or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple settles "millions of colors" class-action lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple settles "millions of colors" class-action lawsuit - Page 2

post #41 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

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.

That's a very interesting way to look at it. From a purely technical point, which seems to be the argument here, any display can only show brightness variations of three different colors (or "colours" ). No display element can actually show yellow, and yet that is counted amoungst the colors in an 8-bit, millions of colors, display.

So why should the use of temporal placement of a limited set colors to simulate other colors be considered "trickery" when the spacial placement of the same limited set of colors is not trickery???? In either case, the eye is perceiving something that is not actually there.
post #42 of 122
I have a PhD in cognitive experimental psychology (University of California, 2005) with a specialization in cognitive neurophysiology and visual perception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

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.

This claim is absolutely correct. The relevant issue here is what the perception of the color on the screen is, not the actual color the screen displays. The method of how you go about reproducing the image in print media from what you have on the display is completely and totally irrelevant to the point here.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the world itself, there is no such thing as "color". Color is a percept created by the functioning of the cone receptors in the retina and the resulting information processing of the neural signal created by the transduction of photons into neurological activity through the deformation of the rhodopsin pigments in the short, medium, and long wavelength receptors. Indeed, the visual system itself uses "dithering" to create the range of "color" that we perceive; each cone has a different spectral peak to which it is sensitive. It is differentials in the activations of those three receptors that are the basis of the percept of any given color. So the basis of all color perception is based only on the responses of only three types of receptors in the retina.

These responses are then interpolated further by the structures in the visual cortex which, to continue to use the computer parlance, is more dithering. Research on color perception and visual neurophysiology has shown that when only a handful of pure wavelengths are displayed, such that there is no continuous frequencies of light contained between them, the visual system will fill in the gaps by activating correlated neurons in the visual cortex that are responsible for creating the perception of those missing colors.

It has also been shown that the greater the number of frequencies in light, the greater the perception of saturation of the color of the light. However, this doesnt mean that were perceiving more colors, we are not. The perception is still based on the responses of three and only three visual receptors, and no amount of increase in the frequencies of light displayed can change that fact. The visual neurons still work the same way, the only difference is how much they respond because of the greater range of frequencies. They still dither the light the receive into the many different colors we perceive.

Once a display displays a range of frequencies that surpasses the ability of the eye to detect differences in the number of frequencies, or the differences in wavelength between them, the issue of how many colors the display produces becomes irrelevant. CRT displays have been able to do that for decades.

People like Clive need to pull their heads out of their arses and get over themselves thinking that the point is how many colors the display actually produces. The idea that anything in the world itself has color is naive and ignorant, as is relying on Wikipedia as an authoritative source to base an argument on. (That also commits the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.) Actually Clive, you should probably sue God, maybe the Pope while you're at it for their false advertising about how our perception of color in the world is blatant intentional and deceptional false advertising by God and nature...

Also, any professional photographer who takes pride in the fact that theyre a professional would know these simple facts about how humans perceive color, and their concern would be more with the process of how to accurately reproduce in printed media the image theyre concerned with. Once you get above a certain level of display quality, the display itself is a non-issue. Again, a large body of psychophysical research on color perception has been done that proves this point, although Im sure that again, people like Clive will simply choose not to believe this so they can go on with their hating.

This lawsuit was nothing more than greed and publicity for the people who filed it. It has no basis in empirical fact about how color is perceived by the human visual system. Im amazed that Apple caved on it, and didnt simply do some reading in scientific journals such as Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, or the journal Perception and Psychophysics, or Vision Research.
post #43 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post


...

This lawsuit was nothing more than greed and publicity for the people who filed it. It has no basis in empirical fact about how color is perceived by the human visual system. Im amazed that Apple caved on it, and didnt simply do some reading in scientific journals such as Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, or the journal Perception and Psychophysics, or Vision Research.

