Apple sued over 'inferior' panel in 20" iMacs

[MIDI_EVIL]

This is very interesting, it appears that Apple are using a panel which has 98% less of the colour spectrum that the previous generation had.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/01/apple_imac_class_action/

"Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144)."

[airjuggernaut]

I honestly don't see any of this inferior screen stuff. I'm not a graphics designer, so i wouldn't give a crap anyways..

[Livers]

While I'd agree to some extent that for the average user the screen quality is probably good enough, i still think it's a bit of a con that older versions of this product have a better spec. That just stinks of profit making and I'm glad it's been exposed. I've been hanging on for the iMac update otherwise I'd have gone for the 20" and would now be very peed off to be reading all this. Hopefully, the problem will be rectified in the new versions, whenever that may be. Until then, I'm holding off and before I buy I'll be double checking to make sure the screen has been improved.

[JayLenochiniMac]

So where were they when the 17" iMacs had the "inferior" TN panel? Face it, the 20" is the new low-end iMac. Either deal with it or go bigger.

[Cave Man]

This is very interesting, it appears that Apple are using a panel which has 98% less of the colour spectrum that the previous generation had.

I don't think that's true at all. It's my understanding that all iterations of the 20" iMac used TN panels (6-bit) and that Apple uses dithering (either from the gpu or the panel's own hardware) to get 8-bit ("millions" of colors). The 24" iMacs have used S-IPS panels (8-bit) for at least the last two iterations.

[Lancetx]

This lawsuit doesn't really surprise me at all. All anyone had to do though was look at the 20" and 24" aluminum models side by side in the store to clearly see the massive display quality difference between the two. What Apple needs to obviously do is go back to using the same panels they did with the prior 20" models and get rid of this horrid TN junk they've switched to.

When I needed a new 20" iMac recently, I simply ordered the refurbished Late 2006 model instead, and the quality of the display on it is excellent as it definitely does not have a TN panel.

[Cave Man]

When I needed a new 20" iMac recently, I simply ordered the refurbished Late 2006 model instead, and the quality of the display on it is excellent as it definitely does not have a TN panel.

That's interesting. Can you tell us what panel it is?

[JayLenochiniMac]

What Apple needs to obviously do is go back to using the same panels they did with the prior 20" models and get rid of this horrid TN junk they've switched to.

Why can't people accept the fact that the 20" is now the low-end, replacing the previous generation 17"? Nobody complained about the TN panel used in the 17".

[gkarris]

Hello...

Entry level Mac All-In-One...

Duh...

[Livers]

It would be nice to have the option of a 20" version with a better screen, the 24" is too big for my room but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to pay more for better quality on the 20" version. Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it should be of poorer quality,, IMHO.

[Killyp]

So where were they when the 17" iMacs had the "inferior" TN panel? Face it, the 20" is the new low-end iMac. Either deal with it or go bigger.

Apple didn't try and claim false with the 17" iMacs. They're saying the new ones can display millions of colours, which they can't, only thousands. To be honest only being able to display thousands of colours isn't very impressive for a desktop machine...

'Either deal with it or go bigger' - some of us actually can't go bigger. I can't fit a 24" iMac on my desk as my ceiling comes down behind the desk (attic room). Are you saying I should spend the money on a MacPro + 20" ACD instead? I can't afford it...

[doug in albq]

How about $200 in Apple Store credit for anyone who bought a 20 inch Imac with the misrepresented display specs? That seems about right for a settlement. I sure would like to know the terms of the settlement for the macbook lawsuit...

[gkarris]

How about $200 in Apple Store credit for anyone who bought a 20 inch Imac with the misrepresented display specs? That seems about right for a settlement. I sure would like to know the terms of the settlement for the macbook lawsuit...

Actually, I was a victim of HP's original Windows Mobile PDA, which they said can show thousands of colors, but the actual display can only show 256.

They simply gave people the chance to return it directly to HP for their money back. You had to pay to ship it back though...

[Pixellated]

If you buy a 20'' iMac, you are hardly going to do pro graphics on it. If you were, you would at least get either a cinema display or a 24'' iMac.

[Lancetx]

Why can't people accept the fact that the 20" is now the low-end, replacing the previous generation 17"? Nobody complained about the TN panel used in the 17".

Because I owned one of those 17" iMacs for 2 years, and I can tell you that even those TN panels clearly looked far better than the current 20" ones do IMO, that's why.

[JayLenochiniMac]

Apple didn't try and claim false with the 17" iMacs. They're saying the new ones can display millions of colours, which they can't, only thousands. To be honest only being able to display thousands of colours isn't very impressive for a desktop machine...

The millions of colors claim is old and existed before the Alu iMacs debuted (whatever happened to the lawsuit on behalf of macbook owners?). Apple used the same claim across the board for the previous generation iMacs (which consisted of both TN and IPS panels) so I fail to see how this is different.

[G-Force]

The $1199 iMac wasn't even possible without a TN-panel I think. It's indeed just like the 17", those had TN-panels so they could be offered for lower prices.

They should complain about those gradient issues many iMacs still have.

[ChrisA]

Why can't people accept the fact that the 20" is now the low-end, replacing the previous generation 17"? Nobody complained about the TN panel used in the 17".

Yes they did I don't think ths is the firt lawsuit. The problem is not just accepting the fact that a it's a low-end system. The problem is with Apple's advertising that the screen can do "millions of colors". When we read that we assume it means what it says. If Apple said clearly that it was a 6-bit per channel display then there would be now grounds for complaint. But they clearly said "millions".

[3lutz3toe]

I’m pissed. The bottom line is that Apple should have disclosed this instead marketing as if they were the same. It might be low end but for the price it aint.
Shame on Apple. Glad I’m holding off from buying for home. (Had to get one for work though).

[VoodooDaddy]

I have a 20". Straight on the screen looks fine to me. Yes, if you get at an extreme angle there is discoloration. But I dont use my iMac at ANY angle but straight on so its really a non-issue to me.

Nearly every company does this. Used cheaper parts for lower-end products.

[ChrisA]

The millions of colors claim is old and existed before the Alu iMacs debuted (whatever happened to the lawsuit on behalf of macbook owners?). Apple used the same claim across the board for the previous generation iMacs (which consisted of both TN and IPS panels) so I fail to see how this is different.

Not all TN papnnels are 6-bit per channel. The LCD technology and the digital to analog converter are independent parts. Weather it is TN or IPS in an independent design decisoion from the number of bits per chanel. However it you are trying to save money using both TN and a 6-bit DAC saves you the most. Looks like Apple went the cheap route all the way around but "forgot" to say this on their web site

[Leon Kowalski]

It's my understanding that all iterations of the 20" iMac used TN panels (6-bit)...
Dead wrong. Prior to the latest ALU crap, all 20" iMacs used professional
quality S-IPS or S-PVA panels -- at least as far back as the G5.

My 20" 2.16GHz C2D has an LG.Philips LM201W01. That's an 8-bit S-IPS panel ....

...exactly the same panel as the 20" ACD,

LK

[gnasher729]

I’m pissed. The bottom line is that Apple should have disclosed this instead marketing as if they were the same. It might be low end but for the price it aint.
Shame on Apple. Glad I’m holding off from buying for home. (Had to get one for work though).

You make three completely unfounded assumptions here: First, you assume that the reporting actually truthfully corresponds to the actual case (and didn't for example leave some tiny, but important bits out to make for better reading). Second, that the claims of the lawyers suing Apple are in fact true and a correct representation of the actual situation (and surely they wouldn't try to show Apple in the worst possible light to win their case, right? ). Third, that there are actually any unhappy customers behind this, and not just a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawyers who are not interested in any benefits for consumers, but just in making a quick dollar.

What these lawyers want is to put pressure on Apple by making gullible consumers holding off from buying so that Apple loses money and pays the lawyers to go away. It seems that they achieved the first bit, at least in your case.

[Sun Baked]

Apple is allowed to change the specs on their machines, upgrading and downgrading parts.

If not ... everyone who wanted a ATI GPU instead of an Nvidia unit (or the other direction) would be able to sue. As would everybody who bought a MacBook with integrated graphics and thought that was a downgrade from the previous iBooks.

Plus, if you read any of the info on the net about the machines ... people did complain a lot about the viewing angle on the new display, along with the shiny glass panel.

[gnasher729]

Yes they did I don't think ths is the firt lawsuit. The problem is not just accepting the fact that a it's a low-end system. The problem is with Apple's advertising that the screen can do "millions of colors". When we read that we assume it means what it says. If Apple said clearly that it was a 6-bit per channel display then there would be now grounds for complaint. But they clearly said "millions".

The industry wide method that everyone uses goes like this: Eight bit panels can show 256 x 256 x 256 different colours. Six bit panels with dithering can show 253 x 253 x 253 different colours, and six bit panels without dithering can show 64 x 64 x 64 different colours. So if you see an LCD screen advertised as "16.7 million colours" then it better be eight bit; if it is advertized as "16.2 million colours" then it is most likely six bit with dithering, and "250,000 colours" or whatever they write would be six bit without dithering (never seen that one advertised).

If anyone advertises a monitor as "millions of colours", I'd expect six colours dithered (because anyone having eight bits would obviously advertise "16.7 million"). If that is what Apple has done, then I don't think the lawyers have a chance of winning the case.

[Killyp]

Shouldn't matter anyway. The only thing computers are really needed for is browsing MacRumors which is all black and white anyway...

[AlexisV]

If you buy a 20'' iMac, you are hardly going to do pro graphics on it. If you were, you would at least get either a cinema display or a 24'' iMac.

Are you kidding? Our studio is full of 20" white iMacs.

They're damn good machines perfect for professional design work.

The aluminium may be a different story, but I still think it looks fantastic and love the glossy screen. Hence why I have one at home.

[Zwhaler]

I always noticed that the older gen 20s had better screens than the latest ones. I say people need to deal with it. Apple has no obligation to lower the price without downgrading something in the machine. But then again, I have the iMac with the better screen so it doesnt affect me :D

[beige matchbox]

IMO, if you bought a 20in iMac and are only now unhappy with your purchase it's your own fault, and suing apple over it is just daft.

OK, so apple are make the product sound like more than it is, but i've never trusted adverts at face value, sure an interesting ad may make me investigate the product, if I want one i'll go out of my way to find a real world shop who stocks the item and look with my own eyes.



But, unfortunately in this era of mail order and internet shopping most seem to read the specs and act purely on them which never has, and never will make for a good buy decision :)

[JayLenochiniMac]

http://www.newsoxy.com/apple_macbook_lawsuit_settled/article10622.htm

[baslotto]

But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144)."

This means that the monitors have only the remaining 2% of the colors.
It's clearly an April's Fool!!!!

98% fewer colors = 100% - 98% = 2%
:D

[munson]

I don't know about all of you, but I have the 20" Alu iMac, and it says I have 32-Bit color on my LCD screen, which some out to 4,294,967,296 distinct colors, not the 262,144 that you guys are referring to. Sounds like some people have been made out to be fools?

Either that or my computer info is lying to me. I'm not sure which at this point...

[Cave Man]

This means that the monitors have only the remaining 2% of the colors.
It's clearly an April's Fool!!!!

98% fewer colors = 100% - 98% = 2%
:D

8-bit panels have 16 million colors. 6-bit panels have just over 260,000.

(2.6x10^5) / (1.6x10^7) = 1.625%

[Karvel]

So my Early 2006 entry level 17" iMac has a better (TN) screen than one can buy in the currently available entry level 20" iMac ?

[czachorski]

So funny to see the whining of people getting exactly what they asked for: cheaper products that are made cheaply. Americans with the "Wal*Mart Syndrome" want ever falling prices, which forces lower quality designs that are outsourced offshore, and then we whine and complain about quality. Too funny.

Now granted, Apple can't advertise one thing, and deliver another. That is another matter altogether. But I can't help but feel that this is a case of people whining after the fact because they didn't turn on their brains and realize what "millions of colors" really means in this day and age of cheapening designs to achieve the lower prices that they themselves have demands.

[NintendoFan]

It affects both the 20" iMac's correct? Not just the lower priced one?

[trip1ex]

I got my refurb 20" iMac today. Looks pretty good to me. I do see some minor contrast difference from top to bottom, but if I hadn't read about it then I most likely would never have noticed. The viewing angle isn't that great, but much better than the Macbook.

The 24" panel is better, but imo most folks are making the 20" panel to be much worse than it is.

[cloudnine]

IMO, if you bought a 20in iMac and are only now unhappy with your purchase it's your own fault, and suing apple over it is just daft.

OK, so apple are make the product sound like more than it is, but i've never trusted adverts at face value, sure an interesting ad may make me investigate the product, if I want one i'll go out of my way to find a real world shop who stocks the item and look with my own eyes.

Wow... that is the most asinine American thing I've read on these boards... which is quite ironic considering that you're from the UK... meaning it's so easy to place blame on the consumer by calling them lazy or ill-informed when making a purchase.

First claiming that most companies don't advertise their goods properly... and secondly, somehow that reflects on the consumer as being their fault? That is absolutely asinine. While Apple stores are popping up all over the place, it's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry can run to an Apple store to check out an iMac before they buy one. A lot of people buy online, and those computers DAMN WELL better be exactly as the specifications online say they are.

Don't blame the consumer for being ripped off, and surely don't make it seem commonplace for corporations to falsely advertise clearly laid out specs on their website.

[cloudnine]

I always noticed that the older gen 20s had better screens than the latest ones. I say people need to deal with it. Apple has no obligation to lower the price without downgrading something in the machine. But then again, I have the iMac with the better screen so it doesnt affect me :D

Wow. That was a pretty useless comment. It's not a matter of having a lower-grade display... it's the fact that Apple clearly lays out on the specifications page for ALL iMACS that ALL of the displays support millions of colors. If your display shows only 2% of that amount, then Apple lied.

But hey, continue to be smug since you have an older 20" iMac. We're all so happy for you :rolleyes:

[Leon Kowalski]

But I can't help but feel that this is a case of people whining after the fact
because they didn't turn on their brains and realize what "millions of colors"
really means in this day and age of cheapening designs ...

Suggest you check the spec sheet for your own iMac, Einstein. If you ever
need a warranty repair, Apple is perfectly within their rights to replace the
LCD on your 24" wonder with a 6-bit "millions of colors" Wal*Mart special:

"24-inch (viewable) glossy widescreen TFT active-matrix
LCD, 1920 by 1200 pixels, millions of colors"

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html


...now, what were you saying about brains?

