Apple Lied About iPhone X Screen Size and Pixel Count, Lawsuit Alleges (cnet.com) 168
A lawsuit filed Friday is accusing Apple of falsely advertised the screen sizes and pixel counts of the displays in its iPhone X, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max devices. The two plaintiffs, who filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, are seeking class action status. CNET reports: The suit alleges that Apple lied about the screen sizes by counting non-screen areas like the notch and corners. So the new line of iPhones aren't "all screen" as marketed, according to the 55-page complaint. For example, iPhone X's screen size is supposed to be 5.8 inches, but the plaintiffs measured that it's "only about 5.6875 inches." The plaintiffs also allege that the iPhone X series phones have lower screen resolution than advertised. iPhone X is supposed to have a resolution of 2436x1125 pixels, but the product doesn't contain true pixels with red, green and blue subpixels in each pixel, according to the complaint. iPhone X allegedly only has two subpixels per pixel, which is less than advertised, the complaint said. The lawsuit also alleges iPhone 8 Plus has a higher-quality screen than iPhone X.
Re: (Score:1)
It is the plaintiffs who are using ludicrous precision (I don't believe they really measured it to five significant figures - is this a conversion from metric or something?), they should have just said 5.7" which makes their case while actually being kind to Apple. Anyway their case is right, because Apple have overstated the size by 0.1" which is a significant amount in this context.
Apple and all manufacturers should if anything under-state things like sizes to avoid any argument. In olden times a merchan
Re: (Score:3)
It's not ludicrous precision - it's exactly 6-11/16" Sixteenths of an inch are still widely used in measurements in the U.S.
Re: Hilarioud (Score:1)
You mean 5 11/16 inches?
You wrote it in a weird way.
Since the rest of us have shortcuts to split or group in thousands and for more common measurements also hundreds and tenths we usually don't do fractions with measurements using other divisors than exponents of 10.
Anyway the value could easily be expressed as 144 mm.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ludicrous precision
I don't think you understand the meaning of rhe word "precision".
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are only re-inforcing my point.
A stated measurement implies that it is accurate to within halfway to the adjacent steps. So 5.6875 inches implies that the actual size is between 5.68745 and 5.68755 : that is a precision of 0.00005 inches which is daft in this context and beyond what could be measured outside a standards laboratory (I have worked in one). OTOH, 5&11/16 inches implies a size between 5&21/32 and 5&23/32, that is a precision of 1/32 inch, or ~0.03 inch, much more sensib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And do the other products use ludicrous precision?
We demand a select toggle to go between ludicrous precision and plaid precision. We will tie up the vital business of every court in California until we get our way (lies down on floor, pounds fists on carpet).
Re: (Score:2)
Colonel Sandurz: Prepare for high precision!
Tim Cook: No-no-no, high precision is too unclear!
Colonel Sandurz: High precision too unclear?
Tim Cook: Yes, we'll have to go right to...ludicrous precision!
[The entire crew gasps.]
Colonel Sandurz: Ludicrous precision?! Sir, we've never gone to that precision before. I don't know if this advertising campaign can take it!
Tim Cook: What's the matter Colonel Sandurz... chicken?
Re: Hilarioud (Score:5, Informative)
People use the advertised numbers to compare with other products before they buy. So they need to be correct.
No. They need to be wrong. Everybody else also counts a few pixels under the bezel, so for an Apples-to-apples (sorry) comparison, Apple should do the same. This is standard industry practice.
The pixel layout is different for OLED, where blue LEDs tend to be brighter but also have a shorter lifetime. So this is compensated in software by increasing the current to the blue LEDs as the screen ages. OLEDs use PenTile [wikipedia.org] pixel layout.
With PenTile, instead of RGB-RGB-RGB- ... the pixels are RG-BG-RG-BG- .... The green pixels are narrower but twice as densely packed. This provides very good resolution, and continues to do so even as the screen ages. PenTile was pioneered by Samsung ... and Samsung makes the screen for the iPhone X.
Disclaimer: I am a happy owner of a four year old iPhone 6.
Re: (Score:1)
no, they need to be correct, and those other bad actors need to not be allowed to count their bezel pixels.
