Slashdot Mirror
Apple Lied About iPhone X Screen Size and Pixel Count, Lawsuit Alleges (cnet.com)
A lawsuit filed Friday is accusing Apple of falsely advertised the screen sizes and pixel counts of the displays in its iPhone X, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max devices. The two plaintiffs, who filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, are seeking class action status. CNET reports: The suit alleges that Apple lied about the screen sizes by counting non-screen areas like the notch and corners. So the new line of iPhones aren't "all screen" as marketed, according to the 55-page complaint. For example, iPhone X's screen size is supposed to be 5.8 inches, but the plaintiffs measured that it's "only about 5.6875 inches." The plaintiffs also allege that the iPhone X series phones have lower screen resolution than advertised. iPhone X is supposed to have a resolution of 2436x1125 pixels, but the product doesn't contain true pixels with red, green and blue subpixels in each pixel, according to the complaint. iPhone X allegedly only has two subpixels per pixel, which is less than advertised, the complaint said. The lawsuit also alleges iPhone 8 Plus has a higher-quality screen than iPhone X.
Yeah that is exactly what the average person wants. The size of a display down to some ludicrous number of digits. Spare me
Burn them! Burn the Witches! Better watch out those on the Witch Hunt List! You are NeXT!
The iPhone X screen is a bad joke, that unfortunately has led to all these copy-cats. Something cannot be full screen if parts of the screen are unusable. Sure you can put something besides the notches and and it is rounded corners, but it is not part of the screen, as you cannot use it for anything. Same for the bottom - apps are not supposed to use the lower part of the screen because there is a slider thing. Try the simplest thing, try a full screen video, does it actually use your "full screen"? Quite far from it. And now they are rounding the corners of iPads too! Why???
I would say this lawsuit is silly, I mean you know about the notch when buying the devices, however I hadn't thought about the diagonal aspect. If they advertise a 5.8" diagonal, but that would only be the case if there were no rounded corners, it would be some sort of false advertising.
Damned if you do damned if you donâ(TM)t
I wasn't aware that for a pixel to be "true", it had to have a red,green,and blue subpixel. There are plenty of cell phones with LCD subpixel shapes that aren't "RGB" subpixels either. These can be for a myriad of design trade-offs, but at the high resolutions of those small displays, it's not really that noticeable. Older CRT televisions weren't "true" in their rbg pixel resolutions either.
Cue the Apple apologists...
Full disclosure: I use Apple products. I like them because they meet my needs.
Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it. Complaining about pixel design. Do the pixel counts match Apple's based on teh design? This smells like someone looking for an easy payday. Apple does some stupid shit, such as the battery saving throttling without giving customers a chance to decide if they wanted to do that; but I find this lawsuit to be BS, and would no matter who made the phone. What's next? Complaining the Pixel / iPhone / (insert phone name here) doesn't really have 64/128/256 GBs of storage?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Clearly having an openly homosexual CEO has not made Apple Users any less hate filled.
Seriously this is 2018
55 pages for something that can be summarized in one sentence. "We want money."
said this reminded her of CRT TVs (and my) exaggerated measurements that employed the bezel.
So all of the other phone makers with notches are guilty of the same crime? What about anyone that has any kind of bezel, no matter how small?
iPhone X allegedly only has two subpixels per pixel,
So all of the. other phone makers doing this same thing with screens are "guilty" as well?
If Apple is guilty of this, all other smartphone makers are just as, or more guilty than Apple. Will you call them out also?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We all know apple lies all the time. It's pretty much expected now.
Sure you can put something besides the notches and and it is rounded corners, but it is not part of the screen, as you cannot use it for anything. Same for the bottom - apps are not supposed to use the lower part of the screen because there is a slider thing.
Apps can display content in those system areas if they really want to.
Try the simplest thing, try a full screen video, does it actually use your "full screen"?
Yes, just zoom in... oh you didn't know that?? Most people like seeing the full content so it has side letterboxing, but you can always choose to have it fill the display.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's a good point that the storage space should properly list available storage, it's somewhat less important now but when there were 8GB/16GB phones and the OS was 5GB then it made a huge deal of difference.
http://i.imgur.com/7umOJ.gif
Gaaaaahhhhhhh! I was going to say something here but the black hole of stupidity sucked my brain in. Is this a contest for the stupidest lawsuit ever?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
When the OS was 5GB and the update 3GB so you couldn't update the OS from the OS itself but had to flash it using an external bootloader...
