Class action suit alleges Apple lies to customers over size and resolution of iPhone X, XS & XS Max

“A class action lawsuit launched on Friday accuses Apple of making fraudulent marketing claims about both the size and pixel count of its OLED iPhone displays, claiming the company literally cuts corners,” Roger Fingas reports for AppleInsider. “”

“‘The pixel deception is rooted in the misrepresentation of the Products’ screens, which do not use true screen pixels,’ lawyers for plaintiffs Christian Sponchiado and Courtney Davis wrote in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districting of California, seen by AppleInsider,” Fingas reports. “‘Defendant’s nominal screen pixel resolution counts misleadingly count false pixels as if they were true pixels. This is in contrast to every other iPhone — phones whose screens Defendant directly compares to the iPhone X screen in its effort to mislead consumers into believing that the iPhone X has more pixels (and better screen resolution) than it really does.'”

“Both size and resolution are misrepresented since Apple ignores the notch and rounded corners the phones have, the suit argues,” Fingas reports. “The company markets the products as if they were no different from devices like the iPhone 8, which has a notchless rectangular screen, yet it tells app developers to design for “safe areas” on X-series iPhones that accommodate physical limitations and the iOS status bar.”

“The suit further charges that Apple uses deceptive marketing images, for instance depicting the iPhone XS and XS Max with wallpapers that surround their notches with black, making them blend in,” Fingas reports. “While referencing text such as ‘It’s all screen’ and the use of deceptive backgrounds, the suit also wilfully ignores the other images on the sales page that prominently display the notch.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s inelegant kludge is the gift that keeps on giving this holiday season.

Technically, the lawsuit is correct, at least insofar as Apple’s “It’s all screen” claim is demonstrably false.

Obviously, we’re already very much on record here:

Alrighty then.
Alrighty then.

It’s 94.26%* all screen. We have eyes, Phil. And they can’t stop gravitating to that ill-conceived notch/ears hot mess you’ve got there. What’s next, is Apple’s delusional marketing department going to claim, “It’s weightless?”MacDailyNews, October 3, 2017

The absence of Steve Jobs grows ever more apparent with the introduction of each new Apple product, service, and app. At today’s Apple, the lack of an omnipotent arbiter of taste glares like a klieg light.

Apple management… ask yourselve, “WWSS (What Would Steve Say) if I told him, for example, ‘For more than a decade, our intention had been to create an iPhone that is all display’ and then I handed him an iPhone mock up that wasn’t all-display?” — MacDailyNews, October 1, 2017

*Random guess. If you know or can calculate what percentage of the front of iPhone X is actually comprised of active display vs. bezel and notch area, let us know!

SEE ALSO:
It’s not all screen: Apple’s stretching the truth with iPhone X marketing – October 3, 2017
Joshua Topolsky: Apple is really bad at design – October 1, 2017

28 Comments

    1. Did these people seriously not know that the notch was there when they bought the phone? This is so stupid it is beyond description. It would be one thing if it was not visible until you bought it, but this is has been talked about everywhere for at least a year in Apple’s flagship phone X. How about some lawsuits against the Android notch copycats? Apple has deeper pockets, hence the bottom feeding lawsuits…

  1. Technically it is correct, it is all screen covering the top of the phone. Underneath portions of the screen there may not be light producing pixels, there are camera lenses and IR sensors.

    The lawsuit won’t be able to show any actual damages resulting from the use of a portion of the phone for these features.

    MDN, get over it

    1. Screen resolution is not measured in pixel count.. its measured in pixel size..
      Fundamentally very different technical issues.

      Pixel count says nothing about resolution.. its pixel count per unit of area that matters.. and thats All about pixel size.

      A 12×12 inch screen with 1000 pixels
      And a 24×24 inch screen with 2000 pixels..
      which has the higehr resolution?

