According to Ars Technica, Crave, & Cnet - 2 well known photographers filed suit against Apple over false adverstising.
Apple has quietly settled a lawsuit over its advertising practices in connection to the displays used on the MacBook and MacBook Pro. As usual, the terms were not disclosed, but the circumstances make it appear that Apple wasn't the only party trying to make the lawsuit go away.
The plaintiffs, Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley, originally brought the suit against Apple in May of 2007, alleging that Apple's displays were "grainy" and "sparkly," and that some customers had observed banding (when the display shows you bands of different shades when it is supposed to display a smooth gradient). Their proof, aside from their own observations, were pages of printed discussion threads from Apple's support forums. The lawsuit alleged that customers who complained about the displays were allegedly told that they were being too picky or that they were imagining the problems.
What the problem ultimately came down to was Apple's advertisement of "millions of colors" on its displays and its apparent use of dithering in order to achieve those "millions." The traditional 16.7 million colors advertised for many displays can be achieved through an 8-bit channel, but the plaintiffs believed that Apple actually used 6-bit displays, which generate 262,144 discreet colors before dithering. Apple does not advertise where its displays come from, but some digging showed at the time that Apple did make use of 6-bit displays in its MacBook and MacBook Pro lines.
The plaintiffs called this an illusion: "The reality is that notwithstanding Apple's misrepresentations and suggestions that its MacBook and MacBook Pro display 'millions of colors,' the displays are only capable of displaying the illusion of millions of colors through the use of a software technique referred to as 'dithering,' which causes nearby pixels on the display to use slightly varying shades of colors that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it is not truly that color."
Now, its probably not a big deal to peeps that only use their machines for just surfing the net & itunes, but to professional photographers, this is not a good thing
At the time, the plaintiffs were seeking to turn the suit into a class action, as they believed that a large number of people had suffered from Apple's apparent bending of the truth—particularly those who rely on color accuracy in their displays, like photographers. However, according to a Chicago Tribune blog, they were apparently unable to get other members to join the class. "it was difficult to find other people who were wronged because they had bought Macs solely based on the 'millions of colors' claim," a San Diego County Superior Court clerk told Tribune writer Eric Gwinn.
Why could that be? Some commenters noted that digital cameras are capable of shooting 10 bits per channel and that Photoshop can edit up to 16-bit, so Apple's use of 6-bit displays is not only unsuitable for the professional photographer, but its advertising that it is suitable is even worse. However, even many of the better displays on the market are only 8-bit per channel—those photographers who want to edit things in 16-bit are either using very high-end displays or already settling for something lesser.
In the end, it appears as though Apple and the plaintiffs decided to cut their losses. Although we won't know what amount the company settled for, Apple-watchers are sure to keep an eye on Apple's advertising to see whether it changes over the next few MacBook and MacBook Pro revisions.
Damn! Between the two professional photographers they have a combined 50 years experience in the professional field. Now, I see why they were able to notice what others wouldn't.
http://www.fredgreaves.com/main.php Fred Greaves
http://www.gatleyphoto.com/index.html Dave Gatley
Source:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080326-apple-quietly-settles-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.html
PEACE!!!!!
Apple has quietly settled a lawsuit over its advertising practices in connection to the displays used on the MacBook and MacBook Pro. As usual, the terms were not disclosed, but the circumstances make it appear that Apple wasn't the only party trying to make the lawsuit go away.
The plaintiffs, Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley, originally brought the suit against Apple in May of 2007, alleging that Apple's displays were "grainy" and "sparkly," and that some customers had observed banding (when the display shows you bands of different shades when it is supposed to display a smooth gradient). Their proof, aside from their own observations, were pages of printed discussion threads from Apple's support forums. The lawsuit alleged that customers who complained about the displays were allegedly told that they were being too picky or that they were imagining the problems.
What the problem ultimately came down to was Apple's advertisement of "millions of colors" on its displays and its apparent use of dithering in order to achieve those "millions." The traditional 16.7 million colors advertised for many displays can be achieved through an 8-bit channel, but the plaintiffs believed that Apple actually used 6-bit displays, which generate 262,144 discreet colors before dithering. Apple does not advertise where its displays come from, but some digging showed at the time that Apple did make use of 6-bit displays in its MacBook and MacBook Pro lines.
The plaintiffs called this an illusion: "The reality is that notwithstanding Apple's misrepresentations and suggestions that its MacBook and MacBook Pro display 'millions of colors,' the displays are only capable of displaying the illusion of millions of colors through the use of a software technique referred to as 'dithering,' which causes nearby pixels on the display to use slightly varying shades of colors that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it is not truly that color."
Now, its probably not a big deal to peeps that only use their machines for just surfing the net & itunes, but to professional photographers, this is not a good thing
At the time, the plaintiffs were seeking to turn the suit into a class action, as they believed that a large number of people had suffered from Apple's apparent bending of the truth—particularly those who rely on color accuracy in their displays, like photographers. However, according to a Chicago Tribune blog, they were apparently unable to get other members to join the class. "it was difficult to find other people who were wronged because they had bought Macs solely based on the 'millions of colors' claim," a San Diego County Superior Court clerk told Tribune writer Eric Gwinn.
Why could that be? Some commenters noted that digital cameras are capable of shooting 10 bits per channel and that Photoshop can edit up to 16-bit, so Apple's use of 6-bit displays is not only unsuitable for the professional photographer, but its advertising that it is suitable is even worse. However, even many of the better displays on the market are only 8-bit per channel—those photographers who want to edit things in 16-bit are either using very high-end displays or already settling for something lesser.
In the end, it appears as though Apple and the plaintiffs decided to cut their losses. Although we won't know what amount the company settled for, Apple-watchers are sure to keep an eye on Apple's advertising to see whether it changes over the next few MacBook and MacBook Pro revisions.
Damn! Between the two professional photographers they have a combined 50 years experience in the professional field. Now, I see why they were able to notice what others wouldn't.
http://www.fredgreaves.com/main.php Fred Greaves
http://www.gatleyphoto.com/index.html Dave Gatley
Source:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080326-apple-quietly-settles-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.html
PEACE!!!!!
Last edited:
