How many use a non matte display such as Imac or LED Apple Cinema Display or Thunderbolt ( I know the Mac Pro has no Thunderbolt card) for Aperture and photoshop instead of a Matte type display similar to the older 30" Apple Cinema display
Glossy = mirror
If you like to have brightness and contrast full to avoid seeing a reflection of yourself or anything else then go glossy.
Apple are starting to understand this hence the less reflective screen on the rMBP and iMac. Still they reflect, but not as bad.
matte = fuzzy. If you want to see and edit sharp details....you won't be using a matte monitor.
Your post is on-point. However, I don't know what you mean by »true matte«*(vs. »fake matte«?), can you expand on that a little? From my understanding, the difference between glossy and matte panels is that glossy panels are missing compensator foils which scatter incident light. These additional layers absorb light, reducing contrast, gamut and brightness in matte panels. And since people were used to matte displays, they perceive glossy displays to have more »pop« (although my matte Eizo screen has more »pop« than my glassy MacBook Pro screen ).Not necessarily. Actually, anti-glare coatings can equal fuzzy text. True matte is not fuzzy.
Apple uses two coatings of dissimilar metals, so reflections at three wavelengths can be cancelled, resulting in a 75% reduction of total reflected light. This gives the improved contrast and colors of a glossy screen, but with much reduced glare, and without fuzzy rainbow fringed text.