just got my new g5 with a DEAD PIXEL-HELP

[Edge100]

This would at least double the cost of Apple monitors.

That is NOT the point. It's not my problem to accept this product fault.

If Apple TOLD its customers BEFORE THEY MADE THEIR PURCHASE that their LCD's MAY contain a few dead pixels, then that totally changes the story.

But as of right now, buyers are not made aware of this issue until after purchase. I agree with you: products are never perfect. But as the consumer, I need to be made aware of exactly what I am purchasing BEFORE I purchase it. If that doesnt happen, then I havent received the product I purchased in good faith.

 

[Edge100]

I used to know someone who worked for a hot dog company. They actually have an acceptable level of 'miscellanea' content for their product. Meaning a given hot dog can only contain up to 2% or whatever non-standard ingredient- dirt, sawdust, etc.

I'll say it again. The issue is not the policy, it is the awareness or lack therof to the policy. If you would like your next LCD to cost $6,000, argue against the policy. If you just feel like you were not made aware of the policy, argue about their policy awareness!

Yes, policy awareness IS the problem.

Have you ever checked your coat at a restaurant or bar? EVERY time I've done this, there has been a HUGE sign saying something to the effect that "We are not responsible for lost or stolen items". I check my coat knowing full well that my coat might not be there when I get back, and that as long as the restaurant has taken every reasonable step to prevent my coat from getting stolen (they cant store it on the street, for instance), then I accepted that risk going in. It's the same thing for parking lots, where they are not responsible for damage to your car. I know that going in. It says it right on the sign AND on the ticket stub.

But Apple ISN'T doing this. They are, in effect, waiting until after your coat is stolen or your car is damaged to inform you that they have this policy. That's where the problem lies!

 

[aristobrat]

But Apple ISN'T doing this. They are, in effect, waiting until after your coat is stolen or your car is damaged to inform you that they have this policy. That's where the problem lies!

IMO, that's so *not* where the problem lies.

Even if Apple made the consumer sign a "before purchase" pixel disclaimer informing them of everything, the policy isn't going to guarantee that every iMac, PowerBook, Cinema Display, etc is going to have ZERO pixel defects.

The problem lies in the fact that nobody seems to be able to produce cost-effective LCDs guaranteed to have zero pixel defects.

That's the problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[Edge100]

IMO, that's so *not* where the problem lies.

Even if Apple made the consumer sign a "before purchase" pixel disclaimer informing them of everything, the policy isn't going to guarantee that every iMac, PowerBook, Cinema Display, etc is going to have ZERO pixel defects.

The problem lies in the fact that nobody seems to be able to produce cost-effective LCDs guaranteed to have zero pixel defects.

That's the problem that needs to be fixed.

Absolutely agree!

But we have to accept that LCD manufacturers seem unable to do this in a cost-effective manner. But that doesnt mean the consumer has to accept a shoddy product.

And that is why everyone with a dead pixel should raise bloody hell. This will result in more people getting what they actually paid for, and will make Apple do one of two things:

1) Post a disclaimer saying that 1-7 dead pixels is acceptable and LCDs with 1-7 dead pixels cannot be exchanged, thus putting the purchasing responsibility in the consumers hands

OR

2) Improve QC and produce better products, whilst still keeping customers in the dark regarding their 'policies' toward dead pixels.

Given that increasing QC drives up cost, I'll bet you choice 1 is Apple's move.

Bottom line: dont accept ANYTHING about your computer that is below spec, or that you were not explicitly informed of prior to purchase. This should go for anything you purchase, not just computers.

 

[aristobrat]

This will result in more people getting what they actually paid for, and will make Apple do one of two things:

1) Post a disclaimer saying that 1-7 dead pixels is acceptable and LCDs with 1-7 dead pixels cannot be exchanged, thus putting the purchasing responsibility in the consumers hands

OR

2) Improve QC and produce better products, whilst still keeping customers in the dark regarding their 'policies' toward dead pixels.

I'm missing where either one of these two things will benefit the consumer.

With #1, they're plain crap-out-of-luck if they get a dead pixel. With #2, they'd pay a lot more for the product.

