0

The word online is that Apple is facing legal action over its claims the MacBook range supports millions of colours. This might actually be true were it not, say the reports, for the small matter of Apple ditching the old 16,777,216 colour supporting 8-bit displays used in MacBooks and replacing them with the cheaper 6-bit TFT which only manages 262,144 colours.

This is not the first time that Apple has faced controversy over its colour math, nearly a year ago a couple of angry MacBook owners filed a suit making similar claims. That was eventually settled out of court last month, although the details of the settlement could not be disclosed to the press as part of the settlement agreement.

Apple might want to take a stroll down legal history lane though, as many display manufacturers have been successfully sued for misleading claims about monitor colour depth. Even the argument as put forward by one of the biggest LCD panel makers a few years back, AU Optoelectronics, that interpolation on 6-bit panels creates millions of colours might not be enough to deflect criticism as you then have to consider if there can be millions of colours on screen at the same time.

Managing partner Brian Kabatech of Los Angeles based Kabateck Brown Kellner which is filing the current class action for false advertising concerning the 20" iMac is quoted as saying "Apple is duping its customers into thinking they're buying 'new and improved' when in fact they're getting stuck with 'new and inferior'."

2
Contributors
1
Reply
2
Views
9 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by jwenting
0

well, they're right that they support millions of colours.
The videocard supports it so if you plug in a monitor that supports it as well you'll get it.
Maybe the supplied (at a surcharge I think?) monitor does not support it, but does Apple make the claim about that device as well or don't they?

Don't be surprised if that's the argumentation Apple is going to use, and which may well win them the day (though in the US legal system where such cases are usually decided by the greed of the jurors rather than the legalities of the case you never know, and those jury members aren't going to want the court to set a legal precedent that might at some point turn out to deny them a fat check from some other company).

Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.