Slashdot Mirror
Apple Faces Lawsuit For Retina MacBook Pro 'Ghosting' Issue
redletterdave writes "Apple is facing a potential class action suit in San Francisco's California Northern District Court after an owner of its MacBook Pro with Retina display accused the computer company on Wednesday of 'tricking' consumers into paying for a poor-quality screen, citing an increasingly common problem that causes images to be burned into the display, also known as 'image persistence' or 'ghosting.' The lawsuit claims only LG-made screens are affected by this problem, but 'none of Apple's advertisements or representations disclose that it produces display screens that exhibit different levels of performance and quality.' Even though only one man filed the lawsuit, it can become a class action suit if others decide to join him in his claim, which might not be an issue: An Apple.com support thread for this particular problem, entitled 'MacBook Pro Retina display burn-in,' currently has more than 7,200 replies and 367,000 views across more than 500 pages."
LG was the manufacturer of the defective screen
They should sue LG instead of Apple
I am no apple fanbois, it's just that if the defective part came from LG, why not home in to the manufacturer, instead of the seller?
Not to take sides, but I think the answer is, because it's not the buyer's job to solve problems in the seller's supply chain.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Even more specifically, the plaintiff has no purchase relationship with LG, and therefore no standing to file suit. He purchased the Macbook from Apple, so he does have standing to sue Apple. Apple can then pass the costs of the lawsuit, by suing LG.
On the other hand, I default to believing that class action lawsuits are frivolous.
Enh.... I will go so far as to posit that many (perhaps most) class action lawsuits are frivolous. They seldom serve the consumer (that jeans lawsuit netted me 67 cents. yippie.) but sometimes serve to make ignoring real problems costly for the vendor, which I believe is a good thing.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
They should get their displays from Samsung. Oh wait, they can't, they burned that bridge.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple is 100% responsible for the end product. If there is a bad part, they should recall all of the affected products and fix it. If the problem was due to a faulty part and not assembly or design, then they should collect that from the part supplier. The consumer is never responsible for identifying the specific fault within a product then suing the manufacturer of the affected part.
Learn to love Alaska
Only on a thread about an Apple product would people argue that a flaw in something costing 4 times the price of the competition is "not that bad". I want to sell things to these people.
Karma is a bitch.
Yeah, bet Samsung's display division were really happy when Samsung's phone division photocopied their biggest OEM customer's phone design.
It cuts both ways - Apple was one of Samsung's biggest customers. Severing that relationship is costly for both sides. Samsung sells Apple memory, screens and CPUs. Apple sunk a huge amount of cash into one of Samsung's factories in Texas for that very reason.
Provoking one of your biggest customers is not an entirely consequence-free action, unless your ultimate goal is exactly this - cost yourself business and hand it on a plate to your inferior competitor, just to make Apple look bad. That's expensive PR.