Re: Hilarioud (Score:4, Informative)
The latest and greatest Samsung panels use a different pattern: https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userf... [fonpit.de]
It is standard for all OLED displays though, so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
Re: Hilarioud (Score:4, Informative)
The latest and greatest Samsung panels use a different pattern: https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userf... [fonpit.de]
It is standard for all OLED displays though, so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
The new XS Max uses the very same DiamondTile type OLED panel as it is a Samsung display: http://www.displaymate.com/Dia... [displaymate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the whole industry lies about the pixel count of a particular technology, I'm not convinced that helps any of them defend against the lawsuit accusing false advertising. None of them will get to use the "but mommy, all the cool kids are doing it" excuse in court.
Re: (Score:2)
...so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
The complaint about pixel count will most likely be treated independently of the complaint about screen size. The judge could decide to dismiss the complaint about pixel count (I agree that it sounds ridiculous) and allow the complaint about screen size (which sounds reasonable to me) to go forward.
Re: Hilarioud (Score:1)
My besel doesn't have round corners or a notch you insensitive clod!
Re: Hilarioud (Score:2)
There exist AMOLED with RGB subpixel layout too.
PenTile is used because it's cheaper (and cheating.) Originally because blue wasn't as important for luminance. Since pixel only mean picture element and may not really be specified further in what it actually definie and since supposedly Samsung went with some VESA standard based on contrast they get away with it.
But assuming each RG or BG counts as one pixel otherwise on a screen of just red or blue colour the number of pixels would drop to half.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying the industry standard is putting your thumb on the scale?
No, they need to be accurate and point out that a few liars out there are counting pixels under the bezel.
As for the pixel arrangement, it may be a good arrangement, and it may work well, but it is not the same as having full RGB pixels. There are things that it will render at a lesser resolution (anything with blue in it). The eye may or may not be able to see the difference, but it is there and the standard for resolution is an abso
Re: (Score:2)
If that had ever been the standard for boards, there might be a point in that suit, but it never has been.
OTOH, pixels have always meant full color pixels (that is, including red, green, and blue in EACH pixel) for a color display dating back to before CGA.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they haven't. No one has come up with a legal definition. That's just what you _want_ it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing about law, only the understanding of the entire damned industry for over 30 years and consumers for 20.
It sounds like you want to rewrite history so the precious won't be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The Spectrum was never advertised as having full color capability, nor was full color a consumer expectation at that time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the complaint is right, Apple advertised a 5.8" screen when the delivered screen is under 5.7". That's a complaint about accuracy at least as much as precision.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple have defined a new type of inch, a cool inch, and patented it too.
Re: (Score:1)
It's called a "smart inch" and can't be expressed on Slashdot without glitching.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they turn out to be devoted Wiccans, I don't see how it excuses false advertising. Burn them!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue the Apple apologists...
Full disclosure: I use Apple products. I like them because they meet my needs.
Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it. Complaining about pixel design. Do the pixel counts match Apple's based on teh design? This smells like someone looking for an easy payday. Apple does some stupid shit, such as the battery saving throttling without giving customers a chance to decide if they wanted to do that; but I find this lawsuit to be BS, and would no matter who ma
Re: (Score:1)
Well, then Apple shouldn't be giving them an easy payday by being accurate about what they claim. It's really simple.
Nobody but the liars benefits when companies are allowed to fudge their numbers "because it's just a little bit", or "because we look at things differently".
Hold everyone to the same, strict standard.
And for that matter yes, I would be very much in favor of some sort of regulation about how storage size is advertise, because a 16 GB phone sure as hell can't hold 16 GB of music, like one could
Re:Not Guilty (Score:5, Informative)
Well, then Apple shouldn't be giving them an easy payday by being accurate about what they claim. It's really simple.
Nobody but the liars benefits when companies are allowed to fudge their numbers "because it's just a little bit", or "because we look at things differently".
Something the lawsuit seems to leave out is Apple's footnote on screen size:
The display has rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a standard rectangular shape, the screen is 5.85 inches (iPhone XS), 6.46 inches (iPhone XS Max), 6.06 inches (iPhone XR), or 5.85 inches (iPhone X) diagonally. Actual viewable area is less. (As referenced in filing)
Which seems to explain how they determine screen size. That's pretty standard, going back to TV days which is why we have diagonal screen measurements. They also give the size in H and W in pixels, also a standard way of saying the size of the screen display unit. Apple seems to use industry standard ways to advertise their display, and even have a footnote explaining the rounded corner's impact and the actual viewing areas is less. It seems to me Apple disclosed the screen's viewing area isn't 6.5 inches and has
As for the "false pixels," that's the design. Different displays have different electrical designs. Each pixel has 2 sub pixels, but that doesn't change the number of pixels; even if some displays are capable of producing more colors per pixel.
