Any chance Apple will add a matte option for the new 15" MBP?

[slapple]

Apparently for last year's 15" MBP model, it initially only came with a glossy screen, but then in August Apple decided to offer a matte version:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/11/apple-reinstates-matte-display-on-15-inch-macbook-pro-charges/

Any chance Apple will once again offer a matte version of the latest 15" MBP?

 

[pastparticiple]

Apparently for last year's 15" MBP model, it initially only came with a glossy screen, but then in August Apple decided to offer a matte version:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/11/apple-reinstates-matte-display-on-15-inch-macbook-pro-charges/

Any chance Apple will once again offer a matte version of the latest 15" MBP?

I wrote to sjobs because this "$150 more for matte" was the deal breaker for me. The reply (from his assistant probably) was:

"the matte screen only costs $50...but you have to buy the $100 high res screen to take that option"

Yeah no kidding pal so I still have to pay $150 to get a matte screen no matter how you try to break it down...he made a statement of the obvious and didn't address the question or concern.

I doubt they will offer matte on the standard screen as they made a deliberate choice to only put it on the more expensive option. The KNEW people who had to have matte would suck it up and buy the high res just to get it. And they get an extra easy 100 bucks. It is slimy.

 

[mickbab]

I assume you mean in the standard definition (1440x900).
The high-definition (1680x1050) comes in a matte (anti-glare) option for an extra $150 over the standard screen. Unfortunately it only currently comes in the high-definition screen, and not the standard definition.

 

[slapple]

Yes I mean the standard 1440x900 resolution. Based on the resolutions of the other computers I have, I believe 1680x1050 will cause text to be too small for me.

 

[Abstract]

Have you ever seen a 17" MBP?

The pixel density (pixels/inch) of the high-res 15" MBP is essentially the same as the 17" MBP (128.6 ppi for the former, 133.2 ppi for the latter). Despite the differences in resolution, the writing on the 15" will be the same as it appears on a 17" MBP.


And just for transparency sake:

15.4" MBP: 1680 pixels/(15.4"*cos(32)) = 128.6 ppi, where the "32" in the equation is the angle of your screen's diagonal (it's the same for all screens with a 16:10 aspect ratio).


17" MBP: 1920/(17*cos(32)) = 133.2 ppi.

 

[slapple]

I wasn't even considering the 17" MBP, but if you say it is 1920x1200, then that would be too small for me. I have a 24" LCD monitor that is 1920x1200, and can't imagine using that resolution on a 17" screen.

 

[rectifiability]

I wrote to sjobs because this "$150 more for matte" was the deal breaker for me. The reply (from his assistant probably) was:

"the matte screen only costs $50...but you have to buy the $100 high res screen to take that option"

Yeah no kidding pal so I still have to pay $150 to get a matte screen no matter how you try to break it down...he made a statement of the obvious and didn't address the question or concern.

I doubt they will offer matte on the standard screen as they made a deliberate choice to only put it on the more expensive option. The KNEW people who had to have matte would suck it up and buy the high res just to get it. And they get an extra easy 100 bucks. It is slimy.

My guess is that Apple assumes the following people will want the matte screen:

1) Design professionals, for whom more screen real-estate is a necessity anyway.
2) Office workers in fixed-light environments, for whom a deep-pocketed company is probably buying the equipment in the first place.

It's probably that former "pro" category the decision was made for, and it's the latter group of supporting actors who make it not unprofitable.

I'm typing to you now on a high-res 15". It's unbelievably beautiful and readable, and my eyes aren't very good. But I'll tell you this: My 15.4" screens over the past five years have gone from 800 to 900 to 1050 vertical pixels, and it's only made each seem more brilliant and useful.

But on re-read, you're not arguing against the utility of the high-res screen... you're arguing against having to pay for it to get something else. And in that I join you-- the high-res screens shouldn't even cost extra. Particularly since they even fall short of matching the per-pixel density of the year-old 17" model.