IMO, as crappy as the whole "we don't make our dead pixel policy available to you before purchasing, and we'll make it really difficult for you to get a replacement just because you have a few dead pixels, BUT WE WILL REPLACE YOUR PRODUCT IF YOU DEMAND IT" thing is, it works.

So what is the point in bitching about it when the only things that will remedy it will leave the consumer in a WORSE spot?

 

[Edge100]

I'm missing where either one of these two things will benefit the consumer.

With #1, they're plain crap-out-of-luck if they get a dead pixel. With #2, they'd pay a lot more for the product.

IMO, as crappy as the whole "we don't make our dead pixel policy available to you before purchasing, and we'll make it really difficult for you to get a replacement just because you have a few dead pixels, BUT WE WILL REPLACE YOUR PRODUCT IF YOU DEMAND IT" thing is, it works.

So what is the point in bitching about it when the only things that will remedy it will leave the consumer in a WORSE spot?

Who said Apple would be looking out for the consumer's interests? Apple looks out for their share price, and that's all. They do a risk/reward analysis for EVERYTHING. Having this policy of telling people they wont accept returns if there is less than 7 dead pixels WORKS on enough people that they can afford to do so. If it didnt work and it affected their bottom line, they'd change it.

I'm not saying either scenario is great for the consumer. What I'm saying is the CURRENT situation is unacceptable. Apple cannot unilaterally implement a policy that the consumer is not aware of at the time of purchase. If consumers WERE aware of the policy, perhaps they would make more informed choices (i.e. not purchase a new LCD from Apple until Apple's 'policy' was acceptable to them).

 

[aristobrat]

I'm not saying either scenario is great for the consumer. What I'm saying is the CURRENT situation is unacceptable. Apple cannot unilaterally implement a policy that the consumer is not aware of at the time of purchase. If consumers WERE aware of the policy, perhaps they would make more informed choices (i.e. not purchase a new LCD from Apple until Apple's 'policy' was acceptable to them).

But what is the point of making the CURRENT situation ACCEPTABLE if it makes things WORSE in the end for the consumer?

With the current situation (that you and others deam unacceptable), Apple seems to be replacing the product for the consumer. They don't make it easy (undoubtably part of their risk/reward analysis) but they do seem to be following thru for those consumers that demand it. End result, consumer wins.

My point is that although the current situation SUCKS, I have yet to see anyone propose something that'd logically work out better for the consumer in the end. (i.e. understanding the logic of saying "well, apple should just not sell any panels with no defects" = higher prices)

 

[Edge100]

But what is the point of making the CURRENT situation ACCEPTABLE if it makes things WORSE in the end for the consumer?

With the current situation (that you and others deam unacceptable), Apple seems to be replacing the product for the consumer. They don't make it easy (undoubtably part of their risk/reward analysis) but they do seem to be following thru for those consumers that demand it. End result, consumer wins.

My point is that although the current situation SUCKS, I have yet to see anyone propose something that'd logically work out better for the consumer in the end. (i.e. understanding the logic of saying "well, apple should just not sell any panels with no defects" = higher prices)

Perhaps I'm not stating my point clearly enough.

I agree with you that if Apple posts the policy, that does, in some way, make things worse for the consumer since it puts the choice to accept the policy squarely on the shoulders of the customer, and thus removes the recourse should 1 or 2 (or 7) pixels die.

However, I'm speaking specifically to those people who have said (on this thread and others) that we should just ignore the dead pixels, and live with Apple's policy 'cause that's the way it is. That we are just not happy with the product, and thats the customer's fault. Caveat emptor, and so forth.

That's crap! I'm saying, and have said the entire time, that people should not accept this situation. Demand a replacement. Don't accept a shoddy product.

Caveat emptor, indeed...but not if the buyer is unaware of the terms of his or her purchase, as they are right now.

 

[maverick808]

For those trying to remember which company it was... Sony are now starting to have a zero dead pixel policy on some of their monitors and are hoping to expand it to the whole range in the near future.

By law in the UK, most European countries and probably most other places, when you buy anything over the phone or online you can return it for any reason at all all within 14 days with no restocking fee.

