Apple's LCD Pixel Policy: Part 2

[MacRumors]

Reliable reports indicate that the previously published Apple LCD policy is a bit dated.

While specifics are not publically available, Apple's dead-pixel policy has since been amended and is reportedly much more forgiving. Owners of such new machines with any dead or stuck pixels should contact Apple or their local Apple store for consideration.

 

[BaghdadBob]

Oh yeah, overwhelmingly negative for the last article, but does anyone care about this one? Nooooooo....

 

[Grimace]

I think a lot of people care about this. Consumers want to know what they are buying...and if it isn't perfect - to what degree can Apple make it right.

 

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by carletonmusic
I think a lot of people care about this. Consumers want to know what they are buying...and if it isn't perfect - to what degree can Apple make it right.

Note how many comments are on it...I guess it is Saturday night, and not everyone's Saturday consisted chiefly of grocery shopping...

 

[FriarTuck]

I imagine Apple's policy shift reflects their relative bargaining position with their supplier(s). Now that LCDs are produced by a large number of companies at a variety of price levels, Apple is in a better position to play one off against the other to get better terms.

Or they could have just had an attack of conscience. Nah. Follow the money.

 

[Powerbook G5]

It's good to know that Apple has actually increased their standards to help ensure that their customers end up with a product they are satisfied with. It's probably almost needed, too, since the number of monitors switching to LCD as the common technology means more LCDs on the market and if a majority have just a few dead pixels, I can't see many happy customers then.

 

[cb911]

oh well... i guess it's good to hear that their replacement policy is much more forgiving now. dead pixels could sure get annoying.

 

[fluffy]

Of course, the policy only applies to monitors still in the warranty.

I know that is obvious and all, but one week after the warranty on my 17" Studio Display expired, it developed a vertical green stripe of pixels on the right-hand side of the screen (obviously just a couple of connections going bad or shorting out or something). And since the warranty had expired a week previously (they refuse to give case-by-case warranty extensions, since that's what AppleCare is for), Apple refused to do anything about it except to offer to repair it for $450.

The funny thing is that I've totally gotten used to it being there, and it almost never bugs me. Actually, sometimes I use it as a vertical guideline.

 

[Trimix]

From what I can see, Apple's LCD monitors are among the most expensive I can buy here in Europe.
I have learnt that prices are so high for this stuff because there are so many monitors which after testing go straight back into recycling -

Anyway, when I will go out and take the 23'' home and it is not right there will not be any consideration - they will give me new one or they will not see my bizz again.

My LCD TV developed a one-pixel phenomenon, and Philips offered me an exchange immediately - if Apple would not act in a similar fashion, then that would severely disturb our otherwise splendid relationship.

 

[gooddog]

Improved Dead Pixel Policy

I will certainly sound off and thank Apple for this !

I posted at apple.com several times , on how I rubbed my flat-panel iMac's blue shiner away.

I can imagine the disappointment of someone who puts thousands into a 23" HD only to find that they are supposed to do photoshop work with a bright dot in the nostril of some gorgeous face : I had this with Lauren B. when I played Casablanca in my superdrive.

But with the bigger displays, a plastic screen protects the LCD and one cannot rub away these flaws -- opening it up would kill the warranty . So I would be between a rock and a hard place.

I would never risk that much $ on a policy that isn't completely satisfactory.

I suggested a kind of insurance plan with "slightly defective" LCD's going , at a discount, for institutional ( or private for that matter) end users who are not as picky as they would be with a personal display at home.

I'd be willing to pay an extra $100 if someone will buy it for $100 less , who does not mind the flaws.

THANK YOU AGAIN APPLE .

---gooddog

 

[SiliconAddict]

I'm wondering if this "amendment" has anything to do with people walking into the apple store and bitching about their devices. I’m also wondering how widespread dead pixels are in LCD’s. What’s the ration of perfect to near perfect displays? Hmm.

Someone mentioned in the other thread that this isn't limited to just Apple. Honestly that doesn't matter. In the mind of the person who purchased the device the only thing that matters is that they spent X on a new system and it isn't perfect. I can understand Apple doing all they can to keep their customers with what? 2.5% market share. They need to have people happy with their Mac experience and having people come back and complain about a dead pixel and having Apple reps say sorry your SOL would leave a bad taste in just about anyone’s mouth. Esp someone who may have just switched.

That leads to another question. Does anyone think switchers might get preferential treatment in a situation like this?

 

[Seamaster]

It was a battle, but I succeeded in getting the display in my brand new 17" iMac replaced because of one stuck pixel.

However, this was only after a lot of back-and-forth with Apple UK, and a trip with the iMac to my local Apple Repair Centre demanded by Apple for "evaluation". The repair guy said that strictly speaking it shouldn't be replaced, but they wouldn't turn the work down.

Seamaster

 

[richie]

The thing is, Apple contracts themselves to buy LCDs from their manufacturers at certain levels of failure. This is so that the costs aren't ridiculously high. Even a high-end plant will have a failure rate, and have to take this into cost consideration.

Say Apple agrees to buy all LCDs with 0 malfunctioning pixels (say, for example, 40% of output), 1-4(20%), and 5-8(20%). But the manufacturer also produces, simply through the complex construction process, displays with >8 pixels malfunctioning (20%). If Apple insists on no more than 4 bad pixels, say, that means a *double* in waste for the factory, in my example, reflected in massively increased cost to Apple, and subsequently to us.

