Has apple officially neglected the "Professionals"?

[gothamm]

I remember when apple used to be about productivity, functionality, simplicity. But ever since apple has started catering to the masses, they have overlooked the true supporters - the "real" crowd so to speak. A few obvious examples of this:

- exclusion of firewire in the new macbooks
- exclusion of FW 400 in the new MBP
- No Matte option for the new MBP's
- New super glossy screens, which pretty much act as a $1500 mirror
- New super glossy LED backlight cinema displays
- making everything super complicated with the new "displayport"...can't even run apple's own hardware on the older acd's, and vice versa.

in addition, i finally realized today that apple just released the in-ear headphones. I was looking forward to these for the volume control, only to find out that they don't work with apple's most expensive portable device, the iphone 3g.


whatever happened to "it just works" :rolleyes:

[Blue Velvet]

Let's see how the Mac Pro shapes up before we get start getting all angsty.

All these individual issues have been beaten to death in countless threads before this one. What's more, you don't build a multi-billion hardware and software company solely on the business from designers, and video and audio editors etc.

So, no. Officially is a silly word to use, even though I personally dislike some of the directions they're moving in. Apple know that many — but not all of us — are locked in, whether out of brand loyalty, industry standards or established workflows.

[drichards]

Its been expensive to run an old clear-body ACD for a while, Apple's DVI-ACD adapter was cost prohibitive. Displayport and minidisplayport are DVI and HDMI compatible, no worries.

The 13in macbooks aren't aimed at professionals, they're aimed at the average user. The average user doesn't use firewire where they can't use usb instead.

FW800 is on the MBP, I don't see why FW400 not being there is a problem. If I could find my 800-400 cable, I wouldn't use my 400 port. The glossy screens, well you can see below that I have a matte screen so you know how I feel, but the new screens really look nice. I'd like to see a matte option, but we'll see how it goes.

The new in ears have the same sort of mic and control unit as the other buds and the same connector, and they work with the Touch. Why don't they work with the iPhone if they work with the Touch? That sounds silly.

[Maxiseller]

I agree 100% with your points. They have been discussed to death - but I believe that Apple should be aware of these issues so that they do something about them.

Part of the problem is that we're all locked in, and Apple just don't have enough machine variety compared to PC's as they're a much smaller unit. There are hundreds of PC manufacturers supporting Windows but only one supporting the mac. If you use OSX, you're pretty tied down to whatever Steve thinks we should all be using.

I would have purchased a new Macbook but since there is no firewire (and I'm not willing to buy a new camera and audio interface (£1500 worth on top of the machine cost) I'm typing on an eBay purchase, second hand macbook pro!

[inigel]

The new in ears have the same sort of mic and control unit as the other buds and the same connector, and they work with the Touch. Why don't they work with the iPhone if they work with the Touch? That sounds silly.

I believe that the microphone and the answer/play/pause/previous & next track work, just not the volume controls.

It has something to do with the conductors on the 3.5 mm jack. Normally there are three (power, left and right channel), however the iPhone has four (power, left, right and mic console). The new In-Ear Headphones uses the same number of conductors, so I am guessing that they may fully work ina future firmware update. Maybe, maybe not.

EDIT: Just found this in the reviews on the Apple Store:
My only issue is the lack of volume control for iPhone. Hopefully that'll come at some point?
http://store.apple.com/au/product/MA850G/A?fnode=MTY1NDA0Ng&mco=MjE0NDg0NQ

[gothamm]

Let's see how the Mac Pro shapes up before we get start getting all angsty.

All these individual issues have been beaten to death in countless threads before this one. What's more, you don't build a multi-billion hardware and software company solely on the business from designers, and video and audio editors etc.

So, no. Officially is a silly word to use, even though I personally dislike some of the directions they're moving in. Apple know that many — but not all of us — are locked in, whether out of brand loyalty, industry standards or established workflows.

so to paraphrase, what you are saying is that you will buy anything that apple makes, because you are locked in?

[Blue Velvet]

so to paraphrase, what you are saying is that you will buy anything that apple makes, because you are locked in?


