Slashdot Mirror
Sony Recants on Dead Pixels (Sort Of)
Ayaress writes "As reported on Gamestop, Sony will now warranty PSP units suffering from dead pixels. Sony still insists that dead pixels are a common problem in all LCD displays, saying "A very small number of dark pixels or continuously lit pixels is normal for LCD screens, and is not a sign of a malfunction," and asks that PSP owners use theirs for at least a week or two, to see if it still bothers them. User who encounter, "persistent and aggravating dead pixels," are instructed to contact Sony customer support, and will be allowed to mail in their PSP to recieve a unit with a new screen."
I unit with a new screen does not neccesarily mean a new unit.
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
I love it. How are "not functioning pixels" "not a sign of malfunction"?
I've bought well over a dozen LCD montitors from Apple, Dell, and Philips in recent months and I have not seen a single dead pixel on any of them.
This is just a case of Sony reducing cost by widening manufacturing tolerances. It's fine as long as you manage expectations properly.
My laptop screen is 1440x900px. Of those pixels (1296000) in all, they're all healthy.
Similarly, even the cheaper laptops we get in tend to have fully functional screens to start with.
Sorry guys, but dead pixels are not as common as you might want us to believe. Maybe in a poorly designed portable wherein the manufacturer doesn't care so much about quality, yes... but lately other devices seem to have less pixel-problems.
Its not as if they are making it up. Virtually all lcd manufactures accept screens with a "few" bad pixels. Look it up
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
I guess Nintendo's stance on the dead-pixel, offering to replace any DS that has a dead-pixel, forced them into this...otherwise it would've been a blackeye for them. Competition is already making the handheld war good for the consumer. It should make this a good handheld war, much like the golden days of SNES vs Genesis...
My wife - she works at Futureshop (the Canadian arm of Best Buy) - came home last night to tell me of her hatred for the PSP.
On the opening day, about 17% of the PSPs sold were returned due to defect of some kind. Many of them didn't even turn on.
Yesterday, she had person after person coming into the store complaining about dead pixels. With one guy, she went through an entire crate of PSPs to try and find one that didn't have a dead pixel. No luck. He ended up settling for a PSP that had only one dead pixel - rather than the average 3. One of them had an entire vertical column gone.
From what I'm hearing from my wife, it would be much, much better to wait until revision B before thinking about purchasing a PSP. The ones on the shelves today have far too many defects.
It is frustrating, to spend twice as much as other options, to get something that turned out to be lower quality. And what really burned me was their non-existent customer service. It took forever to get a human on the phone, only to be told they could not do anything.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Dead pixels ARE a common problem in all LCD displays. Why is this written like Sony is the only company saying this?
Not really.
Firstly, the common ISO thresholds for dead pixels typically range about 1 to 3 full pixels, and up to 7 subpixels on a typical 17" (1280x1024) display (note: cheaper brands may go with lesser quality panels - BenQ, will allow up to 7 full pixels and 17 subpixels(!) before considering replacement). Going for the worst (3 dead pixels == 9 dead subpixels) - there are 1280x1024x3 subpixels on a 17" panel or 3,932,160. If 9 of them are bad before returns, that's ~0.0000023 dead subpixels, or one dead subpixel for every 436,906 subpixels.
The PSP has a nice 480x270 LCD, or 388,800 subpixels. There should be no dead pixels at all on a screen this small!
In a more anecdotal sense, I remember when color TFTs came out and it was really difficult to get 640x480 screens with zero dead pixels (this was over a decade ago). Fast forward a few years, and the incidence of dead pixels dropped quite significantly, and these days, getting a monitor with dead pixels and laptops with dead pixels tend to be a rarity. It does happen, but rarely (unless you just happen to be really unlucky).
I'm pretty sure people don't complain of dead pixels on PDA screens (QVGA and higher, including oddball 320x320 and Half VGA, to full VGA) - and the incidence of dead pixels on these screens is extremely low.
On screens that are VGA or lower resolution, dead pixels are such a rarity that honestly, it shouldn't be tolerated.
This sounds like typical Sony behavior. Wasn't there a problem with the first batch of Playstations overheating that Sony tried to ignore and finally, probably at the nudging of large U.S. retailers, began to address? I'm guessing that retailers like Best Buy and WalMart have enough clout to force Sony to change their position. Afterall, consumers are going to return what they think is defective merchandise regardless of what the manufacturer says. That means angry people at the returns section of Best Buy or WalMart, which means unhappy managers and execs. Since WalMart basically runs the world now, when they complain to Sony, Sony listens.
In Sony's defense though, they usually clear up problems with new products without a year or so of introduction. That's one reason I'm in no hurry to buy a PSP right now.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Check your state's consumer protection laws. In Massachusetts, a store is required by law to give the consumer's choice of repair, replacement, or refund if an item is defective upon purchase... and I think bad pixels could reasonably be called "defective".
So, if you bought a PSP in Massachusetts (or a state with similar laws) and it has bad pixels, take it back. They have to deal with it for you.
I unscrewed the front of the case from mine and blew some air under the cover (didn't take it completely off as that voids the warranty). Some of the sub-pixels I thought were dead turned out to be just dust. The other spots appeared to be in the clear window of the case itself.
I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it seems to be the problem with mine.
-Redundancy Man strikes again!
Subject: Sale of Goods Rights, Faulty Goods.
Relevant or Related Legislation: Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts
Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)
For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).
A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.
If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit
In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).
If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)
After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What is an inherent fault?
Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 [or some other number] days after purchase?
Q3. Do all goods have to last six (or five) years?
Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?
Q5. After the "reasonable time has passed", what can I do?
Q6. Is it true that I have to complain to the manufacturer?
Q7. Do I have to produce a receipt?
Q8. Can I claim a refund on sale items?
Q9. Must I accept a credit note instead of a refund?
Q10. What can I do to claim damages or if the retailer will not honour my rights?
Q11. The retailer has claimed that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?
Q12. Neither repair nor replacement are possible. What can I do?
Q13. What will the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer
Q1. What is an inherent fault?
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.
Aren't those things supposed to be for covering you after the manufacturer's warranty expires?
If so, how are they relevant to this? Since you'll know as soon as you boot up your PSP for the first time if the LCD is borked or not.
Read my blog.
Just because broken pixels are a common occurrence doesn't mean they aren't broken! Hmph.
-Rich