This is because Matte screens are more accurate, more in line with how the designs are reproduced in print.
No. More accurate displays are matte. Matte displays are not automatically more accurate because they're matte. A square is a rectangle...
A consumer panel is wildly inaccurate to begin with. Adding or taking away a gloss panel is not going to affect color accuracy any more than any of the panel's other limitations. The iMac doesn't have a very accurate panel to begin with. Taking the glossy coat away isn't going to get it any closer to "true" color.
In that office glossy is inferior, deficient, and does interfere with people's work.
Again, it's not that glossy screens are inferior in that office. It's that displays with high color accuracy are superior. An iMac panel, with or without a gloss coating, does not have the high color accuracy needed for the job. Correlation is not causation. They're not using simple consumer panels in that office, and if they are, they're not that serious about color accuracy. They'll be using professionally-calibrated S-IPS panels with SWOP certification, ideally at 10-bit depth for their mission critical work, all in a controlled environment. That high-end panel is absolutely going to be a matte panel.
If they're not going to go the whole nine yards, it doesn't matter whether the panel is matte or glossy, because it's inadequate either way. If you don't have a good color gamut and you don't have all the other pieces in place, you've got inaccurate color. It doesn't matter whether that color inaccuracy is due to gloss oversaturation (which you can correct by calibrating the display), narrow gamut, incomplete gamut, panel tint, or the use of a lower pixel depth.
Glossy panels limit the potential for color accuracy, which is why you don't see them at the absolute high end. They are not a greater limit than the other compromises made in low-cost consumer units and in fact are the weakest limit in such a circumstance, as you can "cool" the colors down by calibrating the gamma to your taste.
Preference is tangible. Tangible defined as:
Tangible as in physical, hard fact, a universal property associated with the product as I already specified (specifications, materials, physics). Preference is opinion which is definitively
not tangible. There's no accounting for taste, as they say.
This whole argument is like buying a top of the line house next to an airport. You are getting a great house and can be advertised as such. But the location sucks.
Yes, but your beef is with the location and not with the house. The parallel here would be trying to find fault with the house itself instead of just saying that you don't like the location. It's purely a matter of preference, not of one being a better product. Better for you != superior product. For all practical purposes, it's like saying a silver toaster is better than a black one.
You're getting a great consumer-level panel and it's advertised as such. There's nothing wrong with it. With or without the glossy coat, it's not suitable for professionals--hence its consumer-level status and price. You don't like it, fine. You don't like that you don't have a choice, fine. That doesn't mean it sucks or that people are settling for less or that anyone's being coerced into buying something more expensive.