6 bit + 2x2 dithering (half-toning) or 6 bit FRC or 6 bit + Hi-FRC should all do "millions" with some artifacting.
16.2M? That's bit of a marketing statistic for FRC but with 3 tones it's (256-3)^3=16.2M which is where that number comes from. I don't know how they officially count 2x2 dithering or even if all of Apple's TN panels use 2x2 dithering or some might do FRC or Hi-FRC.
Interestingly Hi-FRC claims 16.7M colors because of the way it does mapping of the lower bits. I think lower bits anyway. It's been a while since I read about it but it does mean even when you see that 16.7M number you may not be getting a 8-bit panel.
Not that it matters that much if it is a TN panel anyway. They ARE (typically) faster but the trade is generally with color repro. And, of course, S-IPS panels are a heck a lot more expensive.
So, do 6-bit panels do "millions of colors"? Yes, with spatial or temporal dithering. Many folks won't notice the difference without a higher quality panel next to it as a reference.
They sure as heck would with a 6-bit panel that only did 262K colors.
PS For the person with issue with Dell monitors, typically you want the UltraSharp models that I believe were largely S-IPS and way more expensive...or were when I was looking at it a while ago. YMMV today since panel usage varies from year to year or even within years. The 30" HC is pretty nice. The 24" is S-PVA though but 8-bit.
Thanks for straightening these knuckle heads out. They act like there really is such a thing as a 16M color display. Folks no such display has ever been made in the history of human kind. Every display FAKES the eye into seeing 16M colors and both the 16bit and 8bit display to that. Granted the 8bit display have more head room and can look more stunning but that's a different story.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. I am a bit pissed at this with Apple. I got some of these iMacs and put some of them in our Photography Department of our newspaper. We went through a complete colour calibration overhaul and brought in experts in the field. Guys who do this with newspapers for a living. Even with calibration the screens in both the 24 and 20 inch versions do not give true colour accuracy. It's true, when compared side by side with the "proper" Apple standalone displays there are differences.
If I had have known that this was the case with the iMacs I would not have bought them and simply got Mac Pro's and the accompanying quality displays. So care to give us the real world example where you claim this is rubbish?
So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?
You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.
Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.
You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.
It's real simple folks: Go to the manufacturers who make the panels.
Download their PDFs that list their panel offerings. Compare who uses their panels and problem solved.
SAMSUNG has really cheapened on their consumer panels this year and it's going to get worse.
Hitachi, Philips and others are doing the same.
Finding a quality S-IPS monitor starts at nearly $1k for a 20".
Go download LG-Philips documents on their panels. The prices are going upwards, not downwards even though LCDs are more common today than at any previous time.
Not entirely true. Since individual pixel is made off of 3 subpixels (red, green, and blue), when each subpixel is capable of varying 8 levels of brightness, they combine to form 16.7 million colors.
But it's still only truly displaying those 3x8 actual colors (or shades of colors), everything else is just an optical elusion as they are merged together by our brains when our eyes view them. This lawsuit is dumb because fundamentally, all these displays are faking these millions of colors by exploiting a feature of our vision. It's just that one type is better at it than another.
I think this suit is just another money grab by lawyers.
I don't think that anyone bought the system based on the Ad that it can display millions of colours. That should be the basis of defending the suit.
Again, another case of ever heard of the term Caveat Emptor?
-Endo
Money grabbing if Apple would have made a distiction, which they did not. If you attempt to calibrate the screen andthe printer, you expect to get very similar colors, if dithering is used the colors will be off. Photographers and video people care. Those using the computer only for web browsing may not.
Each Apple computer comes with iPhoto and iMovie, so there is an expectation from Apple that lots of users will experiment and there is an expectation from the buyers that the screen quality and colors are there to get the same results regardless of which Mac the user uses.
Moving an image from one Mac to the other with a calibrated monitors should look the same and print the same.
Apple on its website says: "No matter what you like to do on your computer ? watch movies, edit photos, play games, even just view a screen saver ? it?s going to look stunning on an iMac."
I would have thought it all depends what your definition of 'Stunning' is.
To stop all these law suits from the wanna 'get rich quick' brigade, Apple should start having those fast spoken disclaimers at the end of all commercials ...
