Apple Again Offers Matte Display Option on 15" MacBook Pro

[Hal1980]

This.....

and finally, a time to rejoice for whiners will be appeased... hopefully.

Whiners? For some of us the glassy was unworkable. We never made you adopt matte, each has its pros and cons for different audiences, but for some of us it was a serious issue. I'm such an Apple fan, but the glassy thing was such a problem, I even was considering a PC so as to get a matte. Finally, we have the OPTION.

Why don't you respect the needs of others and recognize that different people have different requirements.

 

[AMessy]

I'm glad they added the matte option, I can side with people who both had a legitmate gripe with glossy as well as those who just prefered the matte.

I am glad however that they kept both options around as I very much prefer the glossy screens.

 

[Anuba]

And a big nay to those 12 people so far that voted negative on the option to choose an antiglare screen, they sure have issues.

That's not necessarily why they vote negative. They may simply vote negative because they have strong negative feelings about the fact that this is even an issue in the first place, or that Apple wants 50 bucks to make the computer normal. It's kind of like paying extra for your car to ship with normal black tires instead of pink ones.

 

[JFreak]

How about offering a decent screen resolution first?

How about properly implementing Resolution Independence and THEN offer great screen resolutions? My old 15" MBP with 1440x900 resolution is perfect for current OS. Everything is sized just okay.

 

[miniConvert]

Hurrah for choice!

The 17" matte looks stunning, I hope the 15" looks equally so. Personally I think I'd still stick with glossy, but having the option is a big plus - especially if it means my fellow Macheads aren't alienated.

 

[andiwm2003]

now the question is will the 13" MBP get matte too? that means won't buy it right now because if the matte 13" comes out in a few weeks I would kick myself. Another reason to play the Apple waiting game. Good that I don't need a 13"MBP. I just want one.

 

[azentropy]

Congrats to those 15" fans. But don't stop supporting those of us looking at other Mac's that only have a glass/glossy option! We are still waiting for the 13" MBP and iMac to have Matte options.

 

[:Rob:]

Good news Apple.

The matte option should have never been removed!

 

[applesuper]

What, a $700 BTO drive option? I wouldn't wish that on us.

Hey. Man I am not hearing you apologise about all your trash comments to other members who petitined and pressured apple for an anti glare option. You were so vehemently claiming that apple wouldn't take note and that they stick to the glassy.

How does it feel to embarass yourself by your former
comments?

But I forgot, to you when are right you are right and when you are wrong you are right.

 

[MacLover4491]

They had to lower prices because they wouldnt sell any macbooks or macbook pros if they dont. IT is not like they lowered the prices just for the consumer. It is for their own good.

Only fanboys would be happy for this. I wouldn't buy it just because the way apple wants you to thanks them and make you pay more for matte screen. I do prefer matte over glossy though. Im not stupid apple. I will just go get a used macbook or mbp for cheap.

Charging more for it is not that much of a deal, people. Think about how prices used to be! These MBP now are quite cheaper, and you probably wouldn't cry about it if the glassy ones were 100 Dollars more, so you could feel some kind of price reduction for the "less equipped" matte displays......

When buying a Mercedes Benz, you pay more if you do not want the name of the model on the back ("E320", e.g.) at least it used to be like that - it is all about production costs, not material costs. Or, if you prefer, "Economies of scale" ....

If people will prefer the matte over the gloss, this will reverse!

 

[zw-gator]

I can’t wait to see some comparison pics!

 

[tim100]

will best buy stock the matte option?

 

[Shiner]

You have to hand it to Apple, the cheeky bastards. They take the choice away from their customer, then they bring it back but at a substantial fee… and people are actually grateful!

+1

Exactly what I was thinking. All I could imagine was Quentin Tarantino telling his joke in Desperado and his face when he said "you would be happy about it".

 

[Anuba]

How about properly implementing Resolution Independence and THEN offer great screen resolutions? My old 15" MBP with 1440x900 resolution is perfect for current OS. Everything is sized just okay.

Since you haven't seen a 15" Mac with 1680x1050 you can't really know.

The MBP 17" used to have 1680x1050 standard and 1920x1200 as an option, but apparently everyone wanted the higher resolution, since Apple eventually dropped 1680x1050. I'm sure the same would happen if the MBP had a 1680x1050 option.

130(ish) PPI is perfect for a Mac. It's a tad too much for Windows, but that's because OS text in Windows is generally much smaller and skinnier.

 

[StuBeck]

If I can say a word in Apple's defense: they are a public corporation with a fiduciary duty to make money for their shareholders. If it is the case that the general public more often wants a glossy screen and those who need matte will in fact pay for it, and Apple fails to charge for it, how would you feel about that if you were a shareholder? Especially if the quarterly report showed a decreased profit and it was found to be traceable to giving away the matte screens?

There are plenty of corporations that wouldn't even bother to offer the options. You Apple fans are spoiled--you have a major, billion-dollar corporation that actually listens to its customers.

The issue I would have as a shareholder is the lost revenue from introducing this mid-stream. I would have paid for a matte screen if it was an option. I'm sure many others would have as well, that is a lot of lost money that Apple will never see because of their timing.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Hey. Man I am not hearing you apologise about all your trash comments to other members who petitined and pressured apple for an anti glare option.

Probably because I was one of them.

You were so vehemently claiming that apple wouldn't take note and that they stick to the glassy.

I'm happy to have been wrong.

 

[applesuper]

Congrats to those 15" fans. But don't stop supporting those of us looking at other Mac's that only have a glass/glossy option! We are still waiting for the 13" MBP and iMac to have Matte options.

Excellent point. And I would think that both the iMac and the 13 are even more important than the 15 because it's unacceptable that there's no real portable lappie for apple with matte or desktop and people saucy as myself where forced to buy the gorgeous prev gen iMac instead.

 

[uberamd]

How about properly implementing Resolution Independence and THEN offer great screen resolutions? My old 15" MBP with 1440x900 resolution is perfect for current OS. Everything is sized just okay.

I agree. I have said this numerous times:

• Most consumer laptops that are 15" have 1280x800 displays. Especially those under $800, but even those that are over. My Inspiron E1505 was $1800 and had a 1280x800 display. A 1440x900 display on a 15" laptop is nice, and its not all that common.
• Most 19" LCD's have a 1440x900 resolution
• Most consumer 22" LCD's have 1680x1050

 

[Burke]

will best buy stock the matte option?

I doubt it. Best Buy has a minimum greasy fingerprint quotient it for all floor model laptops.

 

[unagimiyagi]

I would have paid $100 to be honest. This is now a compelling laptop.

 

[Shasterball]

Was the matte option always a pay-for option?

 

[satcomer]

Wake me when "Apple again offers ExpressCard/34 on 15" MacBook Pro".

My 2.16 older Mac Book Pro has one and I use the 64G Wintec Express card (with USB 2 also) to make feel like a SSD drive. The only thing is this thing does get hot so make sure you use on a desk.

 

[jkr801]

Yay

*buys new macbook pro*

 

[zw-gator]

Was the matte option always a pay-for option?

On the 17" it was

 

[Goona]

I'm very happy matte is back and while charging extra for it sucks, it's probably because it is more expense for Apple. They aren't going to produce as many (most consumers want glossy) therefore the smaller production runs are going to cost more. I agree, not the $50 they are charging, but that's Apple for you.

Remember when glossy used to cost more?

Other companies charge more than Apple for this option but Apple is the only money grabbing company around.