To some extent because of what I do, yes. It's fortunate that I quite like using a Mac. ;)

[gothamm]

To some extent because of what I do, yes. It's fortunate that I quite like using a Mac. ;)

you can still moderate MR on a windows lappie ;)

maybe i am being overly pessimistic, but i do hope things change.

[eXan]

No they haven't. They still have a 17" MBP and a Mac Pro ^^

[Blue Velvet]

you can still moderate MR on a windows lappie ;)


Heh. Must seem like that sometimes. :D

And just to clarify, I do not buy anything that Apple makes, I buy what they make that fits my needs. I have not purchased a MacBook Air, iPhone or Touch. I use a non-Apple matte display. I use a mouse that's almost eight years old in design. :o

Believe me, I'm as curious to see where they're going... but maybe not as concerned as I would be if I was currently looking to buy. Which I am not. Let's see how things shake out next year.

[Topher15]

I remember when apple used to be about productivity, functionality, simplicity. But ever since apple has started catering to the masses, they have overlooked the true supporters - the "real" crowd so to speak. A few obvious examples of this:

- exclusion of firewire in the new macbooks
- exclusion of FW 400 in the new MBP
- No Matte option for the new MBP's
- New super glossy screens, which pretty much act as a $1500 mirror
- New super glossy LED backlight cinema displays
- making everything super complicated with the new "displayport"...can't even run apple's own hardware on the older acd's, and vice versa.

in addition, i finally realized today that apple just released the in-ear headphones. I was looking forward to these for the volume control, only to find out that they don't work with apple's most expensive portable device, the iphone 3g.


whatever happened to "it just works" :rolleyes:
Apple is a business, their goal is to make money. At the end of the day they can do what they want.

The only legitimate point you have it matte screen option. They ideally should give give a choice.

About the new in-ear headphones... apparently they do work with the iPhone.

[.Andy]

I'm a medical science professional and Apple's offerings cater much better to us now and are far more useable than in the 90s.

[Scottsdale]

A lot of professionals like the glossy screen... but I believe the true professional that has a MBP, also has a Cinema Display. I believe the new Cinema Displays meant to compete will have matte options. The 24" LED Cinema Display is meant for MB owners... It is not targeted at true professionals running Mac Pros. And that is the point in why no adapter. Apple is giving themselves time to introduce ALL of the new displays at MacWorld in January. It is three weeks away... come on.

You are making a lot of assumptions. Plus, the 17" MBP is the only Apple Notebook with a high-resolution display. Perhaps it will still come in matte, which the semi-updated model does have the matte display. A real professional NEEDS the large display.

As a business professional, I truly love all the Mac products. Doing some web development on the side, I love the glossy screens and find them higher quality than ever. I think the colors and accuracy of my MB display is BETTER than the MBP I previously used.

I think the firewire complaining has to stop. Let's face it, 90% of peripherals are USB 2.0. And, the MBP the Pro model has firewire. I find the complaints about firewire completely pointless. The MBP has FW 800. It is backwards compatible. So, how is that not servicing the professionals? Not like they only included one FW400 port making the FW800 useless... Am I missing something here...

So, why cannot we all just be happy with the products, or go buy some other computer. Buy a dell and run Linux on it if that makes you happy. For me, I am happy happy happy with Apple's products. I think their products are superior to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING on the market. And, you get to run the Mac OS X and not Vista.

Cannot wait for the new lineups in January. Go Steve Jobs! Go Apple. Innovative, creative, and absolutely the BEST products... as always from Apple.

[Sun Baked]

Don't forget to cry about the Mini not being updated.

[scotty96LSC]

We build and develop software and software solutions where I work. To think we can build our product to fit EVERY clients EVERY need can't be done. The masses win. Apple, I feel, is walking this same path. You just can't make everyone happy.
With that said, I too have voiced my concern to Apple, with the lack of matte options for mbp. I feel this option will be made available.

[xparaparafreakx]

- exclusion of firewire in the new macbooks
The macbooks didn't even have Firewire 800 to start with.

- exclusion of FW 400 in the new MBP
Adaptor

- No Matte option for the new MBP's
You got to be serious right? Most of the "pros" are hooking up the MBPs to high quality monitors like Lacie 324 or some kind of color accurate monitor. Some of you might be hooking up your MBPs to Wacom Cintiqs.

