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

Something that I don't understand

O

Omnipotentsco

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 17, 2008
29
0
Why do some people complain about the fact that there's no matte display, and then later in the same paragraph complain that there's no Blue Ray?

For Blue Ray movie watching, wouldn't the glossy screen be better anyway?
 
Things not present on the internet:

1. Females

2. Logical thought

3. Proper grammar (not a dig at the OP)


Things that are DOMINANTLY present on the internet:

1. Porn

2. Cats

3. Whining people
 
Omnipotentsco said:
Why do some people complain about the fact that there's no matte display, and then later in the same paragraph complain that there's no Blue Ray?

For Blue Ray movie watching, wouldn't the glossy screen be better anyway?
Click to expand...

There's nothing like watching a movie on a ********BLU-RAY******* disc than watching it with a nice glare on the screen. If we wanted the best possible picture, why would we do it on a 15" screen? That's why God invented 60" HDTVs.

By the way, y'all really need to figure out how to spell Blu-ray. My mom, whoc can't figure out e-mail half the time, knew how to spell it when I pop quizzed her.
 
...because there are more uses for a MacBook Pro than possibly watching Blu-Ray movies, such as photography and video editing - where matte displays are far preferable. And now we don't have that option so we're screwed unless Apple comes out with a matte option for the 15" down the road.
 
while it would be cool to watch blu-ray on the MBP, im not sure it would look all that much better than a standard DVD on a 15 inch screen...
 
Omnipotentsco said:
Why do some people complain about the fact that there's no matte display, and then later in the same paragraph complain that there's no Blue Ray?

For Blue Ray movie watching, wouldn't the glossy screen be better anyway?
Click to expand...

Wait, you mean that people actually watch movies on Blu-Ray? I don't know a single person that owns one (unless you count a PS3... and no one I know that has one owns Blu-Ray disks). And for the record... i'm only 24, so you can't say that only young hip people buy them.
 
like steve jobs said today, i think it would really increase the price of the laptop unnecessarily as most users wouldnt often watch blu-ray discs on their laptops...
 
PURCELL429 said:
Wait, you mean that people actually watch movies on Blu-Ray? I don't know a single person that owns one (unless you count a PS3... and no one I know that has one owns Blu-Ray disks). And for the record... i'm only 24, so you can't say that only young hip people buy them.
Click to expand...

Actually, quite a few older more establish people own players and have a decent collection of Blu-ray disks.

martinmartin said:
like steve jobs said today, i think it would really increase the price of the laptop unnecessarily as most users wouldnt often watch blu-ray discs on their laptops...
Click to expand...

Just a lame excuse. He spoke of complex licensing, however, if that were the only reason you would not be able to obtain a Blu-ray equipped Sony for $1300. More likely they don't make a 9.5mm Blu-ray disk drive at a reasonable price. Once again the obsession with thin strikes a blow for mediocrity(at least as it applies to a diverse/plentiful feature set.

Cheers,
 
ummmmmmmmm what?

Most people are not looking for a Blu-Ray Player, they want a Blu-ray Burner.

These are pro market people who do Video Editing, Graphic Design, and Photography.

They need the matte screen for Photography and Graphic Design, and the Blu-Ray to burn there HD video projects to disc.

They are pros looking for a pro machine.

Not pros looking for a portable movie watching machine, thats like asking for a blu-ray player on a iphone, the screen so small you can't tell the difference.
 
panzer06 said:
Actually, quite a few older more establish people own players and have a decent collection of Blu-ray disks.



Just a lame excuse. He spoke of complex licensing, however, if that were the only reason you would not be able to obtain a Blu-ray equipped Sony for $1300. More likely they don't make a 9.5mm Blu-ray disk drive at a reasonable price. Once again the obsession with thin strikes a blow for mediocrity(at least as it applies to a diverse/plentiful feature set.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

IMHO the reason Sony can avoid licensing fees from the Blu-ray drive technology is because they invented it and therefore do not need to license it. That's what I am assuming having to pay for licensing means, anyway.

But yeah they probably don't make a drive that will fit into the thin enclosure of the current notebooks, so Steve says no.
 
Omnipotentsco said:
Why do some people complain about the fact that there's no matte display, and then later in the same paragraph complain that there's no Blue Ray?

For Blue Ray movie watching, wouldn't the glossy screen be better anyway?
Click to expand...

The Macbook Pro is supposedly a professional class machine hence the name. Graphic artists, video editors, and others that use the Macintosh platform for media purposes prefer a matte display because of color accuracy associated with it. Glossy can make things "pop", but it does not display the most accurate colors compared to matte displays.

Blu-ray is useful for more than just watching high definition movies. The disks themselves have a capacity of roughly 50GB which could be useful for video editing in the future as video can be substantially larger than the 8.4GB limit of a dual layer DVD.

Does this matter to the general consumer that might buy a higher end computer like the Macbook Pro? No.

The matte display is actually surprising given the demand for them from media professionals, but the Blu-ray outcome is not surprising. Portable hard drives are more cost effective and are much cheaper (for now) as Blu-ray disks costs $10+ per disk for writable media.
 
8767092 said:
Portable hard drives are more cost effective and are much cheaper (for now) as Blu-ray disks costs $10+ per disk for writable media.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but bluray discs don't fail due to random spindle failure, read head failure, etc.
 
The more I think about BluRay in a notebook, the less I want it to happen. It will be too expensive and physical discs are a pain sometimes when traveling. iTunes store and digital downloads...
 
panzer06 said:
Actually, quite a few older more establish people own players and have a decent collection of Blu-ray disks.
Click to expand...

Oh I know... my only real point was that Blu-Ray is not a very well established format yet (and by that I mean sales).

Estimates say that by the end of the year, Blu-Ray player sales will reach 5 million.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/parks101008.htm

I of course admit that will grow... I just think those 5 million people who love Blu-Ray or are real movie buffs won't want to watch their movie collection on their laptop.... they will already own a standalone player.
 
Omnipotentsco said:
Why do some people complain about the fact that there's no matte display, and then later in the same paragraph complain that there's no Blue Ray?

For Blue Ray movie watching, wouldn't the glossy screen be better anyway?
Click to expand...

Why should something look better on a glossy screen? :confused:

J the Ninja said:
Things not present on the internet:

1. Females

2. Logical thought

3. Proper grammar (not a dig at the OP)


Things that are DOMINANTLY present on the internet:

1. Porn

2. Cats

3. Whining people
Click to expand...

* looks for a mirror to see if she looks like a cat *
 
aleksandra. said:
Why should something look better on a glossy screen? :confused:
Click to expand...

People keep saying "Oh sure glossy is good for watching MOVIES and looking at Pictures and stuff. But I'm a Pro, I need matte! Also, Lack of Blu-Ray is disappointing!"

It just seems really odd to me.
 
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