I don't think Apple caved. Since the lawsuit never achieved class action status, I'm sure it was purely a financial decision...we can pay these guys $10,000 to go away, or we can pay our lawyers $250,000 to explain to a jury how the human perception of vision works. If it had achieved class action status and risked awards in the millions, Apple could have chosen to let it go to court.
post #44 of 122
Strikes me as Apple settling to avoid a precedence case structure for them to go after other manufacturers.
post #45 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

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

They are "professionals".

You've got their names, professions and that they live in California, why don't you go around and hoe into them with a baseball bat?

A jihad on the disbelievers who insult Apple, may its name be forever blessed!
post #46 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

You've got their names, professions and that they live in California, why don't you go around and hoe into them with a baseball bat?

A jihad on the disbelievers who insult Apple, may its name be forever blessed!

That's hysterical!!!
Here is a very interesting article that goes to the heart of yours and many others here who been attacked personally, grammatically, threatened, etc, etc if ever anything contrary against Apple is ever expressed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/bu...=1&oref=slogin
post #47 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyKrz View Post

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.

Why, name me just one monitor ever made that displayed more than four colors (red, grean, blue, and black) and when you factor in there brightness 190 for 16bit and 769 for 8bit.?
post #48 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

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.

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.
post #49 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

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.

No, but they only went after Apple. Why did they not go after all the other manufacturers who are lying? They all state millions of colors. Why was Apple the only one dragged into court? Please explain.

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #50 of 122
The issue is not about the monitor but about what Apple said and what was proven against their claim. These two guys proved that Apple made a false claim. What a monitor produces does not matter. Their case was against Apple and what Apple said.

These arguments defending Apple by the zealots, blind, Kool Aid drinkers, etc.... simply play up the fanboy image.
post #51 of 122
This argument seems to be getting close to the same argument as to whether multitasking systems truly multitask. Much of it depends on how you define it. In the case of this display argument I would guess if taken all the way through Apple would have won but at what cost? PR means alot for Apple especially right now with the economy tanking. It's smarter for them to settle than risk the possible negative publicity. In other words Apple is more interested in sales than proving these guys right or wrong. That doesn't mean they'll keep doing whatever it was they were accused of as typically many settlements have stipulations with them. We will probably never know the details of it all. For now though if someone thinks Apple is still guilty and getting away with lying to the general public, take them to court over it.

Lastly before anyone judges these guys they can only be considered to have won if you believe that their goal was to just get money. Just like Apple they have to decide whether they think it's worth fighting over and if they at that point really thought they had a chance to win. Accepting the settlement does not mean they won and it also doesn't mean that they felt they would lose. This is why those on each side settle. Sometimes it can be to avoid embarrassment later or it could be it's not worth it but whatever the reason it keeps it all quiet so that others cannot use it for themselves or against either of the two.

All in all rather than make silly assumptions and get into arguments over something that we really don't know the details of, how about we all get along?
post #52 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

No, but they only went after Apple. Why did they not go after all the other manufacturers who are lying? They all state millions of colors. Why was Apple the only one dragged into court? Please explain.

Could it be that they are using Apple computers?

Your argument sounds whiny.
post #53 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

The issue is not about the monitor but about what Apple said and what was proven against their claim. These two guys proved that Apple made a false claim. What a monitor produces does not matter. Their case was against Apple and what Apple said.

These arguments defending Apple by the zealots, blind, Kool Aid drinkers, etc.... simply play up the fanboy image.

That is incorrect. Nothing was proved. They settled. In a settlement both sides call the dogs off and it all goes quiet. Legally no one won or lost.
post #54 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

No, but they only went after Apple. Why did they not go after all the other manufacturers who are lying? They all state millions of colors. Why was Apple the only one dragged into court? Please explain.

Can I please have a link where Dell lies stating the same thing? I can't find it.
post #55 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

I have a PhD in cognitive experimental psychology (University of California, 2005) with a specialization in cognitive neurophysiology and visual perception.

This claim is absolutely correct. The relevant issue here is what the perception of the color on the screen is, not the actual color the screen displays. The method of how you go about reproducing the image in print media from what you have on the display is completely and totally irrelevant to the point here...