- New super glossy screens, which pretty much act as a $1500 mirror
Again, your probably going to run your laptop in close mode anyway. I only see this as a problem if you take pictures in the field and need to review them. That glossy screen is not that bad but annoying for those users. Same goes for video people. But apple should have a mattle option.
- New super glossy LED backlight cinema displays
I agree there should be a mattle option on this.
- making everything super complicated with the new "displayport"...can't even run apple's own hardware on the older acd's, and vice versa. Displayport --> Dvi. I have no idea if it works with the ACD.

[clyde2801]

I think if the turtlenecked one stepped out of the aether and stated that 90% of the 15" pros they sold had the glossy display, and it wasn't worth it to differentiate, most of us would understand.

[mrtrilby]

You got to be serious right? Most of the "pros" are hooking up the MBPs to high quality monitors like Lacie 324 or some kind of color accurate monitor. Some of you might be hooking up your MBPs to Wacom Cintiqs.


This forum is very useful for educating me as to how I should be operating as a professional. I'm glad to hear that if I were a 'real' professional, I would have no need of lightweight portable kit and could happily cart a MBP and external CRT everywhere. It's also heartening to hear that 'real' professionals don't need to worry about budgets and are more than happy to splash out on a Mac Pro and matte monitor rather than have to put up with a glossy iMac.

Fortunately I'm not a 'professional', but just happen to make money from photography.

[Cheffy Dave]

A lot of professionals like the glossy screen... but I believe the true professional that has a MBP, also has a Cinema Display. I believe the new Cinema Displays meant to compete will have matte options. The 24" LED Cinema Display is meant for MB owners... It is not targeted at true professionals running Mac Pros. And that is the point in why no adapter. Apple is giving themselves time to introduce ALL of the new displays at MacWorld in January. It is three weeks away... come on.

You are making a lot of assumptions. Plus, the 17" MBP is the only Apple Notebook with a high-resolution display. Perhaps it will still come in matte, which the semi-updated model does have the matte display. A real professional NEEDS the large display.

As a business professional, I truly love all the Mac products. Doing some web development on the side, I love the glossy screens and find them higher quality than ever. I think the colors and accuracy of my MB display is BETTER than the MBP I previously used.

I think the firewire complaining has to stop. Let's face it, 90% of peripherals are USB 2.0. And, the MBP the Pro model has firewire. I find the complaints about firewire completely pointless. The MBP has FW 800. It is backwards compatible. So, how is that not servicing the professionals? Not like they only included one FW400 port making the FW800 useless... Am I missing something here...

So, why cannot we all just be happy with the products, or go buy some other computer. Buy a dell and run Linux on it if that makes you happy. For me, I am happy happy happy with Apple's products. I think their products are superior to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING on the market. And, you get to run the Mac OS X and not Vista.

Cannot wait for the new lineups in January. Go Steve Jobs! Go Apple. Innovative, creative, and absolutely the BEST products... as always from Apple.

I agree but to quote from another post "The only legitimate point you have it matte screen option. They ideally should give give a choice."
Maybe they don't to make things cost effective.
I have 2 BMB's and I adore the screens,(it's what turned my head toward Apple) I do use FW on them for back up Time Machine hard drives, if it wasn't available I'd use USB. Just purchased a 15" MBP for my Daughter, she fell on love with them at the Apple store, she'll never use the FW port. She opted for the MBP based on screen size,15", it's what she had on her Toshiba Satellite that died after 2 years

[Tallest Skil]

- making everything super complicated with the new "displayport"...can't even run apple's own hardware on the older acd's, and vice versa.

DisplayPort isn't something that Apple made up, so the quotation marks are unnecessary. And... that's what the adapter is for. Mini DisplayPort to DVI/VGA. You can use any other display with the new computers, but can only use the LED Cinema Display with the new MacBooks. This makes sense, since they're changing technologies and you can't really expect it to be backwards compatible before the rest of the line has the proper hardware.