LK

[czachorski]

Suggest you check the spec sheet for your own iMac, Einstein. If you ever
need a warranty repair, Apple is perfectly within their rights to replace the
LCD on your 24" wonder with a 6-bit "millions of colors" Wal*Mart special:

"24-inch (viewable) glossy widescreen TFT active-matrix
LCD, 1920 by 1200 pixels, millions of colors"

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html


...now, what were you saying about brains?

LK

So you have proven that Apple hasn't falsely advertised on the 20" and is giving 24" owners more than they promised to boot, then? Nicely done.

[AlexisV]

Wow. That was a pretty useless comment. It's not a matter of having a lower-grade display... it's the fact that Apple clearly lays out on the specifications page for ALL iMACS that ALL of the displays support millions of colors. If your display shows only 2% of that amount, then Apple lied.

There is a difference between supporting and displaying colours. In theory, the panels do support the full gamut (the display happily accepts all the colours from the GPU), but only displays a certain amount.

If a panel could only display 262,000 colours, you would certainly notice a degradation in a lot of photographs for example, so I'm sceptical.

[rozwell]

If you buy a 20'' iMac, you are hardly going to do pro graphics on it. If you were, you would at least get either a cinema display or a 24'' iMac.

There are so many agencies where this is NOT true. The 2006 Intel iMac is an awesome machine, far better than whats come out in recent times. At the place I used to work they gave a choice and EVERYONE picked the iMac. At work I have a MBPro and a ACD but prefer my 2006 iMac at home by leaps and bounds.

[alphaod]

This is stupid. It's obvious for a 20-inch they can't recuperate the costs if they kept putting in expensive S-IPS panels in. The 24-inch is $300 more for the same components!

[ungraphic]

I honestly don't see any of this inferior screen stuff. I'm not a graphics designer, so i wouldn't give a crap anyways..

Thats a rather sad attitude, considering a lot of people, if not, most (as it should be) that buy a mac buy it to produce some kind of creative work.

Why did you buy your mac?

[Jcoz]

Wow... that is the most asinine American thing I've read on these boards... which is quite ironic considering that you're from the UK... meaning it's so easy to place blame on the consumer by calling them lazy or ill-informed when making a purchase.

First claiming that most companies don't advertise their goods properly... and secondly, somehow that reflects on the consumer as being their fault? That is absolutely asinine. While Apple stores are popping up all over the place, it's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry can run to an Apple store to check out an iMac before they buy one. A lot of people buy online, and those computers DAMN WELL better be exactly as the specifications online say they are.

Don't blame the consumer for being ripped off, and surely don't make it seem commonplace for corporations to falsely advertise clearly laid out specs on their website.

While I completely resent your anti-american generalities :mad: I agree with everything else you've laid out.

Its repulsive that people in this thread would blame the consumer and pretend like its ok to falsely adverise your product.

This is simple, DID THEY, or DID THEY NOT, make false claims about the product they sold?

Its as simple as that. No BS about entry level this, lower prices that. Those comments are all garbage and have zero bearing on this issue.

I have enjoyed the apple products I have bought, but it certainly doesnt mean I have to back every decision they make, or come to thier defense if they do something shady, which they seem to have done in this case.

[Rustman]

I haven't been here in a while and I have to say some of the behaviour here protecting Apple is so blinkered that I'm glad I've spent my time elsewhere.

This hurts Apple because I've personally been persuading work colleagues to get an iMac, but most have been looking at the 20" model because they can't justify over a grand. Now I'm going to have to break it to them that Apple would rather save a few quid and falsely advertise. I know at least one that will now spend their money elsewhere, and probably on a Dell.

I've been fortunate enough to have a wife that persuaded me to go for the 24" model otherwise I would be in a similar boat to others who got the base model. I say similar, because I can bet that any compensation that might be forthcoming for 20" model owners wouldn't make it here to the UK.

I will be very careful with my next Apple purchase that is for sure.

Bad Apple. Bad!

[Lancetx]

This is stupid. It's obvious for a 20-inch they can't recuperate the costs if they kept putting in expensive S-IPS panels in. The 24-inch is $300 more for the same components!

The prior model 20" white 2.16 GHz C2D iMac was the exact same price ($1,499) that the current 20" 2.4 GHz aluminum model costs now, and it had the better quality S-IPS panel in it. So if they could make a sufficient profit using that panel before, they obviously still could now.

[VoodooDaddy]

Thats a rather sad attitude, considering a lot of people, if not, most (as it should be) that buy a mac buy it to produce some kind of creative work.

Why did you buy your mac?

WTF?? So only ppl that produce "creative work" should be buying Macs? So ppl that only use it for music, email, internet, digi pics, shouldnt buy? This might be the most ridiculous claim Ive ever heard on this board.

[harcosparky]

If that is what Apple has done, then I don't think the lawyers have a chance of winning the case.


Awwww shucks man .... we all want sumpin fer nuttin! :D

Filing a lawsuit is something ANYONE can do ..... prevailing is another story.

I am reminded of another lawsuit someone filed against a manufacturer ... one that I thought was well deserved. It was a case where a product was claimed to be poorly designed, and could well have resulted in injury. ( a motor vehicle case ) It never made it to trial.

[Jcoz]

Awwww shucks man .... we all want sumpin fer nuttin! :D

Filing a lawsuit is something ANYONE can do ..... prevailing is another story.

I am reminded of another lawsuit someone filed against a manufacturer ... one that I thought was well deserved. It was a case where a product was claimed to be poorly designed, and could well have resulted in injury. ( a motor vehicle case ) It never made it to trial.

I realize that the US is sue-happy right now, but its pretty much the only course of action that gets a large companies attention, and if you love Macs you should WANT apple to be called out for providing a product that is not what it was claimed to be, as companies will try to get away with just as much as people will allow them to.

Its absolutely INSANE to side with apple if the reports are correct.......

"Awwww shucks man .... we all want sumpin fer nuttin! :D"

Are you kidding me? How about wanting what you paid for?

[ungraphic]

WTF?? So only ppl that produce "creative work" should be buying Macs? So ppl that only use it for music, email, internet, digi pics, shouldnt buy? This might be the most ridiculous claim Ive ever heard on this board.

Apple charges a premium for their computers, this is fact. Paying that premium is mainly for the use of OS X, if it wasnt it, I really doubt youd buy a mac. Unless you do actual work that requires OS X and stability, you dont really need it, as windows can do the same no worse.

Now, I never said people shouldnt be buying a mac, so your response might be the most ridiculously skewed I've read on this board.

[VoodooDaddy]

Apple charges a premium for their computers, this is fact. Paying that premium is mainly for the use of OS X, if it wasnt it, I really doubt youd buy a mac. Unless you do actual work that requires OS X and stability, you dont really need it, as windows can do the same no worse.



Now, I never said people shouldnt be buying a mac, so your response might be the most ridiculously skewed I've read on this board.

I wont even touch the part in bold. Telling ppl that Windows is no worse.....

No, you never said NOT to buy one, but you questioned why the guy had bought one since hes not a graphics designer.


I honestly don't see any of this inferior screen stuff. I'm not a graphics designer, so i wouldn't give a crap anyways..

Thats a rather sad attitude, considering a lot of people, if not, most (as it should be) that buy a mac buy it to produce some kind of creative work.

Why did you buy your mac?

[Pope Jawn Pawl]

Apple has always promoted their "superior" product, which is something that we're all reminded of by other mac users on this board and elsewhere. To have it turn out that their "superior" product is not only NOT superior, but far from it and then try to cover it up and hope no one notices...

Whether someone bought an imac for graphics is irrelevant; don't tell me that you're not disappointed that apple decided to cut corners and then not disclose the difference.

[killmoms]

Wait a sec. Didn't the case about the MacBook displays (regarding the same issue of "millions" of colors vs. "thousands") just get thrown out of court? I can't imagine this will go too differently.

[Leon Kowalski]

Wait a sec. Didn't the case about the MacBook displays (regarding the same
issue of "millions" of colors vs. "thousands") just get thrown out of court?

Nope. Apple settled out of court. Settlement terms undisclosed.

I can't imagine this will go too differently.

Apple will settle out of court on this one too. I'd expect the iMac case to be
much stronger than the MacBook case. Virtually every notebook in the world
has a 6-bit display -- and always has.

In contrast, the 20" iMacs have always had professional-quality, 8-bit S-IPS
or S-PVA displays; and in the past, Apple has always disclosed color depth
information on all iMac models. The 17" iMacs were clearly specified (in the
Video Developer Note (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Conceptual/HWTech_Video/Articles/Video_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003994-SW30_1200331181)) as 6-bit+dither, and the 20" and 24" models were
clearly specified as full 8-bit color depth.

However, beginning with the ALU iMacs, Apple abandoned ethics and went
out of their way to conceal the 20" downgrade. The August 2007 section of
the Developer Note is a case study in carefully constructed weasel-wording
and half-truths:

"... display depths up to 24 bits per pixel ..." ....or NOT.


...break out your checkbook, Steve,

LK

[thejadedmonkey]

I just wish Apple would stop being so greedy and make an all in one that a graphic designer can use!

[beppo]

I think they did this to make it thinner than the older one. They sort of did the same thing with the iPod touch

[AlexisV]

Photographs still look stunning on the glossy displays though (as long as you're looking straight on!)

[doug in albq]

I have the 20 inch alum. iMac.

It's display is fine, as long as you are sitting at its optimum viewing angle which is: straight in front of it, and at least 6 feet back!

I actually loathe the display for image editing, and almost everything else except movie watching.

My personal recourse was go out and buy a much better display by HP (funny HP calls the display a Business-Class display, yet it is far better for the creative-class-types than the new imac 20 inch alum. display). My imac now sits off to the left of my HP display which is either s-ips or a-mva (honestly not sure which it is, but either is much, much better than the display in the imac 20).

[Rustman]

I have the 20 inch alum. iMac.

It's display is fine, as long as you are sitting at its optimum viewing angle which is: straight in front of it, and at least 6 feet back!

I actually loathe the display for image editing, and almost everything else except movie watching.

My personal recourse was go out and buy a much better display by HP (funny HP calls the display a Business-Class display, yet it is far better for the creative-class-types than the new imac 20 inch alum. display). My imac now sits off to the left of my HP display which is either s-ips or a-mva (honestly not sure which it is, but either is much, much better than the display in the imac 20).

So basically, your 20" iMac cost you as much as the 24"?

This is really shocking. Apple should be hanging their head in shame. I've been singing Apple's praises since I switched, berating Vista for the knock-off wannabe that it is and telling others they should switch. Now, I'm not so certain. Expecting consumers to pay more for inferior hardware just because it's compact and pretty, Apple may as well be spitting in upgrader's and switcher's faces, whilst counting their money.

[bamo]

The specs are what is important here, not the numerous and sometimes complex technicalities. If one looks at both models (20 in. and 24 in,. aluminium), besides the Colour matter, the angle of view does differ, the 20 in. being much lower and poor. Apple should amends it's publicity and verbose discretion.
I should have bought the 24 in. model… Apple should give buyers a way to upgrade.

[chrono1081]

This has probably been said but the sue party is stupid. Its right on the page of the store that DAYS theyre different. Thats how I found out.

[JayLenochiniMac]

The specs are what is important here, not the numerous and sometimes complex technicalities. If one looks at both models (20 in. and 24 in,. aluminium), besides the Colour matter, the angle of view does differ, the 20 in. being much lower and poor.

That's stated right there on the tech specs http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html Do your research before you buy.

[JayLenochiniMac]

The previous generation 17" iMac has TN panel and Apple did advertise "millions of colors" (which is technically correct, 6-bits+dithering) http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMac_Late_2006.html Where was the lawsuit for that?

What's next? Someone suing Apple for downgrading the graphics card in the Alu iMacs?

[JayLenochiniMac]

"... display depths up to 24 bits per pixel ..." ....or NOT.


"Up to" 24 bits per pixel is technically correct, right? If so, there's no "not."

[Leon Kowalski]

"Up to" 24 bits per pixel is technically correct, right? If so, there's no "not."

For the casual reader, "up to 24 bits" is a weasel-worded
suggestion that there might actually be 24 bits (just like
previous iMacs) -- but when parsed by Philadelphia lawyers,
it actually guarantees that there are no more than 24 bits,
so even a 1-bit monochrome display would pass the test.

The 24" ALU iMacs actually have 24-bit panels (at least the
ones shipped so far), but 20" ALU iMacs have only 18 bits,
and NOWHERE does Apple specify (or even suggest!), that
the 20" and 24" displays are of vastly different quality.

..."technically correct" AND intentionally deceptive,

LK

[JayLenochiniMac]

I see what you meant, but that's like saying your 2.0GHz iMac should be capable of running at 2.8GHz speed because Apple advertises as "up to 2.8GHz."

[Aegelward]

To be honest this issue is why i've been fence sitting a bit on getting an imac. a 20" suits my needs (space wise, a 24" is simply too large for my work area), for the past couple of years i've been using a marvelous formac display which looks beautiful. Plugged into my macbook its quite clear which display is richer. i just use the macbook's display for chatting, and itunes management.

I was intending to hand down the formac to a sibling when i got the imac.

I might end up getting a single processor mac pro, or an older model refurb in order to keep a quality display.

[trip1ex]

Eh anyone disappointed by the screen has 14 days to return their iMac. I don't feel sorry for anyone that bought one and suddenly can't look at their screen.

I got one a few days ago and it's a pretty nice screen. I notice some color change from top to bottom because I've been trained by the internets on what to look for. But it's just not something that stands out.

[clyde2801]

I see what you meant, but that's like saying your 2.0GHz iMac should be capable of running at 2.8GHz speed because Apple advertises as "up to 2.8GHz."

I think the standard that apple will be held to is the 'least sophisticated consumer'. Such a person can look at the specs and recognize that the 20" has a smaller monitor than the 24". Such a person will NOT realize that the 20" has a less capable screen as well.

'Caveat emptor' applies as long as the merchant doesn't say anything false or misleading in order to make the sale.

[smythey]

I have the 20 inch alum. iMac.

It's display is fine, as long as you are sitting at its optimum viewing angle which is: straight in front of it, and at least 6 feet back!

I actually loathe the display for image editing, and almost everything else except movie watching.

My personal recourse was go out and buy a much better display by HP (funny HP calls the display a Business-Class display, yet it is far better for the creative-class-types than the new imac 20 inch alum. display). My imac now sits off to the left of my HP display which is either s-ips or a-mva (honestly not sure which it is, but either is much, much better than the display in the imac 20).