Last month I bought two iMacs and both of them had a dead pixel so I called up Apple and told them I wasn't satisfied and I wanted a refund. They give me no hassle at all and arranged to have them collected the next day for full refunds. I didn't have to pay restocking or any delivery costs... I got all my money back.

I done the same with a 15" PowerBook I had bought just the week before because of the horizontal line issue. Got full refund for that no questions asked. I didn't even tell them the problem I just asked for my money back.

I had planned on buying another two iMacs straight away and to just keep returning them if they kept arriving with dead pixels but I heard the Intel in Jan rumours so I've decided to wait until after MWSF and then decide if I still want an iMac or if I want something new they announce then.

The point is as long as you are not in the USA then you won't have any problem returning any Apple product for any reason. I just can't comprehend people that put up with defects. Regardless of whether the product costs 2000 bucks or 10 bucks I simply will not accept any flaws.

 

[generik]

This would at least double the cost of Apple monitors.

Congratulations sir, you just ate their bait hook line and sinker.

Why would it double the cost of an Apple monitor?

Let's be nice, keep quiet, and assume the outrageous possibility that 50% of all LCDs have dead pixels on them ok?

Is that true? Obviously no. Manufacturing processes have improved a lot since.

Fact is they can just throw those LCDs with dead pixels away, smash it up right there on the factory floor if you will, but at best it will probably increase costs by 10-20%.

 

[aristobrat]

Fact is they can just throw those LCDs with dead pixels away, smash it up right there on the factory floor if you will, but at best it will probably increase costs by 10-20%.

There's no need for Apple to have to go thru the whole smashing part -- they can just request ISO-13406-2 Class I certified flat panels. Those are guaranteed to have zero pixel defects, which is what you're saying Apple should check for before they package up a product to be sold.

Although I haven't found a price for a Class I flat panel, every reference to one I can find says it's significantly more expensive than Class 2 (which is what Apple currently uses).

"Significantly" sounds more than 10-20%.

 

[dmetzcher]

Arrogance. You were fortunate and they were generous. Apple's reputation for customer service on dead pixels is well known. If you didn't know it when you bought, there's no one to blame.

That's entirely hillarious. I should have known Apple's reputation for handling dead pixel issues, and if I didn't, it's my fault for not knowing? I see, so everyone who purchases an Apple product, or any product, should spend a good deal of time on a message board reading everything possible about dead pixels? Should I also have tried searching for "problems with FireWire", in case there were any? How about "problems with the little latch that holds the iBook screen down"?

Should a consumer be forced to research an issue that they expect to not have a problem with if they buy something from a manufacturer? Why would that be necessary, if you assume that your screen would have no problems? You would simply think, "Hey, they probably stand behind their product as much as the local grocery store would stand behind theirs, so I will be able to get a replacement if something does not work."

Ask the average consumer...I actually have asked a few people in my office since I last posted...
"If you were to buy a computer from XYZ company, and it had any problems at all, whatsoever, when you opened the box, would you expect a refund or exchange?"

I wonder what type of responses you would get. I think you know what type of responses you would get, frankly.

The consumer does not need to do research on things of this nature. It's foolish to expect them too. You talk of arrogance. Isn't it you who is really arrogant to think that the consumer has time to research every possible policy of a company with which they are planning to do business? Perhaps we should get the attorneys involved, and we can all sit down at a little table and go over every little point. That's arrogance to believe that they have the time to go through every possible policy, or would want to, or would need to, that you have on your Web site. That's right, you are asking the consumer to research the entire Web site for policies, and then go to message boards, which Apple does not cite on their Web site, by the way, as references to their "reputation for dealing with dead pixels". So the consumer, who might be new to the platform, would need to (1) know where to find these boards, and (b) know which ones to trust. In addition, the consumer might not be connected to the Internet (duh) if this is the first computer they are buying.

As a side note, reading message boards about these things will produce a bad image of every company on the planet. There is at least a handful of people who are angry with [insert company name here]. Those are the people who post on message boards. People who are happy never go to them and say how happy they are with the things they have purchased. If you think that the average consumer is on this message board on a daily basis, you're mistaken. The average person has no idea what a "message board" or "Web forum" or "BBS" is, and doesn't go to them, except MAYBE when they need help.