[ditzy]

I remember when apple used to be about productivity, functionality, simplicity. But ever since apple has started catering to the masses, they have overlooked the true supporters - the "real" crowd so to speak. A few obvious examples of this:

- exclusion of firewire in the new macbooks
- exclusion of FW 400 in the new MBP
- No Matte option for the new MBP's
- New super glossy screens, which pretty much act as a $1500 mirror
- New super glossy LED backlight cinema displays
- making everything super complicated with the new "displayport"...can't even run apple's own hardware on the older acd's, and vice versa.

in addition, i finally realized today that apple just released the in-ear headphones. I was looking forward to these for the volume control, only to find out that they don't work with apple's most expensive portable device, the iphone 3g.


whatever happened to "it just works" :rolleyes:

I think some of your points are completely valid others are not.

No firewire on macbooks. - While this is a pain they are not technically a Pro notebook. They are consumer products.
No Firewire 400 on MBP. - You can get an adapter.
No Matte option MBP. - Fair point there should be.
Super glossy acting as mirror. - As I've said there should be a matte option, but to be fair they're no where near as bad as you say that they are. I'm using a glossy iMac right now, I can't see my self in it at all.
Glossy LED display. - There should be a matte option.
Display-port. - Absolutely fair point. I don't get why they did this.

[iMacmatician]

I will wait for the Nehalem Mac Pro before making a judgment on this matter.

I haven't really considered the MacBook Pros to be that "pro" anyway.

[Horst]

I agree that the OP's points have been discussed in length, but I for one welcome any discussion on the matter ;) .

And I'm wondering as well if Apple does care about Audio/Video/Photography professionals any longer.

I'm still flabbergasted when I see the iPod and iPhone sections of an apple forum above the hardware discussions, as it is here and at Apple ... :rolleyes:

- Matte vs. glossy : each his own. When shooting in a bright environment, glossy can even have an advantage as it minimizes diffusion .
If, however, the ACDs go glossy, it is in my opinion not possible to calibrate them for a proper display-print workflow.
They are not that great 'pro' monitors right now, but get the job done.

- Firewire: I don't know much about Audio, but afaik many Video devices depend on it.
All digital camera backs depend on it for tethered shooting.

-'Professional' : I'm a 1-man company, doing ok, but not getting rich.
With my last photography equipment purchase, an MBP and a 20" ACD came for free, just too sweeten the deal.
Point being, if one can't afford decent tools, he's not in the business yet.

It's a free internet, and everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's getting old to discuss with people who have no real experience with even the basic standards; e.g. for photography long-time experience with decent desktop machines and portables, good printers, several displays, and hardware calibration of a high quality workflow.

[vga4life]

I agree that the OP's points have been discussed in length, but I for one welcome any discussion on the matter ;) .

And I'm wondering as well if Apple does care about Audio/Video/Photography professionals any longer.

I think it is pretty clear that they do not. The writing is on the wall with 64-bit support in CS4 on Windows that Adobe is thinking the same thing.

Apple is a high-end lifestyle brand for consumers. That someone might use one of its computers in a professional capacity seems to be an afterthought for Apple. (Certainly this is not necessarily new - Apple has always sucked at enterprise support, where Microsoft has always taken business users seriously.)

I'm waiting for the inevitable spinoff or sale of the pro applications group as the final sign that Apple is now exclusively a maker of slick packaged media players and overpriced internet appliances.

It's a free internet, and everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's getting old to discuss with people who have no real experience with even the basic standards; e.g. for photography long-time experience with decent desktop machines and portables, good printers, several displays, and hardware calibration of a high quality workflow.

Amen.

[Topher15]

Apple is a high-end lifestyle brand for consumers. That someone might use one of its computers in a professional capacity seems to be an afterthought for Apple. (Certainly this is not necessarily new - Apple has always sucked at enterprise support, where Microsoft has always taken business users seriously.)
Errrm, maybe you are not aware of Apple's pro products? :rolleyes:

It's not that Apple are have forgotten about their pro users (after all, if that were the case why would they have a specific 'Pro' line of products) rather it's that most users of their consumer products, specifically the MB, do not require things that the pro's would use, such as firewire. Sure, it would being a good thing to include it for the few consumers who do use it, or even just so all users they have option, but if the majority of MB owners do not use firewire (as I suspect most don't) then it is a good business sense to drop it from the product. That said, in my view for the price of the MB I would think firewire should be standard, but that aside, but I don't think firewire was dropped to save money or because of how much it is (or isn't) used, instead I think it was dropped in order to keep intact the distinction between the MB and MBP lines, which with the latest refresh made them virtually identical in most respects; the MB was virtually a mini-MBP, so it is understandable why Apple had to try to give a reason for people to buy the actual Pro. You can argue the ethics of expecting people to buy the Pro just for firewire when the cost of the MB justifies it being included to begin with, but I understand why they did it, and anyway I doubt anyone would upgrade just for that reason alone.