There are legitimate reasons to sue companies such as Apple, but IMHO this isn't one of them. All this will result in is yet more footnotes explaining details that no one cares about or reads.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget, when the thing you're rendering is blue, it will render at substantially lower resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget, when the thing you're rendering is blue, it will render at substantially lower resolution.
1. Find a lawyer
2. Become lead plaintiff in class action over some small detail to be enraged about, regardless of veracity of claim
3. ?
4. Profit
Re: (Score:2)
It is a FACT that there are less regions on the screen that can render blue. Less blue spots means less blue resolution. That's not so hard to figure out.
I don't have cause to sue personally. I don't own an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
>As for the "false pixels," that's the design. Different displays have different electrical designs. Each pixel has 2 sub pixels, but that doesn't change the number of pixels; even if some displays are capable of producing more colors per pixel.
Why stop at 2? Just claim your standard LCD monitor has only one sub-pixel per pixel and you've tripled the resolution!
Re: Not Guilty (Score:1)
That's how the OLPC worked and how it could do 1200x900 (200dpi) back in 2007 for cheap, sucked for color accuracy, but made a great black&white display.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then Apple shouldn't be giving them an easy payday by being accurate about what they claim. It's really simple.
I can't wait until all the spec sheets list everything with three digits right of the decimal point, plus a complete accounting of their measurement methodology. All the readers will be so smart and enlightened!
Or maybe someday if someone cares about the difference between 5.6875 inches and 5.8 inches when measured along a very specific vector, they'll take responsibility for their own lives and just go measure the damned thing before buying it.
Re: Not Guilty (Score:1)
"Adequately sharp and sized display"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply gross vs net measurement. There is a much bigger problem with measuring screen size in inches, it only made sense when all of the screens (a long time ago) had the same aspect ratio. Think comparing a 15 inch laptop between a 4:3 aspect ratio and 16:9. Then there is the dpi - if you these two screens are 1600x1200 and 1280x720 or if they're 800x600 vs 3200x1800, that are entirely different displays. Then you get a concepts of logical resolution, screen type (TN, IPS, OLED), subpixel arrangeme
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply gross vs net measurement. There is a much bigger problem with measuring screen size in inches, it only made sense when all of the screens (a long time ago) had the same aspect ratio.
Good points. The diagonal measurement is a hold over from when TVs had circular displays. Once they went to rectangular viewing areas they kept using diagonal measurements; which still made sense because TVs had the same aspect ratio and a larger size meant more viewing area.
Think comparing a 15 inch laptop between a 4:3 aspect ratio and 16:9. Then there is the dpi - if you these two screens are 1600x1200 and 1280x720 or if they're 800x600 vs 3200x1800, that are entirely different displays. Then you get a concepts of logical resolution, screen type (TN, IPS, OLED), subpixel arrangements...
Unfortunately, since computers started by using TVs and monitors that essentially were TVs with no tuners so the convention stuck; even if it no longer allowed good comparisons between screens.
The trouble is that marketing messaging needs to be simple enough to be understandable and easy enough to be remembered by the vast majority of your potential customer base. This is the very same thing led us to megapixel race with cameras.
Another good point. The problem is people
Re: (Score:2)
Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it.
No, that isn't how it works. It needs to be correct, based on how you did measure it. Otherwise it is false.
If you don't want to be accurate to x.y, don't advertise x.y sizes, stick to x.
If you advertise to x.y, it should at least be true for some possible x.yz. So you can fudge the least significant digit +- 1 and blame rounding. But you never get +- 2, or even +- 1.1. Those are blatant lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Off by .1125 inches because you don't like to count the notch?Depends on how you measure it.
No, that isn't how it works. It needs to be correct, based on how you did measure it. Otherwise it is false.
If you don't want to be accurate to x.y, don't advertise x.y sizes, stick to x.
If you advertise to x.y, it should at least be true for some possible x.yz. So you can fudge the least significant digit +- 1 and blame rounding. But you never get +- 2, or even +- 1.1. Those are blatant lies.