Your argument holds no water. Refrain from accusing someone of arrogance, and then following such an accusation with arrogance of your own. My comment was frank and to the point, and not arrogant at all. The fact is, coporations don't typically tell me no when I feel strongly that I'm in the right. There is always a vice president, or a call center manager, or someone higher up that you can speak to enough times to get them to see it your way, which they probably already do in the first place. If the issue is minor, I wouldn't waste my time. When it's an issue of principle, I feel that companies need people to stand up to them. When I spoke to Apple, I was very nice at first, and, when the "policy" was cited, my tone changed, and so did hers immediately. That's the truth. Call it whatever you want. I offered it as a suggestion for dealing with them, or any company. Period. Stand firm and keep pushing. She agreed with me, I later found out that she felt equally screwed by Apple when her PowerBook gave her a dead pixel as a gift a few months after buying it. She told me this when I got to the store. She gave me the feeling that she felt their policy was garbage, and helped me out, but that was her right as a manager - to make that decision. Yes, she could have told me not and not been nice about it. I would have pushed further, and eventually just done a chargeback and dropped it off at the store. Then I would have bought another one and tried again. She had options, and so did I. So do we all.

We can all agree to disagree on this issue. Half can go one way, half can go the other. You'll be able to tell us all apart by the dead pixels on our screens, or lack thereof.

 

[dmetzcher]

With the current situation (that you and others deam unacceptable), Apple seems to be replacing the product for the consumer. They don't make it easy (undoubtably part of their risk/reward analysis) but they do seem to be following thru for those consumers that demand it. End result, consumer wins.

I guess that depends on which consumer we are talking about. What about the consumer who doesn't do well fighting with a company over a faulty product? They seem to be screwed right now. Listen to the people on this board. HALF of them are saying "get over it". I agree that this policy works for some, but not many. It would work if you were willing and had the time it could take to fight it out with Apple. If not, you're screwed. Some of the people on this board have been screwed. They say that the pixel doesn't bother them.

Hey, I have an idea. Offer them a replacement screen at no cost. Do you think they'll take it? Yes, they will, if it doesn't take any of their time. Perhaps some of them are timid and don't want to fight with Apple. That's fair enough and nothing to look down upon. I know that sometimes I don't feel like arguing about things with a company. (For a $1000+ product, I put that feeling aside, however.) Or...Perhaps they are telling this person to "get over it" because they got screwed and it makes them feel a little better knowing that they are not the only ones. Who knows? Yes, that sounds nuts, but there are people like in the world. I highly doubt anyone that says a dead pixel doesn't even give them a bit of annoyance, especially at first. You get that nice, new product. It smells new. It looks new. The keys feel new. But wait...a dead what? A dead pixel? Are you kidding me! LOL. They got angry for a few minutes, at least.

 

[generik]

There's no need for Apple to have to go thru the whole smashing part -- they can just request ISO-13406-2 Class I certified flat panels. Those are guaranteed to have zero pixel defects, which is what you're saying Apple should check for before they package up a product to be sold.

Although I haven't found a price for a Class I flat panel, every reference to one I can find says it's significantly more expensive than Class 2 (which is what Apple currently uses).

"Significantly" sounds more than 10-20%.

Well, then they really should go through the smashing bit. I don't see how it is likely that they'd lose out, considering the people running the factory lines in China are literally paid pennies to the hour. They can be tasked to check the LCDs too.

 

[xinxin]

Re

considering the people running the factory lines in China are literally paid pennies to the hour. They can be tasked to check the LCDs too.

500RMB=US$61.9 per month + providing accomodation and food. However, $US10 noodle you see in america chinatown could be $US0.2 where they are working (with better taste). So roughly you will get how much profit apple made by making these.

 

[mattster16]

I just opened the box to my brand new Sony DSC-N1 camera and in the manual it states that 1-5 dead pixels is considered acceptable by Sony. I guess just another example of a company's policy.