    2. This suit repeated talks about Apple misstating the pixel “count” and disputing the the total number of pixels on the screens of the iPhone X, Xr, Xs, and Xs-max due to the existence of the rounded corners and the notch cutting down the area available from a theoretical rectangle’s total number of pixels. But the plaintiffs are ignoring the basic fact that Apple has never advertised or even stated the calculated number of pixels based on multiplying the number across by the number along the length, nor do they ever state they’ve measured it on the edges of the perimeter. In fact their pixel counts ARE accurate at the widest and longest measurements of the screens where the corners are not rounded. Ergo, the suit claims are false and Apple’s assertions are true.

      Also the industry standard method of screen measurement on the diagonal is to ignore the curve of the bezel and treat it as if it were extended to the imaginary point the perimeter’s straight sides would meet, so that 5.8” complaint is bogus too.

    3. The Apple Store provides the following display specs for the iPhone Xr:

      1792-by-828-pixel resolution at 326 ppi

      You could argue that this implies that the total number of usable pixels is 1,483,776 pixels, which does not appear to be true.

      Then there is the issue of resolution. Years ago I recall people arguing that the pentile displays used on some Samsung portable devices were advertised with misleading resolution values because of the manner in which the pixels were grouped to render images. There have also been arguments about the true color depth delivered by various devices, including some Apple devices that used dithering to simulate millions of colors.

      If you go way back to the CRT monitor days, there was a successful lawsuit against vendors regarding the actual viewable dimensions of a display versus the advertised diagonal dimension (e.g., 14″ display actually provided 13.6″ viewable because of the bezel). The solution was to market the monitor as a “14-inch class” device with a disclaimer. Legal problem solved.

      You might notice some fine print on the Apple Store website…

      “The iPhone XR 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 6.06 inches diagonally (actual viewable area is less).”

      I don’t know when this disclaimer was added, but I believe that it effectively deflects this type of lawsuit after Apple released it. If there was a period in which Apple sold these iPhones without the disclaimer, then I suspect that Apple will lose and be forced into a settlement which will enrich the lawyers and, to a much lesser extent, a few class-action representatives. Everyone else will get practically nothing.

  2. …’mislead consumers into believing that the iPhone X has more pixels (and better screen resolution) than it really does.’”…’

    Give me a F-ing break..

    Worse screen resolution…. Bull F-ing Sh-t.
    They are the ones misleading people with wrong information.
    There may be less pixels in the rounded corners or none where the notch is..
    But that in NO way effects the resolution of the screen.. only the pixle count.
    The resolution is still 458 ppi … and what you see in the active screen area is 458 ppi.

    Bull sh-t law suit by some desperate people..
    Ever wonder who is behind such law suits… very suspect!

    World in shambles!

  3. Mdn.. u are misrepresenting with what u put up. ..

    Iphone X does not put white bars on sides of web pages..

    I get full web page renders from edge to edge on my X..’
    Edge to edge !

  4. @ yojimbo007
    The resolution part is about the pen-tile matrix that the OLED screen of the iPhone X, XS and XS max are built up. A regular LCD screen has 3 subpixels per pixel, the pen-tile matrix has two independent and one shared subpixel whis is mathematically only 2.5 subpixels. Those 2.5 subpixels could not reproduce the same sharp image (true 458 ppi) as a LCD screen with 3 subpixels and 458 ppi. Therefore it has technically a lower «real» resolution than claimed by Apple.

    1. Thank you…. you prompted me to read quire a bit about it.
      Those are OLED sub-pixel technology issues… and seem to be the defacto OLED technology ( at this point )
      Comparing LCD to OLED is apples to oranges. There are so many factors that make a difference,

      Neither Apple or anyone else advertise resolution in subpixel based technology .. but pixels ..
      The world measures resolution by pixel density. …
      Pentile may have a different arrangement of sub-pixels.. with twice as many greens as red and blue but shared at sub-pixel level. .. but thats for durabilty and in some cases of fractional resolution, clarity reasons .
      Granted rgb matrix sub-pixel technology in lcds has 0.5 more sub-pixels ( with its own issues )…But in resolutions /densities higher than 230 ppi Pentile and RGB matrix technologies are indistinguishable at pixel level and the sub-pixel count is immaterial .