I genuinely cant understand how you think the display is that bad. Had mine since they came out and think its excellent. Okay, whilst it could always be better for some people, I think for the £800 I spent on it, it looks fantasic and well worth it. I spent a few hours on a 24 incher in another office in Feb, and didnt notice a difference at all (mainly using browsers/MS Office).

EDIT: "fantasic" is not a spelling mistake, its a new word ive just invented. Honest.... Feel free to use it.

[gnasher729]

Apple will settle out of court on this one too. I'd expect the iMac case to be
much stronger than the MacBook case. Virtually every notebook in the world
has a 6-bit display -- and always has.

In contrast, the 20" iMacs have always had professional-quality, 8-bit S-IPS
or S-PVA displays; and in the past, Apple has always disclosed color depth
information on all iMac models. The 17" iMacs were clearly specified (in the
Video Developer Note (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Conceptual/HWTech_Video/Articles/Video_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003994-SW30_1200331181)) as 6-bit+dither, and the 20" and 24" models were
clearly specified as full 8-bit color depth.

However, beginning with the ALU iMacs, Apple abandoned ethics and went
out of their way to conceal the 20" downgrade. The August 2007 section of
the Developer Note is a case study in carefully constructed weasel-wording
and half-truths:

"... display depths up to 24 bits per pixel ..." ....or NOT.


...break out your checkbook, Steve,

No way, Jose. Two very different cases. One case is two guys who think they are treated badly. The other case is a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. That makes a huge difference. There will always be guys who feel treated badly, but in the end they are customers and you treat them as such. The other kind are leeches, and you treat them as such. If you give them blood, they only come back and want more.

The leeches come up with strong rhetoric (98% fewer colours, wow, that sounds bad), which has just the disadvantage of being wrong with any reasonable interpretation. Yes, Apple doesn't make clear that there are differences in the colour display, but Apple sells these monitors as having "millions of colours", and they have. Any reasonable person will agree that a monitor with say four million colours has "millions of colours" (some, but not all, might accept this for two million colours). If one monitor has 16.2 million colours, and the other has 16.7 million colours, one customer gets a bit more than he paid for, and the other gets a lot more. No-one loses out.

So instead of "break out your checkbook, Steve", I'd say "get them where it hurts them most. Do it for me".

[gnasher729]

This hurts Apple because I've personally been persuading work colleagues to get an iMac, but most have been looking at the 20" model because they can't justify over a grand. Now I'm going to have to break it to them that Apple would rather save a few quid and falsely advertise. I know at least one that will now spend their money elsewhere, and probably on a Dell.

Dell UK claims in their specs that _all_ their laptop monitors have 16.7 million colours, from the cheapest to the most expensive laptop. I am really, really curious how many colours these monitors really have. So maybe you should wait a little bit, try to find out what the _real_ facts are, and go from there.

[gnasher729]

Wow. That was a pretty useless comment. It's not a matter of having a lower-grade display... it's the fact that Apple clearly lays out on the specifications page for ALL iMACS that ALL of the displays support millions of colors. If your display shows only 2% of that amount, then Apple lied.

If the display shows 16.2 million colours, then the lawyers suing Apple lied.

[Dont Hurt Me]

This is interesting and Im a lil concerned about iphoto effects. I havent edited any photo's since I got this 20" iMac to tell the truth.

[czachorski]

Suggest you check the spec sheet for your own iMac, Einstein. If you ever
need a warranty repair, Apple is perfectly within their rights to replace the
LCD on your 24" wonder with a 6-bit "millions of colors" Wal*Mart special:

"24-inch (viewable) glossy widescreen TFT active-matrix
LCD, 1920 by 1200 pixels, millions of colors"

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html


...now, what were you saying about brains?

LK

So they are perfectly within their rights in this post to replace my 24" screen with a 6-bit panel.......



Nope. Apple settled out of court. Settlement terms undisclosed.



Apple will settle out of court on this one too. I'd expect the iMac case to be
much stronger than the MacBook case. Virtually every notebook in the world
has a 6-bit display -- and always has.

In contrast, the 20" iMacs have always had professional-quality, 8-bit S-IPS
or S-PVA displays; and in the past, Apple has always disclosed color depth
information on all iMac models. The 17" iMacs were clearly specified (in the
Video Developer Note (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Conceptual/HWTech_Video/Articles/Video_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003994-SW30_1200331181)) as 6-bit+dither, and the 20" and 24" models were
clearly specified as full 8-bit color depth.

However, beginning with the ALU iMacs, Apple abandoned ethics and went
out of their way to conceal the 20" downgrade. The August 2007 section of
the Developer Note is a case study in carefully constructed weasel-wording
and half-truths:

"... display depths up to 24 bits per pixel ..." ....or NOT.


...break out your checkbook, Steve,

LK

......... But they need to break out the checkbook for false advertising for the 20" iMacs in this post. I'm sorry - did you use the term weasel-words in one of your posts?

The prior model 20" white 2.16 GHz C2D iMac was the exact same price ($1,499) that the current 20" 2.4 GHz aluminum model costs now, and it had the better quality S-IPS panel in it. So if they could make a sufficient profit using that panel before, they obviously still could now.

It's not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. There was generally about a $300 price drop in model-to-model comparisons when the Alum iMacs came out. The lowest slot went from $1499 to $1199, and Apple achieved this by dropping the processor from 2.16 to 2.0, and obviously by using cheaper LCD panels (the same panels that were used in the formerly cheapest 17" iMac). But they also put in a better graphics card, faster FSB, and a FW 800 port. Comparing other models up the line in the 20" & 24" also reveal about a $300 price drop across the board when comparing similar specs.

If you are going to compare the $1499 2.4 Ghz Alum iMac to the $1499 2.16 GHz prior iMac, you are going to have to acknowledge that the 2.4 Alum iMac comes with a bigger HD and a better video card with 2x the graphics memory than the old 2.16 Ghz iMac, as well as the obvious faster processor. So it is a little more complicated to make a direct comparison there.

[JayLenochiniMac]

I think the standard that apple will be held to is the 'least sophisticated consumer'. Such a person can look at the specs and recognize that the 20" has a smaller monitor than the 24". Such a person will NOT realize that the 20" has a less capable screen as well.

So how's this different from the previous generation iMacs, with the TN panel in the 17 inchers?

Even then, one can still tell the 20" has a less capable screen by looking at the tech specs (particularly the viewing angles).

[Leon Kowalski]

So how's this different from the previous generation iMacs, with the TN panel in the 17 inchers?

With previous iMac generations, Apple specified the color depth of each model.

"The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at
100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component ...

The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at
98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component ..."


With the ALU iMacs, Apple carefully reworded their tech notes to eliminate
the color depth specs and CONCEAL the 20" downgrade to 6-bit TN panels.

...pure scum-baggery and intentional deception,

LK

[polynikes]

I made the switch to iMac in mid-Feb. I have 4 iPods and an iPhone and was very pleased, so I decided to make the switch to my first Mac. I bought a 20" 2.4 GHz and upgraded RAM to 4 MB from OWC. My family (wife and 2 young daughters) are doing things that they have never done before(movies, photo editing) on a computer. Yes, when I first got the machine it had a slight gradient, but I calibrated it and you reaaalllly have to want to find it to notice. Overall, I think the current iMacs look better and have better(newer) technology than the white ones. I have been so pleased that I have purchased the Time Capsule making my home transformation to apple complete. I think the price point and technology are right on target, just look at apple's increasing market share. If you don't like the current iMacs, don't buy one. As one of many new converts, I am a very happy customer. Now flame away.

[czachorski]

With previous iMac generations, Apple specified the color depth of each model.

"The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at
100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component ...

The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at
98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component ..."


With the ALU iMacs, Apple carefully reworded their tech notes to eliminate
that information and CONCEAL the 20" downgrade to 6-bit TN panels.

...pure scum-baggery and intentional deception,

LK

But not always (http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMac_Late_2006.html). All 3 machines say "millions of colors". What do you know, every single iMac spec sheet (http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/) says "million of colors". Gee, that's strange. I thought Apple changed things to be deceptive?!?

Display
Built-in 17-inch (viewable), 20-inch (viewable), or 24-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display
Millions of colors at all resolutions
Typical viewing angle:
17-inch model
140° horizontal
120° vertical
20-inch model
170° horizontal
170° vertical
24-inch model
178° horizontal
178° vertical
Typical brightness: 250 cd/m (17-inch model); 280 cd/m (20-inch model); 400 cd/m (24-inch model)
Typical contrast ratio: 500:1 (17-inch model); 800:1 (20-inch model); 700:1 (24-inch model)

What was your source for "The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component"? You failed to post a link.

[Leon Kowalski]

What was your source for "The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component"?
You failed to post a link.

I have already cited the source, and YOU have re-posted it -- in one of
your huge, non-selective, all-inclusive quotes (of text that you obviously
didn't even bother to read). Please try to keep up.

LK

[Eric5h5]

I don't know about all of you, but I have the 20" Alu iMac, and it says I have 32-Bit color on my LCD screen, which some out to 4,294,967,296 distinct colors, not the 262,144 that you guys are referring to. Sounds like some people have been made out to be fools?

Either that or my computer info is lying to me. I'm not sure which at this point...

Neither, actually. Your computer info is just telling you what the graphics card is using internally. If you hooked it up to an 8-bit grayscale display, it would say the same thing. Also, 32-bit color doesn't mean 4 billion colors. It means 8 bits each for the red, green, and blue components, plus 8 bits that are just there to fill out 24 bits to 32 bits so you get a nice speed boost due to the way computer processors work. Sometimes those extra 8 bits are used for alpha channel info, but you don't get any more colors out of it than 24 bit, or 16.7 million.

Except in the case of the 20" display, where it's 6 bit color per component, or about 262,000 colors. The display takes the 8 bit per component color information from the graphics card and uses it to make a dithered 6 bit display in an attempt to simulate 8 bit color. However, dithering doesn't really make more colors. Unless you squint, maybe. ;) (Or the display was high enough resolution that the limitations of human vision would make the dithering indistinguishable, but it's not.)

--Eric

[noseface]

This is frustrating to me. I did alot of research and didnt see this before. When i went to the store i thought the video looked ok but now that i got a refurbished new generation 20" i dont even want to watch the movies on them cause they look better on my old tv. I think a 24" is too big for me, but i hate to pay more for an older computer. so wierd.

[JayLenochiniMac]

With previous iMac generations, Apple specified the color depth of each model.

"The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at
100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component ...

The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at
98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component ..."


With the ALU iMacs, Apple carefully reworded their tech notes to eliminate
the color depth specs and CONCEAL the 20" downgrade to 6-bit TN panels.

...pure scum-baggery and intentional deception,

LK

However, I was responding to clyde2801's post about the "least sophisticated customer." If such a customer is going to check the specs, he or she is going to look at http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html , not some Video Developer Note (which even I have never seen until you posted it in this thread). The older version of the aforementioned link on the previous generation iMac didn't mention the 6/8 bits per component information either, just "millions of colors" for the 17", 20" and 24" machines.

[Miharu]

I had no idea of this. I bought the new iMac in last August right after they came out and I've been really happy AFTER the graphics update that fixed the abominable crashing issue. But now I feel like cheated.

[clyde2801]

However, I was responding to clyde2801's post about the "least sophisticated customer." If such a customer is going to check the specs, he or she is going to look at http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html , not some Video Developer Note (which even I have never seen until you posted it in this thread). The older version of the aforementioned link on the previous generation iMac didn't mention the 6/8 bits per component information either, just "millions of colors" for the 17", 20" and 24" machines.

I will warrant a guess, and suppose that no one thought of suing apple for deceptive trade practices when the 17" was being made.

[Chris Blount]

My attitude is SO WHAT!!! When I purchased my iMac, the display looked miles ahead of what I was using before. It's clear and the colors look fine. As far as I'm concerned, I got what I paid for.

Despite the news, I will continue to enjoy my 20" iMac. I loved it yesterday and will continue today. I'm not saying what Apple did was right, but it's just not worth one ounce of life worrying about if I'm seeing 6 Million colors after enjoying this machine for several months already. I guess in some cases, ignorance is bliss. :)

[trip1ex]

My attitude is SO WHAT!!! When I purchased my iMac, the display looked miles ahead of what I was using before. It's clear and the colors look fine. As far as I'm concerned, I got what I paid for.

Despite the news, I will continue to enjoy my 20" iMac. I loved it yesterday and will continue today. I'm not saying what Apple did was right, but it's just not worth one ounce of life worrying about if I'm seeing 6 Million colors after enjoying this machine for several months already. I guess in some cases, ignorance is bliss. :)

I don't think it's ignorance is bliss. It's just that the display looks great even if it's not the best display out there.

Some folks (many who don't own an iMac even) are (in effect) complaining about the difference between $8 million and $10 million dollars while failing to see that both amounts of money make you well off.

[albusseverus]

Perhaps, like a lot of things in the law, what it says is not what it's really about.

I've got a 20" iMac with a shocker of a screen. The top of the screen is too dark and the bottom of the screen is too light (small text breaks up and becomes unreadable). Similarly you can't get consistent colour across the whole screen. It's embarrassing to show anyone.

Maybe it's difficult to sue for using cheap-****** components, but if you can show the company misrepresented the specs, you've gottem!!

There are a LOT of unhappy customers (you just have to read the Apple Discussion Forums - I wish I'd done it before I paid out good money). I've done the right thing - calls to Apple, explained my problem in their Discussion Forums and they've done nothing to help me.

If this gets a result, then maybe that's what has to be done.

I did not buy the cheapest model, mine has the same Graphics Card as the 24" models (and, as if that's even an excuse).
Plus, I never expected substandard components from Apple. Shame !!

[czachorski]

I have already cited the source, and YOU have re-posted it -- in one of
your huge, non-selective, all-inclusive quotes (of text that you obviously
didn't even bother to read). Please try to keep up.

LK

So the difference between their advertising of the old 17" and new 20" is nothing, then. They were both listed on the spec sheet the exact same way. So back to JayLenochiniMac's question - what is different? You said they changed the way the specs read. They have not. You are full of BS, and want to keep diverting away from it with comments like "try to keep up". No amount of "keeping up" will help with your hand-waving and back-peddling. You are contradicting yourself, and are so blind in your flurry of anger that you are not even making sense anymore.

And you did not post a source from Apple of the 6 bit dithering in the spec. Let's see that source........ what a surprise we haven't seen it yet.

[JayLenochiniMac]

And you did not post a source from Apple of the 6 bit dithering in the spec. Let's see that source........ what a surprise we haven't seen it yet.

Yes, he did and it's in the Video Developer Note link he provided in this thread. Says the following:

The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.

The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.