 

[Kai]

Seriously, you guys need to wize up.

How can you say "not my problem" when people tell you it would hugely inflate prices if manufacturers gave a guarantee on zero dead pixels??
How can paying $2000 more for the computer NOT be your problem?

Some TFT manufacturer (Philips?) actually gave a zero dead pixel guarantee once. Guess what: That policy was scrapped faster than you can say "faulty product" (and judging from this thread most of you can say this REALLY REALLY fast!)

I have some news for you: Every single harddrive on the planet comes with defects! Every one of them! Thus is the nature of the analogue world, where not everything is absolute! They're just masked out at the factory, but they're still there! So will you return that "faulty product", too? Well, good luck in finding one without faults!

You're really quick in screaming "faulty product" but you just won't consider the economic or also the ENVIRONMENTAL consequences of your stubborn logic!
You pay more for a Mac, but you pay more not because Apple gives the money to their LCD manufacturers but because OS X and all the iLife stuff it comes with needs to be made. Plus Apple is (so far!) designing their own hardware!
And you don't pay nearly as much more to warrant a zero dead pixel guarantee! We're talking about a freakin $2000 price raise!
And don't BS me with that "manufacturers tell us to accept it, but i'm not buying it" - Please think for a second: Dead pixels are annoying for everyone (some just tolerate it), so wouldn't you think that if it was technically no problem to make perfect displays one manufacturer would DO it and give a "dead pixel guarantee" to differentiate himself from the other vendors? Well, one actually tried and failed miserably!

 

[840quadra]

Libel is published defamation; slander is spoken.

Noted.

Seriously, you guys need to wize up.

How can you say "not my problem" when people tell you it would hugely inflate prices if manufacturers gave a guarantee on zero dead pixels??
How can paying $2000 more for the computer NOT be your problem?

Some TFT manufacturer (Philips?) actually gave a zero dead pixel guarantee once. Guess what: That policy was scrapped faster than you can say "faulty product" (and judging from this thread most of you can say this REALLY REALLY fast!)

I have some news for you: Every single harddrive on the planet comes with defects! Every one of them! Thus is the nature of the analogue world, where not everything is absolute! They're just masked out at the factory, but they're still there! So will you return that "faulty product", too? Well, good luck in finding one without faults!

You're really quick in screaming "faulty product" but you just won't consider the economic or also the ENVIRONMENTAL consequences of your stubborn logic!
You pay more for a Mac, but you pay more not because Apple gives the money to their LCD manufacturers but because OS X and all the iLife stuff it comes with needs to be made. Plus Apple is (so far!) designing their own hardware!
And you don't pay nearly as much more to warrant a zero dead pixel guarantee! We're talking about a freakin $2000 price raise!
And don't BS me with that "manufacturers tell us to accept it, but i'm not buying it" - Please think for a second: Dead pixels are annoying for everyone (some just tolerate it), so wouldn't you think that if it was technically no problem to make perfect displays one manufacturer would DO it and give a "dead pixel guarantee" to differentiate himself from the other vendors? Well, one actually tried and failed miserably!

HI!

http://www.streetwise.com.au/product_info.php?products_id=3098

Zero Dead Pixel Guarantee

This laptop costs $1999 US most places.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000530047162/

Asus V6V laptop with zero dead-pixel guarantee

This monitor sells for MUCH less then $2000


http://www.nintek.com.au/x/scripts/prodList.asp?idcategory=411

Zero (0) Dead Pixel Guarantee for 90 days

Only guaranteed for 90 days, but that is enough for most of us (well me).

Point

This basically proves the point that offering a guarantee on the display does not break the bank. All 3 of these companies are respectable, and offer the buyer piece of mind over their competitors.

 

[Kai]

Their displays DONT match they published specs, so they MUST give you a replacement. Keep calling until you get one.

What Specs exactly are you referring to? Where exactly does it say every single pixel works on Apples HP? I'm most curious to learn, please do show me!

NO! He didnt get what he paid for. He paid for a screen resolution of 1440 x 900 on the 17" (or 1680 x 1050 for the 20"). Does he have all of those pixels?.

