Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Again Offers Matte Display Option on 15" MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's faulty logic. The matte option costs more because it isn't standard. Apple has the MacBook Pros manufactured with the glossy screens so adding matte is a separate processes that costs them more money to do ("If you prefer a display with antiglare coating for a matte rather than glossy viewing experience, choose the antiglare widescreen display.... The antiglare display has a silver frame (border) around the display.") Again, this is a separate step that costs Apple more money; well, at least it probably costs them more money.
This has nothing to do with the "quality" of the screens. What costs less money does not mean lower quality.
In any case, Apple is a "good" business meaning that they are well-run and know how to make money. It also means that they don't always do things for free even if it doesn't cost them money. We may not like it but Apple is making a lot of people a lot of money and producing great products.
Matte was always the standard option on the MBP before it went unibody.
Gloss was a no cost upgrade.
I was just going to say this. I find it hard to get excited about a 15" 1440x900 screen on a Notebook. It's unacceptable for a "Pro" level Notebook in 2009. The 17" is still the only real "Pro" Mac Notebook, and I don't want one that big.
You can't compare standalone desktop displays to notebook screens. The intended viewing distance is different.
Matte is good but prices too high
In Canada the Macs are twice as much or more as similar Windows machines. I need a machine I can afford to hook up to my 24" matte display.
In Canada the Macs are twice as much or more as similar Windows machines. I need a machine I can afford to hook up to my 24" matte display.
15.6" is all the rage nowadays and the panels are getting dirt cheap too.
You're either at 1366 x 768, 1600 x 900, or just full blown 1920 x 1080 for a few dollars more. I'm more fond of 16:10 but the price is right on 16:9.
x2 Plus, the 17" has higher DPI than a 1680 x 1050 15" would, and its size is PERFECT for me without the need for resolution independence. However, resolution independence would be nice for those with poor vision.
We should be
Being a 25+ yr Mac User I am well used to this way of doing business. Just ask those that purchased the first Mac 128 & updated them to 512K. A small $40-50 fee almost seems unApple like. It was just a short time ago that the 2 screens were both optional no added cost items.
Matte making a comeback is a good news
But charging 45 euro for this is more like daylight robbery.
More and more it feels like apple is taking its customers for a ride
aren't anyone pissed off by this????????????
Being a 25+ yr Mac User I am well used to this way of doing business. Just ask those that purchased the first Mac 128 & updated them to 512K. A small $40-50 fee almost seems unApple like. It was just a short time ago that the 2 screens were both optional no added cost items.
Sure I can. I just did. Maybe it isn't a fair comparison, but its a comparison none the less. I know many, many people who dock their laptop and use an external keyboard/mouse with their laptop LCD.
I realize *intended* viewing distances are different, but that doesn't take away from my other point that 1280x800 still dominates the 15" market.
Agreed. There are PC laptop makers who charge extra for a matte screen as well, if the option is available at all.
And remember Dell's Windows XP $50 downgrade charge?
There are plenty of things to complain about Apple's pricing (now I have to pay for an iPhone dock???), but a $50 charge for a speciality (yes, folks, glossy is the new matte) screen sounds entirely reasonable.
Upgrades for late 2008 Unibody MBP
The question I have is.....will there be an option for me (and folks like me) with GLASSY mirrors (sorry, I mean screens) on their unibody MacBook Pros to upgrade to the matte screens? I'd love to stop by an Apple Store and have them turn my mirror into a real screen.
The question I have is.....will there be an option for me (and folks like me) with GLASSY mirrors (sorry, I mean screens) on their unibody MacBook Pros to upgrade to the matte screens? I'd love to stop by an Apple Store and have them turn my mirror into a real screen.
Seconding that here. to lose the slot is crazy, too many devices require it, especially for mobile working, whether it is photographers, music professionals or video professionals.
My 15" Inspiron 8600 had 1680x1050. That's a SIX YEAR OLD consumer laptop. The MBP is supposed to be a professional laptop, so I don't know why you use consumer laptops as examples in order to defend Apple's refusal to offer professional options on a professional notebook. That's right, options. I'm not asking them to force 1680x1050 screens down the throats of half blind people who need the jumbo pixels, but non-jumbo pixels should still be an option.
What on earth does that have to do with laptop screens? Ever heard about scale and viewing distance?
Yeah, I know, I had to go with the 17" for this very reason. I wasn't too keen on moving from 15" to 17" but it was the only way to keep the workspace from shrinking (15" 1680x1050 was my weapon of choice from 2003 to 2009).
My Latitude D600 had 1920 x 1200 back in 2003 as well.
1680 x 1050 is very manageable compared to that tiny pixel fest.
Yeah, I have. And as someone who works with people who use laptops every single day, I can tell you that 100% of the laptop owners at my job dock their laptops and use their laptop equal distance from their faces as a desktop LCD with an external keyboard/mouse.
I would love a high res screen, but for most users, 1440x900 is fine. Same goes for 13" owners, they like the 1280x800. I get feedback from owners of these systems multiple times a day, and a vast majority are entirely happy with their displays.
So once again, the people here in no way represent the majority of consumers and their wants.
PS: You and I have had this debate before, and I refuse to get into it again. Search for the thread where we discussed this already if you want to start another argument.
You really need to rethink what did you just say.
Matte is an older technology? And why do we need to pay for it BECAUSE it is non-standard? (and before October 2008 choosing Glossy screens in MacBook Pros are free?)
Wake me when "Apple again offers ExpressCard/34 on 15" MacBook Pro".
That was what I was about to say. I wonder if we complain enough if they'll backtrack that mountain of stupidity. Apple's had to eat a bit of crow lately. Firewire returned to the Unibody 13" laptops and now this, plus the 3Gig SATA issues.
I bought the first gen Unibody and I love it (I happen to like the glossy screen). After the last release I was glad, for the first time, to have grabbed a first gen product. An SD Card reader? Seriously? Yes, because nothing says "Pro" like a convenience item for photographers that would have cost $5 to get as a USB add on.
Which costs more to produce, matte screens or glossy?
I wonder, head to head, what will be the buying public's choice between matte and glossy?
Will Apple keep track of it and let us know? If glossy sales take a back seat to matte sales, will Apple ditch the glossy for sake of the matte and ditch the $$$ the up charge fee that used to not be there?
Will matte find it's way back in other substantial products (iMac, please, please, please)!
It could be worse. The first gen MacBooks carried a $150 premium for the Black ones with identical hardware. ($50 when second gen was released.)