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

[jackbenimble4]

But all jokes aside, are we forgetting that before glossy displays arrived, all laptops were supplied with 'matte' displays as standard?

They weren't "free." Customers were paying for them in the base price of the laptop because there was no alternative. A laptop with a matte screen didn't cost any more than an average laptop to produce because an average laptop was a laptop with a matte screen.

 

[solarein]

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.

It makes just as much sense to say that in order to maintain current profits, Apple needs to charge no more for the matte display because charging more will reduce sales.

That is to say, neither claim makes much sense by themselves. Only taken together do we get the right idea, which takes us back to market forces.

 

[BaronStein]

Can you get a model with the anti-glare screen at a retail store or do you need to buy online for that?

I've just bought a 15" i7 Hi-Res Anti-Glare one from an Apple Store. To be honest, I actually liked the matte screen better. I was always a glossy screen advocate but truly, anti-glare is just less trouble.

 

[admiraldennis]

I'm pretty sure glossy finishes actually do cost slightly less than antiglare (matte) finishes