The point is Apple didn't mention the 6 bit dithering on the tech specs page for either the previous generation iMac or the current generation iMac http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

[cloudnine]

If the display shows 16.2 million colours, then the lawyers suing Apple lied.

Um, yes... that's usually how it works. If one party isn't lying, the other party probably is.

[doug in albq]

Perhaps, like a lot of things in the law, what it says is not what it's really about.

I've got a 20" iMac with a shocker of a screen. The top of the screen is too dark and the bottom of the screen is too light (small text breaks up and becomes unreadable). Similarly you can't get consistent colour across the whole screen. It's embarrassing to show anyone.

Maybe it's difficult to sue for using cheap-****** components, but if you can show the company misrepresented the specs, you've gottem!!

There are a LOT of unhappy customers (you just have to read the Apple Discussion Forums - I wish I'd done it before I paid out good money). I've done the right thing - calls to Apple, explained my problem in their Discussion Forums and they've done nothing to help me.

If this gets a result, then maybe that's what has to be done.

I did not buy the cheapest model, mine has the same Graphics Card as the 24" models (and, as if that's even an excuse).
Plus, I never expected substandard components from Apple. Shame !!

EXACTLY!

+1.

[Aegelward]

this thread has quite a few apologists saying stuff along the lines of "but apple degraded the screens for your BENEFIT so they can put in better components" which quite possibly bull, most of the components used in the alu imac are considerably cheaper than their equivalents from the previous generation.

seriously, they should never have tried getting away with degrading the screen for a fatter profit margin,

[czachorski]

Yes, he did and it's in the Video Developer Note link he provided in this thread. Says the following:

The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.

The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.

The point is Apple didn't mention the 6 bit dithering on the tech specs page for either the previous generation iMac or the current generation iMac http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

So the iMac specs use the same language as before "millions of colors", and Leon's entire beef this whole time has been that the video developer notes are deceptive? Seems pretty thin to me. I wouldn't want to stand up and try keep a straight face whole arguing that point in court.

I think your original question is still a good one: what changed from the old 17" to the current 20" that makes Apple so deceptive in changing they way they represent their panels? The specs read the same. The low-end model still has a 6-bit display just like before. Is it just the video developer notes? Is that all this is about? What a joke.

[trip1ex]

Perhaps, like a lot of things in the law, what it says is not what it's really about.

I've got a 20" iMac with a shocker of a screen. The top of the screen is too dark and the bottom of the screen is too light (small text breaks up and becomes unreadable). Similarly you can't get consistent colour across the whole screen. It's embarrassing to show anyone.

Maybe it's difficult to sue for using cheap-****** components, but if you can show the company misrepresented the specs, you've gottem!!

There are a LOT of unhappy customers (you just have to read the Apple Discussion Forums - I wish I'd done it before I paid out good money). I've done the right thing - calls to Apple, explained my problem in their Discussion Forums and they've done nothing to help me.

If this gets a result, then maybe that's what has to be done.

I did not buy the cheapest model, mine has the same Graphics Card as the 24" models (and, as if that's even an excuse).
Plus, I never expected substandard components from Apple. Shame !!

? Why didn't you return your iMac if it was that bad?

That's the first thing I would have done. The first day I would have returned it.

And there's no more unhappy customers now than before. There's always people complaining in forums. People that are happy are using their computers.

[clyde2801]

? ...People that are happy are using their computers.

Or, they're complaining on the forums about the people who are complaining in the forums.

I'm just sayin'....:D

[macguy4reals]

Ok so I have one of these 20" iMacs. What do I do?

I've never really noticed an issue before (I'm not the most astute person) but I am bit annoyed by this. Where do I go from here?

[Killyp]

If you don't notice any issue, then there's no need to do anything about it.

I would notice it because the MacBook Pros suffer from the same issue (all laptops do), and part of the reason I'd get an iMac is to have a good high quality display...

[GradientMac]

Guys you know that the 2.4 GHz iMacs are not the 'low end' Macs you claim they are. The 2.0 is the low end iMac, so why am I, a 2.4 GHz model user, getting the same display?

[gnasher729]

Ok so I have one of these 20" iMacs. What do I do?

I've never really noticed an issue before (I'm not the most astute person) but I am bit annoyed by this. Where do I go from here?

The actual issue is that (1) Apple has lots and lots of money in the bank, and (2) there are lawyers who think they can get a bit of that money by complaining as loud as possible in the hope that Apple gives them money to go away. Fact is that the 20" iMac has an LCD screen that uses 6 bit per channel + dithering to produce 16.2 million colours, just as the advertised (Apple advertises it as "Millions of colours"). not 260,000 colours as these lawyers are claiming.

These people are complaining that for $300 more, you get an iMac with a bigger and better screen. That's what people pay more money for it. I have been told that US hospitals have problems if one of their X-Ray machines breaks down and any replacement would be better than the old machines they have. If they have say two old and one new and better X-Ray machine, any patient who is x-rayed using the older equipment could sue them because they are not given the best possible care. So the hospital tries to get a replacement that isn't better than the old equipment, to avoid being sued.

[Leon Kowalski]

And yet somehow, despite this deception, I still managed to educate myself on all of
this before I bought an iMac, chose the model that had the specs that I desired.



So the difference between their advertising of the old 17" and new 20" is nothing,
then. They were both listed on the spec sheet the exact same way.

Hmm... So, you cleverly chose a model with "the specs that you desired" from
a spec sheet that listed all models "the exact same way"? ...how very special!




Even more of a reason why I will never behave as you have - acting like the
fanboy who rushes out to buy something based on only what a salesman says
at a Keynote speech. I will always be skeptical, do my own research, see
the product first hand and draw my own conclusions.



Original revision 1 Mac mini - 1.25 Ghz G4, 80 GB HD, 512 MB RAM,
pre-ordered the same day as the keynote ...

"The discipline of the written word punishes both stupidity and dishonesty."
- John Steinbeck


BTW, how is it that the self-proclaimed "great researcher" who always studies
purchases carefully (or not) is so naive as to expect that ALL the manufacturer's
specifications for a computer would fit on a one-page thumbnail data sheet?

The simple FACT is, the "spec sheet" you referenced contains only a tiny
fraction of the published iMac product specifications. The vast majority of
"The Specs" are organized in a hierarchy of individual "Developer Notes"
(Video, Audio, RAM, Firewire, Bluetooth, Ethernet, etc., etc.) with links for
each subsystems collected in an iMac Developer Note (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/iMac_0708/Introduction/Introduction.html) for each generation.

...but thanks for all them expert tips on "research,"

LK

...

[czachorski]

Hmm... So, you cleverly chose a model with "the specs that you desired" from
a spec sheet that listed all models "the exact same way"? ...how very special!






"The discipline of the written word punishes both stupidity and dishonesty."
- John Steinbeck


BTW, how is it that the self-proclaimed "great researcher" who always studies
purchases carefully (or not) is so naive as to expect that ALL the manufacturer's
specifications for a computer would fit on a one-page thumbnail data sheet?

The simple FACT is, the "spec sheet" you referenced contains only a tiny
fraction of the published iMac product specifications. The vast majority of
"The Specs" are organized in a heirarchy of individual "Developer Notes"
(Video, Audio, RAM, Firewire, Bluetooth, Ethernet, etc., etc.) with links for
each subsystems collected in an iMac Developer Note (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/iMac_0708/Introduction/Introduction.html) for each product cycle.

...but thanks for them expert tips on "research,"

LK

...

Hey Leon - check this (http://www.google.com/) out....It has an amazing wealth of information. It just wasn't that hard to do a little research. You are just angry because every point you have made on this issue has proven to be just blind, angry BS.

I already conceded the mistake it was to order the mini 3 years ago, because it was a rev 1a item, when you posted it in that other thread. It died 2 years later. Funny thing is, I was not disappointed in the specs when it showed up - it came exactly as I expected. The rumors were buzzing for months before that release, and I got caught that one time in the frenzy. Actually, it was kind of fun! But I knew exactly what I was ordering from a spec basis. The fact that it died was the bummer, and it sucks about Apple, and probably most tech companies, that is is necessary to avoid a rev 1a product.

But I am going to tell you what the difference is between you and I. (See, I can bold selected words too!) Maybe your iMac was your first Apple product and you felt greatly disappointed. Or Maybe you just hate Apple. But you had this bad experience, and have been running around all over this forum for 6 months throwing your cry-baby temper tantrums, first about your iMac gradient issues, and now in a trollish way about many various things that never even affected you. You have shown that you are either a very angry, vengeful person, a very elaborate troll or paid anti-marketer.

For me, in the past 6 years, I have purchased 7 Apple hardware items, including 5 Macs and 2 iPods. I have purchased maybe a dozen software items from Apple, and frequent their retail stores and web site. In all these experiences with Apple, save the Mac Mini, Apple has done something pretty amazing for a tech company: they have consistently exceeded my expectations. This is a very, very rare thing in this tech age, for me and most others. So when my Mac Mini that I ordered on the day of the keynote dies 2 years later, yes, I am angry, pissed at Apple and feel that I got gipped out of a machine that should have lasted many more years. But here is the difference between us: I got over it. I am not going to carry that anger around like you. I understand how terrible the average tech experience is with most other companies. Only 2-3 companies out of hundreds have consistently and repeatedly exceeded my expectation (Tivo is another one), and I understand what a rare thing that is. While they deserve my anger over the Mac Mini, and I unfortunately had to learn the lesson not to buy a rev 1a from Apple, or any other tech company, I see no reason to take things to the level that you have - ridiculous, childish, cry-baby trolling over every little thing for months and months.

People like you operate from a very strange and biased assumption - a bias that is more strong and blinding than anything that you mistakenly believe the so called Apple faithful have. It is the assumption that the magic of Apple starts with Steve Jobs, and continues through a path of religion, blind faith and loyalty to everything Apple by its followers in an unquestionable and blind manner, and that there is no other possible explanation for the loyalty and happiness that Apple so obviously brings so many people. We must all be drinking the same kool-aid, right? Maybe you have that disposition because you got burned on your first purchase. Or maybe you are just an angry person. Or maybe you are just a troll. Either way, people like you have it totally backwards. The loyalty to Apple comes first from them exceeding their customers expectations, and the loyalty is built as this result is repeated. It does not come from magic, or Kool-Aid or Steve Jobs mind control. It is a simple formula, it works, and it is the Zen place for a company to achieve.

People like you feel the need to try to tear it down. Problem is, it simply won't work, because for every bitter, angry, biased and blinded by some strange internal anger Leon Kowalski out there, there are hundreds of people (http://images.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/22results.html) who are thrilled by Apple. People like you will continue to be angry, and the rest of us will be enjoying the rare thing that is Apple. Truth is, I feel sorry for you. But I will also not tolerate your angry BS all over this forum.

[trip1ex]

Ok so I have one of these 20" iMacs. What do I do?

I've never really noticed an issue before (I'm not the most astute person) but I am bit annoyed by this. Where do I go from here?

Well you start by complaining in these threads about how you've been wronged by Apple and how you can't look at your display anymore because the internets told you it sucks and that you're a smuck for liking it in the first place.

[ichiban]

People like you feel the need to try to tear it down. Problem is, it simply won't work, because for every bitter, angry, biased and blinded by some strange internal anger Leon Kowalski out there, there are hundreds of people (http://images.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/22results.html) who are thrilled by Apple. People like you will continue to be angry, and the rest of us will be enjoying the rare thing that is Apple. Truth is, I feel sorry for you. But I will also not tolerate your angry BS all over this forum.

Who is the angry bitter one here? I am sorry to jump in, but feeling sorry for someone over the internet is silly. Not to mention attempting to characterize and subsequently bash your characterization. It is the internet buddy. Move on, don't try to take the "high ground" by feeling sorry for someone you don't even know one thing about. Pitiful.

[Leon Kowalski]

I already conceded the mistake it was to order the mini 3 years ago ...

Just don't get it, do ya? No one could give a rat's rump about whether you
bought that mini on a whim, or after decades of painstaking "research."

OTOH, ridiculing others, to the point of declaring them suckers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5251013&postcount=65), for actions
which you deceitfully claim to "NEVER" take is the height of hypocrisy and
dishonesty. Furthermore, posting such disingenuous rubbish on the very
same forum that contains smoking-gun-proof of that duplicity is nothing
short of weapons-grade stupidity.

LK

[czachorski]

Who is the angry bitter one here? I am sorry to jump in, but feeling sorry for someone over the internet is silly. Not to mention attempting to characterize and subsequently bash your characterization. It is the internet buddy. Move on, don't try to take the "high ground" by feeling sorry for someone you don't even know one thing about. Pitiful.

When the low ground is taken, there really is only one place left. Sorry if the high ground bother you in response to an angry, vengeful troll. Go read his post history - he is full of angry BS and he will get called out on every time. Yes, it's the internet - trolling BS will get called out - get used to it.

[czachorski]

Just don't get it, do ya? No one could give a rat's rump about whether you
bought that mini on a whim, or after decades of painstaking "research."

OTOH, ridiculing others, to the point of declaring them suckers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5251013&postcount=65), for actions
which you deceitfully claim to "NEVER" take is the height of hypocrisy and
dishonesty. Furthermore, posting such disingenuous rubbish on the very
same forum that contains smoking-gun-proof of that duplicity is nothing
short of weapons-grade stupidity.

LK

I still ridicule you and call you out for your claim of buying the iMac based on just what Jobs said at the keynote. I still call you a fool for believing all his uses of the word "professional". You got suckered, you drank the kool-aid, you are mad about it, and it cracks me up. You can not let that go. It will be fun to see how long this anger lasts around here. Enjoy your posts here - I will call your BS every single time I see it as long as your anger lasts, regardless of how dishonest, hypocrite, or deceitful you think I am. You blame everyone else for your mistakes, to a point of blindness. And go on the personal attack when you are called out. Pure and simple troll. I don't just feed Trolls - I stick them with a hot iron and watch them writhe around in their own venom! It's so much fun!

[nout72]

Though this constant complaining about the gradient and poor viewing angle etc. is annoying the crap out of me, I must defend Leon Kowalski.

First of all he has a point:
It is hard to disagree with the fact that Apple somewhat deceived the customer with the poorer TN panels used in the 20 inch iMacs.
Especially to those who have worked with a previous generation iMac.

Secondly, he isn't trolling.
He only gives his opinion and his experiences so far with the latest alu iMacs in dedicated threads/questions about the screen quality.
It is not like he rants in every single thread about the poor quality of the latest iMacs.

Thirdly, he isn't even ranting.
He backs his statements with links/photos and specs.

