Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Apple Sued Over MacBook Display Quality

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

May 18, 2007, 4:23 PM

Apple is fighting off another lawsuit, this time over claims that its advertising surrounding Macbook displays are misleading.

The suit was filed May 3 by California residents Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley in San Diego County Superior Court. It claims Apple's assertions that the displays can support "millions of colors" are false, as those colors are made possible through a process called dithering.

Complaints on the displays have appeared on several Apple enthusiast sites, including AppleInsider and MacNN. Several of these posts have been used as evidence in the filing.

Apple has allegedly told those who were complaining that they were being too picky and "imagining" the defects in the display, and the company has apparently refused to look into the problem.

Dithering is a procedure used in computer displays in order to trick the human eye into seeing a color by painting nearby pixels with different shades of a color to produce the desired shade.

Apple says that the displays are capable of 8 bits per channel, which should amount to over 16 million colors without dithering. However the suit alleges that the displays may actually only support 6 bits per channel, which means they would support only 262,144 colors.

Greaves and Gatley are seeking relief and reimbursement as well as class-action status for their suit. In addition, they are asking the court to prevent Apple from using its claims of supporting "millions of colors" in advertising.

Neither Apple nor the law firm representing the claimants were responding to requests for comment.

Add a Comment (33 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jescott418

edited Dec 16, 2007 - 7:33 PM

It would seem that a independent lab could test several MacBooks from owners or obtain some from a source. This could determine if Apple is meeting the specification or not. My belief is that if this is happening that Apple felt it would not be noticed. I have always believed that Apple tends to over state its quality and that it tends to save money in manufacturing where the consumer is less likely to notice. But I find this common practice in many companies and not just Apple. I think their specifications should match the actual performance of the product.

Score: 0

By cap737

posted May 21, 2007 - 8:10 AM

You don't like the computer you bought?? GET A DIFFERENT ONE THEN!!! Go get a windows peecee and install hackintosh on it so you can get the best of both worlds! O' Doyal Rulz!!

Score: 0

By spamspanker123

posted May 20, 2007 - 11:46 PM

Apple should just stop trying to market it's laptops altogether and keep doing what it's been doing so well...

...Yummy apple pies.

Score: 0

By uberfly

edited May 22, 2007 - 2:57 AM

...and commercials. They've got those down too. They rock at that.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted May 21, 2007 - 8:41 PM

hahahahahahahahaha lmao, that's a good one, just wait until Steve Jobs read this.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Score: 0

By CarLox

edited May 19, 2007 - 7:47 PM

i've got an Acer that costed me $649 and with a WSXGA+ CRYSTALBYTE!!!!! and mac doesnt beat that, even my mac os x looks really nice on that computer (hackintosh)

Score: 0

By kashin

edited May 19, 2007 - 3:53 PM

Apple running misleading ads? No way! That cannot be true. *roll eyes*

It's funny to see foxfyre go all out every time there's an Apple article. Always making this huge post with highly detailed specs on what he would like to see Apple do with their hardware. Seriously, it's hard not to laugh. A MacBook with 6-10GB+ RAM running several robust VMs concurrently? Hilarious. How much would such a monstrosity cost? Who would it be marketed for? How long would the battery life be? Get real.

PS. - I don't particularly find Apple's designs "elegant", but I suppose some do. That's basically the only thing Apple has going for them: elegant design. Everything under the hood is ordinary and nothing to e-mail home about.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited May 20, 2007 - 2:19 AM

"A MacBook with 6-10GB+ RAM running several robust VMs concurrently? Hilarious. How much would such a monstrosity cost? Who would it be marketed for?"

What is hilarious is your ignorance, MS fanboy. Wait, ignorance is correctable yet your one trick pony rants are anything but...

Yup Mr Wizard! That RAM simply sucks current! And the norm for many notebooks is currently 4GB (go look at a Dell M1710) And Twinhead has had 6GB for quite some time now. Oh! gee, reality is SOOOO confusing! Previous limitations had been OS and space imposed. Those are no longer necessary constraints.

And except in your case where obviously you are 'memory constrained', lest you use your available battery power too quickly, others are not. So, at least for them, the usefulness of such a configuration is not so confusing.

And who would use it? Let's see, perhaps the same folks who currently use the high powered large footprint desktops but might like portability. (And portability is not limited to playing your games on an airplane.) Or anyone who actively deals with multiple platforms - but I guess that rules out a Windows game fanboy such as yourself who hasn't a clue at to what drains batteries!...

But you know, 'Everyone' needn't want it! Choice it good. But evidently that confuses and scares you too.

And multiple video cards (even SLI)...oh yeah, Alienware, Voodoo and others do that, don't they? But you're right! It's impossible! Who wants such a thing!? ...And simply because You don't? Heck, MrWizard, you are afraid of RAM as it drains the battery! ROFLMAO!

And a 20" laptop??? Do they exist already? Acer, HP, etc. Oh, thats right, they do!!! Impossible!