Good points. Apple correctly identified the size of the screen, as it noted in the small print notes referenced in the lawsuit. Apple never claimed the full screen area on the display were viewable, they actually said it wasn't. as you point out, it needs to be correct for how you measure it, and it was and Apple disclosed how it was measured so people know it was the viewable area. The plaintiffs are claiming it was false advertising based on what they think a screen should be measured, despite Apple telli
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed that for XS XR etc, apple added an asterisk saying the diagonal measurement is without the rounded corner. They didn't say that for the original X....
Actually, they did for the X as well, as shown, by the very page the lawsuit references, in footnote 1: https://www.apple.com/iphone/c... [apple.com]
You say everyone is guilty then? (Score:2)
So all of the other phone makers with notches are guilty of the same crime? What about anyone that has any kind of bezel, no matter how small?
iPhone X allegedly only has two subpixels per pixel,
So all of the. other phone makers doing this same thing with screens are "guilty" as well?
If Apple is guilty of this, all other smartphone makers are just as, or more guilty than Apple. Will you call them out also?
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. Competition is compromised when companies are allowed whatever they please, rather what reflects reality.
Any company that lies about their product characteristics should get a big fat fine.
Re: (Score:2)
So all of the. other phone makers doing this same thing with screens are "guilty" as well?
Yes, as a mater of fact, they are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just crapflooders. They don't care about anything. People argue for and against various issues and topics, but all they care about is smearing feces everywhere they can get away with it. They're clever, ya know.
How can you "not put anything there" (Score:2)
Sure you can put something besides the notches and and it is rounded corners, but it is not part of the screen, as you cannot use it for anything. Same for the bottom - apps are not supposed to use the lower part of the screen because there is a slider thing.
Apps can display content in those system areas if they really want to.
Try the simplest thing, try a full screen video, does it actually use your "full screen"?
Yes, just zoom in... oh you didn't know that?? Most people like seeing the full content so it
True pixels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bailiff kick these nuts in the butt (Score:2)
http://i.imgur.com/7umOJ.gif [imgur.com]
Gaaaaahhhhhhh! I was going to say something here but the black hole of stupidity sucked my brain in. Is this a contest for the stupidest lawsuit ever?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CRTs didn't have resolutions, that's not how they worked. The dots were not pixels.
There is a great video explaining it here: https://youtu.be/Ea6tw-gulnQ [youtu.be]
Re:True pixels? (Score:4, Informative)
Sure they did.
CRT resolution is related to bandwidth, focus, and physical size. NTSC monitors were lucky to achieve 160 horizontal lines of resolution (comparable to 320 pixels), and they were fixed at 525 lines vertically. RGB monitors could do better, and often allowed the timing to be changed to increase the vertical resolution.
Oh, and the guy in that video is using "resolution" wrong. When referring to CRTs, "resolution" was taken to mean lines of horizontal resolution [wikipedia.org]. As used for LCD displays, it normally refers to display resolution [wikipedia.org], where it's an ambiguous misnomer, but most often meant to mean pixel dimensions (e.g. 1024x768). He's saying CRTs don't have pixels, despite the fact that pixels were used to describe CRT images long before LCDs were even thought of. For CRTs displaying bit-mapped [wikipedia.org] images, the display resolution depends on both the capabilities of the display, and the device driving it. Hence, the old CGA/VGA/XGA, etc. nomenclature. Later CRT monitors could accept different timings and display resolutions.
Re: (Score:2)
What we mean is that CRTs were not like LCDs with a fixed number of physical pixels. The holes in the grill and the dots on the screen are not pixels like on an LCD, pixels in a video frame.
The video is using the common definition of the term and does in fact explain the actual resolution that you mention.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, a CRT alone doesn't produce an image. It's part of a system, and for bit mapped systems, there are pixels.
"Pixel" and "resolution" have long understood meanings. Don't be disingenuous by redefining them and then saying they don't apply.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. Anyway, at least we agree that CRTs don't have pixels, right?
Re:True pixels? (Score:5, Informative)
Your eyes are much better at resolving green [nfggames.com] than they are at red or especially blue. Nearly every method of storing video or photos has taken advantage of this - the old NTSC broadcast TV standard, color film composition, JPEG compression, digital camera sensors, even the latest h.265 video codec. All of them stored red and especially blue at a lower resolution than they do green. So you've been looking at the equivalent of pentile images all your life and never noticed it. Unless you peep at the pixels with a magnifying glass, there's no reduction in image quality from using a lower blue and red subpixel resolution than green. The only exception I've seen is due to a long-lived MPEG bug [hometheaterhifi.com] from the 1990s which still occasionally crops up as striations in blocks of solid color, especially red, which might not have been visible at a higher red resolution.