You start by cherry picking a figure, then move to victim blaming...and finally point out other companies also lie(that makes it alright)
Apple customers are being lied to..
By Apple. I buy from more consumer focused manufacturers, not those that pretend to be ethical.
If you didnt like the screen then return the phone next time. What a waste of time and resources this is, its a pure cash grab by some attorneys.
I think it is "Apple don't be lying scumbags"
Well, then Apple shouldn't be giving them an easy payday by being accurate about what they claim. It's really simple.
Nobody but the liars benefits when companies are allowed to fudge their numbers "because it's just a little bit", or "because we look at things differently".
Hold everyone to the same, strict standard.
And for that matter yes, I would be very much in favor of some sort of regulation about how storage size is advertise, because a 16 GB phone sure as hell can't hold 16 GB of music, like one could expect. Just add a "(8 GB used by the OS, 8 GB available to the user)" right afterwards, and now it's much clearer.
I am pleased that you also think Apple is corrupt, but yes happy to move from my current manufacturer in a heartbeat, say it is wrong. No Problem...there are lots a phone manufacturers.
in 3...2...1...
Sounds like a consumer standing up to scumbag Apple. Thank goodness there are decent people out there that defend consumer rights. What an excellent use of time.
There are laws about false advertising for a reason. The manufacturers should be brought to court because of storage. In the olden times every hard drive had exactly advertised amount of storage and later as drives got larger this number game started. On an advertised 1TB hard drive you are missing something like 100GB which is close to 10% of overall capacity. I wonder how you would react if you got a pay cut of 10%. Now you have disclaimers about what GB actually means instead of storage.
If iPhone screen measures 5.6 inches Apple should just say so, same goes for resolution. Then no one would be able to tell that Apple statements are wrong.
This is simply gross vs net measurement. There is a much bigger problem with measuring screen size in inches, it only made sense when all of the screens (a long time ago) had the same aspect ratio. Think comparing a 15 inch laptop between a 4:3 aspect ratio and 16:9. Then there is the dpi - if you these two screens are 1600x1200 and 1280x720 or if they're 800x600 vs 3200x1800, that are entirely different displays. Then you get a concepts of logical resolution, screen type (TN, IPS, OLED), subpixel arrangements... The trouble is that marketing messaging needs to be simple enough to be understandable and easy enough to be remembered by the vast majority of your potential customer base. This is the very same thing led us to megapixel race with cameras. So if we have to get there, at least let's be honest about it. Would you be happy to buy food with the marketed weight including the weight of the packaging?
I hope that this results in marketing phones with net storage space. This would actually be a useful measurement. My mum bought a phone with 8GB of storage, as she thought she does not need much storage, does she? The phone is not usable at all if you install 1 app, as it complaints constantly that it cannot upgrade the app due to lack of space. 8GB of net space on the other hand would be widely sufficient.
I don't like the easy payday part, but using gross measurements where the net vs gross ratio changes between compared products is not really helpful (screen with a notch and without).
Do these people have nothing better to do than launch lawsuits over trivial matters? DON'T PURCHASE THE PRODUCT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!!!
Oh, and my fav:
>> For example, iPhone X's screen size is supposed to be 5.8 inches, but the plaintiffs measured that it's "only about 5.6875 inches."
Yeah, yeah. You think you can get away with using "about" (in this case meaning "approximately") and then state a measurement down to a ten-thousandth of an inch?
Well, then Apple shouldn't be giving them an easy payday by being accurate about what they claim. It's really simple.
Nobody but the liars benefits when companies are allowed to fudge their numbers "because it's just a little bit", or "because we look at things differently".
Something the lawsuit seems to leave out is Apple's footnote on screen size:
The 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 5.85 inches (iPhone XS), 6.46 inches (iPhone XS Max), 6.06 inches (iPhone XR), or 5.85 inches (iPhone X) diagonally. Actual viewable area is less. (As referenced in filing)
Which seems to explain how they determine screen size. That's pretty standard, going back to TV days which is why we have diagonal screen measurements. They also give the size in H and W in pixels, also a standard way of saying the size of the screen display unit. Apple seems to use industry standard ways to advertise their display, and even have a footnote explaining the rounded corner's impact and the actual viewing areas is less. It seems to me Apple disclosed the screen's viewing area isn't 6.5 inches and has
As for the "false pixels," that's the design. Different displays have different electrical designs. Each pixel has 2 sub pixels, but that doesn't change the number of pixels; even if some displays are capable of producing more colors per pixel.
