Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

"Matte" screen: Just the glossy screen w/ out the glass?!

Tyrion said:
Thanks, this answers my question. However, in this case Phil Schiller really gave out some misinformation in his keynote. He clearly says at 2:47 in the video that the matte screen in the unibody has the "same properties" as the one in the previous model. Not very precise, I have to say.
But knowing this nothing would stop me from getting a matte MBP now :)
Click to expand...

I think the ambiguity comes in when people call it a matte screen. It isn't. The "matte" screen and the glossy/glassy screen are the same panel, but the "matte" one is treated with an antiglare coating.
 
thehermit said:
clean screen
make sure it is dry
put on an over sized sheet of press and seal
trim with xacto, or mark with marker and take off, and then trim. smooth out. replace after your next sneeze on the screen. Cost: about $4.00 for the whole role of stuff, and you can then return it to the kitchen and use for wrapping food. I find the subtle change in color is okay. if your are a graphic designer or color nut, then remove it, and do again.
Click to expand...

Mind posting a picture of this? It sounds pretty hilarious, you might want to check out getting one of those $20 matte films to put over the screen instead.
 
I appreciate the glossy screens, they are crisp and brighter in most cases. The glare is a drawback, but it's bearable. I have an affinity to the old-school matte finishes however. One major difference, and I think possibly the deciding factor for the $50 upgrade for the glossy variant, is the simplicity in cleaning the screen. I can't for the life of me clean a matte screen without any streaks, they can be impossible to do so once you introduce any cleaning liquid. However glossy screens are pretty simple to clean, and you can easily restore the look as if it were brand new.
 
antiglare as a "feature"

So I went into my local Apple store today and saw an MBP without the super-reflective glass panel! Thinking it had suffered some sort of accident I asked and was informed this is a feature which will cost 41 pounds.

Firstly, it's only a feature because the majority of macs sold don't have it. This is a silly reason and I think it should be a free option!

Secondly, why is it not on 13" models? I'm upset!

Looking to update my MacBook at about 1400 GBP I have to say I don't see Apple as that competitive. Not only are they poor value (yes I know OSX is worth more than windows blah) they are also old hardware in a supposedly Pro[fessional] machine.

Anyway, antiglare is not a feature!
 
I agree with both of your points. The fact that the 13" does not have an antiglare option and the fact apple wants $50 for on the 15" and 17" are dissappointing. I suppose I would rather pay and have the option on the 13" than have it a free option though on the 15" and 17" only.
 
This may have been discussed widely, but I don't really blame him for bringing it up again. Sadly, though, I doubt Apple will ever offer it as an option for the 13" Macbooks. I type this as I struggle with reflections on my 13" from the window behind me. And no, changing the screen angle is not an option - nor is moving.:)
 
this glossy screen business is what upsets me the most about apple.. I, like many people would love a small and powerful notebook.. 13" or less with a matte screen. I don't see one good reason why apple won't offer it, other than to force people to go bigger.. it's just wrong. And I hate them for that, so much so that I don't even want to support a company who doesn't care about or listen to the consumer.
 
How many of you "matte should be free" people have any experience in manufacturing? Lower volume ALWAYS equals higher cost. Period. It costs more because the manufacturer has to maintain space (overhead) for this extra assembly area, more QC checks, etc. Also, since they buy millions of panes of glossy glass, they get it for dirt cheap.
 
Yes, but Apple already makes a big profit on their laptops. Taking a $50 hit wouldn't kill them.
 
Yes, but Apple already makes a big profit on their laptops. Taking a $50 hit wouldn't kill them.
Click to expand...

If the matte screens were provided for no additional cost, the additional production cost would have to be subsidized by the people buying the glossy screens. It wouldn't be "Apple" taking a hit, it'd be all their other customers not ordering a matte screen. That's simply not good business.
 
I would gladly pay $50-100 more for a matte screen, even though I think it should be a free option. .. but I'd also love to hear apple explain why they do not offer that option on the 13".. If they make us pay extra for it anyways.. I don't see the big deal in offering that.
They just want to force people to invest in a 15" or 17", at least for those that want matte. I think it's BS.
 
jackbenimble4 said:
If the matte screens were provided for no additional cost, the additional production cost would have to be subsidized by the people buying the glossy screens. It wouldn't be "Apple" taking a hit, it'd be all their other customers not ordering a matte screen. That's simply not good business.
Click to expand...

You're acting like Apple is operating at break even, they do make a profit on these devices, a pretty big one actually.
 
reallynotnick said:
You're acting like Apple is operating at break even, they do make a profit on these devices, a pretty big one actually.
Click to expand...

The point is, given the small quantity provided of matte displays, Apple would probably make less profit selling matte displays than the standard glossy.
So to make sure they don't make less profit for these, they charge. It's sly marketing, but also a little self defeating.
They advertise the glossy displays as a feature, but then charge you to remove the feature??

Personally I think matte is infinitely superior to the glossy glass panel. It's actually lighter too.
 
reallynotnick said:
You're acting like Apple is operating at break even, they do make a profit on these devices, a pretty big one actually.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Apple, like any other business, isn't going to forfeit profit unless it's forced to. Increased production costs always equal increased consumer costs unless the market forces the company to accept a smaller profit margin.

Apple isn't going to eat the costs of matte screens out of the kindness of its heart. In order for Apple to maintain its current profit and offer the matte screen for free, the costs would need to be passed on to other customers.

