Question: Why does Apple bother to offer the glass/glossy screen?

[JoeG4]

Apple is one of those asinine companies that has been putting LEDs on pulse width modulators for years. After all, that's how the white LED does that snoozing routine, basically it just flashes the LED faster (to make it appear brighter), and then slower (to make it appear dimmer).

The LED backlights work the same damn way, unfortunately.

I've noticed a lot of newer CCFL backlit screens have the "flicker" problem quite badly too! I'm not sure if it's just that they moved from oldschool inverters to newer PWM types or something, but I get headaches from using new LCDs below max brightness.

I also still disagree with the notion that aluminum frame LCDs don't look like Macs, they are the original Mac look. The first company that I can recall making a silver laptop with an LCD inset in a black frame was Toshiba, and then HP.

It's definitely nothing new. Even the edge-to-edge thing has been done for many years by other manufacturers, but Apple was the first to my knowledge to do it with a piece of glass instead of a piece of plastic.

 

[Hmac]

- Glass is used to cover the screen > added cost.

- Glass = added weight (.5lbs on 15"?)

- A glossy screen is reflective in an office environment and poor outdoors.

- Apple is praised for their previous non glass covered displays, including the Macbook Air's screen.

So why did they add the glass?

Yet you pay $50.00 for Anti Glare and they're subtracting the glass and adding antiglare film ... anti glare should be offered at a LOWER price you'd think.

It's hard to make sense of ... added cost, added weight, reflections, creates indecision and debates and you pay more!

And the majority of laptop buyers apparently prefer it. Otherwise they wouldn't sell well, Apple would see that, and stop offering it.

Right? Maybe the majority of Apple's target market doesn't share your opinion?

 

[Steve Jobs.]

"cuz its fukn magical bro"


Yeah the glare is pretty annoying when i use my MBP in place with light. I can't really do much about it. I still love my MBP though.

 

[EuroBrit]

I love my glossy MBP. Everything looks beautiful on it.

 

[unamused]

i wanted the anti glare just based on what i read... but when i went to the apple store and took a look... it completely changed my mind... the glare isnt that bad on the glossy but the colors do seem to come out a lot better.... ill go again and take a look before i finally make my purchase

 

[DoorMouse]

In terms of aesthetics, I don't mind the glossy screen with the black border, it matches the black keys. What I don't like with the anti-glare MBPs, is that the black keys just look weird without having the black border on the screen, the keys look out of place- there's nothing matching. (If that makes sense to anyone).

I like the silver bezel when it is on a laptop with silver keys- like my old powerbook!

Of course that's only aesthetics- I have a glossy 13" MBP and the reflections took a little bit to get used to after my powerbook, but now I don't really mind it. It only sucks if you're watching movies which are really dark, as you tend to end up seeing yourself rather than the actual movie!

 

[Madp]

If in fact they sell more glossy than matte, then apple should keep it the way it is and make you spend more for it. It's a modification.

I'm for the glossy screen myself, my eyes can't handle the matte screen.

That being said, if the matte screen was more popular, I would have no problems paying a few extra $$$ for a glossy screen.

 

[unagimiyagi]

I agree that the market must prefer the glassy screens. But I will never understand why. How anyone can see anything on them while on a dark background is beyond me, especially when using an antiglare screen would eliminate the problem.

 

[ARF900]

I like the glossy, it looks nice. The glare really doesnt bother me once and the brightness is plenty strong enough to work well in the sun.

 

[entatlrg]

Some of you are missing the whole idea ... Apple is a self proclaimed "Leader" in innovation in the tech industry. They convince us we need something and we buy it ... remember how many years it was stated touch screen phones would fail and keyboard phones (blackberry) would prevail ... ah, HELLO iPhone.

This has nothing to do with the black or silver bezel or they color of the keys ... they could make them all black or silver if they wanted to. This is purely about Apples decision to use the glossy glass screen adding cost and an extra step that results in an irritation to 'some' who use their notebooks under fluorescent office lights or outdoors...