      Pixel density is what defines the resolution… not the underlying sub pixel technology.
      (At this point in time and technology)
      .. as in PPI….Pixels per inch.
      Ther is no screen resolution standard i have heard of that measures things as SPPI.

      All resolution advertised out there are based on actual pixel density where the effective real difference is.

      The suit is a desprate act on behalf of some charlatans out there.. to create an issue out of a none issue … an attempt to either milk Apple or defame or both.

      Thanx for your post 😉

  5. Clearly the person bringing this lawsuit, the one who started the fiasco and found others to join, does not want to WORK for a living. While this is a BS wasteful activity, it does remind us AGAIN that Tim’s leadership is LACKING all over the place. I wish every one of you signed this and sent a message to the blind board that they need to consider a new CEO – https://www.change.org/p/apple-board-of-directors-remove-tim-cook-as-ceo-of-apple

    1. Don’t ask for utopian nonexistent solutions..

      If you know who would do a better job than Tim and is available… name him/her!

      Tim is no Steve.. and Steve was no Tim..
      But Steve hired him and being notorious for ruthless in firing he stuck to him for over a decade and found him to be the best candidate as CEO.. …..I think he had more insight than us. Don’t u?

      Apple today is a complete different animal both in scale and complexity…
      So comparison is not smart…imo.

      Just bashing Tim , who has done a Great job in most areas is , to me, shortsighted and is getting old.
      Mind you he had to deal with three massive transitions.
      -Steves passing.
      -The construction and move to tye bew campus
      -And Apple’s climb to this behemoth .
      He has done well.
      Yes some things were neglected , like pros and alike.. but acknowledged and responded to and in 2019 we have more coming.
      Sure there are glitches here and there.. sometime perplexing from an outsiders point of view and frustrating… but that was also the case at Steves time and that is the case in all companies.
      Nothing is without issues.
      It will never be….. not until one is six feet under, Maybe…. who knows.;)

      1. “If you know who would do a better job than Tim and is available… name him/her!”

        Since you asked Jimbo, your wish is my command. 🤗👍🏻

        Backstory: Posted twice before my original response to KenT discussing the ABRUPT DISMISSAL of Apple GENUIS Scott Forstall, in response to another post that asked the EXACT same question you are asking. Here it is again:

        Most convincing, KenT. I suspected much the same when it went down forcing out a valuable legacy employee for a specious reason (Apple Maps).

        Scott Forstall has the tech chops and years of experience under Steve that Pipeline can only dream about. Wikipedia: “it had been reported that Forstall was trying to gather power to challenge Cook.” Threatened is the only logical reason Scott was forced out for a specious reason considering his resume and accomplishments.

        A recent MDN article quoted a former employee as he described the highly politicized atmosphere inside Apple under Cook. Constructive criticism valued by Steve is now out the window and treated unfavorably. That supports your theory Cook is a “ruthless” leader on the inside and mild mannered face on the outside.

        Reported Scott butted heads with Jony over issues such as FLAT iOS7 when Ive was promoted to SVP of design. Before that for many years Steve and Scott were working together as the Apple visual GURUS. So yes, Jobs always held him in the highest regard.

        More on Jony from Wikipedia: “Forstall had such a poor relationship with Ive and Mansfield that he could not be in a meeting with them unless Cook mediated; reportedly, Forstall and Ive did not cooperate at any level.” Scott knew the handwriting was on the wall as the power shift commenced. Also: “Forstall’s skeuomorphic design style, strongly advocated by former CEO Steve Jobs, was reported to have also been controversial and divided the Apple design team.” Translation: abstractionist Ive did not like it and won.

        Early career resume from Wikipedia: “Forstall joined Steve Jobs’s NeXT in 1992 and stayed when it was purchased by Apple in 1997. Forstall was then placed in charge of designing user interfaces for a reinvigorated Macintosh line. In 2000, Forstall became a leading designer of the Mac’s new Aqua user interface, known for its water-themed visual cues such as translucent icons and reflections, making him a rising star in the company.”