As for the screens, I agree that at the very least on the MBP and ACDs Apple should offer the choice of glossy or matte. I don't know why they don't but I suspect they want to have a uniform production in order to reduce costs. Anyway as others have said, if it is really an issue than just buy another display.

[Time Clock]

When did firewire become a "pro" feature? If I recall correctly, wasn't Apple the first computer company to include firewire on sub $1,000 computers? Wasn't the iMac originally targeted at the consumer? Why has firewire magically become a pro port? I use firewire for my external disk and less than three year-old camcorder and I'm not a professional by any stretch of the imagination.

I also find it aggravating that Apple took a port away without adding something in its place. On the MB and MBP, they could have at least added another USB port in the place of the missing firewire port.

[clyde2801]

It'll be interesting to see if Apple updates the 17" at Macworld to the unibody design. If it does, I wonder if Apple will include more ports on the machine and give a matte option on it.

That may be Apple's unofficial take on professional needs: if you're a graphics professional, you'll buy the 17" MBP or the MacPro.

[AdeFowler]

I'm a professional and have been using Macs since 1994. I love OSX and can't imagine using anything else. I'm more than happy with Apple's current direction and situation, probably because their future was in the balance so often in the nineties.

[alFR]

I'm still flabbergasted when I see the iPod and iPhone sections of an apple forum above the hardware discussions, as it is here and at Apple ... :rolleyes:

Not on the front page of MR they're not (see attachment).

If, however, the ACDs go glossy, it is in my opinion not possible to calibrate them for a proper display-print workflow.

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

All digital camera backs depend on it for tethered shooting.

Maybe, but I would wager that the majority of pro photographers are using a DSLR for most of their work - with a USB interface. Anyway, that's kind of academic because as you say:

With my last photography equipment purchase, an MBP and a 20" ACD came for free, just too sweeten the deal.
Point being, if one can't afford decent tools, he's not in the business yet.

So basically you're saying a pro will buy decent tools, i.e. the MBP, which has firewire, which means your point about the backs is irrelevant.

[inigel]

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

+1.

I haven't met a professional (photography profession) who has complained about the new glossy approach Apple has taken. Some of my colleagues are considering the new MBP, and as someone pointed out earlier, it is fine for field work to get the general idea of the image and they use high quality external displays for there post processing before sending them to the lab for printing.

[Blue Velvet]

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

The majority of CRT displays I used for work had effective anti-reflective coatings, the current crop of glossy displays from Apple do not.

[sushi]

I agree 100% with your points. They have been discussed to death - but I believe that Apple should be aware of these issues so that they do something about them.
I strongly encourage all individuals to leave polite and specific feedback on Apple's web site.

Tell them what you think.

[Demosthenes X]

I'd be interested to know what percentage of MacBook Pros were sold with glossy vs. matte screens. I'll wager the percentage of orders with matte screens was very, very low. If it was 50% of their sales, Apple would not have dropped it. If it was only 10% of their sales, then dropping it is not such a big deal.

Yeah, there's lots of people complaining about the glossy screens, but I'll wager they're a very vocal minority of consumers, not a majority.

And FYI, Apple not producing a machine to fit your exact specifications does not mean they are neglecting Pro buyers. They have some excellent offerings that can handle a wide variety of professional tasks. Can they handle yours in particular? Maybe not. But they can handle the majority of the Professional tasks you throw at them, I bet.

[Horst]

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

As it was already mentioned, my CRTs had an anti-reflective coating.
I had one Sony, that I cleaned agressively and often enough to remove a lot of that coating, never became glossy.



Maybe, but I would wager that the majority of pro photographers are using a DSLR for most of their work - with a USB interface.