"Most people prefer it/market research, end of story?" ..... Ah, not so fast.... Most people prefer it I won't disagree, except I'd say most people prefer it - 'initially'... but when educated, spending time with both screens there's an argument and good reasons for an easier to view screen in all environments, not only on the notebooks, but iphone, ipod, ipad etc, they're not good outside for example.

Take into consideration Apple's anti glare screen or better yet if you're ever seen the MacBook Air screen that's a VERY good screen, inside, outside, reading text, viewing video ... it's not glossy with the added glass but it's not anti glare either.

It's not new for Apple to make decisions on what we need/don't need, their decision making usually favors their profit margins as it does with any business ... going from glass to antiglare meets both those criteria.

Why wouldn't Apple make the decision to use the anti-glare or MacBook Air type screen, saving the cost and added step and make a marketing campaign out of it... something like "Apple's new Standard in displays ... no reflections, truer colors etc etc, they can make hell of a commercial.

Sure the consumer is used to it, walk into Best Buy and that's all you see, glossy, reflective screens looking horrible under store lighting and people buying them all day long ... does it make it right or mean they couldn't do better?

Apple could lead the way ... instead they maybe went into "designer mode" ... design over function ... and now they have these pretty glossy glass screens matching across their whole line ... quite obviously this is the direction they're planning on taking. I don't think it's sensible or the "best" they could do.

So my point remains, the glass is an added step and cost, the glossy glass screen is the subject of the frequent debate that could easily be swayed with a non glass covered screen and some marketing...

.5lbs isn't much of a factor to me either, but in the notebook world it is, yes they charge more because it's not a standard stock item but it could all be the other way around if that's the way Apple wanted to direct us.

 

[Dom23]

I do understand that people like the black border for design reasons. Personally I prefer the silver frame - same as my old MBP and if I could choose I would even pay money for my old silver keys. Needless to say that glossy or AG should be options at no extra cost.

BTW I don't understand why glossy seems to be preferred. Obviously apple has done some research on what sells best. But it might be my eyes (or maybe my brain) but the reflections are no small issue and it is just tiresome for me.

 

[JerseyBill]

The silver border has been there since PowerBooks and lasted until 2008. IMHO the ugly black border doesn't make it look like a Pro machine anymore - it degrades it to a fancy bling-bling consumer laptop to stare at.

Er, you just described the iPhone and iPad...

 

[germinator]

Agree 100%

Apple should immediately discontinue any glossy display from their entire product line.

 

[gwsat]

I've had matte screens on my Mac laptops for 7 years and love them. When I bought an iPad several weeks ago, I quickly became sick to death of its glossy screen. Those who say that there is a bit more pop to the images on a glossy display than there is to images on a matte screen certainly have a point but the inquiry doesn't end there. The problem I have, and many others who have posted here have too, is the horrible reflections created by a glossy screen. I work in normally lighted rooms, not a darkened movie theater. I have recessed 65W floodlights throughout my house, so it is impossible to be very far from one of them. This setup provides wonderfully uniform lighting but makes it almost impossible to avoid reflections while I am holding the iPad and trying to see the screen.

For the reasons expressed above, I have never understood Apple's reasoning for making the far more trouble prone and, apparently, expensive glossy screen standard equipment and making the matte screen an extra cost option. I would have thought that Apple's long and successful history with matte screens on the powerbooks and the Macbook Pros before the advent of the unibody models would have convinced them, as it convinced so many of us who have owned these wonderful machines, that matte is best. The cynic in me makes me want to say that the decision was driven by marketing considerations, and not by what made the most sense from the point of view of design.[/RANT] Thanks for the use of the hall.

 

[King Apple]

colors are more vibrant on the glass screen + black bezel

 

[Dcuellar]

Asking why a company like Apple would "bother to offer the glass/glossy screen" is, in itself, not a well thought out argument. Unless you have access to statistics that prove that the consumers prefer a non-glass screen you are just wasting your time.