"Check with your Computer consultant before taking a Mac. Side effects are generally rare and mild. Results may vary, in some cases blindness and even death may occur or worse, wanting to use a Dell has happened on rare occasions"
Wow. I'm glad I opted for the 24". I had no idea the 20" screen was inferior.
That is exactly the point, most people are not geeks and not AI members. They have nothing but Apple web site to guide them. Since every Apple comes with iMovie and iPhoto, the expectation is that an image will be as good in every Mac with the exception that it may be slower rendering the image or movie based on the power of the system.
Apple is not informing people what they are getting and not listing the technology for the screen being used either so people can not research it that well either.
Even if Apple does not feel they done something wrong, there is the impression of trust being hurt here.
I hope Apple comes clean and fix the issue or at least document it properly so people can make an informed decision.
It's real simple folks: Go to the manufacturers who make the panels.
Download their PDFs that list their panel offerings. Compare who uses their panels and problem solved.
SAMSUNG has really cheapened on their consumer panels this year and it's going to get worse.
Hitachi, Philips and others are doing the same.
Finding a quality S-IPS monitor starts at nearly $1k for a 20".
Go download LG-Philips documents on their panels. The prices are going upwards, not downwards even though LCDs are more common today than at any previous time.
Where do you find the manufactorer and model of a given panel without opening the machione to the point you void the warranty?
Apple does not publish those details, so how can general public people do the research?
I never seen anywhere in Apple web site where it says who manufactures their screens for a particular Mac screen, neither have I seen that the screen uses either 6 or 8 bits, and never seen if it is TN or S-IPS.
Unless you repair these systems and look at the part numbers (which may change from time to time with no notice from Apple), one would not know.
People can not easily become informed if their screen provides millions of colors or just the illusion of millions of colors.
They also do not make any distintion between glossy or matt outside of the glare issue. As far as people know they are absolutly th same panel with a different coating.
My mother board blew out on my iMac PPC G5 (The last of Apple's brood before the Intels). While I was at the Apple store, I decided to buy a new iMac. The clerk showed me how different the 20" iMac was to the 24" iMac just by tilting the display. Yeowza! There was quite a noticible difference between the two displays. The 20" seemed washed out looking from top to bottom. The 24" looked the same from top to bottom. Anyhewww, that helped me decide to spend more money and get the 24" iMac. But I probably would have bought the 24" anyway because I love the screen 'real estate"
I think this suit is just another money grab by lawyers.
I don't think that anyone bought the system based on the Ad that it can display millions of colours. That should be the basis of defending the suit.
Again, another case of ever heard of the term Caveat Emptor?
-Endo
Class actions suits over consumer products are typically a scam run by lawyers, taking advantage of companies and gullible consumers. The members of the class get a pittance, generally a gift certificate or something similar, which is typically barely worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork. The lawyers get a percentage of all of those awards, and take home a big payday. Apple understands this--the lawyers don't want to go to court, because that could potentially end up costing them money. Apple doesn't want the bad publicity. So Apple pays the extortion, which isn't that high, because the lawyers are only interested in their own cut, not actually getting anything of substance for the class members. The lawyers go away happy, and the poor suckers who signed on to the suit go "You mean this is all I get?"
So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?
You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.
Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.
You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.
Obviously people did NOT know exactly what they were buying. That is the whole point of this. Apple have lost a class action suit based on this very fact.
If you have something constructive to bring to this rather than making assumptions as to why I am here and who I am then let's hear it. Apple have been found out in this. I take no pride in that and as you say I will have to "suck it up". The bottom line is that Apple are still wrong in what they said these screens were capable of. There is no escaping that fact nor any amount of vitriol from you will change that.
Obviously people did NOT know exactly what they were buying. That is the whole point of this. Apple have lost a class action suit based on this very fact.
Let's not mistake the facts for what they aren't.
As far as I can tell, Apple settled to get them out of their hair. Apple didn't lose the case.
I recall that the complaintant couldn't get class action status and it didn't even go to court, I don't remember where I read that. But they didn't lose the case.
First of all, Apple bumped up the size of the low-end iMac display and simultaneously lowered the price. I believe that's why they went with a cheaper screen and in order to keep a good margin, that's what a business does.