In other words, the relatively high cost of producing LCDs means that faulty ones (just like are produced in CPU construction, etc) are more expensive to offset, and until we can increase the reliability of production, this doesn't change unless we're willing to pay more.

 

[Rshea]

To me one dead pixel needs to be fixed period, no questions and no excuses. I will buy CRT over LCD any day of the week untill I have 100% fix and 100% Customer satisfaction...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Rshea
To me one dead pixel needs to be fixed period, no questions and no excuses. I will buy CRT over LCD any day of the week untill I have 100% fix and 100% Customer satisfaction...

Even CRTs can have problems that aren't covered under warranty. I had one that had a slight trapazoid effect going that couldn't be adjusted out. When I called the manufacturer about it, they told me that it was within their tolerances. (I did in fact measure the degree of the effect so I could talk to the tech.) Luckily, I had purchased the monitor from a store that had a 30 day no questions asked return policy. So, I was able to replace it, and the next one was better.

Now, you might say 'What's the big deal about that?' Well, when you're doing CAD work, and you need to be able to see that a line is straight and parallel to another, a slight distortion is far worse than a pixel or two being stuck.

My point is, there's no such thing as a perfect piece of technology. It's all about statistics, and acceptible tolerance levels.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by richie
this doesn't change unless we're willing to pay more.

Therein is the question of the week. How much for a perfect screen everytime. $100? $500? $1000? $5000? I’d be more then willing to ante up a few extra hundred if it guaranteed that I’d get a perfect screen or that if it isn’t perfect Apple would replace or repair no questions asked.

 

[vwcruisn]

I just bought a new 17 inch powerbook for 3200 bux. it has 1 stuck pixel and one dead one.... do i have a chance at getting this thing replaced? is it even worth my time? if so.. what is the first step i should take? ive never had to deal with apple before...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Therein is the question of the week. How much for a perfect screen everytime. $100? $500? $1000? $5000? I’d be more then willing to ante up a few extra hundred if it guaranteed that I’d get a perfect screen or that if it isn’t perfect Apple would replace or repair no questions asked.

Wow. There's a switch. Someone asking for Apple computers to cost more!

 

[Rshea]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Even CRTs can have problems that aren't covered under warranty. I had one that had a slight trapazoid effect going that couldn't be adjusted out. When I called the manufacturer about it, they told me that it was within their tolerances. (I did in fact measure the degree of the effect so I could talk to the tech.) Luckily, I had purchased the monitor from a store that had a 30 day no questions asked return policy. So, I was able to replace it, and the next one was better.

Now, you might say 'What's the big deal about that?' Well, when you're doing CAD work, and you need to be able to see that a line is straight and parallel to another, a slight distortion is far worse than a pixel or two being stuck.

My point is, there's no such thing as a perfect piece of technology. It's all about statistics, and acceptible tolerance levels.

My iMac and eMac is adjustable on that and iMac was repaired on that issue because the analog board went almost right away. eMac is in solid health there. ...

 

[visor]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Oh yeah, overwhelmingly negative for the last article, but does anyone care about this one? Nooooooo....

Well, I'd consider this a very normal announcement. much contray to the very bad previous one.
There's not much reason to comment on something like this...

 

[bikertwin]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Therein is the question of the week. How much for a perfect screen everytime. $100? $500? $1000? $5000? I’d be more then willing to ante up a few extra hundred if it guaranteed that I’d get a perfect screen or that if it isn’t perfect Apple would replace or repair no questions asked.

That brings up the question that I've had for a while: What about refurbished monitors? Does Apple sell refurbished at a lower price because they're returns and have more than their fair share of dead/on pixels?

I normally have no problem buying refurbished stuff to save a few hundred bucks, but LCD monitors always seemed iffy.

Anyone have any experience with this?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: Improved Dead Pixel Policy

Originally posted by gooddog
I can imagine the disappointment of someone who puts thousands into a 23" HD only to find that they are supposed to do photoshop work with a bright dot in the nostril of some gorgeous face : I had this with Lauren B. when I played Casablanca in my superdrive.

Well, if you do a lot of work in Photoshop and you purchased and LCD monitor having a dead pixel isn't your only problem.


Lethal

 

[mechamac]

Does anyone have more specific info about this policy shift? How new does a "new" computer have to be? I bought an otherwise perfect 17" iMac in February that has 2 (count em!) stuck pixels. I'd love to call Apple about this, but I'd like to have better ammo than "a rumor site said your policy changed" to get me past the first few Apple operators.

(of course, macrumors.com is a fantastic rumor site, but I don't think that'll help with Apple)

 

[ZeppelinArmada]

Maybe they should have been more clear on the packaging with their earlier policy.

Now sharper images than ever in amazing 1280x1024 +/- 25 resolution.

 

[sanford]

Maybe somebody could explain this to me, but I have a few pixel anomalies on my TiBook and on a 17" Studio Display that only show up when using Pixel Check, and really only when I use the black or "all pixels on" option. They are uniformly a pale blue and look like sub-pixels, if you will. I say that because we also have a 15" Studio Display from the Cube era and it has one stuck on red pixel that is noticeable under a lot of normal use conditions and is quite a bit larger than these little faint blue sub-pixel anomalies that I see with Pixel Check on the other displays.

I don't have any intention of returning either the TiBook or the 17" for service because you just can't see the anomalies under any kind of normal use conditions, but I'm wondering what they are since they don't seem to be the glaring, large stuck on/off pixels that tend to bother people.