGB pixels on a display screen. As such all intermediate hues are an illusion. At no point do Apple say how these millions of colours will be created for the user to see. The whole way display screens work is an optical illusion, dithering is just a digital refinement of that process.

As display pixel sizes decrease, there may be apparent sparkles and hue shifts, which will vary from person to person, and will vary according to distance from the screen and distance between the eyes of the viewer. Only the one eyed will get consistency. This is due to frequency beating and the associated differing effect for each eye relative to their direct angle of view with any given pixel group.

Try covering one eye and see how much less "sparkle" there appears to be on your laptop screen, and how much less the sparkle changes as you move your head from side to side.

Until a single pixel is represented by a single display pixel, which can show all hues and intensities, instead of a seperate RGB pixel cluster per pixel then this will always be the case.

Yes I agree that true 8bit per colour would be better, but some people will always see some artefacts given the current RGB screen technology, just as I and many like me can see the flicker of flourescent lighting.

When I want to see true millions of colours, I go for a walk outside.

As for my own Powerbook screen.. if I get close to it I start to see horizontal dark bands, and if I look for sparkles then I see them. If I am concentrating on what I am doing (usually something with video) then I dont even notice the artefacts.

As for working with photos, well as long as the screen is colour calibrated properly (I know loads of so called photographic professionals who dont calibrate) then the overall percieved colour should be right. But to do this on a laptop is really not a good idea. A controlled environment is required.

I did this with an iMac display and the quality difference was quite staggering but kind of what I was expecting given that I specifically don't buy iMacs with this being the main reason. The iMac screen was sparkly and the contrast wasn't nearly as good. Recently, I tried an external LCD attached to a Macbook and yet again the external was higher quality.


Yeah, but the quality of a screen is determined by how consistently it can produce those intensity variations. If it can't consistently produce 1 million + variations then it's not a 24/32-bit display.

I just want them to hurry up and release the SED/OLED/laser TVs already. The release will be late 2007 supposedly. Just imagine, Christmas 2007, a Core 2 Duo Cube with a good GPU hooked up to a razor thin 55" laser (or whatever) HD display.

It's not THAT weird. If Apple is indeed using 6-bit displays in their notebooks, they'd hardly be unique, its pretty much industry-wide. And from the little I know about it, 6-bit vs 8-bit is a trade-off, in terms of cost, weight, power consumption, etc. There are valid reasons to go 6-bit in notebooks, which is why nearly all notebook makers do.

What I don't like is the attempt to cover the fact up, if its true and Apple is just trying to obfuscate the issue through clever marketing speak (though if so, they'd hardly be unique in this regard).

IF Apple is using 6-bit displays, they should just say so. And then they could actually turn it into a point of differentiation going forward, by offering 8-bit displays on MacBook Pros or even across the entire line, as technology and costs permit. Customers would be happy to know that they're getting something better than 'the industry standard.

.

Linked from the Wikipedia page:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth..._11.html#sect0
Overview about the color reproduction of LCDs incl. the 6 bit issue.