That said, I must confess that it (the constant whining about the LCD screen) annoys the hell out of me, because it almost seems I am not allowed to enjoy my iMac for the following reasons:

- The previous generation of iMacs have better screens, so it appears to be my duty to be angry and disappointed about it.
- If I don't notice the gradient and the fact that it only supports 260.000 colors there must be something seriously wrong with my eyes.
- If I DO notice the gradient, but don't care that much about it, I must be an Apple fanboy.

Oh well.
The screen of my 20 inch iMac isn't perfect, but with the proper calibration and a program called DarkAdpted it is good enough for me.

[czachorski]

That said, I must confess that it annoys the hell out of me, because it almost seems I am not allowed to enjoy my iMac for the following reasons:

- The previous generation of iMacs have better screens, so it appears to be my duty to be angry and disappointed about it.
- If I don't notice the gradient and the fact that it only supports 260.000 colors there must be something seriously wrong with my eyes.
- If I DO notice the gradient, but don't care that much about it, I must be an Apple fanboy.

Oh well.
The screen of my 20 inch iMac isn't perfect, but with the proper calibration and a program called DarkAdpted it is good enough for me.

Do you feel duped by Apple over it? They moved the low end from the 17" to the 20", and migrated the lower quality 6 bit panel to the 20" along with it. They did this while the main specs linked to off the iMac page listed both the old 17" and the new 20" as having "million of colors". If you check the video developer notes, they used to clearly call the 17" out as 6 bit dithered to accomplish this, but in the new 20", they do not. Does this make you angry?

[nout72]

Do you feel duped by Apple over it? They moved the low end from the 17" to the 20", and migrated the lower quality 6 bit panel to the 20" along with it. They did this while the main specs linked to off the iMac page listed both the old 17" and the new 20" as having "million of colors". If you check the video developer notes, they used to clearly call the 17" out as 6 bit dithered to accomplish this, but in the new 20", they do not. Does this make you angry?

No I don't feel duped and no it doesn't make me angry.
I guess I didn't make myself clear.
The constant whining on this forum and other forums about the gradient and so on annoys the hell out of me because it almost seems I am not allowed to enjoy my iMac: if don't care about the gradient and 'only' 260,000 colors I must be blind or an Apple fanboy.

But still I don't think Leon Kowalski is trollling, because the gradient for instance is obvious

[czachorski]

No I don't feel duped and no it doesn't make me angry.
I guess I didn't make myself clear.
The constant whining on this forum and other forums about the gradient and so on annoys the hell out of me because it almost seems I am not allowed to enjoy my iMac: if don't care about the gradient and 'only' 260,000 colors I must be blind or an Apple fanboy.

But still I don't think Leon Kowalski is trollling, because the gradient for instance is obvious


The trolling has been split between two thread in the last few days on the screens. Most of the trolling was here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=462075), but this thread continued his angry tirade.

It all stems from this sentiment (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4308352&postcount=12) about 6 months ago, which he still trolls about daily, and just can't get over. His posts these last few days just echo the same anger he has been spewing all along. He is tricky troll, because he carefully flips back and fourth from making careful posts that he can support with links in one thread, and then shows his true color in others - accusing all Apple users of being blinded by the Anointed One, who we follow like religious zealots. A few examples are quoted below.

Nonetheless, I see you are a pretty reasonable, non-angry, non-vengeful 20" iMac owner. I think that you and I could boil this whole thing down to a pretty simple issue:

Apple has always used the same language in their headline iMac specs and marketing language: millions of colors, which is technically correct. They changed the practice in their tech notes to no longer disclose which panels are 6 bit with dithering. Does this warrant legal action? Is this unethical? Interested in your particular take on this.


He is the fun troll reading:


ep, a "matter of personal preference." Uh, Steve's personal preference...

...and what customers think doesn't matter,

LK

Now that David Koresh and Jimmy Jones are gone, it's down to S.J. or nothin'.

...you have been assimilated,

LK


"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to choose."
-- apologies to Janice J.

.

I view it more as a lame smokescreen to divert attention from
the weasel-tongued pronouncements of The Anointed One:

"... EVEN BETTER ... professional ... most professional ... PROFESSIONAL ..
.. professionals .... pro .... HIGHER-END .... very elegant .... pro .... pro ....
.... most expensive .... pros .... pro-line .... UPGRADED ...."

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/specialevent07/

-- elapsed time 96 seconds -- beginning at 00:03:12 --

score card:
"aluminum" ................................................. 10
"glass" / "silicon" ........................................... 8
"pro" / "pro-line" / "professional" ..................... 8
"elegant" / "higher-end" / "expensive" ............... 3
"even better" / "upgraded" .............................. 2
"consumer grade" ....................................... ZERO!


...if "aluminum and glass" is the answer, WHAT was the question?

LK

I watched Steve's August '07 intro and foolishly believed his bald-faced
lies about "even better" ... "more professional" ... "upgraded".

- Bought a crappy ALU "6-bit upgrade" that same week.

- Exchanged it for a crappy 24" ALU with a 2.5:1 gradient.

LK

I believe there's an even more time-honored way to earn the fanboy badge:

Freely admit that S.J. is a scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, weasel-tongued liar...

...deserving of great admiration for his all-American bidness ethics,

LK

[nout72]

The trolling has been split between two thread in the last few days on the screens. Most of the trolling was here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=462075), but this thread continued his angry tirade.

It all stems from this sentiment (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4308352&postcount=12) about 6 months ago, which he still trolls about daily, and just can't get over. His posts these last few days just echo the same anger he has been spewing all along.

Yes I have read most messages Leon has posted on Macrumors and on the Apple discussion board as well, under the nickname The Looby.
Maybe you're right in calling it "trolling", but I personally don't see/feel it that way.
He is just passionate in warning and convincing people about Apple's (to what he feels) 'decline' in qualitiy over the years.
And he gets, like many other forum posters, a bit vicious when people doubt his reasons.

But as I have said earlier, it's getting annoying.
Though it's not his fault people constantly start new threads about the gradient whereas they could use the search option on this forum or only type 'iMac and gradient' in Google's search box to find everything about this subject.

Nonetheless, I see you are a pretty reasonable, non-angry, non-vengeful 20" iMac owner. I think that you and I could boil this whole thing down to a pretty simple issue:

Apple has always used the same language in their headline iMac specs and marketing language: millions of colors, which is technically correct. They changed the practice in their tech notes to no longer disclose which panels are 6 bit with dithering. Does this warrant legal action? Is this unethical? Interested in your particular take on this.

No I don't think it warrants legal action and it is not unethical.

But I can understand the deception and the big disappointment from the viewpoint of owners of previous generation iMacs.
They have every right to be angry.
A priori new generation of hardware is supposed to be better (why would anyone buy a new Mac if it would be of poorer quality?)
True, the new processor, videocard and hard disk are better, but as an loyal Apple buyer you would not expect the LCD screen of the 2.4 Ghz 20 inch iMac to be of poorer quality than the previous generation 20 inch iMac.

The anger and disappointment is valid, but I definitely don't think it warrants any legal action.

[JayLenochiniMac]

True, the new processor, videocard and hard disk are better, but as an loyal Apple buyer you would not expect the LCD screen of the 2.4 Ghz 20 inch iMac to be of poorer quality than the previous generation 20 inch iMac.


They downgraded the video card too, at least in the high-end 24" iMac. But that's Apple for you.

[VoodooDaddy]

I got a 20" iMac about a month ago. I like it. Screen looks good, colors look good, I dont see any gradient. I dont sit off at a 60 degree angle from the screen and try to use it. I dont use it standing up. Im not a professional graphics designer or photographer. I feel like I got what I paid for.

[czachorski]

But I can understand the deception and the big disappointment from the viewpoint of owners of previous generation iMacs.
They have every right to be angry.
A priori new generation of hardware is supposed to be better (why would anyone buy a new Mac if it would be of poorer quality?)
True, the new processor, videocard and hard disk are better, but as an loyal Apple buyer you would not expect the LCD screen of the 2.4 Ghz 20 inch iMac to be of poorer quality than the previous generation 20 inch iMac.

The anger and disappointment is valid, but I definitely don't think it warrants any legal action.

I'm with you. I think the American buying public is a bit schitzophrentic on this one, though. We expect and demand ever dropping prices on tech gadget, buy cheap crap from Wal*Mart, import sub-par products from China, and then get all surprised when we found out that *gasp* companies are producing lower quality, lower spec'd items to accomplish this!

You can still avoid this buy doing your research and paying a little more. There is a 24" iMac with a better panel. There are alternatives to Wal*Mart. You still get what you pay for. Not much has changed there. Accept it and move on. Every time someone want to hang all the blame for this on the company that practices these things, I feel the need to remind them that companies are only reacting to the market and consumer demands. If you don't like what a company is doing, don't but from them. Heck, even educate people on the web about the practice - it is what makes the web community strong. But there is a big difference between posting such practices, and being hell-bent on trolling.

[doug in albq]

I very much appreciate the posts of Leon Kowalski.

He does an excellent job of explaining things and provides a very refreshing amount of information to balance out the rhetoric of the blatant (paid poster) Apple Fanbois which populate this forum to an almost dangerous (from an informational POV) degree.

Thanks Leon, you do a great job of deflecting Fanboi attacks with solid information.

I am starting to see that this forum is not the best place to get critical Apple information, as the Fanboi rhetoric is so loud and so repetitive that it drowns out genuine critique.


czachorski: the opposite of the troll: the paid poster. You are at almost every critical thread on this forum sticking up for Apple whether they deserve it or not. Do you live at Mac Rumors? The amount of post you have is astonishing, and they all always have the same flavor of rhetoric: Fanboyesque.

[czachorski]

I very much appreciate the posts of Leon Kowalski.

He does an excellent job of explaining things and provides a very refreshing amount of information to balance out the rhetoric of the blatant (paid poster) Apple Fanbois which populate this forum to an almost dangerous (from an informational POV) degree.

Thanks Leon, you do a great job of deflecting Fanboi attacks with solid information.

I am starting to see that this forum is not the best place to get critical Apple information, as the Fanboi rhetoric is so loud and so repetitive that it drowns out genuine critique.

Quote some of this so-called rhetoric. What you are really saying is that it is not possible to discuss all facets of an issue without being called a fanboy. That is a blindness worse than the accusations you yourself are doling out.

Tell me too, how this is genuine critique: "Now that David Koresh and Jimmy Jones are gone, it's down to S.J. or nothin'" ?

[doug in albq]

lightning-quick.... I should expect no less from the paid poster.

Keeping on topic: the 20 inch display in the new imac is poor.

[Aegelward]

part of me hopes that in the presumably coming update (sheesh, they've left it so long now they may as well wait for WWDC and the next gen chipsets) apple will actually say 'okay guys, we've been rumbled, we garantee high end displays in imacs from now on'. i may just slip off my fence...

then again, apple admitting to a mistake?

[czachorski]

lightning-quick.... I should expect no less from the paid poster.

Keeping on topic: the 20 inch display in the new imac is poor.

7 minute response time, same as yours. Thanks for proving yourself a troll, too. That comment serves no purpose other than troll. It's so easy to smoke you guys out!

[Nordichund]

I


czachorski: the opposite of the troll: the paid poster. You are at almost every critical thread on this forum sticking up for Apple whether they deserve it or not. Do you live at Mac Rumors? The amount of post you have is astonishing, and they all always have the same flavor of rhetoric: Fanboyesque.


Lol, I think we should send Czachorski a badge with "Apple iMac defender" written on it :D

Seriously though, you would expect Apple to produce a better machine after updating its product, but in the case of the 20" iMac this clearly is not the case.

Still with this product and its price, based on the company's previous reputation, Apple really have made a substantial dent into the current volatile computer market with the Al iMac. Even after this case is settled, win or lose, they'll still be laughing all the way to the bank. But you can bet a lot MORE people will be closely examining the next upgrade.

After sending my 24" iMacs back I did consider buying a 20" However based on many of the reviews on here and elsewhere, and the complaints about the poor, cheap TN panel I didn't. So thanks to everyone for that. :)

[czachorski]

Lol, I think we should send Czachorski a badge with "Apple iMac defender" written on it :D

Seriously though, you would expect Apple to produce a better machine after updating its product, but in the case of the 20" iMac this clearly is not the case.

Still with this product and its price, based on the company's previous reputation, Apple really have made a substantial dent into the current volatile computer market with the Al iMac. Even after this case is settled, win or lose, they'll still be laughing all the way to the bank. But you can bet a lot MORE people will be closely examining the next upgrade.

After sending my 24" iMacs back I did consider buying a 20" However based on many of the reviews on here and elsewhere, and the complaints about the poor, cheap TN panel I didn't. So thanks to everyone for that. :)

Hey, I'll take that badge. :)

Critical, well-thought out rhetoric doesn't bother me. Those aspects of Leon and Doug's points are even useful. They will get called every time by the "defender of the ALum iMac" when they cross that line.

[randyhudson]

The last generation of iMac and its panel disparities has no bearing on the issues with the current generation. With the current iMac, Apple clearly calls out the similarities and differences for the displays. The similarities are listed as:


widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display
Millions of colors at all resolutions


While the differences are clearly listed as well:


Resolution
Viewing angle
brightness
contrast


Obviously the displays differ in ways not described in the tech specs above. Not only that, but the claimed vertical viewing angle for the 20" is no where close to 160 degrees. Roughly 30 degrees above perpindicular to the screen, the contrast is extremely poor. In some cases the contrast disappears or inverts. For example, the gray color used to indicate selection on a window without focus disappears. The shadows around windows appear brighter than the surrounding desktop rather than darker. This has been my biggest disappointment with the iMac. I constantly find myself adjusting the tilt or brightness because of my viewing angle. My iMac is in my kitchen so often I'm standing rather than sitting.

As far as the in-store evaluation goes, most of the in store models are 24-inch. Many shoppers will demo the 24 and then purchase the mid or low-end 20 without evaluating it for such unexpected differences in the display. Seriously, if you wanted the larger HD capacity, would you be paranoid enough to test for differences other than capacity? What Apple has done is equivalent to slipping in a 5400RPM drive without telling you when you pick the 500GB option.

People are acting dumb about this simply because the 20-inch is less expensive. Who cares?? Buyers had the choice between options, along with a description of the two options and their differences. It doesn't matter which option was the more expensive. What matters is that buyers did not have the information needed to make the right choice.

[JayLenochiniMac]

As far as the in-store evaluation goes, most of the in store models are 24-inch. Many shoppers will demo the 24 and then purchase the mid or low-end 20 without evaluating it for such unexpected differences in the display.

