Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over 'Lacking' Macbook Display
qu1j0t3 writes "Business 2.0 reports that two MacBook owners have filed a class action lawsuit charging Apple with deceptive advertising, as well as misrepresentation and unfair competition over the use of the phrase 'millions of colors' to describe the capability of the LCD displays in MacBook and MacBook Pro computers. The article likens the complaint to an an angry forum thread, and is more than a little bit skeptical of the plaintiff's motives. Perhaps it's their uncanny attention to detail. From the filing: '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.'
It sounds dodgy but I can see some logic in this. If macs are sold as artistic machines (Apple sure tries to pull this off with the PC and Mac adverts) then shouldn't the monitors be as high quality and accurate as possible? I mean illusions are fun and all but you want the real thing if you're working on important art peices or photos
I like muppets.
Let's take it to the extreme: there are only tree colors (R,G and B). And there is no spoon.
If this goes through then it opens the door to lawsuits against nearly all LCD manufacturers, since most displays these days (except for the highest end ones) are 6-bit with dithering...
This guy's the limit!
Surely the judge is going to say a dignified version of "What the fuck are you on? Get the fuck out of here."
And stop dithering!
As always, the only ones who will benefit from any ruling against Apple will be for the scumbag attorneys who make a killing of filing these bullshit class action lawsuits. These douchebags try to find the smallest things to generate millions of dollars through manipulating the legal system. I got a letter for a class action suit against some consumer products company a few months ago. In the letter, it stated that I agreed with the legal fees the attorneys were charging which amounted to roughly $10 million. How much did I stand to make? About $5, if that.
This is just another in a lonnnnnnnnnng line of legal extortion that our court systems propagate.
How about providing the IMPORTANT part from the article in the summary, hmmm?
"At the heart of the case is plaintiff's claim that rather than delivering 16,777,216 colors with an 8-bit LCD, Apple chose a cheaper route, delivering the illusion of millions of colors using a 6-bit LCD and dithering."
2^24 = 16,777,216
2^18 = 262,144
Nothing wrong with 6-bit LCDs, but they shouldn't be advertised as 8-bit...
*gets ready to be torn apart by rabid mac fans*
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Isn't this the equivalent of suing Lens Crafters for claiming to make your eyesight better when in fact, glasses give your brain the "illusion" that your eyesight is better.
I mean sure that level of pedanticism is tolerated in some forums, but this is a court of law.
I'd say the other way round - being pedantic is more important in legal matters and advertising, than it is on a forum.
And this isn't being pedantic - surely it's long established that "number of colours" refers to the number of possible colours an individual pixel can display, and not using tricks like dithering? Otherwise, back in the 80s/90s when computers only had 256 colours or less, why didn't we see manufacturers claiming they could actually display thousands of colours? Why weren't the computers which could display thousands of colours back then advertised as displaying millions? And maybe the original black and white classic Macs should actually be greyscale, because you could dither the black and white pixels?
I'm curious, as I thought 24 bit displays had been standard on computers for well over a decade now - is it common for laptops to have an 18 bit display, or is it only Apple that have decided to take us back to the 1990s?
History, repeat thyself. Honestly, there's a legitimate point to that. If the advertised specs say that it can display "millions of colors", then there's a reasonable expectation that a given pixel will be able to represent over 1 million colors (most likely 16MiColors, but who's counting?). Yeah, this might seem a little silly, but if you can't deliver then don't promise it.
I can imagine a graphics geek being pretty legitimately pissed about seeing gradients where he shouldn't, in the same way that if they advertised a 128-bit FPU, a programmer might be a little annoyed to find that it was really "32-bit but we cleverly fake the rest".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'd like to sue the manufacturer of my retinas and/or brain, because my retinas are only capable of Trichromatic vision, but my brain keeps tricking me into thinking I'm seeing millions of variations.
And don't get me started on those so-called "color printer" things. I only see 3 colors of ink/toner going into those.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Why do you think it's going to be laughed out of court? Apple have, according to the suit, marketed their machines as suitable for graphic designers and photographers etc., and that their monitors can display "millions of colors". If it turns out that "millions of colors" is really "thousands of colors that are made to appear like millions with dithering techniques", he very much has a case. Apple must not advertise that a product is suitable for purpose X when it is obvious that it is lacking in the most fundamental ways. The questions are: what does "millions of colors" imply, why is it misleading to Apple's target customers, and why does this cause harm Apple's target customers? And: can Apple be blamed for this?
I don't think this is going to get "laughed out of court".
There are FIVE lights.
Concrete analysis...