Secondly, if a 20" iMac user appears to see millions of colors on a monitor using dithering techniques...wait...WHAT? They ARE seeing millions of colors through dithering?
Isn't that what the specs claim? Shows millions of colors? It doesn't say "millions of colors from quality 8-bit displays". It says "millions of colors at all resolutions" and apparently dithering achieves that.
as far as i am concerned, editing photos on the macbook pro (i do not have the imac) is near impossible. every camera i have used has either had 12bit or 14bit colour and takes very godo photos (currently i am using d200).
in raw or jpeg, with my macbook pro, i either get yellowish or very bright highlights that make sky, clouds or reflections terrible. colours that fade to black? they don't. they drop off into black suddenly with a graininess.
i would be so happy for apple to just take the charge in the sometimes outrageous prices the charge say for the macbook. the pro i find rather comparable and for the quality of the casing, i don't mind the cost, but to market it for pros and then assume the pro will get along with it is absurd.
it is also absurd to think that a pro must always have a spair cinema display at her service to do editing. if she is in the bush or hiring a room and needs to get some stuff finished, she just whips out her cinema display from her backpack and plugs it in? a laptop should be self contained especially if marketted for the high end with a high-end bracket.
what is say i know is not new at all and has been mirrored in countless threads elsewhere, but i am glad of this press and i hope that until apple change things, they will get hit with this sort of suit. i am incensed by the 2007 display quality of macbook pro (2.4 led).
People should be well informed about what they are purchasing and the implications involved.
I am sure someone will disagree.
I disagree. While it may be easy for you to understand the mechanics of your computer and have a basic idea of what to look for when researching a new machine you can't expect the average person to be able to do that. Do you know all the technical aspects of your car? How it differs from the previous year's version? Even if you know some aspect of that question you can't possibly know most of it unless you build the car from scratch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawl
Isn't that what the specs claim? Shows millions of colors? It doesn't say "millions of colors from quality 8-bit displays". It says "millions of colors at all resolutions" and apparently dithering achieves that.
That is what the lawsuit may determine if it gets to court. Does the human eye perceiving millions of colours through dithering considered truth in advertising for the claim of million of colours? i don't think it does.
I can't think of a good example, so I'll use a bad one ):
? If I advertise that my Ducati for sale and state it has gone 500mph, but don't state that it only has gone that fast while traveling in the cargo hold of a cargo plane am I lying?
? What if I say the farthest I ever jumped was 5 miles in one leap, but dont' clarify that the leap was out of a plane and the miles were vertical?
These are exaggerated examples of the truth for the sake of argument, but it's quite easy to conceive of examples that the average person would accept without pondering.
As an aside, I believe that is why when being sworn in you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", instead of just being asked to tell "the truth"?
No, if you want a good example you say, "Stating a machine as Vista-capable but the machine runs slower than $h!t".
But that has serious merit as it damages the experience of all users.
Believe me, I want a quality display too. And now that I know this information, I wouldn't buy the 20". But then again, I don't edit high quality photos, and it probably wouldn't affect me anyway.
No, if you want a good example you say, "Stating a machine as Vista-capable but the machine runs slower than $h!t".
But that has serious merit as it damages the experience of all users.
Believe me, I want a quality display too. And now that I know this information, I wouldn't buy the 20". But then again, I don't edit high quality photos, and it probably wouldn't affect me anyway.
And there are tons of people like me.
funny. not related at all but, i had an image of literally tonnes of people (measured literally by weight) lifted or transplanted in transports being shifted somewhere. probably how are viewed by these large companies. like some of the comments i see on mac forums here and other places: the customer will swallow that for instance. we are being fattened up to purchase even bigger and more expensive products.
but this does not supplant loyalty to a great product.
Class actions suits over consumer products are typically a scam run by lawyers, taking advantage of companies and gullible consumers. The members of the class get a pittance, generally a gift certificate or something similar, which is typically barely worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork. The lawyers get a percentage of all of those awards, and take home a big payday. Apple understands this--the lawyers don't want to go to court, because that could potentially end up costing them money. Apple doesn't want the bad publicity. So Apple pays the extortion, which isn't that high, because the lawyers are only interested in their own cut, not actually getting anything of substance for the class members. The lawyers go away happy, and the poor suckers who signed on to the suit go "You mean this is all I get?"