Yes. _Nowhere_ does it say they *all* have to be functional! Just like those bad sectors on your HD that got masked out in the factory...

Absolutely agree!

But we have to accept that LCD manufacturers seem unable to do this in a cost-effective manner. But that doesnt mean the consumer has to accept a shoddy product.

And that is why everyone with a dead pixel should raise bloody hell. This will result in more people getting what they actually paid for, and will make Apple do one of two things:

1) Post a disclaimer saying that 1-7 dead pixels is acceptable and LCDs with 1-7 dead pixels cannot be exchanged, thus putting the purchasing responsibility in the consumers hands

OR

2) Improve QC and produce better products, whilst still keeping customers in the dark regarding their 'policies' toward dead pixels.

Given that increasing QC drives up cost, I'll bet you choice 1 is Apple's move.

So it's suddenly all fine and dandy if you just sign this agreement while it's a huge problem that needs to be adressed that there is no such agreement right now. Right. Because that agreement changes **** about the pixels still being dead! What's the friggin point?

This basically proves the point that offering a guarantee on the display does not break the bank. All 3 of these companies are respectable, and offer the buyer piece of mind over their competitors.

Well - I would say Philips (or whoever it was that tried it and failed!) also is a respectable company. So let's see if Sony, Asus and Viewsonic can sustain this.. From what i see they don't offer it on all their products (Sony certainly doesn't, just google for "PSP" and "dead pixels"!) so it might just be a mixed calculation: Take a loss on one product and have the rumor that you're giving a zero pixel guarantee do its work and then tell people that complain about dead pixels on your other products that unfortunately this rule only applies to product X!
Dead pixels are obviously still a problem with all manufacturers. If it was that easy, wouldn't you think *everybody* would give such a guarantee?

 

[maverick808]

I was wrong earlier, Sony don't have a zero dead pixel policy. It was Samsung I was thinking of...

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/01/1440201&tid=196&tid=152&tid=1

I'm still of the opinion that if I ever get dead pixels or any other serious flaws I'll simply return the machine when it arrives. UK law fully supports me on this and I'm glad it does.

 

[840quadra]

Well - I would say Philips (or whoever it was that tried it and failed!) also is a respectable company. So let's see if Sony, Asus and Viewsonic can sustain this.. From what i see they don't offer it on all their products (Sony certainly doesn't, just google for "PSP" and "dead pixels"!) so it might just be a mixed calculation: Take a loss on one product and have the rumor that you're giving a zero pixel guarantee do its work and then tell people that complain about dead pixels on your other products that unfortunately this rule only applies to product X!
Dead pixels are obviously still a problem with all manufacturers. If it was that easy, wouldn't you think *everybody* would give such a guarantee?

First off what point are you trying to make?

Dead pixels are annoying for everyone (some just tolerate it), so wouldn't you think that if it was technically no problem to make perfect displays one manufacturer would DO it and give a "dead pixel guarantee" to differentiate himself from the other vendors? Well, one actually tried and failed miserably!

You stated that a pixel guarantee was only offered by one company and it failed, also making it sound like nobody else did or would.

I posted examples to prove otherwise.

And you don't pay nearly as much more to warrant a zero dead pixel guarantee! We're talking about a freakin $2000 price raise!

Again I posted examples showing that this was also not the case.

From what i see they don't offer it on all their products (Sony certainly doesn't, just google for "PSP" and "dead pixels"!) so it might just be a mixed calculation:

First you point out that only one company offered a ZDP warranty and it failed, and that if others did prices would hike to levels $2000 over their standard price. Now that someone posts otherwise you are changing your argument to point out that companies that do offer a ZDP warranty do not for all their products?

Well since you are trying so hard to be correct, I will admit you are on that last point. What that doesn't change however, is the fact that you were wrong on the previous two points you tried so feverishly to make.

Should those companies offer ZDP warranties on all their products? In my opinion they shouldn't have to, as the entire system (screen drives, case, etc) should be covered under the regular warranty, and the companies goal should be to produce the best quality product possible, and stand behind it.