That's correct - also, tethered shooting via USB , in particular when using the latest high-res/ high-fps cameras, can be a real pita due to USB speed issues, as Ive been told and read on some fora. No first-hand experience here , though.

So basically you're saying a pro will buy decent tools, i.e. the MBP, which has firewire, which means your point about the backs is irrelevant.

I should have been more clear; a MacBook, an MBA, maybe even a future Netbook, could be perfectly fine for a lot of low-volume shooting on location - if it wasn't for the lack of connectivity .
Smaller size and less weight can come in handy in a lot of situations I can think of.

Apart from the (few) digital backs - daisy-chaining Firewire HDDs, keeping an FW system drive around for emergencies, fast backups of large files, even working off a Firewire drive, etc etc, it's almost fool-proof , reliable and flexible. USB just isn't there yet.

What's next, the iMac w/o firewire ?
You'd be suprised how many photographers carry around an iMac - fast enough in many cases, the size and weight beats shlepping the MacPro plus display, decent display - unless it's glossy, then you'll need to redo all your raw exposure settings later to make sure your shadow details and basic color balance is usable for the retoucher.

Apple delivering fewer and fewer products that can be used by all of their clientele - that's just so not MacIntosh .

[Topher15]

As it was already mentioned, my CRTs had an anti-reflective coating.
I had one Sony, that I cleaned agressively and often enough to remove a lot of that coating, never became glossy.





That's correct - also, tethered shooting via USB , in particular when using the latest high-res/ high-fps cameras, can be a real pita due to USB speed issues, as Ive been told and read on some fora. No first-hand experience here , though.



I should have been more clear; a MacBook, an MBA, maybe even a future Netbook, could be perfectly fine for a lot of low-volume shooting on location - if it wasn't for the lack of connectivity .
Smaller size and less weight can come in handy in a lot of situations I can think of.

Apart from the (few) digital backs - daisy-chaining Firewire HDDs, keeping an FW system drive around for emergencies, fast backups of large files, even working off a Firewire drive, etc etc, it's almost fool-proof , reliable and flexible. USB just isn't there yet.

What's next, the iMac w/o firewire ?
You'd be suprised how many photographers carry around an iMac - fast enough in many cases, the size and weight beats shlepping the MacPro plus display, decent display - unless it's glossy, then you'll need to redo all your raw exposure settings later to make sure your shadow details and basic color balance is usable for the retoucher.

Apple delivering fewer and fewer products that can be used by all of their clientele - that's just so not MacIntosh .
All of that might be true, but the point is whether there is enough demand/reason that makes it a good business decision. Like someone said above, if matte displays were pulling in a lot of sales then Apple would not most likely have dropped them.

Most pros will most likely have the pro machines, while most owners of the consumers products will most likely not need, use or even care about things like FW or matte, etc. That doesn't mean there are not a small number of MB/MBA owners who do need/use/want those thing, but in the end Apple's limited product range means they tend to cater their machines to the majority within each area.

[mrtrilby]

I haven't met a professional (photography profession) who has complained about the new glossy approach Apple has taken.

I have. And I know for a fact that they're holding off on purchasing because of it.

And it is amusing that people seem to assume that the "Pro" badge on a laptop is some kind of hint over the kind of person that must buy that machine. Consumers must buy MacBooks, and professionals must by MBPs and Mac Pros? You don't think that it might just be a marketing term, intended to persuade as many people as possible to part with more money than they otherwise needed/wanted to? Land Rover produce a car called the "Range Rover Sport", but despite the name, I don't think they're intended for use by motorsport professionals in races. It's the marketing of badges and labels, pandering to the image that people want to be associated with.

[shaunymac]

I agree with most all of the OP's comments.

To those saying that apple is right for dropping firewire from mb and that the 17" is going to be the only "real" pro notebook out there because of the real estate, I have this for you.

Have you ever been on a plane, or do you have another mac at home along with your laptop as your secondary mac. I had a 12" ibook and a 12" powerbook that I used to carry around and loved the portability due to size. Oh, and guess what, matte screens. Oh, FIREWIRE too! OH, and if I wanted a bigger screen than that I had it at home, not in a notebook.