Wouldn't that be true of the previous generation iMac, with buyers demoing the 24 or 20 but eventually settling on the 17?

[trip1ex]

Obviously the displays differ in ways not described in the tech specs above. Not only that, but the claimed vertical viewing angle for the 20" is no where close to 160 degrees. Roughly 30 degrees above perpindicular to the screen, the contrast is extremely poor. In some cases the contrast disappears or inverts. For example, the gray color used to indicate selection on a window without focus disappears. The shadows around windows appear brighter than the surrounding desktop rather than darker. This has been my biggest disappointment with the iMac. I constantly find myself adjusting the tilt or brightness because of my viewing angle. My iMac is in my kitchen so often I'm standing rather than sitting.

As far as the in-store evaluation goes, most of the in store models are 24-inch. Many shoppers will demo the 24 and then purchase the mid or low-end 20 without evaluating it for such unexpected differences in the display. Seriously, if you wanted the larger HD capacity, would you be paranoid enough to test for differences other than capacity? What Apple has done is equivalent to slipping in a 5400RPM drive without telling you when you pick the 500GB option.

People are acting dumb about this simply because the 20-inch is less expensive. Who cares?? Buyers had the choice between options, along with a description of the two options and their differences. It doesn't matter which option was the more expensive. What matters is that buyers did not have the information needed to make the right choice.

Why didn't you return the iMac asap if it was that bad?

Anyway tech specs always lie. Always use your own 2 eyes and experience instead of relying on paper specs. I mean do you ever look at what the printing speed specs for printers are? I hope you don't take those verbatim when making a purchase.

I bought my 20" iMac. I knew about the gradient thing. I looked at it for a day and determined that the problem, at least on mine, was there, but was very minor and not something you notice unless you look for it. Overall the 20" monitor on my iMac is quite nice.

In the store I could tell the 24" looked a bit better. I just think too many are concerned about paper specs and then polarize the differences to good vs bad when the reality is the differences are great vs very good.

[trip1ex]

But I can understand the deception and the big disappointment from the viewpoint of owners of previous generation iMacs.
They have every right to be angry.
A priori new generation of hardware is supposed to be better (why would anyone buy a new Mac if it would be of poorer quality?)
True, the new processor, videocard and hard disk are better, but as an loyal Apple buyer you would not expect the LCD screen of the 2.4 Ghz 20 inch iMac to be of poorer quality than the previous generation 20 inch iMac.

The anger and disappointment is valid, but I definitely don't think it warrants any legal action.

WEll anyone with some experience knows that new hardware isn't always better. How many printers come out that are worse than the ones the year before? Monitors don't always get better either. Neither do Camcorders. Software sometimes gets worse. Reliability of computers is often worse than the previous generation of computers. Yada yada yada. Prices sometimes go up on the components of technology (at least short term) and sometimes shortcuts are taken that are for the worse.

Also we all know not to trust specs I hope? Printer speeds, battery life, contrast claims, yada yada yada. Those are always lies and best case scenarios that aren't reproducible in the real world.

The beauty is that you can return your iMac within 2 weeks afaik. If you look at the display and have to puke then return it. GEt something else. There's not much excuse to complain about the monitor when everyone has a 2 week return period.

And I honestly don't see how anyone, except the most anal retentive of humanity, wouldn't like the 20" iMac display that I received.

[Full of Win]

They downgraded the video card too, at least in the high-end 24" iMac. But that's Apple for you.

And lowered the price as well - yeh, screw Apple.

[ditzy]

While I am not sure whether I think that Apple should be sued over this issue. I think that their implacations are dishonest. If you buy from their website and choose between their 2.4Ghz 20" or the 2.4Ghz 24" the implication is that they are the same computer but one has a 4 inch bigger screen. Before reading this thread I thought that was the only difference. Now I don't mind there being a difference in quality but I think it should be made more clear. That more than anything is what I would want from this.

[trip1ex]

While I am not sure whether I think that Apple should be sued over this issue. I think that their implacations are dishonest. If you buy from their website and choose between their 2.4Ghz 20" or the 2.4Ghz 24" the implication is that they are the same computer but one has a 4 inch bigger screen. Before reading this thread I thought that was the only difference. Now I don't mind there being a difference in quality but I think it should be made more clear. That more than anything is what I would want from this.

Actually they list some specs of both the 20" and 24" monitor and the implication on Apple's website is the 20" is inferior.

You can also view the difference in the store before buying.

YOu also have a 2 wk return period. Don't like it then return it.

Where were you last gen when the iMacs all looked the same, but the smaller ones had (technically speaking) lesser panels?

Also you probably should own a 20" before you start complaining.

[ditzy]

Actually they list some specs of both the 20" and 24" monitor and the implication on Apple's website is the 20" is inferior.

You can also view the difference in the store before buying.

YOu also have a 2 wk return period. Don't like it then return it.

Where were you last gen when the iMacs all looked the same, but the smaller ones had (technically speaking) lesser panels?

Also you probably should own a 20" before you start complaining.

As a new buyer I would not know that I had to compare the two in the shop. I actually think as many people have said here most people would not recognise the difference.

I don't get the arguement about last generation imacs I wasn't around then so I can't in anyway comment.

As I said before when comparing the 2.4Ghz models on the store page nothing is there to say that the monitor on these computers are any different apart from the 4 inch extra on the 24 inch.

I am not saying that apple are in any way wrong to put different quality monitors on them. I completly accept that entry level machines often have less quality materials make them up, and if I know about them I can make my decisions accordingly. I can make up my mind if it is worth it or not.

If I hadn't read this thread I would not have known there was a difference other than the obvious 4 inches. Which I again argue is their implications being dishonest.

This does not mean that everyone who was happy with the 20 inch imacs should suddenly be unhappy with them in truth it is the same computer they had before reading this thread and if they were happy with it then they should be happy with it now.

But that does not mean that apple shouldn't tell people that there is a difference between these machines other than the 4 inches.

[JayLenochiniMac]

As I said before when comparing the 2.4Ghz models on the store page nothing is there to say that the monitor on these computers are any different apart from the 4 inch extra on the 24 inch.


False http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

The 20" and 24" have different resolution, viewing angles, brightness, and contrast.

[ditzy]

False http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

The 20" and 24" have different resolution, viewing angles, brightness, and contrast.

That's not the store page.

I had never seen that page until this thread. I know it's there but it is not necessary to view that page before buying even on their site. The spec comparison on the store page even when you click on full specs makes no mention of it.

I believe it should at least be on the full spec comparison list. I can't think of a good reason why it should not be.

(By the way I've only looked on the British site if this is different on any other countries site I apologise but I only looked on the site that I would actually buy from.)

[VoodooDaddy]

I wonder how many people would even know the screen were different if it werent for threads like this? :rolleyes:

I had a Samsung LCD for 2yrs before I got my iMac. After I started seeing this discussion of TN screens I stood to the side and look at that Samsung and sure enough, there was discoloration from an angle. I had it for 2 years and had never noticed it before.

[ditzy]

I wonder how many people would even know the screen were different if it werent for threads like this? :rolleyes:

I had a Samsung LCD for 2yrs before I got my iMac. After I started seeing this discussion of TN screens I stood to the side and look at that Samsung and sure enough, there was discoloration from an angle. I had it for 2 years and had never noticed it before.

I actually think that you are totally right there. I think that the issue itself is really small. I just would have liked to have known straight away.

[Dustman]

I actually think that you are totally right there. I think that the issue itself is really small. I just would have liked to have known straight away.

The issue isnt whether or not you can see the difference, it's that the company is saying the screen can do things that it can't.

[VoodooDaddy]

The issue isnt whether or not you can see the difference, it's that the company is saying the screen can do things that it can't.

And whats that, that it can show millions of colors, but the way they come to that number is through some digital process? Who cares really. Should ppl sue because the iPhone battery doesnt last near as long as they claim? Should ppl sue because their cars dont get the exact gas milage the sticker says?

You folks are bitching about something so insignificant if you really think about it.

[randyhudson]

Why didn't you return the iMac asap if it was that bad?

Several reasons. I purchased it in another state at one of the last remaining CompUSA stores (using a $161 gift card I had been holding for a while). I only have 1 inch clearance above the 20-inch model. 1680x1050 resolution is already pushing the limits of the 2600HD video card. And lastly, the 20-inch will fit nicely in a suitcase, when I eventually take it with me to South America and sell it.

[randyhudson]

Should ppl sue because the iPhone battery doesnt last near as long as they claim?

Maybe so, but I don't see how that's relevant. If the 16GB iPhone claimed the same battery life as the 8GB, but actually had fewer mAh, then your comparison might actually make sense.

[czachorski]

Maybe so, but I don't see how that's relevant. If the 16GB iPhone claimed the same battery life as the 8GB, but actually had fewer mAh, then your comparison might actually make sense.

To extend your comparison a bit more to the point, it would be as if the 8 GB was advertised with the same battery life, and indeed had a battery with a lower mAh, but came to the same battery life through another means - such as a slightly dimmer screen. And then Apple disclosed that the screen was dimmer, but not that the battery was lower mAh.

They disclose that the 20" panel has a different viewing angle and contrast ratio. The specs make it clear that something is different. They just don't say how the 20" achieves it millions of colors. Do they have an obligation to disclose the means and the ends, or just the ends?

[Salavat23]

This all comes down to the fact that Apple needs to post more detailed information about their product on their site.

That would have eliminated all of these problems.

[Leon Kowalski]

Do they have an obligation to disclose the means and the ends, or just the ends?

Do they have an obligation to avoid outrageous flat-out LIES about the ends?


................ http://lh6.google.com/TheLooby/Rya7KRV6gvI/AAAAAAAAAlg/YvwBiMrHeBs/s400/v2.jpg
.................. http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/display.html


..."from every seat in the house."
...(For houses not exceeding 36" wide.)

LK

[trip1ex]

Do they have an obligation to avoid outrageous flat-out LIES about the ends?


................ http://lh6.google.com/TheLooby/Rya7KRV6gvI/AAAAAAAAAlg/YvwBiMrHeBs/s400/v2.jpg
.................. http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/display.html


..."from every seat in the house."
...(For houses not exceeding 36" wide.)

LK

Oh come on. You act like Apple is the only company out there that doesn't try and put their products in the best light possible. I mean have you been in a cave? Marketing is always one big exaggeration.

Again you get home with your 20". If you start puking from looking at the screen, you return it. You have 14 days.

[Leon Kowalski]

Oh come on. You act like Apple is the only company out there that
doesn't try and put their products in the best light possible.

Ah yes, the ever-popular "Everyone does it." defense.

Again you get home with your 20". If you start puking from
looking at the screen, you return it.

Yep, I did.

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby

...twice,

LK

[trip1ex]

As a new buyer I would not know that I had to compare the two in the shop. I actually think as many people have said here most people would not recognise the difference.

I don't get the arguement about last generation imacs I wasn't around then so I can't in anyway comment.

As I said before when comparing the 2.4Ghz models on the store page nothing is there to say that the monitor on these computers are any different apart from the 4 inch extra on the 24 inch.

I am not saying that apple are in any way wrong to put different quality monitors on them. I completly accept that entry level machines often have less quality materials make them up, and if I know about them I can make my decisions accordingly. I can make up my mind if it is worth it or not.

If I hadn't read this thread I would not have known there was a difference other than the obvious 4 inches. Which I again argue is their implications being dishonest.

This does not mean that everyone who was happy with the 20 inch imacs should suddenly be unhappy with them in truth it is the same computer they had before reading this thread and if they were happy with it then they should be happy with it now.

But that does not mean that apple shouldn't tell people that there is a difference between these machines other than the 4 inches.

Oh come on. You would have bought the 20" even if on the store page it said the viewing angle was worse under the tech specs. And do you do any research when you buy a product? And when you buy something like a car do you know every damn technical detail about it and whether or not every component in the car is of higher or lesser quality than the components in last year's model?

That's what the return period is for and that's what looking at both models in the store is for. That's what the internet is for. That's what Apple's spec page is for. REally it's shame on you in the day and age of the internet and return periods if you feel cheated. I hate to break the news to you, but this is sort of how the world works. YOu might want to do yourself a favor and do some due diligence before making big purchases.

And if you want to use your logic well I don't see Apple saying anywhere that the two monitors were exactly alike. So if you want to split hairs and say they didn't tell you they weren't exactly alike well they didn't tell you the opposite either.

[trip1ex]

Ah yes, the ever-popular "Everyone does it." defense.



Yep, I did.

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby

...twice,

LK

No not the everyone does it defense. It's called the wake-up and smell the coffee defense. I mean the world ain't going to change for you bud. You ain't the center of it. You must walk around complaining all day because of all the bs marketing out there. I tell you that would make me miserable dwelling on that.

YOu have alot of gall too to complain about a company that let you return their product (twice) because you weren't satisfied. You act like they still owe you something.

And everyone else has the same opportunity to return their 20" iMacs within 2 weeks of purchase if they are not satisfied. That's plenty of time to clean off the puke if you don't like the sight of it and box it back up.

[VoodooDaddy]

trip1ex you are wasting your time. Common sense doesnt work with some of these people.

[Leon Kowalski]

YOu have alot of gall too to complain about a company that let you
return their product (twice) because you weren't satisfied.

Some sheeple think Apple is doin' them a favor by accepting their money.

LK

[doug in albq]

Watch out Leon, it is a tag-team fanboi attack!
___________________________________________

I have my 20 inch alum. (which I love except for the display) to the left of my attached external HP LP2065, so I can compare all types of display aspects between the garbage iMac TN display, and a pretty darn good A-MVA display that cost less that $300 (I'm not positive that it is not S-IPS, as black looks purple from very extreme angles--a characteristic of S-IPS displays. HP did pull the old panel-switch on people somewhere along the line from S-IPS to A-MVA, but at least they are both good displays. Also, HP gave a $50 rebate to people who may have gotten the A-MVA when they were expecting the S-IPS. Was the rebate a coincidence, a settlement, or maybe a way to avoid a LS? )

1. Open a window in Finder that has the alternating grey/white bars from top to bottom...stretch that window from top to bottom of the iMac display...those bars absolutely completely disappear at the bottom of the display (unless viewed from 6 feet away). It is the EXTREME gradation from top to bottom that is actually more of a problem for me than the fact that Apple (allegedly) is lying about the amount of actual colors.

Put up a desktop of one solid color on the 20 inch imac.....OMG, it is terrible.


I am sorry to say if you do not notice the extreme color/luminance gradation from top to bottom on the 20 inch imac, you may have been "dumbed down" and you did not bother to notice. You done had the "smoke & mirriors" pulled on you with that glass-glossy display...