You are only going to get two types of replies. "I Agree" and a very negative one from those who prefer the gloss. Essentially what you are complaining about is the added weight and the cost to have an AG screen. You are also wanting to eliminate that offering to those who really enjoy having this glossy screen. If .5 lbs matter to you then get a netbook. It is ridiculous to think that you would opt out of getting one based on that criteria. I can understand the extra cost on getting the AG screen, but I would let the accountants and executives at Apple make those decisions. After all, Apple has been successful.

While you are at it, consider the advantages of having that extra .5 lbs. It provides for a sturdier screen and an easy to clean and maintain surface. Those advantages may outweigh the disadvantages to many consumers.

If your post was not serious, then I apologize and wish you disregard this post. If you were serious, please consider thinking things through before posting. Personally, I don't understand why people feel the need to have an iPod shuffle instead of a touch, but hey, I'm not going to ask Apple to stop selling it because it doesn't suit my needs.

 

[kngelv]

Why do we have yet another thread on glossy vs. matte? All this pontificating is ridiculous. It is a personal preference. Let people buy what they want and stop trying to "educate" them on why they are wrong if they like glossy or wrong if they like matte.

James

 

[gwsat]

Asking why a company like Apple would "bother to offer the glass/glossy screen" is, in itself, not a well thought out argument. Unless you have access to statistics that prove that the consumers prefer a non-glass screen you are just wasting your time.

You are only going to get two types of replies. "I Agree" and a very negative one from those who prefer the gloss. Essentially what you are complaining about is the added weight and the cost to have an AG screen. You are also wanting to eliminate that offering to those who really enjoy having this glossy screen. If .5 lbs matter to you then get a netbook. It is ridiculous to think that you would opt out of getting one based on that criteria. I can understand the extra cost on getting the AG screen, but I would let the accountants and executives at Apple make those decisions. After all, Apple has been successful.

While you are at it, consider the advantages of having that extra .5 lbs. It provides for a sturdier screen and an easy to clean and maintain surface. Those advantages may outweigh the disadvantages to many consumers.

If your post was not serious, then I apologize and wish you disregard this post. If you were serious, please consider thinking things through before posting. Personally, I don't understand why people feel the need to have an iPod shuffle instead of a touch, but hey, I'm not going to ask Apple to stop selling it because it doesn't suit my needs.

My post was based on 7 years experience with standard equipment matte screened Macs, which I compared to the problems caused by reflections from the glossy screen of my otherwise wonderful iPad. I was serious but fear that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my post.

I hope I have not left the misimpression that I think prospective Mac buyers should be denied the opportunity to purchase a glossy screen. I certainly don't think that. Actually, I would be happy if Apple would put the shoe on the other foot as it were by once more making the matte screen standard equipment and offering the glossy screen as the extra cost option.

I have no feelings one way or the other about the extra piece of glass on the glossy screen. I have no opinion on whether the extra strength provided by the glass over the glossy screen makes its extra weight worthwhile or not.

Anyway, you have a fine computer and I did not mean to rain on your parade with my rant. Enjoy!

 

[entatlrg]

Asking why a company like Apple would "bother to offer the glass/glossy screen" is, in itself, not a well thought out argument. Unless you have access to statistics that prove that the consumers prefer a non-glass screen you are just wasting your time.

You are only going to get two types of replies. "I Agree" and a very negative one from those who prefer the gloss. Essentially what you are complaining about is the added weight and the cost to have an AG screen. You are also wanting to eliminate that offering to those who really enjoy having this glossy screen. If .5 lbs matter to you then get a netbook. It is ridiculous to think that you would opt out of getting one based on that criteria. I can understand the extra cost on getting the AG screen, but I would let the accountants and executives at Apple make those decisions. After all, Apple has been successful.

While you are at it, consider the advantages of having that extra .5 lbs. It provides for a sturdier screen and an easy to clean and maintain surface. Those advantages may outweigh the disadvantages to many consumers.