After all, isn't a notebook for portability? That means having the tools needed to complete the job.

It seems like with the influx of all of these ipod/iphone users, things have change in the past couple of years.

[Topher15]

I have. And I know for a fact that they're holding off on purchasing because of it.

And it is amusing that people seem to assume that the "Pro" badge on a laptop is some kind of hint over the kind of person that must buy that machine. Consumers must buy MacBooks, and professionals must by MBPs and Mac Pros? You don't think that it might just be a marketing term, intended to persuade as many people as possible to part with more money than they otherwise needed/wanted to? Land Rover produce a car called the "Range Rover Sport", but despite the name, I don't think they're intended for use by motorsport professionals in races. It's the marketing of badges and labels, pandering to the image that people want to be associated with.
No not at all, they don't have to buy it, however it makes more business sense to target the majority of users within that product range, and the majority of Apple consumer level buyers probably don't are about the things under discussion here.

I'm sure there are non professional who buy the so-called 'Pro' products, and I'm sure there are professionals who buy the so-called 'Consumer' products, however these are probably not the majority of users within each product range, and from Apple's perspective, it makes little sense to include a hardware feature in a laptop range which may not be getting much use, or a display option which not a lot of people are choosing. I'm not saying I agree with it, as I said, for the cost of the MB I think it should be standard, but I understand why they may have done so.

[DesignerOnMac]

Apple is a business, their goal is to make money. At the end of the day they can do what they want.

The only legitimate point you have it matte screen option. They ideally should give give a choice.

About the new in-ear headphones... apparently they do work with the iPhone.

I am a professional designer and photographer and I have a 24" Alum iMac. This 'debate' about glossy should be buried!!!!!!

In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000, us professionals used a CRT! The CRT had a GLOSSY SCREEN!!!!! No one bitched about them? Now we have glossy LCD or LED monitors.

Designers and photographers had no issues with a CRT. Give it up people!
Learn to move on.

And Apple has not given up on the professionals either. People complain because Apple isn't giving them what they prefer.

[Blue Velvet]

In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000, us professionals used a CRT! The CRT had a GLOSSY SCREEN!!!!!

Read the thread. This nonsensical point which gets beaten like a dead donkey has already been addressed ad nauseam.

[Horst]

In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000, us professionals used a CRT! The CRT had a GLOSSY SCREEN!!!!! No one bitched about them? Now we have glossy LCD or LED monitors.

So now going back to 90's standards is supposed to be a good thing ?
My CRTs did not have glossy screens, not the ones I used.
They sucked nonetheless.
So did my printers, scanners and calibration hardware.

Affordable, premium quality pro hardware , as well as high-tier digital photography simply didn't exist in the 90s.
The bar has been raised by a lot in just the past few years.

Before that, it was the Wild Wild West out there, re. digital.

Designers and photographers had no issues with a CRT. Give it up people!
Learn to move on.

Things have moved on, I have moved on, Apple is taking a step back; nowadays, 5-6k buy you a very good desktop machine, a couple of decent displays, an excellent 11x14 printer and proper calibration hardware.
But Apple expects you to use all that with a display that has the same properties as the ones 20 yrs ago, only brighter and with a funny profile for flashy looks ?
Things have changed, my friend, the non-issue of back then is unacceptable today !

And Apple has not given up on the professionals either.

As mentioned above several times, Apple is mainly interested in making money - nothing wrong with that.
But while Apple used to be about form and function, and eagerly catered to media professionals, they seem to be about the 'i' factor only now.

They sell tons of iPods, iPhones, and iWhatever - more power to them !
Just let a tiny bit of the money made and effort spent trickle down to products for serious users, Apple, will you ? ;)

They have the bucks, they have the skills, and it's not like they have to do it for free, is it ?
In return Steve J. can claim the logo isn't just featured on silly gadgets.

People complain because Apple isn't giving them what they prefer.

Well, that sort of is the point, when their product line is discussed, no ?

[xparaparafreakx]

This forum is very useful for educating me as to how I should be operating as a professional. I'm glad to hear that if I were a 'real' professional, I would have no need of lightweight portable kit and could happily cart a MBP and external CRT everywhere. It's also heartening to hear that 'real' professionals don't need to worry about budgets and are more than happy to splash out on a Mac Pro and matte monitor rather than have to put up with a glossy iMac.