P.S. Just for fun the other day, while I was in Best Buy on a slow day, I set the desktop picture of every single Apple computer on display there (maybe a dozen) to "Solid Grey Medium." I wanted a real immediate comparison of all the displays. I do believe the staff (Best Buy, not Apple store, remember) got a kick out of my exercise.

Maybe I should have done this type of comparison before I bought my 20 inch iMac, but I am actually happy with my set-up, now that I have the dual-display. The imac display is great for all my secondary screen space needs.


Disclosure: I have worked as a professional graphic designer including photography, so I may have a more discerning eye for things like poor displays.

Why did I ever get the 20 inch?: It was a gift from my mother in Law & I did not mind my solution (a second attached display).

[doug in albq]

(Why not? It might help some folks...)
_________________________________

LCD Types (From Wikipedia)

[edit] TN + film

The inexpensive 'TN (twisted nematic) + film' display is the most common consumer display type. The pixel response time on modern TN panels is sufficiently fast to avoid the shadow-trail and ghosting artifacts of earlier production. The fast response time has been emphasized in advertising TN displays, although in most cases this number does not reflect performance across the entire range of possible color transitions. Response times were quoted for an ISO standard black-to-white transition and did not reflect the speed of much more common transitions from one shade of grey to another. More recent use of RTC (Response Time Compensation – Overdrive) technologies has allowed manufacturers to significantly reduce grey-to-grey (G2G) transitions, without significantly improving the ISO response time. Response times are now quoted in G2G figures, with 4ms and 2ms now being commonplace for TN Film based models. The good response time and low cost has led to the dominance of TN in the consumer market.

The TN display suffers from limited viewing angles, especially in the vertical direction. Many** use 6, instead of 8, bits per color, and are consequently unable to display the full 16.7 million colors (24-bit truecolor) available from modern graphics cards. These panels can display interpolated 24-bit color using a dithering method which combines adjacent pixels to simulate the desired shade. They can also use FRC (Frame Rate Control), which quickly cycles pixels over time to simulate a given shade. These color simulation methods are noticeable to most people and bothersome to some. FRC tends to be most noticeable in darker tones, while dithering appears to make the individual pixels of the LCD visible. Overall, color reproduction and linearity on TN panels is poor. Shortcomings in display color gamut (often referred to as a percentage of the NTSC 1953 color gamut) are also due to backlighting technology. It is not uncommon for displays with CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps)-based lighting to range from 40% to 76% of the NTSC color gamut, whereas displays utilizing white LED backlights may extend past 100% of the NTSC color gamut – a difference quite perceivable by the human eye.

The transmittance of a pixel of an LCD panel typically does not change linearly with the applied voltage,[1] and the sRGB standard for computer monitors requires a specific nonlinear dependence of the amount of emitted light as a function of the RGB value.

[edit] IPS

IPS (in-plane switching) was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve on the poor viewing angles and color reproduction of TN panels. Most panels also support true 8-bit color. These improvements came at the cost of a slower response time, initially about 50ms. IPS panels were also extremely expensive.

IPS has since been superseded by S-IPS (Super-IPS, Hitachi in 1998), which has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing. Though color reproduction approaches that of CRTs, the dynamic range is lower. S-IPS technology is widely used in panel sizes of 20" and above. LG and Philips remain one of the main manufacturers of S-IPS based panels.

AS-IPS – Advanced Super IPS, also developed by Hitachi in 2002, improves substantially on the contrast ratio of traditional S-IPS panels to the point where they are second only to some S-PVAs. AS-IPS is also a term used for NEC displays (e.g., NEC LCD20WGX2) based on S-IPS technology, in this case, developed by LG.Philips.

A-TW-IPS – Advanced True White IPS, developed by LG.Philips LCD for NEC, is a custom S-IPS panel with a TW (True White) color filter to make white look more natural and to increase color gamut. This is used in professional/photography LCDs.

H-IPS – Released in late 2006, an evolution of the IPS panel which improves upon its predecessor, the S-IPS panel. The H-IPS panel is used in the NEC LCD2690WUXi, Mitsubishi RDT261W 26″ LCD, Planar PX2611W[2] and Apple's newest Aluminum 24" iMac.

The pros/cons of the H-IPS over the S-IPS:

Pros:

* Much less backlight bleed.
* No purple hue visible at an angle
* Backlight bleed improves looking at an angle
* Less noise or glitter seen on the panel surface (smoother surface)

Cons:

* Still some backlight bleed in areas that are green.
* Viewing angle is narrower.

Image of a (switched on) transreflective color TFT LCD taken under a microscope with reflected light illumination lamp off (top, self-illumination only) and on (bottom).
Image of a (switched on) transreflective color TFT LCD taken under a microscope with reflected light illumination lamp off (top, self-illumination only) and on (bottom).

Fringe Field Switching is a technique used to improve viewing angle and transmittance on IPS displays. [3]

[edit] MVA

MVA (multi-domain vertical alignment) was originally developed in 1998 by Fujitsu as a compromise between TN and IPS. It achieved pixel response which was fast for its time, wide viewing angles, and high contrast at the cost of brightness and color reproduction. Modern MVA panels can offer wide viewing angles (second only to S-IPS technology), good black depth, good color reproduction and depth, and fast response times due to the use of RTC technologies. There are several "next-generation" technologies based on MVA, including AU Optronics' P-MVA and A-MVA, as well as Chi Mei Optoelectronics' S-MVA.

Analysts predicted that MVA would dominate the mainstream market, but the cheaper and slightly faster TN overtook it. MVA's pixel response times rise dramatically with small changes in brightness. Cheaper MVA panels can use dithering and FRC.

[edit] PVA

PVA (patterned vertical alignment) and S-PVA (super patterned vertical alignment) are alternative versions of MVA technology offered by Samsung. Developed independently, they offer similar features to MVA, but with higher contrast ratios of up to 3000:1. Less expensive PVA panels often use dithering and FRC, while S-PVA panels all use at least 8-bit color and do not use any color simulation methods. Some newer S-PVA panels offered by Eizo offer 10-bit color internally, which enables gamma and other corrections with reduced banding. PVA and S-PVA offer good black depth and wide viewing angles and S-PVA also offers fast response times using modern RTC technologies.


** Not all them? (my question)

[czachorski]

trip1ex you are wasting your time. Common sense doesnt work with some of these people.

And when you use common sense, their only defense is to go on to the "fanboy" accusations. Ahhh - so typical and textbook trolling. Nicely done, guys! The last throws of a failed argument: "You are just a bunch of fanboys".

[ditzy]

I've never got this if someone disagrees with anything apple do the are called trolls and if someone agrees with them they are called fanboys. Nothing can be discussed if people just result to name calling whenever people disagree with each other.

Some people some to be making the buyer beware arguement. If you buy something it is you obligation to find out exactly what your buying. To do full research on it. If you find some thing out after buying you have two weeks in which to return.

Others including me argue that the sellers (I don't just think this about apple I would say the same about any company) have an obligation to tell you.

As I've already said I don't think that the issue itself is that huge. However if apple were completly transparent from the very beginning no one would have any right to complain.

A few people have said that I wouldn't care if I had known. You know what you are probably right. In my opinion that does not mean that I shouldn't be told.

[VoodooDaddy]

Some sheeple think Apple is doin' them a favor by accepting their money.

LK

Seriously man, why do you post here? I certainly wouldnt spend my time trolling message boards bashing products and companies I hate, I have better things to do. I dont think Ive ever seen 1 post of your that wasnt negative towards Apple.

[VoodooDaddy]

I've never got this if someone disagrees with anything apple do the are called trolls.

When someone continually bashes something, but yet continues to hang around and post (Leon), thats a troll.

I dont expect everyone to agree with everything Apple does. Nothing wrong with criticism. Maybe if I had had a bad experience with something Id have a different opinion of them also.

I have had some bad experience. Wifes Macbook hdd failed and she lost everything. 6 months worth of pictures, Christmas, birthdays, etc. However I had told her over and over and over to back stuff up, even bought her an external hdd to do it and she didnt. So I place that blame on her.

Then she got a new (refurb) Macbook about a month ago and it had problems from the get go. Apple replaced it and the 2nd one was fine.

So its not like I havent had some negative experience with Apple, but the positive certainly outdo the negative. And if I was a total Apple/Mac hater, I certainly wouldnt hang around and let everyone know it in every single post I make.

[czachorski]

I've never got this if someone disagrees with anything apple do the are called trolls and if someone agrees with them they are called fanboys. Nothing can be discussed if people just result to name calling whenever people disagree with each other.

Some people some to be making the buyer beware arguement. If you buy something it is you obligation to find out exactly what your buying. To do full research on it. If you find some thing out after buying you have two weeks in which to return.

Others including me argue that the sellers (I don't just think this about apple I would say the same about any company) have an obligation to tell you.

As I've already said I don't think that the issue itself is that huge. However if apple were completly transparent from the very beginning no one would have any right to complain.

A few people have said that I wouldn't care if I had known. You know what you are probably right. In my opinion that does not mean that I shouldn't be told.

I hear you, but follow your thought a little further. Should they tell you the details of all the components to that level? What about the HD? The power supply? The case? There are probably dozens if not hundreds of such decisions and optimizations that are made in a product design that you would never know about. And then the process of making sure you are told: should they give you a form with all of these disclosures on it, and make you initial by each one? Would you still be buying the machine at that point? Is every maker going to do this, or just Apple? Maybe we need a law to enforce this. I mean, how far do you want to go with it?

Fact is, Apple disclosed quite a bit to make it clear that the 20" and 24" are different qualities. Beyond that, it is no different than it ever has been in sales: buyer beware and don't take everything you hear in a marketing pitch as gospel. The buyer has to take some personal responsibility. Has to. And has been pointed out, even if you take none, and get home and it stinks, you still have a return policy, which even the most adamant Apple hater here has admitted he has used. Twice!

[nout72]

This constant complaining-loop about the poor screen, with every possible internet-link to a picture gallery, specifications, quotes from a LCD screen glossary etc. etc. will stop if people wouldn't be so lazy to post a new thread about this subject!
But instead would type some simple key words in Google's search box: everything about this subject has repeatedly been said in numerous threads on numerous message boards.
I wish it could stop :(

[ditzy]

I hear you, but follow your thought a little further. Should they tell you the details of all the components to that level? What about the HD? The power supply? The case? There are probably dozens if not hundreds of such decisions and optimizations that are made in a product design that you would never know about. And then the process of making sure you are told: should they give you a form with all of these disclosures on it, and make you initial by each one? Would you still be buying the machine at that point? Is every maker going to do this, or just Apple? Maybe we need a law to enforce this. I mean, how far do you want to go with it?

Fact is, Apple disclosed quite a bit to make it clear that the 20" and 24" are different qualities. Beyond that, it is no different than it ever has been in sales: buyer beware and don't take everything you hear in a marketing pitch as gospel. The buyer has to take some personal responsibility. Has to. And has been pointed out, even if you take none, and get home and it stinks, you still have a return policy, which even the most adamant Apple hater here has admitted he has used. Twice!

Any arugment looks silly if you carry it to the extreme. The extreme of your arguement (Which I am not accusing you of having or taking) is who cares about what size the monitor is, who cares about the clock speed. It's a computer, it works, what's your problem.
This i again say is not at all where I think your position is. I think you should also except that my position is not I want to know exactly how long the power cord is.
I think this is just a disagrrment on the level of disclosure I think on this issue it should be more transparent, you think this level is ok.

[trip1ex]

trip1ex you are wasting your time. Common sense doesnt work with some of these people.

Well you're right. But I like to see their reaction when you throw alot of common sense in their face. I also like the practice of typing up responses off the top of my head to their arguments.

[trip1ex]

(Why not? It might help some folks...)
_________________________________

LCD Types (From Wikipedia)

[edit] TN + film

The inexpensive 'TN (twisted nematic) + film' display is the most common consumer display type. The pixel response time on modern TN panels is sufficiently fast to avoid the shadow-trail and ghosting artifacts of earlier production. The fast response time has been emphasized in advertising TN displays, although in most cases this number does not reflect performance across the entire range of possible color transitions. Response times were quoted for an ISO standard black-to-white transition and did not reflect the speed of much more common transitions from one shade of grey to another. More recent use of RTC (Response Time Compensation – Overdrive) technologies has allowed manufacturers to significantly reduce grey-to-grey (G2G) transitions, without significantly improving the ISO response time. Response times are now quoted in G2G figures, with 4ms and 2ms now being commonplace for TN Film based models. The good response time and low cost has led to the dominance of TN in the consumer market.

The TN display suffers from limited viewing angles, especially in the vertical direction. Many** use 6, instead of 8, bits per color, and are consequently unable to display the full 16.7 million colors (24-bit truecolor) available from modern graphics cards. These panels can display interpolated 24-bit color using a dithering method which combines adjacent pixels to simulate the desired shade. They can also use FRC (Frame Rate Control), which quickly cycles pixels over time to simulate a given shade. These color simulation methods are noticeable to most people and bothersome to some. FRC tends to be most noticeable in darker tones, while dithering appears to make the individual pixels of the LCD visible. Overall, color reproduction and linearity on TN panels is poor. Shortcomings in display color gamut (often referred to as a percentage of the NTSC 1953 color gamut) are also due to backlighting technology. It is not uncommon for displays with CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps)-based lighting to range from 40% to 76% of the NTSC color gamut, whereas displays utilizing white LED backlights may extend past 100% of the NTSC color gamut – a difference quite perceivable by the human eye.

The transmittance of a pixel of an LCD panel typically does not change linearly with the applied voltage,[1] and the sRGB standard for computer monitors requires a specific nonlinear dependence of the amount of emitted light as a function of the RGB value.

[edit] IPS

IPS (in-plane switching) was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve on the poor viewing angles and color reproduction of TN panels. Most panels also support true 8-bit color. These improvements came at the cost of a slower response time, initially about 50ms. IPS panels were also extremely expensive.

IPS has since been superseded by S-IPS (Super-IPS, Hitachi in 1998), which has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing. Though color reproduction approaches that of CRTs, the dynamic range is lower. S-IPS technology is widely used in panel sizes of 20" and above. LG and Philips remain one of the main manufacturers of S-IPS based panels.

AS-IPS – Advanced Super IPS, also developed by Hitachi in 2002, improves substantially on the contrast ratio of traditional S-IPS panels to the point where they are second only to some S-PVAs. AS-IPS is also a term used for NEC displays (e.g., NEC LCD20WGX2) based on S-IPS technology, in this case, developed by LG.Philips.