There are legitimate reasons to sue companies such as Apple, but IMHO this isn't one of them. All this will result in is yet more footnotes explaining details that no one cares about or reads.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Except it is not...clearly you did not read the article or even the summary. This is about lying Apple with proof.
Apple have defined a new type of inch, a cool inch, and patented it too.
Easy payday? This will be thrown out. Nobody buys an Apple iPhone because it has better specs. They buy them for the shiny logo on the back, the way it feels in the hand, how the screen looks as you scroll, how responsive the apps feel...
These are feelings that are hard to quantify - but people who buy iPhones make that purchase based on these intangibles.
Oh, and for iMessage and Facetime. My mother-in-law cannot figure out Hangouts, but Facetime is easy for her.
Well, then Apple shouldn't be giving them an easy payday by being accurate about what they claim. It's really simple.
I can't wait until all the spec sheets list everything with three digits right of the decimal point, plus a complete accounting of their measurement methodology. All the readers will be so smart and enlightened!
Or maybe someday if someone cares about the difference between 5.6875 inches and 5.8 inches when measured along a very specific vector, they'll take responsibility for their own lives and just go measure the damned thing before buying it.
It's called a "smart inch" and can't be expressed on Slashdot without glitching.
You're not missing anything with hard drives. TB and TiB are not the same thing. A 1TB hard drive is exactly 1TB. It is not 1TiB and it does not pretend to be.
http://www.displaymate.com/iPhoneXS_ShootOut_1s.htm
Thatâ(TM)s a long, highly-technical rundown of why itâ(TM)s far better than the 8 display, or any other phone display.
I'd like to know how they measured it to the 4th decimal place.
...about being gay. Gay humans do not exist.
I bought one and then found out the image is sent to the device as half HD and then upscaled to full HD...Have not bothered to check their 4K model.
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL FOR YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL FOR YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
1) CRT TVs (full size, not the late wrist watch toys and the like) certainly did have the pixel rez stated- although that rez, to the public, was only defined as the number of horizontal lines. TV's were never sold on their technical number of horizontal 'pixels'- a function of the analogue signal rather than printed dots on the screen.
2) A TRUE RGB pixel is an entity with its own spacial identity AND ability for full colour control. If colour rez is LOWER than spatial pixel rez on an iPhone, the customer has most certainly been conned.
Apple LIES- full stop. But let's take an example with another tech giant, Nvidia.
Nvidia sells cut-down GPU chips, like the 970 and 1070, but Nvidia LIES and sez specs like ROPS and active VRAM are the same as the non-cut-down variants (980 and 1080). But Nvidia's architecture (unlikie AMD's GPU architecture) hardwires all the various blocks of the chip, so cutting down on one block proportionally cuts down on all the others. Yet Nvida sends tech docs to promotional outlets claiming otherwise. Why? Cos ROP counts and VRAM amounts help sell product.
Apple lies about things like true pixel counts for the same reason. Informed nerds MAY know the truth (very few nerds know the true specs of Nvidia's cut down GPUs). But most nerds, and all ordinary peeps will trust the marketing propaganda lies from Apple.
Ask THIS question. Why does Apple lie about real pixel count, and Nvidia lie about usable VRAM if according to the apologists, it doesn't matter anyway? CLEARLY both Apple and Nvidia think there is something to be gained by purposely misleading the consumer.
this lawyer dude should go find a few clients who have purchased an lcd television in the last 5-10 years.
"Adequately sharp and sized display"
TiB is a measurement invented after the fact to rewrite history. RAM, floppy disk sizes and hard drive sizes were all base 2 until some manufacturer couldn't quite make a gigabyte hard drive. So instead they redefined a gigabyte as a billion bytes so they could advertise their drive as bigger than it actually was.
Or maybe Apple could have said it was 5.6 inches instead of 5.8 inches.
Sorry, but that is not true. Storage has always been base 10, not base 2, since the first 5mb hard drives.
The same happens with 10/100/1000 Mbps ethernet, or with the 14.4-56kbps modems.
Don't forget, when the thing you're rendering is blue, it will render at substantially lower resolution.