I don't understand this idea of being entitled to free matte screens. If you want something that costs more, you pay for it.

If I'm buying a car, I much rather have the option of buying snow tires and paying an extra fee than have that fee incorporated into the standard price whether I'm buying snow tires or not.
 
jackbenimble4 said:
No, I'm not. Apple, like any other business, isn't going to forfeit profit unless it's forced to. Increased production costs always equal increased consumer costs unless the market forces the company to accept a smaller profit margin.

Apple isn't going to eat the costs of matte screens out of the kindness of its heart. In order for Apple to maintain its current profit and offer the matte screen for free, the costs would need to be passed on to other customers.

I don't understand this idea of being entitled to free matte screens. If you want something that costs more, you pay for it.

If I'm buying a car, I much rather have the option of buying snow tires and paying an extra fee than have that fee incorporated into the standard price whether I'm buying snow tires or not.
Click to expand...


can I suggest that you LOOk at one of these matte displays?

To the unperceptive consumer, it LOOKS like all they've done is taken off a sheet of glass, and replaced it with a small border of aluminium.

Excepting economies of scale, how can a small amount of aluminium be more expensive than a large plate of glass?
 
jackbenimble4 said:
No, I'm not. Apple, like any other business, isn't going to forfeit profit unless it's forced to. Increased production costs always equal increased consumer costs unless the market forces the company to accept a smaller profit margin.
Click to expand...

But the market always forces the company to accept a smaller profit margin, so your point is moot. The market demand determines the optimal pricing for Apple to maximize profits.
 
In my opinion, the matte screen should be standard and the glossy available as an option.
These are supposed to be "pro" laptops and virtually no professional displays are glossy.
To the average consumer glossy screens may look better on the sales floor, since they are more "punchy" and have greater apparent contrast. Unfortunately, that isn't what pros need. They want an accurate display, not one that subjectively "looks" better.
A matte, IPS display would be far more useful for pros that are working with video, photos or doing color critical work.
 
apw100 said:
In my opinion, the matte screen should be standard and the glossy available as an option.
These are supposed to be "pro" laptops and virtually no professional displays are glossy.
To the average consumer glossy screens may look better on the sales floor, since they are more "punchy" and have greater apparent contrast. Unfortunately, that isn't what pros need. They want an accurate display, not one that subjectively "looks" better.
A matte, IPS display would be far more useful for pros that are working with video, photos or doing color critical work.
Click to expand...

+1

I sincerely hope Apple takes heed of all these MacBook criticisms because if their next refresh isn't competitive I and others will be paying our dues to Microsoft instead. And probably Sony for their delectable Vaio Z
 
But the market always forces the company to accept a smaller profit margin, so your point is moot. The market demand determines the optimal pricing for Apple to maximize profits.
Click to expand...

No, you obviously misunderstood. I was talking in a relative context, not an absolute. If the "market always forces the company to accept a smaller profit" then eventually Apple would eventually be making negligible profits.

Market demand does determine the optimal pricing, which lead to the current prices—including the extra matte display fee. My point is, to maintain current profits, Apple needs to continue charging extra for the matte display or subsidize the matte from other non-matte customers.

There's no such thing as a free lunch and there's no such thing as a free matte display.
 
FrankieTDouglas said:
Someone's angry.

Designers, photographers... basically, anyone who cares at all about critical color work needs matte finish. Apple knows this, because the art design community propped Apple up for many, many years before catchy ad campaigns, shiny gadgets, and the magic mouse came into play. So they decide to add a little extra **** you tax for the conventional, standard matte display, for whatever reason.

Who's talking about their iPhone? Do you honestly think someone is using their iPhone for reasons they would need the matte display? Give me a break. Go back to playing with your toys and leave the stockholm syndrome at home.
Click to expand...

I am a photographer/ graphic designer and would rather have glossy. So would many other photographers/ graphic designers I know. Most professionals I have seen use glossy. But my point was why are all of you complaining about the option? We are lucky to be able to choose, and if they want to make you pay $50 extra to special make your screen then they are perfectly ligament in doing so.
 
MagicMouse said:
So would many other photographers/ graphic designers I know. Most professionals I have seen use glossy.
Click to expand...

Then the professionals that you know don't use professional equipment. Good luck in finding an Eizo, Lacie or NEC professional model with a glossy screen because there aren't any. In fact, the majority of those display also come with monitor hoods to cut down on glare even more!
The glossy might be your preference, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, a glossy screen is not a "pro" feature and for most professionals, its a hindrance to their work.
If the MBPs are truly "pro" machines, then they should have the matte screen as standard and the glossy one as an option for those who prefer it.
 
apw100 said:
Then the professionals that you know don't use professional equipment. Good luck in finding an Eizo, Lacie or NEC professional model with a glossy screen because there aren't any. In fact, the majority of those display also come with monitor hoods to cut down on glare even more!
The glossy might be your preference, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, a glossy screen is not a "pro" feature and for most professionals, its a hindrance to their work.
If the MBPs are truly "pro" machines, then they should have the matte screen as standard and the glossy one as an option for those who prefer it.
Click to expand...

I will accept that. (The professionals I am referring to are well known though) but I think the only reason I do not like the matte, is the fact that it is not the seamless, black border screen, it looks like the old models and my taste leans towards the black bezel. Otherwise I would order matte in a heartbeat!

Why do they not just use the glass but use the anti-reflective glass like you see available for framing??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back