A-TW-IPS – Advanced True White IPS, developed by LG.Philips LCD for NEC, is a custom S-IPS panel with a TW (True White) color filter to make white look more natural and to increase color gamut. This is used in professional/photography LCDs.

H-IPS – Released in late 2006, an evolution of the IPS panel which improves upon its predecessor, the S-IPS panel. The H-IPS panel is used in the NEC LCD2690WUXi, Mitsubishi RDT261W 26″ LCD, Planar PX2611W[2] and Apple's newest Aluminum 24" iMac.

The pros/cons of the H-IPS over the S-IPS:

Pros:

* Much less backlight bleed.
* No purple hue visible at an angle
* Backlight bleed improves looking at an angle
* Less noise or glitter seen on the panel surface (smoother surface)

Cons:

* Still some backlight bleed in areas that are green.
* Viewing angle is narrower.

Image of a (switched on) transreflective color TFT LCD taken under a microscope with reflected light illumination lamp off (top, self-illumination only) and on (bottom).
Image of a (switched on) transreflective color TFT LCD taken under a microscope with reflected light illumination lamp off (top, self-illumination only) and on (bottom).

Fringe Field Switching is a technique used to improve viewing angle and transmittance on IPS displays. [3]

[edit] MVA

MVA (multi-domain vertical alignment) was originally developed in 1998 by Fujitsu as a compromise between TN and IPS. It achieved pixel response which was fast for its time, wide viewing angles, and high contrast at the cost of brightness and color reproduction. Modern MVA panels can offer wide viewing angles (second only to S-IPS technology), good black depth, good color reproduction and depth, and fast response times due to the use of RTC technologies. There are several "next-generation" technologies based on MVA, including AU Optronics' P-MVA and A-MVA, as well as Chi Mei Optoelectronics' S-MVA.

Analysts predicted that MVA would dominate the mainstream market, but the cheaper and slightly faster TN overtook it. MVA's pixel response times rise dramatically with small changes in brightness. Cheaper MVA panels can use dithering and FRC.

[edit] PVA

PVA (patterned vertical alignment) and S-PVA (super patterned vertical alignment) are alternative versions of MVA technology offered by Samsung. Developed independently, they offer similar features to MVA, but with higher contrast ratios of up to 3000:1. Less expensive PVA panels often use dithering and FRC, while S-PVA panels all use at least 8-bit color and do not use any color simulation methods. Some newer S-PVA panels offered by Eizo offer 10-bit color internally, which enables gamma and other corrections with reduced banding. PVA and S-PVA offer good black depth and wide viewing angles and S-PVA also offers fast response times using modern RTC technologies.


** Not all them? (my question)

You're preaching to the choir. No one is saying the panels aren't different and that the 20" isn't worse.

It's a well documented issue going back to when they were first launched. Macworld (in their review last September or August) even said the 20" screens had a noticeably worse viewing angle and had some gradient issues.

The point really is that folks have a 2 wk return period and that imo the issue is a bit overblown. It's just not a big deal for most people it's not all that noticeable. I don't notice the problem in my daily work. And it doesn't affect anything I do. I can't tell when watching movies. I don't see it in photographs. I only see the difference if I put something of the same color at both the very top and very bottom of the screen. I ran it by my wife and she said yeah I see, but just not a big deal. She rather focused on how the colors pop in photographs on the nice glossy 20" screen.

And again for folks that feel differently there's that 2 week return period. And hell if complain enough, like I can see you're capable of, then you can probably get something done for you from Apple under the 1 yr warranty even. That's my take on it.

[Chris Blount]

You're preaching to the choir. No one is saying the panels aren't different and that the 20" isn't worse.

It's a well documented issue going back to when they were first launched. Macworld (in their review last September or August) even said the 20" screens had a noticeably worse viewing angle and had some gradient issues.

The point really is that folks have a 2 wk return period and that imo the issue is a bit overblown. It's just not a big deal for most people it's not all that noticeable. I don't notice the problem in my daily work. And it doesn't affect anything I do. I can't tell when watching movies. I don't see it in photographs. I only see the difference if I put something of the same color at both the very top and very bottom of the screen. I ran it by my wife and she said yeah I see, but just not a big deal. She rather focused on how the colors pop in photographs on the nice glossy 20" screen.

And again for folks that feel differently there's that 2 week return period. And hell if complain enough, like I can see you're capable of, then you can probably get something done for you from Apple under the 1 yr warranty even. That's my take on it.

...and that's a good take which I happen to agree with. :)

I was in Best Buy yesterday and looked at the 20" and 24" side by side with the same images. The 20" definitely had a lousy viewing angle but when viewed straight on, I barely noticed any difference between the two screens (except the 24" was bigger).

This screen issue is overblown and it's likely the average user won't know or won't care unless they see a thread like this. Of course, I guess that is what Apple is counting on. :)

[czachorski]

Any arugment looks silly if you carry it to the extreme. The extreme of your arguement (Which I am not accusing you of having or taking) is who cares about what size the monitor is, who cares about the clock speed. It's a computer, it works, what's your problem.
This i again say is not at all where I think your position is. I think you should also except that my position is not I want to know exactly how long the power cord is.
I think this is just a disagrrment on the level of disclosure I think on this issue it should be more transparent, you think this level is ok.

Very well put. I will even 1-up my agreement with you: I don't think it would be a bad thing if Apple increased the level of disclosure just a bit. I don't think it would hurt their sales or image much to do so. I also happen to think that the level that they chose to disclose is just fine too - it's their call, either way, as it is for the buyer to do his due diligence - either way.

There's a lot in here I agree with. You have presented your points well - I wish all discussions on this matter could be this cordial. I am only the "defender of the iMac" and feel the need to go toe to toe to battle another opinion when that opinion is stated in very fallacious terms and they bring the unnecessary "if you disagree, then you are a fanboy who drinks the Kool-Aid and follows Jobs like Jim Jones and David Koresh" sentiment. Your position was politely made without resorting to such trolling, and I am fine agreeing to disagree on where that line should reasonably be.

:)

[bamo]

It seems that there are basically two (maybe three, but…) type of users discussing the matter: the specialists or those who are very knowledgable about Apple and their material; the casual user or those who basically use the computer after buying it without analyzing in depth the item.

I did buy a 20 in. model; in the shop at the University, both machine were shown under what I would call «best conditions»: lightning, distance, angle, simple description (theirs and Apple, essentially pamphlet), etc. That is how many persons do buy a commodity that is fairly known and popular.

But, if after you do make a decision, you notice yourself certain differences (angle of vision) or are pointed to matter like in this thread (bits and pixels and dithering, etc.), then you do get a second thought: should I have invested somewhat more money and get the obvious better model? In my case, the difference would have been a wise investment, as the 24 in model is the BESTBUY. I am 65 years old, and a long time user of Apple material, one reason being their good treatment of linguistics.

My objection to Apple's doing resides in the way they do use the facts, and I agree that many companies are doing the same; but I had the feeling that Apple was different: i started with a MacIntosh 64, up to this iMac, owning most of the significant models in between, such a MacII (one of the best) and even a LISA (ahead of it's time).

Experience has a price.

BAM

[Sun Baked]

For the person who would have bought the 17" with the TN panel, the upgrade to 20" is nice.

For the buyer who finds that the low end model was upgraded, and the 20" model they wanted was eliminated -- tough luck, buy a Dell.

[quest4apple]

I wonder how many people who have been happy with their 20" imac are now suddenly going to be upset after reading about this law suit. Personally, I think the suit is unfounded, but I certainly am not an attorney :)

[bamo]

I wonder how many people who have been happy with their 20" imac are now suddenly going to be upset after reading about this law suit. Personally, I think the suit is unfounded, but I certainly am not an attorney :)

It is not he lawsuit that is bothering me and others that much, it is essentially Apple's way of doing business (inc. advertizing) in such a manner as to camouflage things in a very subtil way. It should have been clear, crystal clear. In a certain sense, it is similar to appearence of conflict versus conflicts of interest:both are reprehensible.

BAM

[trip1ex]

It seems that there are basically two (maybe three, but…) type of users discussing the matter: the specialists or those who are very knowledgable about Apple and their material; the casual user or those who basically use the computer after buying it without analyzing in depth the item.

I did buy a 20 in. model; in the shop at the University, both machine were shown under what I would call «best conditions»: lightning, distance, angle, simple description (theirs and Apple, essentially pamphlet), etc. That is how many persons do buy a commodity that is fairly known and popular.

But, if after you do make a decision, you notice yourself certain differences (angle of vision) or are pointed to matter like in this thread (bits and pixels and dithering, etc.), then you do get a second thought: should I have invested somewhat more money and get the obvious better model? In my case, the difference would have been a wise investment, as the 24 in model is the BESTBUY. I am 65 years old, and a long time user of Apple material, one reason being their good treatment of linguistics.

My objection to Apple's doing resides in the way they do use the facts, and I agree that many companies are doing the same; but I had the feeling that Apple was different: i started with a MacIntosh 64, up to this iMac, owning most of the significant models in between, such a MacII (one of the best) and even a LISA (ahead of it's time).

Experience has a price.

BAM

Yeah I found the opposite. Experience has told me that I was far too worried about small differences in electronics products like this in my late teens and 20s. Experience has told me not to be a spec peeper. Experience has taught me to trust my own 2 eyes and not get caught up in paper spec comparisons and whether or not I might use my monitor while hanging from a trapeze at 70 degrees off center.

Best is a rather vague term too. $10 million is better than $9 million. $10 mil is the best choice out of the two. But hey I'll take the worse choice there any day. That's what experience has taught me.

I'm human though. I have buyer's regret sometimes. A month before I bought my 20" iMac I bought a Macbook. I didn't really that screen so I returned it. I voted with my wallet. And recently I picked up the 20" iMac and rather like it. And so no matter what Apple puts on paper it's really the in-home evaluation that really trumps that. And I take advantage of that 2 week return period.

I don't worry that someone else has a slightly better contrast on the top and bottom or a bigger screen or yada yada yada. On the whole it's a fabulous monitor and computer. Besides new iMac models will most likely be out by the end of the summer. :P

[czachorski]

Yeah I found the opposite. Experience has told me that I was far too worried about small differences in electronics products like this in my late teens and 20s. Experience has told me not to be a spec peeper. Experience has taught me to trust my own 2 eyes and not get caught up in paper spec comparisons and whether or not I might use my monitor while hanging from a trapeze at 70 degrees off center.

Best is a rather vague term too. $10 million is better than $9 million. $10 mil is the best choice out of the two. But hey I'll take the worse choice there any day. That's what experience has taught me.

I'm human though. I have buyer's regret sometimes. A month before I bought my 20" iMac I bought a Macbook. I didn't really that screen so I returned it. I voted with my wallet. And recently I picked up the 20" iMac and rather like it. And so no matter what Apple puts on paper it's really the in-home evaluation that really trumps that. And I take advantage of that 2 week return period.

I don't worry that someone else has a slightly better contrast on the top and bottom or a bigger screen or yada yada yada. On the whole it's a fabulous monitor and computer. Besides new iMac models will most likely be out by the end of the summer. :P

I am more or less with you, but I admittedly drill down into the spec details more than I should or need to prior to a purchase. What I have definitely noticed is the trend of a decreased level of scrutiny from pre-buy research, to initial use to long-term use. When I first bring something home, every detail gets scrutinized and focused on. A few months later, I could hardly care any more and I just use the product. Knowing that this trend exists in advanced of a purchase and during the initial use period right after buying is a good thing for me to keep in mind.

[Simplesimon101]

does this really mean that the imac displays aren't good for photographers? (as i recently sold my old alu 20" to one) i know they're not the best but are they actively bad?

thanks

[AlexisV]

They tend to oversaturate colours slightly, but in an attempt to make photos looks better on screen. And it works - they look stunning. The only problem is they aren't as good for colour matching because of the slightly false colour, and the viewing angle issue, which means clear blocks of colour in particular are dark at the top and light at the bottom.

[doug in albq]

They tend to oversaturate colours slightly, but in an attempt to make photos looks better on screen. And it works - they look stunning. The only problem is they aren't as good for colour matching because of the slightly false colour, and the viewing angle issue, which means clear blocks of colour in particular are dark at the top and light at the bottom.

not to mention the 2 F-stop difference from the top of the display to the bottom. This is not a joke.

(Unless you want that graduated filter look on every single picture you take!)

[Leon Kowalski]

not to mention the 2 F-stop difference from the top of the display to the bottom.

Well, you could always "upgrade" to a 24" ALU -- with a difference
of "only" 1.3 f-stops from the left to the right side of the display.

...a thing of beauty is a joy forever!

LK

[doug in albq]

Well, you could always "upgrade" to a 24" ALU -- with a difference
of "only" 1.3 f-stops from the left to the right side of the display.

...a thing of beauty is a joy forever!

LK

I did upgrade...to a dual-display with the S-IPS, HP LP2065. It was less than $300 with the rebate. Now I have a 40 inch work/play space. Imac TN display is now for palettes and movies.

[czachorski]

I did upgrade...to a dual-display with the S-IPS, HP LP2065. It was less than $300 with the rebate. Now I have a 40 inch work/play space. Imac TN display is now for palettes and movies.

Man, you are way to nice to Apple, letting them off the hook for that 20" with a bad gradient. Why not insist that they replace it? Going out and getting an external monitor only rewards them for the dud they sent you! Not to mention, it takes up your mini-DVI port for other uses.

Just my thoughts.......

[inkswamp]

Hello...

Entry level Mac All-In-One...

Duh...

Hello...

Non-entry level price...

Duh...

[Sun Baked]

Hello...

Non-entry level price...

Duh...

Of course, they eliminated the education model ... can't expected the $899 price to stay after that.

They went back to the old entry level pricing.

[inkswamp]

Of course, they eliminated the education model ... can't expected the $899 price to stay after that.

They went back to the old entry level pricing.

Compared to the PC world, calling the iMac an "entry level" machine is ridiculous, but even in the closed environment of Apple's own products, it doesn't stand up. The Mac Mini is entry level. The iMac isn't. There's no excusing this as "entry level."

[Phil A.]

6 bit panels are very common across the whole industry and the main reason (apart from cost) is the faster response times of 6 bit panels.
The panels do actually display millions of colours but use dithering to achieve this, so Apple (or any other manufacturer) aren't actually lying

Edit: If you want to see what type of monitor you have, this site may help: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test
I found the most revealing test was the viewing angle one, which remained rock solid on my Cinema Display (as you'd expect with it being S-IPS), but revealed my MBA display to be a TN one: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php