Fortunately I'm not a 'professional', but just happen to make money from photography.

So if I may ask, what camera do you use? Do you have different lens for that camera? What kind of CF or SD cards do you have? Do you have a light kit for taking studio pictures?

Or is it okay to buy a camera from wal-mart for you?

[dal20402]

This nonsensical point which gets beaten like a dead donkey has already been addressed ad nauseam.

The real dead donkey here is the idea that glossy is incompatible with pro use. I'm frankly tired of it, because it's just not true. People are either 1) afraid of change, or 2) vastly overblowing a personal preference.

First, the way to compensate for the difference between print and display color is not to artificially limit the range of color your display can produce. That is really what people who complain glossy is "oversaturated" for print work are asking for. Better calibration and more intelligent use of your editing software will address this problem, and get you a wider range of usable colors for non-print work.

Second, any location in which the reflections from a glossy display are going to significantly interfere with your work will also affect a matte display. You won't see sharp discrete reflections. But the same light that would produce those reflections will wash out a matte display, distorting the color.

In any case, no MBP display, glossy or matte, is suitable for color-sensitive work, so there is no point in people pretending that it needs to be.

The lack of clarity and direction on the high-speed storage front (what's next? FW3200? USB3? eSATA? Anything?) is a much worse affront to pros than a crap TN display changing from matte to glossy.

[mrtrilby]

So if I may ask, what camera do you use? Do you have different lens for that camera? What kind of CF or SD cards do you have? Do you have a light kit for taking studio pictures?

Or is it okay to buy a camera from wal-mart for you?


A pair of Nikon D200s with three lenses between them, of which the usage is approximately 80%, 15%, 5%. I use Sandisk and Lexar cards. I have 3 Nikon SB800s and 1 SB600 for lighting kit.

We don't have Wal-Mart in the UK, but assuming they sell Nikon kit, why wouldn't it be ok?

[xhambonex]

i like the idea that apple is simplifying the consumers shopping experience by giving less options and a product that fits a wide range of people, but at the price they sell the MBP's at, the simple choice between matte and glossy couldn't have been that much of a burden to them. As a customer you hate to have something this simple hinder you from buying their products, and on top of that, the people on this thread aren't the mindless consumers apple seems to be targeting with their computers now. The people who are complaining are the people who care, the people who have made the matte screens a "minority" group in their sales are generally the people who just buy the computer without realizing there was even an option.

[Horst]

Better calibration and more intelligent use of your editing software will address this problem, and get you a wider range of usable colors for non-print work.

Calibration sensitive non-print work , what would that be ? Web design doesn't need it, for obvious reasons, what else is there ?

There is not one single non-print utilisation that could benefit from any sort of display properties, much less proper calibration.
The alleged advantages of glossy screens are for consumers only, to make that movie and those snapshots look better on the screen.

Glossy doesn't have a wider range of colors, rather a different one.


In any case, no MBP display, glossy or matte, is suitable for color-sensitive work, so there is no point in people pretending that it needs to be.

Of course the MBP screens, past and present, are aweful, but was has that got to do with this topic ?

The lack of clarity and direction on the high-speed storage front (what's next? FW3200? USB3? eSATA? Anything?) is a much worse affront to pros than a crap TN display changing from matte to glossy.

Agreed.

[UTclassof89]

The real dead donkey here is the idea that glossy is incompatible with pro use. I'm frankly tired of it, because it's just not true. People are either 1) afraid of change, or 2) vastly overblowing a personal preference.


No; the issue is not one of color calibration--it's an issue of being able to see the screen. Sure you can connect to another monitor (except when you're using the laptop like a laptop: around any office with bright fluorescent lighting, or near windows in the daytime).

If Apple would put 50 cents worth of anti-glare coating on some of these laptops, they could sell it as a $10 option, and we'd all be happy.
(I walked into the Apple store with $2000 in my pocket ready to by a MBP, but walked right out when I saw the screens under the bright lights; it's horrible--the colors might be brighter, but 1/4 of the screen is covered by glare most of the time)