Hey Perry Mason, thanks for explaining!
You're conveniently forgetting to mention that most members of a CAS understand what they'll receive, and that the true value of a CAS is punitive. If the offending company is penalized enough, it's that less likely that they'll repeat their illegal behavior.
Comments
6 bit + 2x2 dithering (half-toning) or 6 bit FRC or 6 bit + Hi-FRC should all do "millions" with some artifacting.
16.2M? That's bit of a marketing statistic for FRC but with 3 tones it's (256-3)^3=16.2M which is where that number comes from. I don't know how they officially count 2x2 dithering or even if all of Apple's TN panels use 2x2 dithering or some might do FRC or Hi-FRC.
Interestingly Hi-FRC claims 16.7M colors because of the way it does mapping of the lower bits. I think lower bits anyway. It's been a while since I read about it but it does mean even when you see that 16.7M number you may not be getting a 8-bit panel.
Not that it matters that much if it is a TN panel anyway. They ARE (typically) faster but the trade is generally with color repro. And, of course, S-IPS panels are a heck a lot more expensive.
So, do 6-bit panels do "millions of colors"? Yes, with spatial or temporal dithering. Many folks won't notice the difference without a higher quality panel next to it as a reference.
They sure as heck would with a 6-bit panel that only did 262K colors.
PS For the person with issue with Dell monitors, typically you want the UltraSharp models that I believe were largely S-IPS and way more expensive...or were when I was looking at it a while ago. YMMV today since panel usage varies from year to year or even within years. The 30" HC is pretty nice. The 24" is S-PVA though but 8-bit.
Thanks for straightening these knuckle heads out. They act like there really is such a thing as a 16M color display. Folks no such display has ever been made in the history of human kind. Every display FAKES the eye into seeing 16M colors and both the 16bit and 8bit display to that. Granted the 8bit display have more head room and can look more stunning but that's a different story.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. I am a bit pissed at this with Apple. I got some of these iMacs and put some of them in our Photography Department of our newspaper. We went through a complete colour calibration overhaul and brought in experts in the field. Guys who do this with newspapers for a living. Even with calibration the screens in both the 24 and 20 inch versions do not give true colour accuracy. It's true, when compared side by side with the "proper" Apple standalone displays there are differences.
If I had have known that this was the case with the iMacs I would not have bought them and simply got Mac Pro's and the accompanying quality displays. So care to give us the real world example where you claim this is rubbish?
So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?
You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.
Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.
You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.
Download their PDFs that list their panel offerings. Compare who uses their panels and problem solved.
SAMSUNG has really cheapened on their consumer panels this year and it's going to get worse.
Hitachi, Philips and others are doing the same.
Finding a quality S-IPS monitor starts at nearly $1k for a 20".
Go download LG-Philips documents on their panels. The prices are going upwards, not downwards even though LCDs are more common today than at any previous time.
Not entirely true. Since individual pixel is made off of 3 subpixels (red, green, and blue), when each subpixel is capable of varying 8 levels of brightness, they combine to form 16.7 million colors.
But it's still only truly displaying those 3x8 actual colors (or shades of colors), everything else is just an optical elusion as they are merged together by our brains when our eyes view them. This lawsuit is dumb because fundamentally, all these displays are faking these millions of colors by exploiting a feature of our vision. It's just that one type is better at it than another.
Anyone knows what is the story with the screens in the MB and MBP?
Apple should make good on this (8 bit screens) for previous buyers and make it cristal clear for new buyers.
I am sure someone will disagree.
I think this suit is just another money grab by lawyers.
I don't think that anyone bought the system based on the Ad that it can display millions of colours. That should be the basis of defending the suit.
Again, another case of ever heard of the term Caveat Emptor?
-Endo
Money grabbing if Apple would have made a distiction, which they did not. If you attempt to calibrate the screen andthe printer, you expect to get very similar colors, if dithering is used the colors will be off. Photographers and video people care. Those using the computer only for web browsing may not.
Each Apple computer comes with iPhoto and iMovie, so there is an expectation from Apple that lots of users will experiment and there is an expectation from the buyers that the screen quality and colors are there to get the same results regardless of which Mac the user uses.
