Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP March 31, 2008 press release verbatim:
Apple deceptively marketed its new 20-inch iMac in a way that grossly inflated the capabilities of its monitor, which is vastly inferior to the previous generation it replaced, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.
According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California in San Jose, Apple is deceiving consumers by concealing that the new 20-inch iMac monitors are inferior to the previous generation’s and those of the new 24-inch iMac. In addition, the monitors are incapable of displaying “millions of colors,” despite Apple’s marketing claims.
Apple’s newest iMac — an “all-in-one” desktop computer that combines the monitor into the same case as the CPU — was unveiled in August 2007.
“Apple is duping its customers into thinking they’re buying ‘new and improved’ when in fact they’re getting stuck with ‘new and inferior,'” said Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. “Beneath Apple’s ‘good guy’ image is a corporation that takes advantage of its customers. Our goal is to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple tells the truth in the future.”
Apple told consumers that both the 20-inch and 24-inch iMacs displayed “millions of colors at all resolutions.” Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144).
While Apple describes the display of both the 24-inch and 20-inch iMacs as though they were interchangeable, the monitors in each are of radically different technology. The 20-inch iMacs feature 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screens, the least expensive of its type.
The 20-inch iMac’s TN screens have a narrower viewing angle, less color depth, less color accuracy and are more susceptible to washout across the screen.
Apple’s Web site tells consumers that “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.”
In fact, the inferior technology of the 20-inch iMac is particularly ill-suited to editing photographs because of the display’s limited color potential and the distorting effect of the color simulation processes.
“Apple is squeezing more profits for itself by using cheap screens and its customers are unwittingly paying the price,” Kabateck said.
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP is one of the nation’s foremost consumer law firms. Its clients have won more than $750 million against Google, Farmer’s Insurance, Eli Lilly and other major corporations. As a plaintiff’s-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers’ side.
Source: Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
Frigtards. I hope they get slammed the same way that Lerach finally did.
When you get to be a bigger dog, everyone wants to take you down.
It’s simple – if you don’t like the monitor, don’t buy the friggin’ computer!
Guess it comes down to “the eye of the beholder”… and such a wast of time!
I stopped caring when the screen went glossy. I do not want a glossy iMac period.
Brian, you have been heard on more than one occasion referring to your life partner as stunning.
The court of humanity finds you contemptuous.
Well, ok, there’s one side of the story… now we need to hear the other side aka Apple’s response. As with all things, somewhere between the two sides, one will find the truth…
One day I had like nothing to do, so I was counting the colors I could see on my iMac screen. I got to 262,140! For love of money I could not find the other four colors the lawyers claim are possible! I am going to see Dewey, Cheatum and Howe tomorrow about starting a lawsuit. I am thinking there is a potential for another classless lawsuit here!
this shiat has got to stop.
I chose to pay extra to get the big 24″ screen primarily because it is 1920×1200, which supports 1080 HD, and because it looked great to me in terms of color, contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc. In addition, the resolution permits side-by-side page views at reasonable scale, which is great for document reviews.
When I was shopping for my Mac I noticed that the 20″ iMac did not look as good, although to my untrained eye it still looked to be accessible. When the new iMacs were released, I recall Mac discussion threads comparing the iMac screens to the corresponding Apple Cinema Displays, and the 20″ iMac did not fare well. But the ACD’s are targeted towards professionals and the iMacs are targeted towards consumers. In addition, the 20″ iMac is priced at the low end of the Mac range.
This dispute appears to me to be very similar to the dispute regarding the Macbook LCD displays (6-bit, not 8-bit). If the lawsuit is successful, the only people getting significant money out of it will be the lawyers. The class representatives will get a token amount (perhaps $10K or less), and the people who bought the 20″ iMacs in question will get an Apple coupon good for a discount (say $50) that might be limited to purchases of computers or displays.
I think that Apple should be more transparent in its marketing. It is critical for Apple to maintain the trust of the consumer, in my opinion. But is Apple’s display marketing any different from that of any other vendor?
Q: What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his/her neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Q: Why is going to a meeting of the Bar Association like going into a bait shop?
A: Because of the abundance of leeches, maggots and nightcrawlers.
Q: What’s the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road.
A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.
Did you ever see all milk gallon containers filled to the exact same point “1 gallon” no some are under some are over, wow lets file a suit.
well…
perhaps the lawsuit is based on fact…
I don’t pretend to know enough about it make an informed comment, but if the monitor isn’t capable of “millions of colors”… as advertised… I’d say they have a case…
Fools of America….
Well, it’s a shame that Apple made the claim, really. I would tend to doubt that the human eye can discern more than a quarter million colors really. I guess the question is, how much injury is done by this white lie. $40 dollars worth? These guys are trolls. As far as the inferior viewing angle, I think Apple does outline differences between the two in the tech specs.
This is a drawback to Macs getting more popular. Hopefully the quality compromises stop here.
@Steve: Try looking at the 20″ from an angle other than straight on. You’ll notice that the colors start to shift at only a slight angle. Contrast this to my 20″ Dell LCD, which I got for $350 well over a year ago and is much more usable than the iMac display.
If you look at previous generation iMacs, the different sizes of displays were usually pretty similar in quality. That’s simply not true with the current iMacs. Apple fouled up, and this is the kind of thing that could easily hurt their reputation for quality products.
One more thing, pertaining to the argument about price points: the price change for upgrading to the 24″ iMac with all other specs equal, $300, happens to be the same as the gap between the 20″ and 23″ ACDs. You can’t tell me that Apple couldn’t afford to source a better 20″ panel for the iMac. This is simply a huge corporation cutting corners on expensive, and supposedly premium, products.
The real question is did people rely upon Apple’s stated facts regarding their 20″ iMac monitors, and were those statements correct? If people relied upon Apple’s statements, and Apple lied, then Apple will be liable.
It’s not a matter of “did the monitor look good to you in the store”. Remember, quite a few, if not most, Macs are bought online, so the end user can’t see them compared to other PC monitors.
Plus, it doesn’t matter if you use an iMac for professional photo editing or consumer editing. If you decided to buy a 20″ iMac instead of a 24″ iMac because the screens were basically identical (as far as color display) but you didn’t need the extra screen real estate, and Apple said both would display millions of colors, then you may be damaged because you can’t edit your family photos the same as you would be able to on a 24″ iMac.
Sure, this may be splitting hairs and technical, but if Apple is marketing its products with particular abilities, then those products had better have those abilities. If not, Apple’s gonna pay.
That the 20″ iMac dropped in PRICE by hundreds of dollars at the same time Apple adopted a less expensive “cheating” way of achieving 16 million colors.
Some “duping.” Look at the iMac, and if you like the screen and the price, buy it. If not, don’t get your panties in a twist because you don’t like the fact that marketing materials have a positive spin!
Guess K.B.K is attempting to find another Ambulance
“Kabateck”, eh? Sounds Klingon to me…
Wait ’til they figure out how the MBA is masquerading as a real laptop…. Lawsuits galore!
Just my $0.02
To all who are bashing the lawsuit:
If it was a lawsuit against Dell, most of you who are defending Apple would be skewering Dell.
And to those who say it’s no big deal because reviews pointed out that the monitors weren’t very good:
You’ve completely missed the point. If Apple lied about what it put into its machines, what’s to stop it from claiming higher bus speeds than it actually puts into Mac Pros, or claiming 2 GB of on-board RAM when only 1.5 GB are actually there?
You’ve all heard of the slippery slope, and when companies start cutting corners and lying to consumers because they make a few extra bucks, the company starts very quickly sliding down the slope.
Look at Ford and the exploding Pintos: The bean-counters who were in charge at Ford when the decision was made NOT to add the protective measures to prevent these explosions did so because they calculated that the cost of lawsuits or other costs would be less than the costs to repair the Pintos. What they didn’t factor into their decision were the punitive damages thrown at Ford when the jury found out that Ford cared more about profits than people’s lives.
BTW, your gas tank on your car is now safer and unlikely to leak in a crash because of that case.
dats bs man.
i counted minez dee othah day an i mussa seen at kees 1,002,438 diffent colorz mang! i knowzit fo sho, uh-huh.
Somehow I don’t think they are on the consumer’s side, because every lawsuit they file costs the consumer, the only one that comes out ahead is them…
I have to say that I was disappointed that Apple went with such a cheesy display on the 20-inch. Contemplated getting a 20-inch iMac a couple months ago, and decided against it (I bought a MacMini and a third-party 20-inch screen instead). It is worth noting that on the Apple Store’s refurb site, the previous generation 20-in iMacs tend to cost MORE than the current ones — I believe this is directly related to the screen quality (which was good on the previous generation).
Apple has always had a reputation for very high quality color displays, all the way back to their first appearance in the mid-1980s. The decision to go with the TNF screens is a sad one.
@Macromancer
“Then you shouldn’t be using an iMac, which is a consumer, non-mission critical machine…”
BINGO! Displays are like televisions. Regardless of the specs, you have to go view it for yourself to make an informed decision. I have both a 20″ and 24″ iMac. I’ve seen the difference, but the 20″ is obviously the low budget entry machine, and anyone truly dependent on critical color matching would never opt for this machine. The 20″ machine is fine when you are sitting in front of it doing most common home functions, including iPhoto and iMovie; the images look fine.
This one actually has merits.
The 20″ is indeed inferior to the 24″ and both past displays – keep the glossy vs matte out of it.
If I stand and look at the 20″, if there’s a dialog box or window or any other element that casts the shadow, it must be looked at directly, or you see this hideous outline.
It truly is bad, and if this suit goes anywhere, I’m going to ask that my 20″ be replaced with a 24″ – I’m happy to pay the difference.
Don’t be so quick to put down something – I hate lawyers as much as anyone, and that’s the problem with previous “Cry wolf” suits against Apple, now that there is one with merit, it goes unnoticed and mocked.
SB
This time, I have to fault Apple for this. For years, Apple has touted that their displays are the best in the industry. Up until the last iMac refresh, that was a true statement, but the current 20 inch screen is quite inferior to the 24 inch screen. At the very least, they should note that in the tech specs on their website. I’d be pretty irate if I relied on a 20 inch iMac for photography work, and the coloring was less than accurate.
My 20″ iMac monitor looks lovely.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
The good news is that a company is usually doing really well when a lot of people try suing it.
This is hardly a revelation. There are many mac chat rooms that have been discussing this issue ever since they dumbed down the 20″ monitor.
As always – caveat emptor – buyer beware.
hmm, i have a 24″, not a 20″ iMac. But I’ve seen the 20″ iMacs at the stores, and they look almost identical. Whether it’s an optical illusion (due to the gloss and black/silver frame) or not, these screens do look a lot better than prior screens. All color we see is based on the interplay of the primary colors, so it doesn’t much matter so much as the mix is right. There are still some cameras at 6MP that are state of the art. It’s not deceptive if it does a good job. I’d like to watch this case, I’d bet the jury will all run out and buy some 20″ iMacs. They’re a steal for the price, actually. As for the law firm, this is kind of a dirt bag case to be taking on, and I doubt they’ll get certification of the class because I doubt a jury would be able to tell the difference between “hundreds of thousands of colors” and “millions of colors.” The law respects the axiom: “where there’s no harm, there’s no foul.”
Sorry to go against the grain here but I’ve owned every generation of iMac so far and I’m very disappointed with this latest one. It is by far the worst quality monitor they’ve shipped in quite a while. What you need to realize is that Apple did indeed deceive their customers here.
The lawsuit is right on. Because the screens of the 20 inch alu-iMacs are really shitty, compared both to its predecessor and the 24″ alu-iMac. When you see the current iMacs beside each other, you’d have to be blind not to see the obvious differences: in the 20-incher the viewing angles are very narrow and the colors look really washed-out, whereas in the 24-incher the viewing angles are wide and the colors are really bright and vibrant.
The only problem might be that non-TN panels are apparently not available anymore in 20 inches, god knows for what reason. So Apple might actually be forced to use these cheap and shitty TN panels. However, if this is not the case, Apple’s being a cheapskate and that is not acceptable. If it takes a lawsuit to change that, it’s all good in my book.
” I’d be pretty irate if I relied on a 20 inch iMac for photography work, and the coloring was less than accurate.”
Then you shouldn’t be using an iMac, which is a consumer, non-mission critical machine. If you are a photographer and are that reliant on accurate color, you should be using pro level hardware.
This whole thing is ridiculous. If you see it in an Apple store and like it, then that is the final factor.
Damn! I am viewing this page (and mostly everyday on MDN) using the suspect in this case.
Hmmm. Got a 20″ aluminum iMac and I think the display is great when compared to the competition at that price point. It was obvious from reading the spec that the monitor was downgraded from the previous generation. However, while the technical specs went down, the size went up and the price remained the same. For me, a non-photographer who uses my computer for basic stuff, it is a very nice machine. Especially fro $1300.
I’m having a hard time understanding where the lawsuit has any merit.
Well, I suppose it must always be “buyer beware” but I expect better of Apple. If they say “displays millions of colors”, I don’t expect it to be via 6-bit dithering. That is simply intentionally misleading the consumer. Apple knew it and hoped they could get by with it. I shouldn’t have to wonder if Apple is trying to pull a quick one on me.
I never put any credence in viewing angle and pixel refresh rates; what I see in the computer store is what I get. But it’s impractical to load in a copy of Photoshop and really give a computer monitor a thorough workout in the store to see if Apple is lying their faces off regarding bit depth. They deserve what they get with this lawsuit.
The displays in the current 20″ iMacs are horrid. All you have to do is look at one side by side with the 24″ and you can easily see the quality difference. The older white 20″ iMacs did not have this problem, it’s only the newer aluminum 20″ models.
mayday,
No, if they were smart and thought they’d have a chance at making money, then and only then would they have filed in Texas.
If, in fact they were idiots, they’d have filed somewhere more likely to have thrown them out in the streets.
You see, THAT would have been idiotic.
It’s called logic, Watson.
That being said… the two LCD’s (24 and 20) ARE different in manufacture, technology and in specs…
HOWEVER, you’re gonna have a beeyatch of a time proving that consumers were “duped” into anything (my largest customer buys HUNDREDS of the things), and after reviewing what relevant info there is to this story, they didn’t feel they were mislead in any way. The new 20″ iMac COSTS LESS than the model it replaced, and that (and only that) led to their desire to buy the 20 incher.
For $1,199, you should be able to ‘accurately’ edit photos on an iMac. Apple wanted to make an extra $50 or $100 profit, so they used the lower quality screens. Their specs say “Millions of colors at all resolutions”. This is clearly not true. Dithering the colors on screen is not the same thing as “millions of colors”. Apple is in the wrong, and they know it.
@ Macinfo:
“because every lawsuit they file costs the consumer”
You are absolutely 100% correct. Who do you think pays the legal fees? Consumers, when companies have to raise the cost of their products and/or services to cover the legal costs.
Bottom line: go to the store, look at it, and if what you see is worth the price, then buy it. If not, put your wallet back in your pocket. It’s that simple.
Why I tend to prefer Apple products over most others, I am a firm believer in truth in advertising, regardless of the company. IF, and that’s a big if, the allegation is true, then Apple should get at least a slap on the wrist.
Everyone knows the lawyer is on no one’s side by his own, but if Apple screwed up as claimed, I don’t mind some lawyer making a few bucks off of it as a way of reminding Apple that they too have to play by the rules.
Apple is guilty of deception here and all regular MDN Mac fans will be letting themselves down is they do not join in condemning Apple and insisting on the quality we all recognise the company has built its reputation on. Responses here will sort out the REAL Mac fans from those who have an identical mindset to Windows Fanbois (hint: one will not hesitate to be critical).
I also think the ‘glossy/matte’ iMac debate DOES have a bearing on this. Many loyal Mac fans have been disappointed by Apple’s disregard for the needs of mid-range creative business users – who (like myself) rely on a top quality matte screen in a midrange Mac box to meet their creative requirements. I for one abandoned purchasing the new iMac for this reason alone and feel let down by a company I always previously believed supported me. Apple could – at the very least – have recognised its low/mid-end pro-users and offered a matte iMac option for a premium. This 20inch screen fiasco now hardly surprises me (although it does sadden me).
Me? I’m now waiting to see what Apple do with the Mini Mac and my next purchase may – RELUCTANTLY – be one of those, with perhaps a nice matte 24inch monitor from Dell. Until recently I NEVER thought I would be uttering the words ‘purchase’ and ‘Dell’ in the same sentence!!! But times – and companies – change I suppose.
While the flaws outlined in this suit are basically accurate, they still don’t merit a lawsuit. The deficiencies have been pointed out in virtually every review of the current 20″ iMac both as compared to its predecessor and to the 24″ iMac. A simple trip to an Apple Store or Best Buy would confirm the issue.
But at that point, the customer can mumble under his/her breath “Shame on you, Apple” and buy something else. It is the very reason I’ve held off on the iMac. My choice, as a customer, is either to go for the MBP or wait longer for Apple to release a better desktop. Not to sue.
I can almost hear the conversation between Al Gore and Steve Jobs when they decided to switch the new supposedly enviro-friendly screens:
“Hell, fudging the facts is just fine, Steve. Remember, we’re saving the earth with these new screens, so being misleading is completely justifiable. Heck, I did the same thing in my own documentary. We’ll just assert anyone who notices is skewing the facts, anti-Mac, a paid MicroSoft shill, and a gluttonous consumer.”
Probably filed in Texas like the other idiots…
@Brau – excellent post!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Apple screwed up here. If their ad copy had just said something like “our clever software makes this 6-bit display look like it’s displaying colors that it really takes 8 bits to display” then they would be golden. But not so. They relied on technical ignorance of the details of display design and specifications to put one past their customers. Shame on Apple, because it means the next time I consider buying one of their products, I need to approach them with suspicion, rather than trust. Sad, sad, sad.
Even if Apple did mess up, who’s really gonna win here?
The lawyers would buy themselves new private jets, and the iMac owners would get $5 Apple Store certificates. Yay.
<< As always – caveat emptor – buyer beware. >>
So that’s it huh- buyer beware. So we need to use the same mentality shopping at Apple as opposed to… i don’t know- shopping at eBay????
I have the original 20″ Intel iMac- the display is beautiful and remains that way- but I too notice a dramatic difference with the 20″ Alums. Sorry Apple… busted. There is NO WAY your eyes can predict future or uneven washout. So going to the store and letting your eyes be the judge is fine for that moment- but what about a year down the road. If there have been compromised in quality both the specs and the price should reflect this. This is why there was a big problem with the 20″ Alums from the get go.
I love Apple but they need to comment on this.
If the 20″ displays look like crap, one can always boot up Vista.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
#1. My wife’s 20″ AliMac screen is gorgeous. Is it not as “perfect” as the screen on the 24″ AliMac? Do I care? Honestly, HECK, no! The screen looks good, VERY good, even from a bit of an angle.
#2. The quality of the screen aside, anyone processing pictures at more than the consumer level on an iMac is trying to cheap out. Even the 24″ AliMac. So, now they are complaining that they can’t use the less expensive models for professional strength photo editing? Maybe I should sue over the fact that my Acura sports coupe can’t keep up with the top of the line NSX!
Even if the basics of the suit are technically correct, this is a dumb suit. My opinion.
Dave
Glad I’m color blind.
I have a 20-inch iMac (G5) and I can’t complain at all and I do everything with this awesome machine
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Most of you are….well idiots.
Seriously, if Apple spec’d out a system and they delivered something less than what was advertised, they need to pay up.
Pisses me off all you sheep can’t understand this. Pretend it’s NOT Apple. Pretend it’s Toyota and you bought a new Prius with power windows. Only, when you got it, it didn’t have power windows. Are you telling me you wouldn’t be pissed and sue? Sure all you sheep would say “But the windows still go up and down”.
I’m as big of an Apple fan as you could meet but if they pull this stuff, they deserve to lose the lawsuit. If they did wrong, let justice take its course but arguing against this makes you look like silly little spoiled children.
Why do you think MDN didn’t provide their own take? If Apple misled people, they need to fix it. If they didn’t they will have nothing to worry about.
I have one of the 6bit MBPs and while I tend not to notice this deficiency I *know* its there. This is b.s. on Apple’s part. I thought it displayed millions of colors.
I also remember when Apple and others were guilty of incorrectly specifying sizes of their monitors too. They used the tube size not the viewable one – at least until that case went to court. They deserve to hauled over the coals and forced to explain the dithering.
I also think we need a rev A Mac Pro case too, since its video card is not upgradable to newer ones.
Basically to sum up: If you think this is a dumb suit, then you are dumber.
As I type this on m MacBook, with it’s awful (narrow view angle, glossy, crap brightness) screen, I assure you that this is a for real issue. The crappy screens is exactly why I haven’t replaced my 20″ Core Duo with one of the new iMacs.
Apple needs to stop cheapening down it’s stuff to keep it’s outrageous 20-20% margins at a given price point. Raise the damn price but don’t compromise the HW.
arguing against this makes you look like silly little spoiled children.
…and/or attorneys who’d put getting a win for their client over establishing facts and seeing justice.
I have a bad feeling this one’s gonna end up in the la-la land of “meaning of ‘is'” technicalities.
MW: clear
If what the attorneys are saying is true, Apple should pay. Frankly I don’t understand this site — why does a love of Apple computing mean you have to defend everything they do, including those things that are likely wrong and unjust? The tolerance for dissent on this site is reminiscent of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Most of you are no more than Lemmings.
“As a plaintiff’s-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers’ side. “
Translated, that means “We sue people. That’s all we do.”
1) Making Apple pay for blatant bullshitting at least in theory lowers the chances that Apple will do so again. So tough shit for Apple.
2) If displaying 200,000 is as good as displaying 18 million, then why doesn’t Apple brag about displaying 200,000 colors? Oh yeah, BECAUSE IT ISN’T AS GOOD, AND EVIDENCES CHEAPER COMPONENTS. Evidently it was important enough for Apple to lie about.
The 20″ display on the Aluminum iMac is very washed out indeed. I wouldn’t get one.
To all those who think that this only results in the attorneys winning:
1) Yes, that’s true; the attorneys will make out like bandits and we’ll all get coupons, $10, or something like that. One of the big problems with class action suits these days.
2) Apple will think twice before either cheaping out on monitors or in making claims which are clearly not true (assuming the complaint is accurate). Apple will have to pay someone many millions of dollars, and while Apple has plenty of money (and insurance) to cover it, no one wants to pay a judgment or have the negative publicity surrounding it.
3) Apple will be more accurate in their tech specs. Frankly, these lawsuits get a LOT of publicity when the complaint is filed, and then our media moves on to the next headline. They never follow up with the settlement, or who was found liable, etc., except for a page 35 mention. The damage to Apple has been done, now all that remains to be seen is how much Apple needs to pay to make it go away.
Did they claim the displays were 8-bit when they’re actually 6-bit? Maybe I missed that part. The method by which the millions of colors are produced for the human eye is immaterial, because all displays only produce three colors. How is dithering more ‘deceptive’ than normal color mixing? It’s still an illusion, and your eye is still fooled.
I also fail to understand how Apple’s decision to move to a cheaper screen type between revisions constitutes a deception. Did they produce ads claiming ‘same screens as last version’? Did they claim that the 20s and the 24s were the same, either?
There is an old saying, “buyer beware.” It use to be the law of the land.
The bottom line is that you wouldn’t purchase a car with out test driving it would you? Then if the quality of a monitor is that important to you, why would you purchase a monitor (or a computer with a built in monitor) without testing it out first?
I know that if my job (or the quality of my job) depended on the quality of a monitor then I’d be there in the Apple store testing it out from top to bottom before I laid down the green-backs. I’m very sure the Apple Geeks there in the store would have no problem helping you test out a monitor’s quality before you shell out the bucks to buy one!
I Have a Late 2006 17 inch 2 Ghz Core 2 Duo iMac with the X1600 card.
I maxed out the ram to 3 Gb and frankly, I’m happy with it still despite it being an all in one and it’s small screen.
I love the New Style of the iMacs, but at my college which has 30 new 20 inch Aluminum iMacs, I saw from distance the glare into to screen. They had the bunch mixed with older G5 & early Core Duo’s and the screens looked better at angles and no glare.
So after seeing that, I appreciate my 17 inch iMac more than ever. Though, after this in 5 years, I’ll go for a Mac Pro so I can put what ever monitor I want.
Though, anybody know about the LCD Specs of the Late 06 17inch iMac’s.???
I’m shocked that any monitor is sold now that doesn’t support millions of colors. I thought this change occurred back in the 90’s. What the hell is Apple thinking?
I’ve got a PowerMac G5 that I want to replace, but I have no interest in an iMac. I’m running dual 24″ Dell flatscreens right now. My only choice is a $2799 Mac Pro.
I switched from Linux machines to my Mac but I’m not afraid to go back.
@ Galen from NY.
Yes, I WOULD buy a computer without “test driving” it.
I do all the time.
I rely upon 23 years of buying Apple products to trust them.
So, your analogy BLOWS.
You obviously can’t see beyond your Jobs-licking tongue on this one.
I work as IT support in a printing company and one of the prepress workers bought a new 20″ imac for home and returned it instantly. You can really tell the color isn’t that great. It’s darker up top then fades to lighter on the bottom. But is this really gonna go anywhere?? they will probably just make a new imac update without the shitty screens and problem solved.
@ Me in LA
From the sounds of it you’re how old, 12? You sound like a kid in junior high. Does anyone really say “blows” anymore?
If your silly enough to shell out $1,500 on a product without even looking at it then you get what you deserve. Quit being a snot nosed juvenile and actually think for yourself instead of throwing insults at people.
@ Galen,
“Used to be the law of the land…”
Um, please sir, I must have missed that one in business law classes…
Can you show me that one?
What, are you old enough to have traded horses at the OK corral?
12, no. And nobody’s job depends on my iMacs, they’re personal for home.
Does that mean Apple can sell crap?
I guess by your logic, yes.
And sorry NY dude – yeah, dude – blows is still common.
Mabye not in your ‘hood, homey.
TAKE THAT, APPLE!!
You’re no longer the top quality product I once knew. You settle for maximum profits – mediocre quality combo ala Microsoft. And you never listen to your customers about the glossy screen complaints.
I call BS!
If Apple advertised something that wasn’t true, it’s a huge problem. It doesn’t matter if you like the company or not.
False advertising is FALSE ADVERTISING.
I’m actually in favour of “Truth In Advertising”.
Silly me.
The iMac sucks! It’s a glossy POS.
The screen *is* bad. We bought one for our parents and I hate sitting off to the left or right of them when trying to teach them something because the whites on the screen shift noticeably toward yellow and the colors wash out. Bleh! Say what you want about CRTs but at least they offer a full 180 degree viewing angle.
Does this mean Jobs’ “insanely great” premium products are destined to become just another line of cheesy, mediocre garbage?
I really wonder if this is true (and I hope it’s not). I was thinking about selling my 17″ Core Duo iMac and upgrading to 20″ Core 2 Duo iMac. But there is no way I would do that now if the color fidelity is really that terrible.
HaHaa! See! Apple is NOT better then my Super Dell!
lol
1rts april joke!
Being sold inferior product with overinflated capabilities is just part of the Apple experience.
Just learn to enjoy getting taken to Brown Town by Apple. Most fanboys do.
Maybe its time the justice department breaks up Apple. Think about it, Apple Hardware might then produce a prosumer Mac that doesn’t run you $3000. We might get updated monitors quicker than once every 5 years. OS X could be available for PC’s.
Mac Pro’s might become affordable. Or like I said above, maybe a $1500 Mac Pro would be available.
I have one of the machines in question and I have to say, in comparison to the early 2006 iMac I was using, the screen is crap. Text is fuzzy, the contrast varies from top to bottom and changes with viewing angle. I finally got it to be tolerable by going into the display calibration and changing the gamma, along with experimenting with the font smoothing until it looked half way decent.
The main issue seems to be vertical viewing angle – unless it’s straight on, things start to look wonky, so I don’t believe I have a defective screen, this is just the way it is.
Oddly enough, the color problem doesn’t bother me.
@Galen from NY
“There is an old saying, “buyer beware.” It use to be the law of the land. The bottom line is that you wouldn’t purchase a car with out test driving it would you?”
So you are saying that if you bought a Ford and they advertised 150HP and you PAID for that upgrade and when you got home you discovered it was only 125HP: you wouldn’t be pissed and want some money back or trade it back in and get the car you bought?
@sosumi
“…and/or attorneys who’d put getting a win for their client over establishing facts and seeing justice.”
Are you an idiot? If the attorneys win the case for their clients it will be because they established facts and deserve justi
If Apple advertised something that was not true, they deserve to lose.
However, what they advertised was true. The 20″ iMac can display millions of different colors. The viewing angle is low but they did not advertise a wide viewing angle. Even if the illusion of millions of colors is produced through electronic trickery, the eye still sees millions of colors. If you see it, it is there.
Let’s face it. We do not just see red, blue and green, the only colors the diodes in the screen are capable of emitting.
Every LCD, CRT or Projection display is an illusion.
No case here. Get a ‘Light Scientist’ to testify.
I’ll care more about this issue when hard drive manufacturers become more truthful about how big their drives really are.
@AI
Again BS sematics. There is nothing wrong with admitting Apple may need to do something to fix this if they advertised in error.
The whole RGB thing is just a weak, weak argument. I don’t get why you people are so ridiculously nuts over this. Much like Apple credited back early iPhone customers, they may actually have to suck it up and fix this if they are found to have misled people.
Again, if they have done something wrong they should make it right. If they haven’t then they won’t have to do anything.
When you are the big fish in the pond, attorney fees are a cost of doing business.
The ‘old’ iMac (non-gloss white case) refurbed costs more than the crappy (Glossy Screen in an RF Trap) new one. I wonder why.
Check the Apple STore and take a look at the refubs.
Until and unless Apple brings back a proper matte display, I won’t be buying any more iMacs for myself or as a gift for anyone else. I bought a Macbook and hate the narrow AOV glossy PeeCee Fanboi Friendly screen.
It’s time to wake up in Cupertino.
I’ve heard of this even before this lawsuit.
I’m glad that I bought the 24 inch iMac. I didn’t like te 20 inch screen the moment I saw it. And these people are right to sue Apple, because the quality is obviously different.
Apple pulled a nasty thing on its customers with 20 inch iMac.
And don’t tell me that if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. The problem here is that Apple lies to the customer. And I tell you this as a long time Apple fan and user.
To quote the source: “Apple told consumers that both the 20-inch and 24-inch iMacs displayed “millions of colors at all resolutions.” Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144).”
262,144 color is 6 bit color, as opposed to the 8 bit color required for 16,777,216 colors.
Apple has been pulling this blatant LIE for years now. 6 bit color is the ONLY color standard on all MacBooks and MacBook Pros. This was proven in 2006. A class action lawsuit against Apple by imaging professional is in fact under way. The fact that 6 bit color is the standard for all laptops, including PC laptops, does not excuse the LIE. Apple attempt to cover up the LIE by pointing out that they use DITHERING to approximate the MISSING MILLIONS of colors. And to be honest, anyone doing professional color management on laptop LCDs is fooling themselves.
But iMacs and Apple displays have NO EXCUSE for not being full 8 bit color.
Apple, knowing full well that they are LYING, have done absolutely nothing to repair their illegal advertising LIE. Apple will lose both lawsuits. I find this SHAMEFUL.
And yes kids, I am well renowned for supporting Apple on the foundation of facts, bludgeoning every ignorant sadomasochistic troll in my sites. But I am also well known for kicking Apple’s ass when they deserve it. And Apple deserve a good kicking down Main Street for this calamity. What IDIOT at Apple let this happen? Prepare for a good thrashing.