The irony is that what I mentioned is real, although not from Apple.

But, nonsensical objections based upon rampant stupidity aside, there are plenty of areas where Apple could beef up their high-end laptop .

But yup, that RAM sure is a battery hog! And despite your minimal configuration, it must be time for your nap :-O :-))))

And as far as "get(ting) real", get a clue, dimwit!

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted May 19, 2007 - 9:23 AM

As usual we have the Windows fanboys telling everyone how much they don't care about a product they say they don't care about but spend hours telling us how they don' care, and on the other hand we have the Apple fanboys that would by a rock with an Apple logo on it.

The Apple laptops, like all of their line are elegantly designed, but very under resourced.

They have been riding on essentially the same configurations with only a CPU change for FAR too long now!

And while folks in all areas can fight over the subcompact calculators posing as computers which I have absolutely no interest in, the MacBook Pro NEEDS a major overhaul - or better yet, another no holds barred larger model that is intended to be a BIG MacBook Pro - with substantially more RAM (6-10GB+) designed to accommodate multiple large virtual environments with several robust VMs running concurrently, and they need MUCH larger graphics card options (if for no other reason than to deal with the Windows environments!)!

And I would like to see both socketable upgradeable graphics cards which would allow for upgrades due to the significantly shorter GPU lifecycles compared to CPUs and possibly multiple cards (acknowledging that these machines can run other environments!)

Heck, I would even like to see a 20" model that would allow me to essentially have a server in a laptop with both enhanced CPU, memory, and graphics power. And I don't care if it weighs more than 10 pounds! (as if this is a real issue for any adult! And if you are a wimp, put it in a wheeled case or buy one of the fancy subcompact calculators).

I need the portability AND the functionality! Think the dual quad Xeon Big Mac desktop in a luggable!!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Elegant design is nice, But Apple needs to get on the stick and to be more competitive with its model development.

But I should stop and let those who so adamantly claim 'not to care' so passionately tell you that they do not care and have no interest in the machine that they don't care about.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted May 19, 2007 - 12:16 PM

Its goes the sameway with Mac fanboys as well they can't stay away from anything that says Microsoft on it and flame away. Apple should fix this or change the way its advertised either way so people know what they are getting hence no lawsuit.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted May 20, 2007 - 2:06 AM

Its tiresome to read fanboy posts of either side who simply are obsessed with trashing what they don't use.

Use what suits your purposes and don't worry about what doesn't!

And All of the environments have areas where they could stand improvement!

But unfortunately, only one platform currently supports all choices natively. And it would seem that other PC manufacturers would be looking at ways of rendering their machines more transparent for those who also want to use OSX. It should be relatively easy to either make the TCM switchable or at least selectively transparent in some manner...

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted May 19, 2007 - 12:05 AM

My objection to MacBook and MacBook Pro panels are that they are not available in SXGA+/WSXGA+ or SUGA/WUXGA+ ... they are low resolution, which is why I would pick a high end DELL or Gateway over any other laptop. I have a DELL Latitude C640 with 1400x1050 resolution on a 15" screen. This is fantastic as a graphic designer. XGA doesn't cut it, and now finding out that the panels themselves are lower quality than Apple has claimed adds to my case.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 19, 2007 - 4:05 AM

Bingo.

(W)SXGA+ all the way. It's something I quite like to herald over Macbook Pro users.

I have 50 extra pixels and I paid half the price a year before the person I have in mind.

Score: 0

By Crispy777

edited May 19, 2007 - 12:01 AM

Wow. For both Apple misleadig their customers and a second wow for the people who think it is not a big deal.

There is a huge difference between 6bit and 8bit on a display. 6bit is ok for a phone display, but when you do graphics for a living, thats no minor thing.

This is the first time I really understand what the word 'fanboy' means. I wish I had simple morons like that as my customers too. Life would be so easy.

Score: 0

By PostDeals

posted May 18, 2007 - 8:54 PM

I should have become a layer i mean a lawyer.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted May 18, 2007 - 7:18 PM

I'm glad I dodn't buy a Mac. I was seriously considering it after the last notebook took a s***.

All I do is graphic work, and believe me when I say that 256 shades for each pixel color is absolutely neccessary. If you ever use gradients than you would know what I am talking about.

For the average monkey who buys a top of the line computer to surf the web and check emails, it doesnt make a difference.

Plus, thier notebooks are $500-$1000 more than HP & Toshiba notebooks. What a scam they have going.

Score: 0

By Natrunner

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:55 PM

These guys may have a point. If you do any kind of heavy photo editing, you would see the difference. Apple should just fix the problem, if there is one, and move on. Mac fans complaining about Macs. Must be some kind of mac-user virus spreading around. ;)

Score: 0

By mxxcon

posted May 18, 2007 - 6:13 PM

fix is unrealistic.
the golden rule of 3 applies to LCD panels too
SPEED, QUALITY, PRICE: pick any 2
apple picked speed and price.
regular true 16million lcd panels are slow, 32+ms slow.
fast true 16million lcd panels are prohibitively expensive to be put in laptops.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted May 19, 2007 - 11:27 PM

Yah right, they certainly did not choose price. they chose to make money and then some...

