Why did Apple axe the hi-res matte option for Built to Order MacBook Pro?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by logicstudiouser, Jul 29, 2014.

  1. logicstudiouser macrumors 6502

    logicstudiouser

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    #1
    I like to work outside a lot and I can't imagine going back to a glossy display when it is time to update in the future. Why would Apple stop giving consumers the option in the built to order for hi-res matte display. I think it is one of the best upgrades in a built to order. I know they took this option away a few generations ago, but have always hoped they would give it another chance. Am I the only one that thinks it was a mistake to stop offering it?
     
  2. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #2
    This is why I still use my 2011 15" MBP with its antiglare screen.

    Although I love my 15" retina as well, it's hell to work with it outdoors. The IPS display still attracts glare like a solar panel.
     
  3. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #3
    I know there were a lot of people who liked the option, but I'm willing to bet that there were many many more who just bought the standard glossy screen model.

    They probably did it to cut costs. From a manufacturing standpoint, it makes sense to build fewer configurations.
     
  4. Steve686 macrumors 68030

    Steve686

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Location:
    US>FL>Miami/Dade>Sunny Isles Beach>Condo
  5. x3n0n1c macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    #5
    Matte screens and high resolutions do not go together. By mattes nature it will blur the sharpness of the panel underneath, defeating the purpose of the retina screen.

    There are plenty of matte screen protectors out there that you can apply to your screen to help remove the glare.

    Also for working outside, there are screen cowls you can use that do a far far better job of making the screen usable outside than a matte finish ever will.
     
  6. MareLuce macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    #6
    I agree with op - I'd jump on a matte option.

    Link to one you'd recommend ?
     
  7. FrozenDarkness macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #7
    the retina model has one less glass in front and should produce less glare. Probably part of Apple's gung-ho DNA to make sure all their macs look the same and look beautiful.
     
  8. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #8
    It still attracts glare like a solar panel.

    ----------

    Aftermarket protectors ruin the colour gamut. No amount of calibration would help compensate it.
     
  9. x3n0n1c macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    #9
    I don't personally use them, but my uncle does color work for movies and tv, often out in the field.

    He sent me this link and says it is the best he has found.

    http://www.e.icap-shop.com/icap-pro/icap-mid-pro.html
     
  10. Apple fanboy macrumors Core

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #10
    Really? Have you ever sat in front of one of the matte screen offerings from Eizo or NEC. Had the pleasure of using an NEC UHD 4k screen last week with a matte screen. Looked just about perfect to me and the 5 photographers I work with.
     
  11. baypharm macrumors 65816

    baypharm

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #11
    Yes I concur. I have seen the output from the NEC screen and it is pure lust. Colors just jump out at you. I would never consider any laptop or desktop unless it has an antiglare matte screen. I will keep using my 2009 MBP 17" ad infinitem if I have to. Too bad Apple doesn't offer the antiglare option in their iPad Air line.
     
  12. pragmatous macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    #12
    because retina. That's why. Just get an anti-glare screen and you'll be fine. They make those for mac.

     
  13. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #13
    They used a new process for the retina screens that uses less glass. The thought was that, since it used thinner glass, it would have less glare. So, the matte option was less beneficial.
     
  14. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #14
    Less glare, my ****.

    I have an antiglare 15" cMBP and favour it all the time over my 15" rMBP.

    The rMBP still attracts glare like a solar panel.
     
  15. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #15
    Yeah I have a 2010 MBP and a 2013 rmbp. The glare is way better, but it isn't as good as a matte display.
     
  16. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #16
    To top it all off, the 2011 models with matte displays were the best in colour accuracy, even better than the retina.

    Source - AnandTech
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Cloudsurfer macrumors 65816

    Cloudsurfer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #17
    I think it's because Apple made an 'anti-glare' glossy display, or so they market it anyway. It does reflect less than the older glossy displays but it can never replace a true matte display.

    But they've put effort into developing an anti-glare glossy display so that is what they want people to use.
     
  18. ixxx69 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #18
    No, you're not the only one. One of my biggest beefs with Apple products. The glossy screens play really well in advertisements because they look shiny and have lots of sparkling reflections - snazzy! Then you get it to your office/home, and sunlight and electric lights are staring you in the face. :(
     

Share This Page