If cost wasn't an issue, if you could buy a new Macbook Pro would you opt for the antiglare or keep your glossy?
A few years back Apple tried to cram them (glossy) down our throats by taking away the standard (at no cost) anti-glare they had used for years. It was a beautiful screen.
In a typical Apple marketing move, they spewed the lie about "All the Customers have been clamoring for Glossy" or something to that effect.
So instead of offering Glossy as an option, Apple took the cheap way out, by taking away our ability to choose. Which in many cases, Apple actually believes we are incapable of doing for ourselves.
They proceeded to build all displays as Glossy, thereby reducing the parts and models they would have to keep in stock.
After much customer push back and complaints, most of which Apple kept secret, they finally woke up to the fact that their core customers, especially long standing professionals wanted anti-glare, and like myself, refused to buy Glossy.
In fact Glossy is a bad way to describe the display, because as you know on a Mac it's the only Glass Screen used for a laptop display.
By using Glass it's shiny and toylike which is impressive looking at a glance in the store, but in actual use, to the experienced user it's like a mirror. A perfect mirror. In fact my wife uses her's to put her makeup on it reflects her image so perfectly.
The moment Apple returned to offering the anti-glare, sales shot up, yet we knew that Apple was cheating us by charging for something that was the standard screen for over a decade.
But hey! That's Apple Greed and Apple Tax at work.
Steve Jobs, just loves screwing customers in little ways that only he can explain away to those who worship him.