Unfortunately it was nearly impossible to convince iPhone owners and reviewers who'd drunk Apple's kool-aid of this fact, and Samsung eventually relented and used RGB versions of its OLED displays on their newer phones. So I'll shed no tears that Apple's chickens are now coming home to roost.
Re: (Score:2)
"Unfortunately it was nearly impossible to convince iPhone owners and reviewers who'd drunk Apple's kool-aid of this fact, and Samsung eventually relented and used RGB versions of its OLED displays on their newer phones. So I'll shed no tears that Apple's chickens are now coming home to roost."
Right, it was "iPhone owners and reviewers" that forced Samsung to use inferior technology in their newer phones. ;)
Perhaps you might consider that your understanding of the technical issues isn't as good as it could
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every method of storing video or photos has taken advantage of this - the old NTSC broadcast TV standard, color film composition, JPEG compression, digital camera sensors, even the latest h.265 video codec. All of them stored red and especially blue at a lower resolution than they do green.
This is not true. You're thinking of luma vs chroma, with chroma (color information) typically being stored at 1/4th the size.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the argument can be made very clear - if a "pixel", which is defined as a "picture element", in your display's resolution specification, can't display the full color gamut, and the pixel unit alone can't be addressed by software independently to display any color from the advertised 16.7 billion colors, with a direct hardware correlation, than it is a lie.
In a normal display, with RGB-complete pixels that can be independently addressed, the color values of pixels in my PNG or UI command the correct
Re: (Score:2)
Now you know.
And if you held a magnifying glass up to the old CRT monitors, you would indeed see an array of pixels, each with a red, a green, and a blue subpixel. On even older TVs, you would see an array of pixels consisting of red, green, and blue dots laid out in a triangular pattern.
Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
If you didnt like the screen then return the phone next time. What a waste of time and resources this is, its a pure cash grab by some attorneys.
Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste of time and resources this is, its a pure cash grab by some attorneys.
Actually I think it's karma given how Apple used to shout from the rooftops that the higher resolution Samsung Galaxy wasn't actually higher resolution due to employing the exact same tricks used here.
Normally I'd be quite shitty, but now ... I'm okay with this. I hope those attorneys bathe in champagne.
SDD is a bigger lie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
LOL get a clue. These are some shysters that got a few idiots to be their face and is trying to get a many-million dollar settlement that will result in them getting all the cash and the consumers getting something like $1 in App Store credit.
The real lesson here is that we have a lot of lawyers abusing the system to get rich while people that are really harmed in other more significant cases are screwed.
It's about... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"about" to 4 decimal places.
Re: (Score:2)
Same story with the Apple TV (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"the image is sent to the device as half HD"
With a comment this stupid you really shouldn't be participating. I would say you haven't bothered checking any model. What device are you talking about? What is "half HD"?
Don't let that stop you from posting off-topic Apple rage though, especially when all it does is display your ignorance.
Does anyone really care? (Score:1)
Does any sensible person actually care whether it is 2436x1125 or 2438x1120?
(apart from some nerd in his mom's basement counting pixels (1,2,3,4,5,6, etc.)
Jeez, the are more important things in this world than a few pixels more or less.
I mean, it's not like you're gonna notice... Really, some folks ought to get out more.
Mac
Oh good (Score:3)
This paves the way for my lawsuit against Ford, who for decades has advertised "5.0" liter engines that are 4,942cc, or "4.9" liters, if you're going for one-decimal accuracy. I'll be rich!
First of all, dickheads, you don't need to say "about" when describing a dimension to the ten-thousandth of an inch. Secondly, anyone who can spot the difference, unaided, between a 5.8-inch screen and a 5.6875-inch screen at arm's length wins a free trip to Uranus.
Thirdly, Apple has this note right on their page, directly below the dimensions: [apple.com]
The iPhone XS display has rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a standard rectangular shape, the screen is 5.85 inches diagonally (actual viewable area is less).
And their lawyers are better than yours, so I'm sure that's enough to get this suit tossed out on its metaphorical ass.
Doesnâ(TM)t deserve to own any tech (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The measurement is actually stated to a resolution of 1/16" inch. The fractional part is exactly 11/16.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll need to add some important words like "equivalent" to make a true statement out of the thing you actually said.