An apology to PC users. Yes, there are a few dopes among Apple fanatics. Case in point:
Ambulance Chasers sez: When you get to be a bigger dog, everyone wants to take you down. It’s simple – if you don’t like the monitor, don’t buy the friggin’ computer!”
You can’t avoid buying “the friggin’ computer” if you’ve been LIED to by the manufacturer. Go ahead. Do your homework and look right now at the specs Apple have posted RIGHT THIS MINUTE up on Apple.com for the offending products. While you’re there go look at the specs for the MacBook and MacBook Pro as well. What do the specs ALL say: “MILLIONS OF COLORS”.
This is blatant deceptive advertising. This is why we have TRUTH IN ADVERTISING LAWS.
How pathetic that I now have to tell everyone interested in an Apple LCD display, separate of built into a Mac, that it is “BUYER BEWARE”. I would NEVER have imagined this calamity could happen at Apple. DISGRACEFUL.
Am I exaggerating my emotion here? Am I shouting a bit too much about the LIES? If you’ve ever done professional color work on a Mac, or ever supported color production professionals on Macs, you’ll know this is no exaggeration. IMHO this is one of Apple’s darkest days. This is something that actually, for once (!) deserves to cause Apple stock to plummet in price. And it will happen. Very sad. The trolls are going to have a field day over this one, and they’ll be right to do so. Pathetic.
@Derek I agree.
I love Apple. Don’t get me wrong. I have converted more people to Apple than most can imagine.
The last person I converted was a novice. I set them up with BootCamp using VMWare because they were freaked about losing “functionality”. I have no problem with this because most just want to use MS Office, and once they are on the Mac side, I get them to try iWork and they pretty much never grace Windows again. But having Windows on the Laptop regardless, is like a pacifier for them.
In this last case, the woman had a problem on the Vista side. Something about Canadian language being set as default but she wanted it changed to US so that her spell checks would change everything to US spelling. She had problems so she called Apple Care (which she had bought). It took 3 hours to settle her Apple Care account because Apple had set it up under the wrong name and they kept telling her she had not purchased it. Regardless that she had the order invoice direct from Apple showing the purchase and she had the charge on her credit card account.
Once Apple Care was settled, the Apple Support person did then correctly inform her they don’t provide support for Windows and that she would have to contact Microsoft. No problem there. Then she asked about moving old content from her Mac Mini to the laptop. Fair enough. The support person had her connect the Mini with a firewire, start in target mode and proceeded to have her migrate the data. Instead of just moving documents/music/photos/movies, he had her move over her old account. So now she has two separate accounts on her new Mac with different logins, applications that don’t work (Tiger->Leopard), all her media and docs in the separate account to her main one, the second account not having admin priviledges, etc.. The second account didn’t have her wireless password in and she couldnt connect to her Time Capsule that I had configured.
She called back Apple and guess what Support told her? REINSTALL Leopard. So she did. Wiped out VMWARE/Vista/Passwords…. so everything needed to be reconfigured and reinstalled.
Needless to say, I managed to talk her out of returning the laptop and spent another 6 hours reinstalling Windows/Office/VMWare and configuring her laptop on both OSes to work with TimeCapsule and get back her mail accounts, bookmarks, transfer over the media/docs.
Not a good indication of where Apple is heading.
So its ok for Apple to lie. It does not matter if people did or did not buy based on 1 million colors or not, APPLE LIED, YES THEY LIED. Apple Fanboys need to get new glasses and see it more clearly. I have and enjoy Apple products but then again I research before I buy. But my 18 month old MBP has had the logic board replaced, Superdrive and both fans in the last 3 months. That is not normal wear and tear thats crappy hardware for a high price.
Apple should have made it clear (monitor joke) that the screens are different. I would just buy the 24inch. It is hard for big companies to not shoot themselves in the foot.
Me? I’m now waiting to see what Apple do with the Mini Mac and my next purchase may – RELUCTANTLY – be one of those, with perhaps a nice matte 24inch monitor from Dell. Until recently I NEVER thought I would be uttering the words ‘purchase’ and ‘Dell’ in the same sentence!!! But times – and companies – change I suppose.
@Twenty Benson- when it was time to decide between new iMac and Mac mini last year (’07) I finally went with mini with beautiful Samsung monitor. The trick was that I didn’t throw out older, 700 MHz iMac but networked new and old Macs together. After Apple upgrades mini processor once or twice, I will add new mini to personal desktop network.
Well, here you can see an example of colours washout on 20″ iMac display. http://www.silvermac.com/2007/imac-colours-washed-out/
Sure happy with mine. The screen doesn’t look messed up to me. Of course, I’m doing more music related stuff with it so maybe I’m just sight challenged
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />