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.