I have no idea for the actual merit in *this* case but there is a world of difference between "did not like it" and "false advertising". The first indeed merit a scorn, the second is usually very much frowned upon by consumer and by the court (frowned upon : as in usually lead to penalty). Personally I don't care anymore if this is an attorney cash grab, what I do care is that what is advertised is what is sold, within the law. if attorney can punish a lying firm , where I cannot, then much BETTER than doing nothing.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They cannot claim (disclaim) available capacity because the OS size is never static, even at the 1GB precision. That is just asking for a different lawsuit. You buy a device with said available capacity, boot it up, and bam an immediate update steals another GB. It is industry standard to report nominal capacity and disclaim only that the formatted capacity (i.e. with OS) will be less than nominal. That is the safest legal course for the manufacturer.
What's next, you want a disclaimer on all your lumber too?
A formatted 360K floppy disk was 362,496 bytes, and a 20MB ST-225 was a little over 21 million bytes formatted. In 1998, the gigabyte was redefined by the IEC due to lawsuits (later settled by Seagate and WD) because of this bait and switch, and all manufacturers had to print disclaimers because of their scam. The fact that PC and RAM makers felt no need to "upgrade" their numbers to base 10 points to the greed of hard drive makers.
That is what you are brainwashed with to believe in. Every company marketing misleads consumer.
Does any sensible person actually care whether it is 2436x1125 or 2438x1120?
(apart from some nerd in his mom's basement counting pixels (1,2,3,4,5,6, etc.)
Jeez, the are more important things in this world than a few pixels more or less.
I mean, it's not like you're gonna notice... Really, some folks ought to get out more.
Mac
They claim 4K while is is only 3840 pixels! 160 pixels difference! They lied !
Indeed. And digital cameras only has ONE "subpixel" (typically red, green OR blue) per "pixel" and use math to share the color information. Yet people typically doesn't sue over that. While I'll admit to not being an Apple fan, in this case, I can see no wrongdoing on Apples part.
Don't forget, when the thing you're rendering is blue, it will render at substantially lower resolution.
1. Find a lawyer
2. Become lead plaintiff in class action over some small detail to be enraged about, regardless of veracity of claim
3. ?
4. Profit
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It is a FACT that there are less regions on the screen that can render blue. Less blue spots means less blue resolution. That's not so hard to figure out.
I don't have cause to sue personally. I don't own an iPhone.
Even if they turn out to be devoted Wiccans, I don't see how it excuses false advertising. Burn them!
Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it.
No, that isn't how it works. It needs to be correct, based on how you did measure it. Otherwise it is false.
If you don't want to be accurate to x.y, don't advertise x.y sizes, stick to x.
If you advertise to x.y, it should at least be true for some possible x.yz. So you can fudge the least significant digit +- 1 and blame rounding. But you never get +- 2, or even +- 1.1. Those are blatant lies.
But it is not 5.6 inches 5.8 inches when you include the corners and including the corners is the industry standard.
They will just start pulling the "CLASS" BS that the TV industry has with their "52 inch CLASS" screen, which might actually be 51.something inches. It's like MOL used in real estate. 5 acres MOL. I have even seen a few TVs listed as HD class or 4K class. I am assuming that means they dont have quite enough pixels to claim HD or 4K, but it is "close enough"
Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it.
No, that isn't how it works. It needs to be correct, based on how you did measure it. Otherwise it is false.
If you don't want to be accurate to x.y, don't advertise x.y sizes, stick to x.
If you advertise to x.y, it should at least be true for some possible x.yz. So you can fudge the least significant digit +- 1 and blame rounding. But you never get +- 2, or even +- 1.1. Those are blatant lies.
Good points. Apple correctly identified the size of the screen, as it noted in the small print notes referenced in the lawsuit. Apple never claimed the full screen area on the display were viewable, they actually said it wasn't. as you point out, it needs to be correct for how you measure it, and it was and Apple disclosed how it was measured so people know it was the viewable area. The plaintiffs are claiming it was false advertising based on what they think a screen should be measured, despite Apple telling them otherwise.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
>As for the "false pixels," that's the design. Different displays have different electrical designs. Each pixel has 2 sub pixels, but that doesn't change the number of pixels; even if some displays are capable of producing more colors per pixel.
Why stop at 2? Just claim your standard LCD monitor has only one sub-pixel per pixel and you've tripled the resolution!