Hmm... dithered images are not true-colour, so they don't display millions of colours any more than a newspaper displays more than 4 (CMYK). It gives the illusion of more, but it's not actually giving more. This is far from a laughable claim. The whole 10^6/2^20 discrepancy is laughable, this is clearly a case of false advertising. And, fyi, courts of law are by definition the most pedantic out there, as they're dealing with really important things, and so have to get to the bottom of even the most ridiculous claim. The American Idol panel is the least pedantic example I can think of :)
From the PDF ( http://www.engadget.com/videos/PDF/apple_macbook_l awsuit.pdf ) :
''The extent to which a particular make of computer is capable of "dithering" is a function of the sophistication of the programming of the software. For example, in the case of the MacBook and MacBook Pro, because of the uniqueness of these computers to be able to run both Apple's OS operating system, and the PC's Microsoft Windows operating system, it is possible to compare the quality of the display between the two operating systems. In the case of the display that the MacBook and the MacBook Pro produces using the Microsoft Windows operating system at all resolution levels is superior to the display that those same computers display using Apple's OS operating system.''
Some nasty grammar in there, but in summary: no such problem when running Windows on the same machine?
If that is true, then it is indeed an Apple software problem. Note that software shouldn't be in charge of this sort of thing in the first place. LCD displays themselves handle incoming 8bit values on a 6bit displays in one of three ways:
A. 'as is', 91 becomes 92.
B. 'dither', 3 out of 4 pixels are 92, the other one is 88, averaging to 91
C. 'frame rate control', 3 out of 4 refreshes it draws the pixel as 92, the other one is 88, averaging to 91.
B&C are both common, and both have pros/cons. But either way, the software shouldn't be doing anything there (arguably, a driver might - i.e. if the monitor specifically allows you to specify which method to use, what dithering pattern, etc. by means of driver control).
Today's conjugation of the day: smite.
God is a smiter.
God is about to smite Bob.
God is smiting Bob.
God has smote Bob.
Bob has been smitten.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Suing is an entrepreneurs game. It has nothing to do with fairness or seeking 'justice'; it's a legally endorsed playground for funny money using rhetoric, blackmail, stock-bruising and good old-fashioned acting to turn over a cool sum in a hurry. You 'build' a case, attract media attention to make the defendant hurt and sell it in court. The jury might as well be potential investors.
The fact that the MBP screens may be a bit shabby compared to some other portables is completely beside the point. I doubt the plaintiffs even care.
Apple is not the only manufacturer to do this. All other laptop manufacturers do it too as the issue is with the LCD itself. Apple like Lenovo, HP, etc, do not directly manufacture their own LCD screens like they don't make their own HDs, memory, CPUs, batteries, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This got me wondering how many bpp my own Viewsonic Pro series monitor can display. I was surprised to find that it wasn't listed in the product specifications -- neither as bits nor total number of colors.
A little further digging brought me to this article which gave some good insight about the differences. Some highlights:
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.
Isn't that going to get laughed right out of the courtroom? I mean sure that level of pedanticism is tolerated in some forums, but this is a court of law. Surely the judge is going to say a dignified version of "What the fuck are you on? Get the fuck out of here."
Check this image:
squares
Imagine you're told your new expensive laptop, by *Apple* (a brand mostly known as going for component quality since designers work with it), will have have display quality like the second square.
But instead you see display quality like the first square.
If you think it's a laughing matter, I want to see you persuade those unfortunate Mac owners join the laugh.
I never heard of this LCD dithering before. A little bit of Googling found a simple explanation of what it is, a simple test to look for it, and a detailed explanation and test.
This seems to be a very common practice on LCD screens, not just a trick used by Apple. I'm still not clear whether most LCDs use spatial or temporal dithering. It seems like temporal dithering would work very well with an LCD. They're known for their sluggish response times, so sending "80-84-80-84" at 60 Hz should result in a nice smearing into "82-82-82-82" over time.
I didn't see any dithering artifacts on my MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo). Either it doesn't dither (unlikely) or the dithering is better than my eyes can see.
We all know that screens are actually made of red, green, and blue (RGB) dots that combine to make the apparent color of each pixel. An 8-bit screen would have 256 levels of brighness for each of those subpixels, yielding 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.8 million mixed colors. But if you wanted to be really technical you could say that the screen can actually show only 256 + 256 + 256 = 768 colors; the mixed colors are an illusion. Likewise a 6-bit screen can generate only 262 thousand colors in a given pixel at a given instant, but it can simulate many more colors over time or space.
The argument depends on how many pixels the manufacturer claims to have. If they say their screen is 1024 x 768 with 16.8 million colors then we would expect to have 786,000 independently addressable pixels, each of which comprises three RGB subpixels. If in fact it takes four RGB subpixels (1-1/3 of each 6-bit subpixel to get 8 bits) to yield 16.8 million colors then they should really only claim a resolution of 768 x 576. If, however, they do the dithering temporally and the pulsation is unnoticeable then I think continuing to call the resolution 1024 x 768 is fair.