Am I mad at Apple if they have a few ... erm.. bad Apples? No! But I have the exact same attitude with Dell, Sony, Tosiba, Volkswagen, Audi, or any other company that will sometimes have issues. This is only the case if they are willing to work with the customers that are paying hard earned (sometimes) money to purchase these goods.

 

[Bear]

...
I'm still of the opinion that if I ever get dead pixels or any other serious flaws I'll simply return the machine when it arrives. UK law fully supports me on this and I'm glad it does.

Dead pixels are not necessarily a serious flaw. It depends on how many and where. For instance if there is a dead (or stuck) pixel in the menu bar gors it really matter?

Now dead/stuck pixels in the main viewing area of the screen do get to be an issue, but it depends on if it is one pixel or several adjacent or a few spread out ove rthe screen.

Agter over a weeks use, I think I've noticed one stuck pixel on my 30" display it's a few pixels below the menu bar and maybe an inch left of center. If I had used a different background image I might never have noticed it. As a matter of fact I had to examine the background photo in Photoshop to make sure the pixel was incorrect and it wasn't something in the picture.

Most of the time I don't even notice the pixel - it's usually covered by the titlebar of some window. What am I going to do - complain, have it replaced and get one with possibly bad pixels and in areas that are worse? And who knows, sometimes stuck pixels fix themselves over time.

 

[maverick808]

Dead pixels are not necessarily a serious flaw.

In your opinion it's not serious. In mine it is so I'll return any machine with any dead pixel.

Now dead/stuck pixels in the main viewing area of the screen do get to be an issue, but it depends on if it is one pixel or several adjacent or a few spread out ove rthe screen.

This is also subjective. On one of the iMacs I returned it was actually a stuck pixel (red) right below the spotlight symbol at the top right. It was barely noticable as it was just on the border of the menu bar so that's fine in your opinion right? In mine it wasn't because when I activate FrontRow or view a movie full screen then there is no menu bar and suddenly there's a bright red dot always there in the corner throughout the movie.

I'm not picking on Apple for this policy - their policy is the standard policy for the majority of monitor sellers out there. However, regardless of any company's policy I am still fully in my rights to return any machine for any reason in the first 14 days and I will continue to do so for any dead, stuck or hot pixels.

If I lived in the USA I might be more annoyed about dead pixels and petioning for a policy change but since it's not a problem to get a refund here I can live with going through the hassle of returning machines until I get flawless ones.

 

[Edge100]

I just opened the box to my brand new Sony DSC-N1 camera and in the manual it states that 1-5 dead pixels is considered acceptable by Sony. I guess just another example of a company's policy.

Which you got to read AFTER you paid for the camera.

Unacceptable!

 

[Edge100]

Dead pixels are not necessarily a serious flaw. It depends on how many and where. For instance if there is a dead (or stuck) pixel in the menu bar gors it really matter?

Now dead/stuck pixels in the main viewing area of the screen do get to be an issue, but it depends on if it is one pixel or several adjacent or a few spread out ove rthe screen.

Agter over a weeks use, I think I've noticed one stuck pixel on my 30" display it's a few pixels below the menu bar and maybe an inch left of center. If I had used a different background image I might never have noticed it. As a matter of fact I had to examine the background photo in Photoshop to make sure the pixel was incorrect and it wasn't something in the picture.

Most of the time I don't even notice the pixel - it's usually covered by the titlebar of some window. What am I going to do - complain, have it replaced and get one with possibly bad pixels and in areas that are worse? And who knows, sometimes stuck pixels fix themselves over time.

Wow! I can't believe you would pay for a $2500 LCD, and not want it to be perfect. I would not put up with ANYTHING wrong with that screen (not to say that price would change my views, but for that money, its GOING to be perfect).

Apple gets away with this because people like you dont complain. The fact that you can rationalize the dead pixel is your problem, but you are making things worse for everyone.

Actually, maybe you've done me a favor: by not complaining, you've encouraged Apple to keep its "policy" of not telling the consumer its "policy" until after a problem arises, which means that I can demand an exchange on the basis that I didnt know the policy. If you did complain, maybe they'd start publicizing this.

I suppose your loss is my gain. Thanks!