I can't stand this argument
Apple could define "defect" as "no dead pixels", but then their price would go up substantially for their sourcing of LCDs, and thus your price for machines would go up substantially.
Is that what you'd prefer? In order for people to make a proper price comarison between Apple LCDs and other vendors, they need to have rougly the same policies.
Here's a link to an article that describes those policies
This issue hits home with me becuase I just had an eBay buyer go ballistic on me when I sold them a perfect PowerBook but for a single dead pixel. Even after pointing out to them that Apple themselves won't consider this a defect, the buyer tried to make my life a living hell.
Here's Apple's take on the subject
Note that they won't give a firm number, but the document strongly suggests that some nonzero number of "pixel anomolies" is considered non-defective.
Apple could define "defect" as "no dead pixels", but then their price would go up substantially for their sourcing of LCDs, and thus your price for machines would go up substantially.
Is that what you'd prefer? In order for people to make a proper price comarison between Apple LCDs and other vendors, they need to have rougly the same policies.
Here's a link to an article that describes those policies
This issue hits home with me becuase I just had an eBay buyer go ballistic on me when I sold them a perfect PowerBook but for a single dead pixel. Even after pointing out to them that Apple themselves won't consider this a defect, the buyer tried to make my life a living hell.
Here's Apple's take on the subject
Note that they won't give a firm number, but the document strongly suggests that some nonzero number of "pixel anomolies" is considered non-defective.