No prob. I just feel that the original poster needs to change the title of this thread. I think I know what he is trying to say though. I completely understand why someone would go the AG route. To me it's just a matter of preference. I prefer the glossy, but I don't design and I am indoors most of the time.
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.
Question: Why does Apple bother to offer the glass/glossy screen?
- Thread starter entatlrg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No prob. I just feel that the original poster needs to change the title of this thread. I think I know what he is trying to say though. I completely understand why someone would go the AG route. To me it's just a matter of preference. I prefer the glossy, but I don't design and I am indoors most of the time.
My neighbor has a dell laptop with a glossy screen. It looks fine because there is no glass over it and the reflections are not as strong. If Apple wanted a true glossy screen they would not use the glass overlay. The fact that if you want the standard screen you have to pay extra is kind of stupid. Production wise it must cost more to add the glass.
- 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 debatesand you pay more!
I will only buy the glossy screen as the colors are superior.
Do you really think Apple would lose money if all they offered were matte screens?
- 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
I agree with you completely. You've said it well and covered all the points.
.
Here's my take on it. I believe it's a trend that got started in the retail stores like Best Buy, Office Max and such. The cheaper PC makers brought out glossy displays. They are impressive looking when you walk by, and they attract attention of the general public. Shiny sells. However to use one is a different story. For students and first time buyers who may not know the difference they went for the glossy. For those who only use a laptop to look good at Starbucks they are happy. Or for short time usage by those whose laptops are secondary to a desktop. Then there is the argument that they show colors better and sharper which is debatable. Personally I took issue when Steve Jobs decided to only sell glossy displays. I was at MacWorld SF when he "told everyone" that it's all the customers wanted and the days of the matte screen were over. As hard as he tried to cram them down our throats, the result was people like myself who make a living with their laptop stopped buying. That's why the moment Apple secretly began to sell the matte again, sales skyrocketed and made it look as though Apple had made some brilliant move. I know the moment Apple resumed offering the matte as irritating as it is to pay extra for what used to be standard, I just ignored the cost and took into account the greed of Mr. Jobs.
You would have to be a complete tool to pay extra for the AG display and give Jobs all that extra money.
I finally chose to avoid all this bull and custom ordered a thinkpad instead.. matte screens are standard, glossy glare isn't even a possibility..
I'm not going to play this stupid game that apple has going on right now. They act like it's a perfect product the way it is but it's not.. It's childish, especially for people who just want a nice business notebook for professional use.
For long time apple users such as myself, it makes me sad and angry to see the focus and direction this company is going. It's good for shareholders, sure because consumers love all the shiny crap they make.. But it's not for me anymore and I won't buy another apple product until they pull things back together.. maybe that will never happen.
I'm not going to play this stupid game that apple has going on right now. They act like it's a perfect product the way it is but it's not.. It's childish, especially for people who just want a nice business notebook for professional use.
For long time apple users such as myself, it makes me sad and angry to see the focus and direction this company is going. It's good for shareholders, sure because consumers love all the shiny crap they make.. But it's not for me anymore and I won't buy another apple product until they pull things back together.. maybe that will never happen.
agreed, they won't because most people will simply buy anything. I'd like to see how many people would pay extra for glossy if matte became standard again. the average person could care less about the screen finish let alone resolution and half the other specs.
I hope nobody takes my posts to seriously I'm just getting anxious waiting for my new MBP to arrive
I prefer glossy screens on notebooks plus, to me, the silver bezel on unibodies looks cheap and cheezy
hmmmm...i dont really care as long as i can have my matte screen. my main laptops are matte and they just work. i dont really care about looks when i have my x200t at b&n with me my friends say it looks like i got it in the mid 90's! then again i would rather be looking whats on the screen then at myself. before i ordered my i7 15" mbp i put plastic wrap on my tablet and brought it to places around the house that i normaly use it.
breakfast time (on the dinner table), terrible reflection from the sliding door behind.
studying in living room, it was okay but at 4 and on i can see the second story windows a little distracting because i can see the nice blue sky. night time was fine though.
in my room: morning, good; noon, good; afternoon, had to close the blinds; night, had to turn down the light in my room.
i know my test wasnt really scientific or acurate but it worked for me!
breakfast time (on the dinner table), terrible reflection from the sliding door behind.
studying in living room, it was okay but at 4 and on i can see the second story windows a little distracting because i can see the nice blue sky. night time was fine though.
in my room: morning, good; noon, good; afternoon, had to close the blinds; night, had to turn down the light in my room.
i know my test wasnt really scientific or acurate but it worked for me!
