I'm about to purchase a new 17 or 15 inch MBP. Maybe the 17 only because costing a little more. My debate with myself is if matte really is even relavent anymore. The reflection never really an issue as I rarely use it outside. I do a lot of graphic work and photo editing. The 13" unibody MacBook I owned was more a less a testing product for my interest in Apple laptops. Used them and the desktops but never owned. Here are some user and Arstechnia graphic designer comments on glossy vs matte screens: 'very rich dark tones' sounds like a nine-year-old evaluating his school friend's painting. Yeah, the glossy screens have a broader tonal range exactly because the tones go more gradually to a deeper black. Any side-by-side calibration will show this; the first 'outline' of a '1', then a '2', and so on will show that most matte screens will show an outline at 3 or 4 at best; I've calibrated glossy Apple laptop and 24" desktop displays to with '2' of completely black '0'. the gradations are finer than 256 levels, obviously, but 'very rich dark tones' tell you nothing. Is the monitor properly calibrated, so that the tonal range ramps smoothly through mids to blacks accuartely? Are highlight details possible, are the ramps to white clean and accuarte? Are there color tints, hues, color distortions? Are the blacks 'washed out', or do they cleanly and smoothly drop into black, gradually and with no posterization or banding? THESE are questions to ask while yoy do a hardware calibration on either screen. Many, and I mean many, professional Photoshop instructors and photographers use glossy screens, from Scott Kelby to Dirck Halstead. They do because of the PRESENCE of 'very rich dark tones'on calibrated Apple MBP laptop displays, not washed-out matte dark tones; even on properly calibrated LCD displays, matte hasn't a chance in the 'very rich dark tone' department. Not by a mile. It's a matter of personal preference. But if you want to lose the possibility of reflections, you'll also lose the possibility of matching an Apple MBP glossy display's very rich dark tones' ;^) -------------------------------------- First up is the person who tries to equate the differences to glossy versus matte paper stock. You simply can't do that. The mediums are just not comparable. One relies on reflective light to carry the image to your eyes, the other emits light. To put it another way, a printed CMYK image relies on subtractive color, while an image on an LCD uses additive color. It is an apples and oranges comparison. I suspect that the false comparison with the paper stock argument feeds another persistent myth, which is that glossy screens are not for professionals. Let's just leave aside the the fact that an image on a monitor will never entirely match an image printed on paper no matter what kind of screen you have, for a variety of reasons not least amongst them the differences between subtractive and additive color cited above. The simple fact of the matter is that a matte screen, far from a neutral view, is actually distorted when compared to a glossy screen. The matte coating that diffuses glare and reflections also works on the image on the screen, reducing contrast and saturation. In a properly light-controlled environment (without which there is zero point in talking about professional work), with all tech specs being equal, and with properly calibrated screens, a glossy LCD is going to outperform a matte one every time. This is particularly evident in the higher contrast a glossy screen provides, the deeper blacks are what give it the richer look people often comment on when first exposed to a glossy display. Like any consumer tech this can be abused and cranked up to impress people in stores, but no pro uses a screen the way it comes out of the box.