AlpineR
The dithering done on 6-bit LCD panels is in the time domain. A pixel will flicker between two different shades at a frequency high enough to be almost invisible, creating the illusion of a shade in between. (I say "almost" because some people can see the flickering, including me. It's easier to see if your eye is moving around the screen instead of staring at a point.) The 256-color displays of days gone by dithered in the spatial domain, so their dithering was always visible. The only way it created the illusion of continuity was if you sat far enough back that you couldn't see the individual pixels.
It's an interesting distinction that I'm not sure how it would hold up in court. I should point out however that many light sources we think of as continuous do the exact same thing to produce the illusion of continuous light output. Fluorescent lights, lights on some new cars, the backlights on many cell phones and PDAs, all of them flicker.
The vast majority of LCD panels are 6-bit, and use dithering to generate 16.2 million colors. True 8-bit panels are usually fairly expensive, and only used on high end LCDs designed for graphics work. The fact that you hadn't noticed this is a pretty good argument that this type of dithering isn't really false advertising.
From one of the comments below TFA: "Out of 28 notebook LCDs manufactured by Samsung, only 2 can display 16.7M colors natively, a 15.4-inch panel with a lowish resolution of 1,280 x 800 (part number LTN154X5) and a 19-inch panel (part number LTN190W1). The rest, 26 LCDs, are 6-bit and can display 262,144 colors natively, without dithering, and millions of colors with dithering. [...] At LG.Philips, all of the 15 notebook LCDs are 6-bit and can display 262,144 colors natively, without dithering, and millions of colors with dithering."
So it seems virtually no laptop LCD can display 16.7M colors without dithering. It's a problem which affects the whole industry, and all laptop manufacturers seem to be, well, somewhat "optimistic" in their advertising claims.
Which doesn't make it better that Apple does so, too, and as far as I'm concerned, the suit is well justified.
This is not the case of all 6-bit panels. Some use actual dithering while others use FRC (Frame Rate Control), which is what you described.
Nitpick, and you shall be nitpicked yourself:
God is a smiter.
God is about to smite Bob.
God is smiting Bob.
God smote Bob.
God has smitten Bob.
Bob has been smitten.
The adjective is always the past participle.
This looks like a frivolous lawsuit to me.
Nearly all TN based LCD screens (the majority sold) are 6bit depth displays with dithering. 8bit screens are even more rare in laptops than they are on desktops. I have never seen a laptop that didn't have a TN screen (as opposed to more expensive 8bit IPS/VA screens).
If you go directly to LCD manufacturer sites, they will list the spec as supporting 16.2 million colors. They list the true 8 bit screens as supporting 16.7 million colors.
If they want to go after anyone it should be the manufacturers of the panels. Frankly all the specs are essentially lies. 180 degree viewing angles??!! Geez the gamma start shifting if I move an inch. exactly what can anyone see when 90 degrees off axis from the screen??
By all means sue for some truth in advertising on LCD specs, but go after Samsung/LG et al...
EVERY manufacturer who advertises 16.2 million colours uses a 6-bit display and dithering. Apple has a setting of "millions of colours" in their preferences, and they stuck with that description when they used a 6-bit display.
:-) and it's bright-red. Now apply a pulse-wave-modulation to that LED, and you will be able to *see* a smoothly-varying intensity between 0 and 1 (black and bright-red) even though the LED is only switching fully on or fully off. The pulse-train is controllable by a digital system, so you can electronically vary the effective brightness of this 1-bit system.
The point is that this is temporal dithering, not spacial dithering. There's no point in saying "my eye can see the difference when there's dithering in an image" because that's not what's taking place.
Consider a nominally 1-bit system, a single red LED. Apply zero power, and it's black. Apply constant 5v (with appropriate resistors
In this, the 1-bit output is temporally dithering its on/off state to give the illusion of a multi-bit system. Scale this up to a 6-bit system, and it's easy to generate the illusion of an 8-bit system. To the human eye there is no difference, we don't have the refresh-rate to catch the LED off or on, we just see the aggregated results of very fast controlled flickering.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
NO computer screen displays more than THREE colors. Red, Green, and Blue. All colors on the display are made by three subpixels that vary in intensity of those colors. If I make a color on the screen by extending that technique into pixel space that is no different than the RGB subpixels.
I hate stupid people and their lawyers.
Dog is my co-pilot.
The method of arriving at 16.2 million colors is actually simple.
...). The interpolation method is usually capable of representing 3 values between each color, but because the numbers on the end (... 244, 248, 252) are missing the final value, 255, there is no final value to dither in. So those final 3 values (253, 254, 255) are missing. Thus, you only have 253 values for each dithered component (since we include 0). 253 * 253 * 253 = 16194277 ~= 16.2M.
On a true 8-bit display, the value range for each component is from 0-255. Because the 6-bit display can only display 1/4 of those numbers (0-63), it must dither for the rest in the form of (0, 4, 8, 12, 16
It's really stupid. Just say 262144 colors.