        Other career highlights:
        * Supervised the creation of the Safari web browser
        * Led the iPod team
        * Won fierce competition to create iOS
        * Responsible for creating a software developer’s kit for programmers to build iPhone apps
        * 2006 on responsible for Mac OS X releases
        * Took the stage launching the iPhone 4S to demonstrate first of a kind voice assistant Siri

        Wikipedia: “Forstall was very close to and referred to as a mini-Steve Jobs, so Jobs’ death left Forstall without a protector.
        Forstall was also referred to as the CEO-in-waiting by Fortune magazine and the book Inside Apple (written by Adam Lashinsky), a profile that made him unpopular at Apple.” Not a surprise. Power struggles are common in every workplace. Today, you don’t need a legitimate reason to force someone out to protect your own arse and your political buddies. Talent and experience has nothing to do with it if your manager is threatened.

        No one on planet Earth is more qualified for Apple CEO than Scott Forstall. May the SECOND genius prodigal son return and lead Apple higher.

        Jimbo, would really like to hear your suggestions for a new creative tech genius CEO. Autocratic political beancounters are a repellent to innovation and creative forces that eventually lead companies downward, that would be Cook in the same league as Ballmer. If you can’t think of someone more qualified than Forstall, then I invite you and others to support Scott… 👊🏻

        1. Wow…verbose post, GoeB.

          I would appreciate a clarification. If Forstall was the next coming of Steve Jobs, then why didn’t Steve Jobs position him as his CEO replacement? Instead, Steve Jobs intentionally placed Cook in the interim role when Jobs was ill and, then, recommended that the BoD select Cook as his replacement.

          Please enlighten us.

        2. Imo… it is Incredibly naive to believe that Forestall could run Apple.
          (He has done nothing since his departure that even comes close to indicating his management and visionary prowess… he has financed a Broadway show and been a consultant to snap..thats it… )
          He is a software/UI engineer and a good one at that.
          He is a visionary in his realm.
          And Apple is filled with visionaries, each in their own realm…..they have some of the smartest people in the world working for them.

          The MAIN job of a CEO is not to invent technology ..this is such misguided perspective/notion …it is much much broader than that.
          Running a behemoth like Apple is not a polorizing softwares engineers job.. who needed Steve to be protected.
          A CEO has to create an overall harmonious envirnonent were people can work in harmony and be more productive , not creat ‘UNHEALTHY’ polarization ….and/or ‘UNHEALTHY’ competitive environment. (healty competition by all means though )
          A CEO is there to protect the employees not to need protection himself from employees.
          A CEO’s job is orders of magnitude more involved and complex than a specialized, polorizing software and UI engineers’. ..specially a corp the size and complexity Apple.
          There are a gazzilion more issues a CEO must deal with and manage and personality/character traits he must have.

          ‘To me’ is laughable to Suggest Forstall as a CEO Apple . But thats just me.

          And as for your last question:
          I support Tim !
          If and when i feel/see someone else more qualified i will for sure voice it out.

          1. “‘To me’ is laughable to Suggest Forstall as a CEO Apple . ”

            How long have you worked with Fostall to know his managerial qualifications? How long have you been an HR director at Apple to know his track record and READ/FILE his yearly performance reviews? Answer: NONE.

            Did you read Scott’s synoptic Apple resume and other accomplishments running teams in charge of the majority of the most IMPORTANT innovations under Jobs before his passing? Do you understand jealousy and office politics that force good people out because they do too good a job and threaten the status quo?

            Jobs 2.0 changed into a much improved leader. I suspect Forstall 2.0 will be much of the same.

            Your bravado style post does not impress and is full of personal opinions, assumptions and next to ZERO in facts.

            I find that “laughable.”…

  6. He folks. I’m starting a little class action lawsuit against Chase bank because it turns out their Sapphire card is made of plastic–not sapphire. If we are successful, we’ll file against American Express and their Platinum card next.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.