Also, any professional photographer who takes pride in the fact that theyre a professional would know these simple facts about how humans perceive color, and their concern would be more with the process of how to accurately reproduce in printed media the image theyre concerned with. Once you get above a certain level of display quality, the display itself is a non-issue. Again, a large body of psychophysical research on color perception has been done that proves this point...

What I find interesting is that technology acceptance has gotten to a point where two self-proclaimed "professional photographers" launched this case on the basis that their livelihood and employment capabilities rely on their ability to use a consumer model (forget about the Pro name for a minute) laptop LCD digital display to attempt to reproduce continuous tone gradations in an image, despite the inherent weaknesses of this methodology.

If the end result of their work was that critical to earning potential, why don't they shoot film and deliver actual continuous-tone "photographs" produced via a darkroom process, not multi-color dithered "images" produced from an ink jet printer. You don't need an LCD-anything to get a real photo from film and chemistry. Anything less than film results in a compromise in ultimate quality.

Perhaps their clients should sue them for advertising themselves as "photographers" when in fact they were "image acquisition specialists" who use a camera with digital sensors instead of film to deliver "matrixed color images" as an end result. (Photography by definition requires a camera to expose a light-sensitive material capable of later producing an image as a result of chemical reaction.)

By calling themselves Photographers and then using a digital image-editing or enhancement process, these two gentlemen appear to be no less guilty of false advertising than Apple, and remarkably, for the same reason: in the photographer business, the "industry standard" has been reduced to what acceptably fools the eye as a final result (especially if it's faster and easier than being really good with film and creative exposure and development techniques).

If we've reached the point where computer companies should all be sued because of their somewhat liberal interpretation of specification accuracy, why are we not all suing car manufacturers for ads telling us how many miles per gallon their cars will achieve, when in actuality that's a number relevant only to a stationary laboratory test at a fixed speed?

post #56 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techslacker View Post

That is incorrect. Nothing was proved. They settled. In a settlement both sides call the dogs off and it all goes quiet. Legally no one won or lost.

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.
post #57 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

No, but they only went after Apple. Why did they not go after all the other manufacturers who are lying? They all state millions of colors. Why was Apple the only one dragged into court? Please explain.

Well: (i) They were probably Apple users; (ii) Apple generates more publicity; (iii) Apple does make this claim all over the map (I have not noticed it with other manufacturers; I am not saying they don't make the same claim, just that I haven't noticed it as being so ubiquitous).
post #58 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

I have a PhD in cognitive experimental psychology (University of California, 2005) with a specialization in cognitive neurophysiology and visual perception.

This claim is absolutely correct. The relevant issue here is what the perception of the color on the screen is, not the actual color the screen displays. The method of how you go about reproducing the image in print media from what you have on the display is completely and totally irrelevant to the point here..... etc

Brilliant post (if true, of course; no offense, but in this medium, you can never tell! )

Not dis-similar to how the human ear processes sounds -- after all, our ears adjusted to the equal-tempered scale as "normal" over time; similarly, the entire digital music industry is built on the physical principle that our human ear + brain can't process sounds beyond certain levels of fineness......
post #59 of 122
All references to "millions of colors" on the iMac page at Apple.com are gone. I wonder how long ago it was taken off?
post #60 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

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.

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.
post #61 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

All references to "millions of colors" on the iMac page at Apple.com are gone.

Nice find!
post #62 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

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.
post #63 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulric View Post

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?)
post #64 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

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?
post #65 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

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?
post #66 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #67 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

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?
post #68 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #69 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
post #70 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
post #71 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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 doesnt exist, they have only sold concentrated monkey urine and named it coffee.
post #72 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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. \
post #73 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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.
post #74 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

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.
post #75 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #76 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

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...
post #77 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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.
post #78 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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
post #79 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I stand corrected on that technical detail.

\

OMG- an attempt at disinformation!!
post #80 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple settles "millions of colors" class-action lawsuit