From being a nature photographer, I have a guess about why Apple makes the glossy screens available, and makes them standard: Most people like eye candy. Most people like things that are shiny. People prefer lurid, unrealistically oversaturated colors. People prefer greatly exaggerated contrast.
In the days when film photography was popular, film manufacturers did lots of market research, and came to realize that most people wanted films with the same characteristics as we now see with the glossy screens. Hypersaturated, hypercontrasty films, such as Fuji Velvia, greatly outsold realistic films. The same was also true with photographic papers – and, by the way, besides the fact that high contrast papers and hypersaturated papers sold better, glossy papers also sold better than matte papers, and glossy prints sell better than matte prints.
Hypersaturated, hypercontrasty pictures sell better than realistic ones (and better than the same picture with less saturation and contrast). It would be hard for most nature photographers to make a living, if they didn't hypersaturate the colors in their photos. It's almost, but not quite a requirement of the business.
So, I'm guessing that people react to hypersaturated, hyper-contrasty, super-shiny screens in the same way. I don't think that is so much a result of marketing, as it is simply a trait of human nature that the majority share. If so, marketing the glossy screens as standard is probably in their best business interests, even if it is a questionable decision from a functional viewpoint.
By the way, I'm writing this as someone who prefers matte/"anti-glare" screens. I find the reflections on glossy screens very problematic, and find the blocked up dark tones problematic, for my work with these computers.
In the days when film photography was popular, film manufacturers did lots of market research, and came to realize that most people wanted films with the same characteristics as we now see with the glossy screens. Hypersaturated, hypercontrasty films, such as Fuji Velvia, greatly outsold realistic films. The same was also true with photographic papers – and, by the way, besides the fact that high contrast papers and hypersaturated papers sold better, glossy papers also sold better than matte papers, and glossy prints sell better than matte prints.
Hypersaturated, hypercontrasty pictures sell better than realistic ones (and better than the same picture with less saturation and contrast). It would be hard for most nature photographers to make a living, if they didn't hypersaturate the colors in their photos. It's almost, but not quite a requirement of the business.
So, I'm guessing that people react to hypersaturated, hyper-contrasty, super-shiny screens in the same way. I don't think that is so much a result of marketing, as it is simply a trait of human nature that the majority share. If so, marketing the glossy screens as standard is probably in their best business interests, even if it is a questionable decision from a functional viewpoint.
By the way, I'm writing this as someone who prefers matte/"anti-glare" screens. I find the reflections on glossy screens very problematic, and find the blocked up dark tones problematic, for my work with these computers.
.5lbs????
Ummm.. did someone say that the glass screen adds .5 lbs? Is that for real?
I know its not a big deal for most people, but I'm having a hard time believing it. In terms of an equation, this means:
Weight of Macbook with AG + Power Adapter = Weight of Macbook Glossy
That's .5 lbs you'll never get back! I think I'm going to walk into my local Apple store and write that into the specs until security grabs me. I'm sure I take a couple of those Apple Geniuses.
Yes, I'm a matte fan.
Ummm.. did someone say that the glass screen adds .5 lbs? Is that for real?
I know its not a big deal for most people, but I'm having a hard time believing it. In terms of an equation, this means:
Weight of Macbook with AG + Power Adapter = Weight of Macbook Glossy
That's .5 lbs you'll never get back! I think I'm going to walk into my local Apple store and write that into the specs until security grabs me. I'm sure I take a couple of those Apple Geniuses.
Yes, I'm a matte fan.
Haha, I actually have a glossy screen protector on my tablet's matte display and while I definitely have more reflections I naturally tune them out or if they're really in my face I just adjust the angle of the display to shift the reflections. I guess that's how other glossy fans operate too.
I'm glad though that if Apple has to go with glossy displays it's because it's due to having a reflective piece of glass. I actually like the glass because of its durability implications. I don't have to worry about pen tips or fingernails digging into the LCD and leaving a permanent scar on the display. Also don't have to worry about the keyboard imprinting a pattern of itself into the display.
I'm glad though that if Apple has to go with glossy displays it's because it's due to having a reflective piece of glass. I actually like the glass because of its durability implications. I don't have to worry about pen tips or fingernails digging into the LCD and leaving a permanent scar on the display. Also don't have to worry about the keyboard imprinting a pattern of itself into the display.
Bingo. You summarized it quite well. Also, the other post that asks: how many people would pay extra to have glossy if matte was the default? I suspect very few, because most casual consumers just don't care that much, either way. However, it seems the most adamant folks are the ones who want/need anti-glare.
I cannot use a glossy screen. Period. Strong light, weak light, moderate light, doesn't matter. You can see your own reflection and stuff behind you in glossy screens, and that is an indisputable fact. That so many people can disengage their brains and ignore it is shocking to me, but apparently that's a fact as well. Otherwise *no*one* would be buying these crappy glossy screens.
But all this aside, this new MacBook Pro refresh sucks beyond belief. Right now Apple does not offer a machine that I would buy. 15" screen required, and I do NOT want teeny tiny pixels, so the higher-density display is out. But they don't have an option for a non-glossy display without going with the higher density. So not only would it be a $150 add-on to get matte, but an unwanted resolution.
For a period of time Apple did not make a machine I could use. Then last year they again made matte available on the 15"ers for $50, and I upgraded. Now they again make nothing I can use. Sucks!
Glossy == More accurate color reproduction for photographers.
Please don't flame until you TRY for yourself!
I used to believe the "matte is better for photography" until a friend of mine claimed otherwise.
Expecting to debunk him I took the two glossy monitors I had and put them on my photo editing machine, calibrated them and the printer and printed test prints....omg he was right!
So I set the matte monitors back up, recalibrated everything again (these are high end matte monitors) and lo-behold, long story short the glossies were better and more accurately matched the prints.
I then did the experiment in my friends studio where she designs shoes, needless to say she now has glossy monitors too.
Now all of my monitors are glossy and its been a great experience.
Please don't flame until you TRY for yourself!
I used to believe the "matte is better for photography" until a friend of mine claimed otherwise.
Expecting to debunk him I took the two glossy monitors I had and put them on my photo editing machine, calibrated them and the printer and printed test prints....omg he was right!
So I set the matte monitors back up, recalibrated everything again (these are high end matte monitors) and lo-behold, long story short the glossies were better and more accurately matched the prints.
I then did the experiment in my friends studio where she designs shoes, needless to say she now has glossy monitors too.
Now all of my monitors are glossy and its been a great experience.
Do you have to buy one every year? You just upgraded to a 15" matte MBP that is probably more than capable of whatever you need to do, so why complain?
Apple could only offer all matte screened versions and they would still sell. But i like the fact you have a choice, i only wish it extended to the 13" MBP and the big one for me is the iMac.
- 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
This is NOT about people deciding whether to buy glossy or matte, your post is pointless, maybe read before you jump in ....[/QUOTE]
No need to be so defensive entatirg. Your original post asks why they offer glass/glossy screens then goes on to point the perceived faults of such displays. By doing this you infer a preference for matte. You support this position in other posts. This does make it a matte vs. glossy thread. There are a whole bunch of threads on this same topic in one form or another. It is a matter of personal preference and I just don't understand why there are so many threads on this topic. If you had only complained about the cost increase for a matte then it may well have not been a matte vs. glossy thread but when you complained about the reflections you made it one. You are absolutely right that it is ridiculous for Apple to charge more for matte screens. On this we do agree. It would be nice if Apple could come up with a glass covered matte display. I like matte displays but they are more of a pain to keep clean and it is hard to keep grit from getting between the screen and bezel. I got the glossy on my 2008 Unibody and the new i7 I just ordered mainly for the ease of cleaning and a little extra protection for the screen. If Apple had a glass covered matte screen that is what I would get.
James
's way).I always get a big grin when I see glossy users. They are looking through a window just to see the screen. On top of that they seem to enjoy reflections as if it is healthy for their eyes. Makes absolutely no sense to me, but it is entertaining to think about their silliness.
Silliness? Hardly. The only thing silly here is people posting about something they know nothing about.
I have several glossy monitors and get no glare at all. This is because the LED screen is so bright that it kills of any glare. Glossy is great in my opinion. Infact, the only people I know who dont like it are the ones that have never used a glossy screen.