If your post was not serious, then I apologize and wish you disregard this post. If you were serious, please consider thinking things through before posting. Personally, I don't understand why people feel the need to have an iPod shuffle instead of a touch, but hey, I'm not going to ask Apple to stop selling it because it doesn't suit my needs.

LOL, from "well said" to "idiotic" to and then this "Asking why a company like Apple would "bother to offer the glass/glossy screen" is, in itself, not a well thought out argument. Unless you have access to statistics that prove that the consumers prefer a non-glass screen you are just wasting your time. "

Sure sparked a range of comments if nothing else.

To the quote above ... no sir you're not getting it or you didn't read my post all the way through ... this is NOT about statistics or Apple's research ...

The is about Apple being the leader in offering a arguably better cheaper screen that takes one less part and assembly step ... their marketing and comparing the advantages could certainly sway consumers choice ... isn't this what Apple is famous for????

Actually, I would be happy if Apple would put the shoe on the other foot as it were by once more making the matte screen standard equipment and offering the glossy screen as the extra cost option.

Thank you, you see my point.

Why do we have yet another thread on glossy vs. matte? All this pontificating is ridiculous. It is a personal preference. Let people buy what they want and stop trying to "educate" them on why they are wrong if they like glossy or wrong if they like matte.

James

This is NOT about people deciding whether to buy glossy or matte, your post is pointless, maybe read before you jump in ....

 

[TxMacAddict]

Jeez I can't believe Apple are such idiots. Why would anyone buy their crappy products?

 

[Sequin]

I never use my computer outdoors so I don't really have any problems with gloss. Plus I like to be able to see myself in my screen. I can fix my hair without anyone realizing what I'm doing lol. That's more of a girl thing though

 

[Dcuellar]

My post was based on 7 years experience with standard equipment matte screened Macs, which I compared to the problems caused by reflections from the glossy screen of my otherwise wonderful iPad. I was serious but fear that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my post.

I hope I have not left the misimpression that I think prospective Mac buyers should be denied the opportunity to purchase a glossy screen. I certainly don't think that. Actually, I would be happy if Apple would put the shoe on the other foot as it were by once more making the matte screen standard equipment and offering the glossy screen as the extra cost option.

I have no feelings one way or the other about the extra piece of glass on the glossy screen. I have no opinion on whether the extra strength provided by the glass over the glossy screen makes its extra weight worthwhile or not.

Anyway, you have a fine computer and I did not mean to rain on your parade with my rant. Enjoy!

I was referring to the original post.

 

[gwsat]

I was referring to the original post.

Oops! The possibility that your post wasn't directed at me fleetingly passed through my consciousness but unfortunately had escaped by the time I was drafting my post. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Dcuellar]

LOL, from "well said" to "idiotic" to and then this "Asking why a company like Apple would "bother to offer the glass/glossy screen" is, in itself, not a well thought out argument. Unless you have access to statistics that prove that the consumers prefer a non-glass screen you are just wasting your time. "

Sure sparked a range of comments if nothing else.

To the quote above ... no sir you're not getting it or you didn't read my post all the way through ... this is NOT about statistics or Apple's research ...

The is about Apple being the leader in offering a arguably better cheaper screen that takes one less part and assembly step ... their marketing and comparing the advantages could certainly sway consumers choice ... isn't this what Apple is famous for????

And what I was trying to say is that Apple has chosen this route and decided it was the right decision. They have gone forward for a reason. They now have an iPhone, iPad, iMac, and MacBook Pro line all using the glossy screens. Sales are at an all time high for Apple. The bottom line is bringing in the revenue. They are having much success. That makes sense to me.

 

[drambuie]

I see there are at least three groups represented here.

1. Those that prefer the functionality of the glossy screen.
2. Those that prefer the functionality of the matte screen and don't mind the silver bezel.
3. Those that would prefer a matte screen, but go with the glossy because they don't like the silver bezel.

If Apple had changed the silver bezel to black anodized aluminum in the 2010 MPBs, group 3 would no longer exist, as they would be very happy buying matte screen MPBs. This could have caused a shift in the sales ratio between glossy and matte.