The only hope for us matte lovers

[cal6n]

I intend to get one as soon as I sell either my Powerbook or MacBook Pro.

If the visibility in sunlight is as good as an iPhone (and it should be) then I for one welcome our new glossy-screened overlords.

 

[toke lahti]

Any proof that Apple makes more money on glossy screens?

Just common sense.
The whole idea of glossy screens is that by being glossy they appear to have better color reproduction than more expensive matte screens.
Just check out the prices for matte and glossy displays.
Apple can make big profits by using cheap parts and selling them with premium price. If they would do the same with expensive parts, the price of whole product would go so high that nobody would buy it.

 

[EroticCelery]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't they need to re-design the entire display section of the macbook? On the old models, they were literally just replacing the display, not the entire bezel and hinge component.

The new mbp has glass covering the entire display *and* bezel now. That would imply they would need to re-design the bezel as well and have two different assembly lines (and fancy lasers, etc) cutting and assembling an entirely different kind of bezel. I think Apple was very happy to consolidate their manufacturing by only offering one common design for their notebooks.

Moreover, I agree with what some posters are saying: Apple probably went with glossy because most of their customers went with glossy. Who knows what the ratio was with the mbp, but we know that every single macbook customer bought a glossy display and that is their most popular notebook.

As a matte fan, I'm disappointed. But, I did purchase the new mbp anyway and look forward to hooking it up to my dell 24" monitor for when I need better accuracy at home and enjoying looking at my own face whenever I'm in a well lit area. But, hey, I'm still celebrating my first Apple notebook.

 

[pdxflint]

I always wanted a personal mirror so I could admire my handsome looks as I surfed the web, but was embarrassed to be seen using one. Now... problem solved. I'll just get a new MBP! And... I can own something shiny!

 

[plinkoman]

Matte screen, matte screen, wah, wah, wah

The bottom line is that if there were sufficient demand, Apple would still be offering them.

first of all, don't insinuate that people are whiners just because you disagree with them or don't care. This is a legitimate issue to be angry about.

second, some consumers wont know the difference, and most consumers will "get over it" because they don't have a choice; so I really don't see how there is any way to gauge just how much demand there is. It's not like very many who prefer matte are just going to stop buying Macs. I may not be happy with it (understatement), but I'm not about to switch to pc's just for a matte display.

 

[pdxflint]

Of course, the next thing Apple can do is offer a Windows version of their laptops, and within a year or two they can just discontinue OSX due to the majority of computer users 'prefer' Windows. Same logic. Who cares at that point about the OSX 'whiners,' right? Gimme a break.

It just doesn't make sense to alienate a serious segment of your market, period... unless the above makes sense. I'm sure lots of PC buyers would like to buy Apple hardware and run Windows (Bootcamp anyone?? VMware Fusion? Parallels? Ever wonder why those things exist? And how they could ultimately threaten OSX?) Think about it all you glossy fans, and realize we're all in this together. Those of us who prefer matte screens have our reasons, but we are still Mac users - serious ones at that.

It's not looking good for matte, though, with the redesign of the screen... I'm going to have to see what develops down the line and hang onto my mid-2007 SR MBP for a while.

 

[MowingDevil]

Matte screen, matte screen, wah, wah, wah

The bottom line is that if there were sufficient demand, Apple would still be offering them.

Mature post btw.

You're wrong abo the bottom line because Apple knows a) by streamlining to one screen and not giving an option they'll make larger profits and b) regardless of which style they went to the majority of Mac lovers would still pony up for a purchase. Even if it pissed off some people the majority would still buy even if reluctantly.

Now if Apple still offers whatever is in "sufficient demand" and not just what they want to force on us (as is your point) how can it be explained that in the MacBook they got rid of Firewire altogether? In the keynote they were going on about the merrits of the original MacBook and declared it to be "the best selling Mac. Ever." If that is true then why take away a simple fw port? I would say the "best selling" tag would indicate "sufficient demand."

 

[Michael CM1]

The fact really is that it is a personal preference, and some of us prefer a matte screen. Back on topic, has anyone tried any sort of antiglare film perhaps for a MB or something similar. If so I am sure there are lots of us who love to see a review / pics.

The one I bought for my iPhone is great, and it was either in this thread or another that someone put the link to their Web site. On it, they had protectors for the 13.3" and 15.4" screens. But there's a HUGE difference in getting those things on without effin' dust or air bubbles messing your day up. At least you don't have to line those up with the darn holes on an iPhone's screen.

 

[nanofrog]

If anyone is interested, photodon.com put their anti-glare film in an iMac. They took a couple of pictures side-by-side with an untreated iMac for comparison.

Just scroll down.
Looks much better for those who would prefer a matte screen.

 

[pdxflint]

If anyone is interested, photodon.com put their anti-glare film in an iMac. They took a couple of pictures side-by-side with an untreated iMac for comparison.

Just scroll down.
Looks much better for those who would prefer a matte screen.

Thanks for the link! Cheers.

 

[magallanes]

If anyone is interested, photodon.com put their anti-glare film in an iMac. They took a couple of pictures side-by-side with an untreated iMac for comparison.

Just scroll down.
Looks much better for those who would prefer a matte screen.

but afaik :laptop lcd are alike to desktop lcd.

 

[nanofrog]

but afaik :laptop lcd are alike to desktop lcd.

True, but the images would give someone a good idea of what it would look like.
The glossy finish (glass or plastic for that matter), would be similar, if not the same for either consumer or professional grade monitors by the same manufacturer I would think.

 

[celavato]

Matte screen, matte screen, wah, wah, wah

The bottom line is that if there were sufficient demand, Apple would still be offering them.

No. The problem is that most people don't even know that two different types of screens exist. I suspect it's cheaper for Apple to use glossy. If there's only one choice, people won't know they're missing out on a better experience. Plus even people that do know will face a trilemma -- buy a MB or MBP with a horrible screen, switch to a Mac Pro or Mac mini, or switch to Windows. I've chosen option 2 -- Mac Pro. I find that I no longer need a laptop thanks to the iPhone. Regarding those complaining about no Firewire in the MB, at least you still have a Mac laptop option!

Check out this photo taken in an Apple store. The glare is awful.

 

[celavato]

If anyone is interested, photodon.com put their anti-glare film in an iMac. They took a couple of pictures side-by-side with an untreated iMac for comparison.

Interesting, but it's absurd to have to create your own matte screen with an aftermarket product. It cannot be as good as the real thing.

 

[7even]

They already have.

http://www.powersupportusa.com/products/ef.php?category=mb

Sweet! I love their antiglare film on my iPod. I hope they come out with one for the newest "NEW" MBP.

 

[donbadman]

And most everyone I know with a laptop has a glossy one. So what does this prove? Not a damn thing.






Apparently, Apple's customers do as they are selling laptops like hot cakes. Did you see the numbers Tim Cook presented at the announcement?





Any proof that Apple makes more money on glossy screens?

They must be, the bottom line is the only reason to offer customers less choice on "pro" products.

 

[nanofrog]

Interesting, but it's absurd to have to create your own matte screen with an aftermarket product. It cannot be as good as the real thing.

I agree, but since Apple is only building glossy, there's not really but two options. Add the anti-glare film to the ACD or buy something else.

It seems that most, if not all, the professional monitors I tend to look at use a matte (anti-glare) treated surface. Even when the standard monitor type was CRT.

The only thing that makes any real sense to me, is Apple is saving money by eliminating this manufacturing step. So it may not even be based on the fact upper management may like the glossy finish.

 

[amytrip]

I was curious about the loss of the matte option and asked about this in an Apple store. The employee (actually, the manager) told me that the reason for the glossy only now was that the new design takes advantage of the glass screen to help with rigidity of the unit and, in truth, when he let me flex a new (glossy) and old (matte) style MBP, I think the new one did have less flex in the screen. This store manager was also apparently convinced that reducing flex made it less likely you would end up damaging the underlying monitor elements. Having watched the video of Jobs & co.'s presentation of the new models, I don't remember hearing this as part of the whole spiel about the whole new "brick" casing manufacture/design. Anyone else heard this offered as a reason for the move to glossy only?

 

[nanofrog]

I was curious about the loss of the matte option and asked about this in an Apple store. The employee (actually, the manager) told me that the reason for the glossy only now was that the new design takes advantage of the glass screen to help with rigidity of the unit and, in truth, when he let me flex a new (glossy) and old (matte) style MBP, I think the new one did have less flex in the screen. This store manager was also apparently convinced that reducing flex made it less likely you would end up damaging the underlying monitor elements. Having watched the video of Jobs & co.'s presentation of the new models, I don't remember hearing this as part of the whole spiel about the whole new "brick" casing manufacture/design. Anyone else heard this offered as a reason for the move to glossy only?

This sounds a bit strange to me.

The manager was correct, that you don't want the pcb to flex. It breaks solder joints, and components can even pop off! But the rigidity of the unit should use a proper casing (enclosure) to mitigate this. The fact the newer ones were stiffer would be more of happenstance than of choosing to go with glass, as a matte finish (anti-glare) can be applied to it as well.

Just look at a decent CRT if you can still find one somewhere. Many of the good ones such as Viewsonic, NEC, and Eizo used anti-glare coatings.
Even Maui Jim sunglasses (glass lenses) use such a coating.