I don't think anyone at Apple would claim that the test magically changes the state of the world. They probably wouldn't even deny that there is a ghosting problem on your machine. It's clear that the test is meant to determine whether the particular machine's ghosting problem is within Apple's acceptable limits.
It's just like the dead pixel guarantees you sometimes see on monitors, whereby you get a replacement if there are >4 dead pixels anywhere on the screen or >1 in the center of the screen. No one's denying that you have exactly 4 dead pixels, they're just not going to give you a replacement unless you have 5.
Now, obviously it's fair to argue that Apple's test is too strict, and that OP does in fact deserve a replacement. The dead pixel guarantee is disclosed to potential buyers, and likewise this ghosting test probably should be as well (and I'm assuming it's not). But your implication that Apple is making a bizarre metaphysical claim about their tests is ridiculous.
But your specs for what you repair have to be reasonable if you want to have customers think you deliver a high quality product (and if you want to actually do so).
Two dead pixels near the edge of the screen, okay, most of us think, that's still usable, I'll soon stop noticing. (How many is 'most of us'? Enough that a monitor company can do that, and still be considered to deliver a high quality product).
The ghosting OP describes and takes pictures of? I think would probably interfere with the use of most reasonable people. If those are Apple's specs, then Apple is willing to deliver a crappy product; either Apple made a mistake, their test isn't catching what they meant to catch, or Apple thinks it's going to have enough customers that keep buying Apple anyway even after getting a crappy product, I guess.
I think I agree, but there's still a tone in your and OP's words that makes it sound like you're appealing to some objective measure of a "high quality product." Obviously, there is no such thing, and different problems will frustrate different people. It's quite possible that 99% of MBP buyers would never even notice that ghosting problem. Does that still make the MBP a "low quality product," and are Apple's policies still unreasonable, or does it just mean that the product simply isn't compatible with OP's needs?
The same thing applies to my dead pixel analogy. Personally, I am extremely distracted by dead pixels (even a single one in a non-retina display drives me crazy). I have always purchased displays with very strict dead pixel tolerances. But it would be ridiculous for me to buy a low-end display then complain that the manufacturer makes crappy products and doesn't care about its customers because they refuse to replace my display that only has a single dead pixel.
> I think I agree, but there's still a tone in your and OP's words that makes it sound like you're appealing to some objective measure of a "high quality product."
> It's quite possible that 99% of MBP buyers would never even notice that ghosting problem.
Here's my takeaway from this incident. This problem doesn't affect 99% of users. If Apple needed to ensure this particular problem (almost) never occurs, it would cost a lot of money, for something that doesn't in fact affect most people.
Having a test as described in the article is worthwhile for shooing away the x% of the 99% of people for whom it really doesn't matter. But when a professional for whom it does matter comes into your store, and it is obvious that it does matter and he has done his homework on the issue, then when that person is treated like everyone else, to me it shows Apple no longer cares about professionals.
To do a certain kind of work, you need certain performance from your hardware. In the past, you could be certain that you could get it from Apple hardware, and if there was a problem, they would make it right. This seems no longer to be the case. The "new" Apple gets such a high percentage of their revenue from the consumer market, the "casuals", that they now have the power to thumb their nose at the power users and professionals, and it will have 0 noticeable impact on their bottom line. And it would seem they are now choosing to use that power.
1. The guy who posted TFA is not a "professional"-- at least, not a professional graphics designer, professional photographer, or any other profession where ghosting would be an issue.
2. Apple has always been a consumer-focused company, not a company focused on businesses or professionals.
3. For as long as Apple has existed, there have been "Apple has jumped the shark this year because of X" posts. Always. They're almost as common as the Mac vs. PC posts, and almost as boring.
oh, and:
4. Do the words "passive matrix LCD" mean anything to you? I used to have an Apple laptop where the screen ghosted so much, even moving the pointer was like playing a game of "snake." And this was the way it was designed. Kids today really have nothing to complain about, except paying too much for something they didn't need in the first place.
1. Yes, but professional in usability have deemed Apple aesthetics as flat[1] i.e. good for beginners but not for power users/professionals. This might seem strawmany but if you design your UI for flatland, there is a good chance your hardware is designed to be flatland as well.
I assume that GP meant professionals as power users or the top percent of Apple's audience.
2. They have failed to solve a rather serious problem of their long-time customer, I don't know of better way to alienate your other customer than that.
4. And I used BASIC on commodore 64, where you had to plug it into a TV and used a cassette player. That doesn't mean you are lucky you can have a real dedicated 13 inch monitor and should stop complaining about not having a 15 inch monitor or a CD tray. It is a real problem, that would make me reconsider buying a MBP or a monitor for that matter.
> It's quite possible that 99% of MBP buyers would never even notice that ghosting problem
In general your argument makes sense, but I'm pretty sure in this case 100% of customers WOULD notice this particular ghosting problem.
How do I know that? Because it's visible in those crappy photos on a gray background with the naked eye ... and guess what, HN has a gray background.
You'd have to be blind to not notice the ghosting happening for this customer. And at least on a gray background you'd immediately notice that the display is to be blamed, because when watching pictures or something else you'd blame the noise on your crappy camera, on yourself and so on, which IMHO is far worse.
Am I weird for returning a monitor to best buy for 2 dead (glowing green) pixels?
It's not like it was a high end display. It's was a $130 1920x1080 LG that kept it's black-friday pricing for at least a week, probably because it's old.
I mean…they didn't bat an eye, they just gave me a new one. It's almost like they want their customers to be happy with their purchases.
Wow. If your company provides worse customer service than Best Buy, this is certainly a problem (especially when it's a long-term customer who paid extra for an extended warranty)!
It's just like the dead pixel guarantees you sometimes see on monitors, whereby you get a replacement if there are >4 dead pixels anywhere on the screen or >1 in the center of the screen. No one's denying that you have exactly 4 dead pixels, they're just not going to give you a replacement unless you have 5.
Now, obviously it's fair to argue that Apple's test is too strict, and that OP does in fact deserve a replacement. The dead pixel guarantee is disclosed to potential buyers, and likewise this ghosting test probably should be as well (and I'm assuming it's not). But your implication that Apple is making a bizarre metaphysical claim about their tests is ridiculous.