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Rounded corners is an industry standard? Well, I guess it is now, according to Apple.
If the small print is deemed to be so small that it's deceptive, then Apple could be in trouble. I don't think so, but it's not a foolproof defense.
No, Apple did not introduce that standard. It existed before Apple did. I goes way back to early CRTs.
I guess I was being to indirect.
No, CRTs did not have rounded corners. Unless you're talking about the very earliest of the early TVs, which had completely round tubes. The front surface was curved, but that's not what we're talking about.
"Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it."
This kind of shit wont fly in the jewelry industry (where our precision gets into the thousandths of a gram and hundredths of a millimeter,) why should the fucking tech industry get a pass?
This paves the way for my lawsuit against Ford, who for decades has advertised "5.0" liter engines that are 4,942cc, or "4.9" liters, if you're going for one-decimal accuracy. I'll be rich!
First of all, dickheads, you don't need to say "about" when describing a dimension to the ten-thousandth of an inch. Secondly, anyone who can spot the difference, unaided, between a 5.8-inch screen and a 5.6875-inch screen at arm's length wins a free trip to Uranus.
Thirdly, Apple has this note right on their page, directly below the dimensions:
The iPhone XS 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 5.85 inches diagonally (actual viewable area is less).
And their lawyers are better than yours, so I'm sure that's enough to get this suit tossed out on its metaphorical ass.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
That's how the OLPC worked and how it could do 1200x900 (200dpi) back in 2007 for cheap, sucked for color accuracy, but made a great black&white display.
Totally. And the SDD size is a bigger lie (e.g. 32 GB advertised, 10 system, 22 usable).
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
If they went after the storage manufacturers that decided that 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes, I would fully support them, and they would actually make a service to us all.
I noticed that for XS XR etc, apple added an asterisk saying the diagonal measurement is without the rounded corner. They didn't say that for the original X....
I want to open a currency exchange where these guys live. I can bury an asterisk on a sign in the back of the disused basement that says $100 bills may be $10s.
Not all or them. ex. Sigma has/had true full-color sensors. In the end, color is just a part of the equation.
I noticed that for XS XR etc, apple added an asterisk saying the diagonal measurement is without the rounded corner. They didn't say that for the original X....
Actually, they did for the X as well, as shown, by the very page the lawsuit references, in footnote 1: https://www.apple.com/iphone/c...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
This is simply gross vs net measurement. There is a much bigger problem with measuring screen size in inches, it only made sense when all of the screens (a long time ago) had the same aspect ratio.
Good points. The diagonal measurement is a hold over from when TVs had circular displays. Once they went to rectangular viewing areas they kept using diagonal measurements; which still made sense because TVs had the same aspect ratio and a larger size meant more viewing area.
Think comparing a 15 inch laptop between a 4:3 aspect ratio and 16:9. Then there is the dpi - if you these two screens are 1600x1200 and 1280x720 or if they're 800x600 vs 3200x1800, that are entirely different displays. Then you get a concepts of logical resolution, screen type (TN, IPS, OLED), subpixel arrangements...
Unfortunately, since computers started by using TVs and monitors that essentially were TVs with no tuners so the convention stuck; even if it no longer allowed good comparisons between screens.
The trouble is that marketing messaging needs to be simple enough to be understandable and easy enough to be remembered by the vast majority of your potential customer base. This is the very same thing led us to megapixel race with cameras.
Another good point. The problem is people focus on numbers even when they have no meaning. They assume a 24mp camera will produce 2x better images than a 12mp when that may not be the case; the 24mp camera may actually produce worse images. Many purchasers probably couldn't tell you what DPI stands for but believe the higher the better. Even worse, specifications that may be useful, such as how correctly does a display reproduce a color palette, are hard to quantify and require explanation to be understood properly. Even a good result, for the given price point, may be misinterpreted to be bad. As a result, marketing pushes the easy numbers. Tech today is where audio was in the days when companies made output power claims without revealing the THD at that power level.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Have digital camera manufacturers ever tried to hide that fact? I thought they had always been open about it.
What a scummy individual, you think they really want a functional notch highlighted in marketing material...up to consumer to actually do their homework and see a device and learn about it, living under a rock if you donâ(TM)t know what the notch is. And comparing DPI and display quality is a metric not number of pixels...FOOL!