Moving an image from one Mac to the other with a calibrated monitors should look the same and print the same.
I would have thought it all depends what your definition of 'Stunning' is.
To stop all these law suits from the wanna 'get rich quick' brigade, Apple should start having those fast spoken disclaimers at the end of all commercials ...
"Check with your Computer consultant before taking a Mac. Side effects are generally rare and mild. Results may vary, in some cases blindness and even death may occur or worse, wanting to use a Dell has happened on rare occasions"
The bottom of the line iMac has always had a TN panel so I do not know why people is surprised that the 20" panel in the current iMac is TN.
Good luck finding a laptop with a 8-bit panel. You are gonna really need it.
I'm buying an EXTERNAL DELL monitor to plug into the MBP. Does it have to be spelled out to you??
Wow. I'm glad I opted for the 24". I had no idea the 20" screen was inferior.
That is exactly the point, most people are not geeks and not AI members. They have nothing but Apple web site to guide them. Since every Apple comes with iMovie and iPhoto, the expectation is that an image will be as good in every Mac with the exception that it may be slower rendering the image or movie based on the power of the system.
Apple is not informing people what they are getting and not listing the technology for the screen being used either so people can not research it that well either.
Even if Apple does not feel they done something wrong, there is the impression of trust being hurt here.
I hope Apple comes clean and fix the issue or at least document it properly so people can make an informed decision.
It's real simple folks: Go to the manufacturers who make the panels.
Download their PDFs that list their panel offerings. Compare who uses their panels and problem solved.
SAMSUNG has really cheapened on their consumer panels this year and it's going to get worse.
Hitachi, Philips and others are doing the same.
Finding a quality S-IPS monitor starts at nearly $1k for a 20".
Go download LG-Philips documents on their panels. The prices are going upwards, not downwards even though LCDs are more common today than at any previous time.
Where do you find the manufactorer and model of a given panel without opening the machione to the point you void the warranty?
Apple does not publish those details, so how can general public people do the research?
I never seen anywhere in Apple web site where it says who manufactures their screens for a particular Mac screen, neither have I seen that the screen uses either 6 or 8 bits, and never seen if it is TN or S-IPS.
Unless you repair these systems and look at the part numbers (which may change from time to time with no notice from Apple), one would not know.
People can not easily become informed if their screen provides millions of colors or just the illusion of millions of colors.
They also do not make any distintion between glossy or matt outside of the glare issue. As far as people know they are absolutly th same panel with a different coating.
I think this suit is just another money grab by lawyers.
I don't think that anyone bought the system based on the Ad that it can display millions of colours. That should be the basis of defending the suit.
Again, another case of ever heard of the term Caveat Emptor?
-Endo
Class actions suits over consumer products are typically a scam run by lawyers, taking advantage of companies and gullible consumers. The members of the class get a pittance, generally a gift certificate or something similar, which is typically barely worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork. The lawyers get a percentage of all of those awards, and take home a big payday. Apple understands this--the lawyers don't want to go to court, because that could potentially end up costing them money. Apple doesn't want the bad publicity. So Apple pays the extortion, which isn't that high, because the lawyers are only interested in their own cut, not actually getting anything of substance for the class members. The lawyers go away happy, and the poor suckers who signed on to the suit go "You mean this is all I get?"
So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?
You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.
Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.
You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.
Obviously people did NOT know exactly what they were buying. That is the whole point of this. Apple have lost a class action suit based on this very fact.
If you have something constructive to bring to this rather than making assumptions as to why I am here and who I am then let's hear it. Apple have been found out in this. I take no pride in that and as you say I will have to "suck it up". The bottom line is that Apple are still wrong in what they said these screens were capable of. There is no escaping that fact nor any amount of vitriol from you will change that.
Obviously people did NOT know exactly what they were buying. That is the whole point of this. Apple have lost a class action suit based on this very fact.
Let's not mistake the facts for what they aren't.
As far as I can tell, Apple settled to get them out of their hair. Apple didn't lose the case.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_lawsuit.html
I recall that the complaintant couldn't get class action status and it didn't even go to court, I don't remember where I read that. But they didn't lose the case.
Secondly, if a 20" iMac user appears to see millions of colors on a monitor using dithering techniques...wait...WHAT? They ARE seeing millions of colors through dithering?
Isn't that what the specs claim? Shows millions of colors? It doesn't say "millions of colors from quality 8-bit displays". It says "millions of colors at all resolutions" and apparently dithering achieves that.
in raw or jpeg, with my macbook pro, i either get yellowish or very bright highlights that make sky, clouds or reflections terrible. colours that fade to black? they don't. they drop off into black suddenly with a graininess.
i would be so happy for apple to just take the charge in the sometimes outrageous prices the charge say for the macbook. the pro i find rather comparable and for the quality of the casing, i don't mind the cost, but to market it for pros and then assume the pro will get along with it is absurd.
it is also absurd to think that a pro must always have a spair cinema display at her service to do editing. if she is in the bush or hiring a room and needs to get some stuff finished, she just whips out her cinema display from her backpack and plugs it in? a laptop should be self contained especially if marketted for the high end with a high-end bracket.
what is say i know is not new at all and has been mirrored in countless threads elsewhere, but i am glad of this press and i hope that until apple change things, they will get hit with this sort of suit. i am incensed by the 2007 display quality of macbook pro (2.4 led).
People should be well informed about what they are purchasing and the implications involved.
I am sure someone will disagree.
I disagree. While it may be easy for you to understand the mechanics of your computer and have a basic idea of what to look for when researching a new machine you can't expect the average person to be able to do that. Do you know all the technical aspects of your car? How it differs from the previous year's version? Even if you know some aspect of that question you can't possibly know most of it unless you build the car from scratch.
Isn't that what the specs claim? Shows millions of colors? It doesn't say "millions of colors from quality 8-bit displays". It says "millions of colors at all resolutions" and apparently dithering achieves that.
That is what the lawsuit may determine if it gets to court. Does the human eye perceiving millions of colours through dithering considered truth in advertising for the claim of million of colours? i don't think it does.
I can't think of a good example, so I'll use a bad one
? If I advertise that my Ducati for sale and state it has gone 500mph, but don't state that it only has gone that fast while traveling in the cargo hold of a cargo plane am I lying?
? What if I say the farthest I ever jumped was 5 miles in one leap, but dont' clarify that the leap was out of a plane and the miles were vertical?
These are exaggerated examples of the truth for the sake of argument, but it's quite easy to conceive of examples that the average person would accept without pondering.
As an aside, I believe that is why when being sworn in you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", instead of just being asked to tell "the truth"?
But that has serious merit as it damages the experience of all users.
Believe me, I want a quality display too. And now that I know this information, I wouldn't buy the 20". But then again, I don't edit high quality photos, and it probably wouldn't affect me anyway.
And there are tons of people like me.
No, if you want a good example you say, "Stating a machine as Vista-capable but the machine runs slower than $h!t".
But that has serious merit as it damages the experience of all users.
Believe me, I want a quality display too. And now that I know this information, I wouldn't buy the 20". But then again, I don't edit high quality photos, and it probably wouldn't affect me anyway.
And there are tons of people like me.
funny. not related at all but, i had an image of literally tonnes of people (measured literally by weight) lifted or transplanted in transports being shifted somewhere. probably how are viewed by these large companies. like some of the comments i see on mac forums here and other places: the customer will swallow that for instance. we are being fattened up to purchase even bigger and more expensive products.
but this does not supplant loyalty to a great product.
Class actions suits over consumer products are typically a scam run by lawyers, taking advantage of companies and gullible consumers. The members of the class get a pittance, generally a gift certificate or something similar, which is typically barely worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork. The lawyers get a percentage of all of those awards, and take home a big payday. Apple understands this--the lawyers don't want to go to court, because that could potentially end up costing them money. Apple doesn't want the bad publicity. So Apple pays the extortion, which isn't that high, because the lawyers are only interested in their own cut, not actually getting anything of substance for the class members. The lawyers go away happy, and the poor suckers who signed on to the suit go "You mean this is all I get?"
Hey Perry Mason, thanks for explaining!
You're conveniently forgetting to mention that most members of a CAS understand what they'll receive, and that the true value of a CAS is punitive. If the offending company is penalized enough, it's that less likely that they'll repeat their illegal behavior.