The images on the specs page have a white screen: clearly showing the notch. Then the description (my bolding): “The display has rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a standard rectangular shape, the screen is 5.85 inches (iPhone XS) and 6.46 inches (iPhone XS Max) diagonally (actual viewable area is less).”
So... not allowed to show product in its best light. Got it. Remind me, which law was that? Because for it to be deceptive advertising you’d have to account for the other images shown on that same Apple.com webpage. Plus, you’d have to show intent to deceive, which would be belied by the text on that webpage.
But can a design patent be a shape or colour or smell? Or the shape of the corners? Could you do a design patent on something generic ie patent 4 wheels and ban all cars / claim royalties? Can I quickly patent a 6 side cardboard box?
I think general perception Apple is they just sue and ban and at one stage, everyone just rolled their eyes at yet another Apple lawsuit. Before Apple, products used to compete on pricing / promotion / features / benefits. You know, the better product 'won'. After Apple though, things changed - I remember trying to ban competition in certain countries and run the courts for help and set their 500+ lawyers onto it.
Perhaps you should patent the process of being deliberately obtuse.
About time. I’m very angry about those missing pixels in the corners and the notch. It ruins my experience with the device, since I bought it unseen, after only seeing the resolution specs. Those pixels are the best pixels, which Apple must be keeping for themselves.
Seriously, I hope Apple can charge their legal fees to this lawyer. This is why our legal system is so messed up. You don’t have time to resolve important cases, because the courts are tied up with this nonsense.
Those pixels are used to build Apple Watch displays. Takes about 17 iPhone X models to gather enough unused pixels for one 38mm watch, keeping the bill of materials costs down. Even after paying the elves.
In fairness, I'd hate to buy a 2.0l car and it's 1.8l ... or a 60" TV and it's 55" ... or a 21MP SLR and it's an 18MP
It's be good - fantastic really - if products were as labelled.
To be honest though, I didn't think iPhone users would pick this up ... they're not into specs
There are many motorcycles billed as 700s that actually have only 698cc of displacement. Same at other sizes. Each size defines a class, with various examples floating around that size but not exactly at it. I guess there’s work for lawyers in that industry too.
Honestly...people just have too much time on their hands I guess. You could always return the phone if you didn't like it.
Aren't people on here missing the point, if your buying something to a spec and it's not, then that is misleading, your not buying what you pay for. It violates the trade descriptions act so can't see how people can defend apple on this one. Where there is a blame there is a claim.
Because you only believe that’s Apple’s spec. Apple, right there on the page says the diagonal measurement is based upon a perfect rectangle, oF which the corners have been rounded inside that rectangle, which both covers the issue that the actual vertical measurement is larger and that there are less pixels. The mentioning of the perfect rectangle also implies pixels absent for any notch cut out of that rectangle. But I suppose anything may be argued in court.
Where were they in the days of analog TV when almost every single TV set over scanned?
How about the fact that 1080 resolution on TV sets represents the number of vertical pixels (sets are actually 1920x1080) and that "4K" sets are measuring the horizontal resolution (3840) and isn't "4K", so where's the class action suit for those missing 160 horizontal pixels and 345,600 total "missing" pixels. Etc.
Why aren't they suing car companies because posted gas mileage is rarely actually achieved in real-life driving.
Um - the argument on resolution on TV's is totally different ? How do you even get that situation on and iPhone situation as the same?
Why aren't they the same? Aren't we talking about pixel numbers?
Like I said above I could be wrong - but it's mentioned and there isn't hiding of the fact of what you're getting / viewing. I haven't bothered with an iPhone spec sheet, so maybe they also mention*shrug* in which case I'm with you.
I think that's the difference - the manufacture mentions the size in specs and datasheets etc . I'm not 100% on this Apple lawsuit, but it they mentioned it someone - then I'm with you all. But if they didn't and it was found out, then I think it's a legit suit ?
I’m at least the third person in this thread to point this out. Apple’s text is not hard to understand.
From Apple’s website: “
The display has rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a standard rectangular shape, the screen is 5.85 inches (iPhone XS) and 6.46 inches (iPhone XS Max) diagonally. Actual viewable area is less.”
I bought an Apple 13” RGB monitor a LONG time ago. Great display that used the Sony Trinitron tube. Turns out it wasn’t quite 13” diagonally, more like 12.75”. I was a participant in the class action suit and received a check for $6.00! The monitor alone back then cost $750. These suits don’t benefit the customer, they just pad the bank accounts of the lawyers that process the suits.
I do realize that US culture of lawsuits can be beneficial to the general public, although mostly to lawyers... but in this particularly instance: Just, wow...
I can’t wait for Congress to Subpoena the missing Pixels to appear before a Committee.
So they're suing to get a $10 Apple Gift Card in the end which Apple will end up making money off it because someone will buy something because they have this $10 gift card.
Honestly...people just have too much time on their hands I guess. You could always return the phone if you didn't like it.
Sadly, I think it is more the millennial mindset that is looking for a quick paycheck. They simply don’t know what hard work is.
Millennials actually spend their time much more efficiently than older generations. They might be heading towards debt but the last thing they typically engage in are frivolous lawsuits. Their parents are the ones that lawyer up every time they feel victimized.
If you can generalize an entire generation of people so can I.
So they're suing to get a $10 Apple Gift Card in the end which Apple will end up making money off it because someone will buy something because they have this $10 gift card.
Honestly...people just have too much time on their hands I guess. You could always return the phone if you didn't like it.
Sadly, I think it is more the millennial mindset that is looking for a quick paycheck. They simply don’t know what hard work is.
Millennials actually spend their time much more efficiently than older generations. They might be heading towards debt but the last thing they typically engage in are frivolous lawsuits. Their parents are the ones that lawyer up every time they feel victimized.
If you can generalize an entire generation of people so can I.
As someone in his mid 50s I look on the babyBoomer as the generational equivalent of a swarm of locusts. I’ve been much more impressed with millennials and younger gen X.
The blue comments, of course, ignore the work his/her forebears did to invent the tech upon which Google and other helpful tools are built. I have no college education, but I can use my high school education plus Google and YouTube and TedTalks, etc, to educate myself on pretty much any topic. I’ve done so to fair effect, becoming a multimillionaire in the process (At 56 I’m right at the tail end of the boomer generation). Which belies the question, is it education (knowledge) that blue-comment person is seeking, because that’s readily available for nearly free to anyone with an internet connection, or is it a college degree he/she is looking for?
I’m surprised nobody has dropped a class action suit on Apple about their Magic Trackpad and Magic Mouse. What is the nature of the magic that these products deliver? I feel cheated.
This isn't about returning the phone within the 14 day period. And maybe it is about getting some quick money. If it is then somebody is very unfamiliar with class action suits and the payout.
People are quick to make remarks about Apple paying litigators to go away. I don't think that happens nearly as much as some people want to believe.
The suit is about the claim of Apple using deceptive advertising. If it were to go to trial, the plaintiffs would have to convince a jury that it was reasonable to assume they could purchase an iPhone X and never know that it had a/the notch. Further, they'd then have to show that Apple at no time during the pre-order period showed any specification that indicated the pixels may be fewer than they appear.
I don't remember what pics of the X were on Apple's site during the pre-order period, or if there was a statement about the number of pixels, at that time. 'Hey I didn't know about the notch because I didn't go to any other tech site or watch the news. I just went to Apple's site and ordered. Did I read the specs, uh, um, yeah and there was nothing there about fewer pixels.
Fine print counts except were it's too fine to be found or read. It's about what you can make a jury believe is reasonable. A bunch of pics showing one thing and some fine print saying 'No, not really' won't be enough to defend a misleading action. I don't think this is the case with Apple, and I'm betting the suit never goes to trial, and Apple doesn't pay a dime.
Just remember the lawsuits over screen size measurements and hard disk drive storage bytes. They all claimed fraud and misrepresentation when it actually over ignorance about how technical jargon is calculated.
The first thought I had when I read the headline was about TV/monitor screen size - weren’t there some lawsuits around that years ago? One would think that they would serve as precedent here.
Yes. That's why many, if not most, TVs are now labeled as being "XX inch class", rather than being XX inches.
This is quite possibly one of the most disingenuous nitpicking lawsuits I have ever seen.
If this gets any further I will be shocked and surprised.
At 458ppi you will not be able to tell if the pixels are arranged RG/GB or RGB/RGB type, and the display controllers do a really effective job on top of that of adapting the image to that type of display. This pentile type of arrangement has been around for a long time in other phones as well.
The notch is flipping obvious is all marketing, all websites, all reviews, and in person. Additionally, you can consider that effectively the screen is extended up around the notch to move icons out of the main display area, so you actually get more display area because the 'menubar' has moved up.
And as for the corners, sheesh. Corners on a phone are rarely used, and your eyes will be looking at the content, not the corners. Fact is they allow a smaller bezel, more portability for a given display size, and so on.
Comments
Perhaps you should patent the process of being deliberately obtuse.
Those pixels are used to build Apple Watch displays. Takes about 17 iPhone X models to gather enough unused pixels for one 38mm watch, keeping the bill of materials costs down. Even after paying the elves.
There are many motorcycles billed as 700s that actually have only 698cc of displacement. Same at other sizes. Each size defines a class, with various examples floating around that size but not exactly at it. I guess there’s work for lawyers in that industry too.
From Apple’s website: “
If you can generalize an entire generation of people so can I.
People are quick to make remarks about Apple paying litigators to go away. I don't think that happens nearly as much as some people want to believe.
The suit is about the claim of Apple using deceptive advertising. If it were to go to trial, the plaintiffs would have to convince a jury that it was reasonable to assume they could purchase an iPhone X and never know that it had a/the notch. Further, they'd then have to show that Apple at no time during the pre-order period showed any specification that indicated the pixels may be fewer than they appear.
I don't remember what pics of the X were on Apple's site during the pre-order period, or if there was a statement about the number of pixels, at that time. 'Hey I didn't know about the notch because I didn't go to any other tech site or watch the news. I just went to Apple's site and ordered. Did I read the specs, uh, um, yeah and there was nothing there about fewer pixels.
Fine print counts except were it's too fine to be found or read. It's about what you can make a jury believe is reasonable. A bunch of pics showing one thing and some fine print saying 'No, not really' won't be enough to defend a misleading action. I don't think this is the case with Apple, and I'm betting the suit never goes to trial, and Apple doesn't pay a dime.
-signed:
No one, ever.