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
@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.