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted May 18, 2007 - 10:14 PM

When they charged a premium for their products, there is no excuse for not living up their words.

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:52 PM

This is just RIDICULOUS!!!!

Score: 0

By keir

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:11 PM

I'm not a mac-lover, but this is stupid. I bet I couldn't even tell the difference.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited May 18, 2007 - 6:30 PM

However, would you like to be lied to just so they can sell you something as a feature?

Score: 0

By mxxcon

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:16 PM

you might not be able to tell the difference on it's own or maybe because you actually don't know what to look for :), but it is VERY obvious side-by-side.

Score: 0

By ribslayer

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:05 PM

My MacBook Works Just Fine! Must be them computer GEEKS who have to nit pick every little detail, the display looks great! if you want to pick on somthing how about microsoft? gee at least you would be doing something good there!

Score: 0

By Niro

posted May 18, 2007 - 11:28 PM

LOL I get it...it's ok for apple to rip you off, just not anybody else right? It doesn't matter what you get when you open the box, it's white and it's got an apple logo on it, it must be GREAT!

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted May 18, 2007 - 10:17 PM

Couldn't agreed more. For having Apple's name on it, even if it only 16 colors, it worth every penny.

Score: 0

By Kompressor

posted May 18, 2007 - 9:33 PM

Then you wouldn't mind if you bought a computer that advertised 1GB of RAM, but in actuality, it only had 512MB RAM running RAM Doubler software simulating 1GB RAM? I guess you wouldn't nit pick that either.

Believe it or not, some people actually use the colors. I guess you wouldn't notice the difference if all you use is MS Office.

Score: 0

By Fickleflame

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:44 PM

It's those "computer GEEKS who have to nit pick every little detail" that spur large companies like Apple into actually giving consumers quality products. Those same nit pickers also drive consumer standards up by demanding superior products so that you can have a monitor capable of a great looking display.

Would you be alright if a car maker advertised a vehicle with a V6 engine, but then once on the road you found out it is actually 2-stroke engine? Of course not!

So untwist you panties, remove your wifes tampon and realize that us "GEEKS" actually help you get better products by holding corporations accountable for their deceiving bottom-line driven sales practices.

Because if we didn't, you would still be using Microsoft Windows 3.1 thinking how pretty those 16 color icons are.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted May 20, 2007 - 2:18 PM

"Would you be alright if a car maker advertised a vehicle with a V6 engine, but then once on the road you found out it is actually 2-stroke engine? Of course not!"

and why not? who said a V6 couldn't be 2 cycle instead of 4 cycle? your argument in this matter is groundless as you obviously aren't mechanically inclined. the number of cycles an engine uses has no bearing on how many cylinders it has or vice versa.

further:

"Those same nit pickers also drive consumer standards up by demanding superior products"

that just makes me laugh... if that were true then we wouldn't always be seeing people in here complaining about how s***ty windows is :)

Truth of the matter is, scientific studies have proven that the human eye CAN NOT discern more than 65,000 colors, so who gives a rats a** that the monitor can do 16 million? are you people some superhuman species? or an alien/human hybrid that has extended ocular range? or is it the ONE good thing that comes out of having sex with that HOT sibling? :) (author's note: in no way does this post intend on discriminate, race bash, or otherwise do anything to willfully offend super humans, normal humans, human/alien hybrids, inbreds, the rhesus monkey, the African llama, the Madagascar hissing c***roach, the two headed bearded lady/man, or any other form of life intelligent enough to read this post ... except the duck billed platypus and the sloth)

Score: 0

By leventp

edited May 21, 2007 - 8:42 AM

Smart-alecs like you make me really angry.

First: Show me one instance of "scientific study proving human eye can only see 65000 colors". Yes, show me one scientific study about that. No, some cheesy website about space aliens and atlantis do not count as "scientific study"

Second: You are spewing your flames all around but the things you say show you know nada about LCDs. This is not a matter of showing the colors, this is about the ability of blending the colors and good true-color pictures look like s..t on 6-bit displays. It is impossible to do any serious graphics work on a 6-bit display.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:22 PM

Those geeks are the ones that make your movies look real. That's like saying that cassettes were good enough for audio.

If the displays are 6-bit, and they advertise 8-bit, they're in the wrong. Simply because you don't believe you'd perceive a difference is not reason to be dismissive.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted May 18, 2007 - 5:14 PM

I may be old fashioned, but when they advertise "millions of colors", I had better get what I paid for. Apple, Microsoftie, Sony, etc... it doesn't matter, the product has to match the advertising.

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 8:44 PM ET Mozilla's Aza Raskin: The journey back to Ubiquity

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal