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.
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.
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
People use the advertised numbers to compare with other products before they buy. So they need to be correct.
No. They need to be wrong. Everybody else also counts a few pixels under the bezel, so for an Apples-to-apples (sorry) comparison, Apple should do the same. This is standard industry practice.
The pixel layout is different for OLED, where blue LEDs tend to be brighter but also have a shorter lifetime. So this is compensated in software by increasing the current to the blue LEDs as the screen ages. OLEDs use PenTile pixel layout.
With PenTile, instead of RGB-RGB-RGB- ... the pixels are RG-BG-RG-BG- .... The green pixels are narrower but twice as densely packed. This provides very good resolution, and continues to do so even as the screen ages. PenTile was pioneered by Samsung ... and Samsung makes the screen for the iPhone X.
Disclaimer: I am a happy owner of a four year old iPhone 6.
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
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.
no, they need to be correct, and those other bad actors need to not be allowed to count their bezel pixels.
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.
The latest and greatest Samsung panels use a different pattern: https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userf...
It is standard for all OLED displays though, so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If the complaint is right, Apple advertised a 5.8" screen when the delivered screen is under 5.7". That's a complaint about accuracy at least as much as precision.
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).
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.
It's not ludicrous precision - it's exactly 6-11/16" Sixteenths of an inch are still widely used in measurements in the U.S.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
The measurement is actually stated to a resolution of 1/16" inch. The fractional part is exactly 11/16.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
It's called a "smart inch" and can't be expressed on Slashdot without glitching.
It's just crapflooders. They don't care about anything. People argue for and against various issues and topics, but all they care about is smearing feces everywhere they can get away with it. They're clever, ya know.
I'd like to know how they measured it to the 4th decimal place.
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.
You mean 5 11/16 inches?
You wrote it in a weird way.
Since the rest of us have shortcuts to split or group in thousands and for more common measurements also hundreds and tenths we usually don't do fractions with measurements using other divisors than exponents of 10.
Anyway the value could easily be expressed as 144 mm.
My besel doesn't have round corners or a notch you insensitive clod!
It's not ludicrous precision
I don't think you understand the meaning of rhe word "precision".
There exist AMOLED with RGB subpixel layout too.
PenTile is used because it's cheaper (and cheating.) Originally because blue wasn't as important for luminance. Since pixel only mean picture element and may not really be specified further in what it actually definie and since supposedly Samsung went with some VESA standard based on contrast they get away with it.
But assuming each RG or BG counts as one pixel otherwise on a screen of just red or blue colour the number of pixels would drop to half.
"Adequately sharp and sized display"
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
LOL get a clue. These are some shysters that got a few idiots to be their face and is trying to get a many-million dollar settlement that will result in them getting all the cash and the consumers getting something like $1 in App Store credit.
The real lesson here is that we have a lot of lawyers abusing the system to get rich while people that are really harmed in other more significant cases are screwed.
No, they round. But not from 5.6xxx to 5.8.
The latest and greatest Samsung panels use a different pattern: https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userf...
It is standard for all OLED displays though, so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
The new XS Max uses the very same DiamondTile type OLED panel as it is a Samsung display: http://www.displaymate.com/Dia...
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.
If the whole industry lies about the pixel count of a particular technology, I'm not convinced that helps any of them defend against the lawsuit accusing false advertising. None of them will get to use the "but mommy, all the cool kids are doing it" excuse in court.
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.
You'll need to add some important words like "equivalent" to make a true statement out of the thing you actually said.
But it is not 5.6 inches 5.8 inches when you include the corners and including the corners is the industry standard.
If that had ever been the standard for boards, there might be a point in that suit, but it never has been.
OTOH, pixels have always meant full color pixels (that is, including red, green, and blue in EACH pixel) for a color display dating back to before CGA.
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.
No, Apple did not introduce that standard. It existed before Apple did. I goes way back to early CRTs.
The Spectrum was never advertised as having full color capability, nor was full color a consumer expectation at that time.
No, they haven't. No one has come up with a legal definition. That's just what you _want_ it to be.
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.
I said nothing about law, only the understanding of the entire damned industry for over 30 years and consumers for 20.
It sounds like you want to rewrite history so the precious won't be wrong.
And do the other products use ludicrous precision?
We demand a select toggle to go between ludicrous precision and plaid precision. We will tie up the vital business of every court in California until we get our way (lies down on floor, pounds fists on carpet).
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...
Colonel Sandurz: Prepare for high precision!
Tim Cook: No-no-no, high precision is too unclear!
Colonel Sandurz: High precision too unclear?
Tim Cook: Yes, we'll have to go right to...ludicrous precision!
[The entire crew gasps.]
Colonel Sandurz: Ludicrous precision?! Sir, we've never gone to that precision before. I don't know if this advertising campaign can take it!
Tim Cook: What's the matter Colonel Sandurz... chicken?
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.
I think you are only re-inforcing my point.
A stated measurement implies that it is accurate to within halfway to the adjacent steps. So 5.6875 inches implies that the actual size is between 5.68745 and 5.68755 : that is a precision of 0.00005 inches which is daft in this context and beyond what could be measured outside a standards laboratory (I have worked in one). OTOH, 5&11/16 inches implies a size between 5&21/32 and 5&23/32, that is a precision of 1/32 inch, or ~0.03 inch, much more sensible and could be measured with a ruler with care.
To put it another way, if I said the Statue of Liberty was 5.6875 inches high I would be giving the height with great precision. However, I would be wildly inaccurate.
...so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
The complaint about pixel count will most likely be treated independently of the complaint about screen size. The judge could decide to dismiss the complaint about pixel count (I agree that it sounds ridiculous) and allow the complaint about screen size (which sounds reasonable to me) to go forward.
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!