Why didn't Apple apply glare-reduction coating (from iPad Air 2) to new Retina iMac?

[katewes]

Why didn't Apple apply the new glare-reduction coating (from iPad Air 2) to new iMac? If they had the technology, does Apple think we like glare?

If they can reduce the iPad's glare by 56%, surely that would benefit Mac users - both MacBook Pro, Air and iMacs?

People go on about how they don't care about the glare, but if you were offered a 56% reduction, would you actually get huffy and say, "No, don't take my glare away. I like the reflections?" No, you'd see that as a positive feature too.

It's the beautiful colors you like -- not the veiled mirror seeing your reflection in the subconscious background.

If you want to make your voice heard, there are petitions out there. You just have to search for them.

 

[WilliamG]

The iMac got glare-reduced in 2012 already. Significantly.

 

[Mak47]

Anti-reflective coatings are quite expensive to produce. They've traditionally only been used on optical quality lenses, like cameras and eyeglasses--at least in mass production.

They've also only become truly durable in recent years. A substantial oleophobic coating is needed to keep chemicals, skin oils and other compounds from destroying the coatings. For Apple to be able to apply this to a 9.7" display panel that is designed to be touched is really, really impressive. It would have required newly designed (probably custom, in-house R&D) machines for application, clean rooms etc. It's not an easy task. It may not be as sexy as making a thinner product, but it's far more technically impressive.

Applying all of that to a 27" display will take additional work to develop. To justify this kind of expense, there needs to be scale. Apple makes far more iPad displays than they do 27" iMacs. I'd imagine they'll wait to roll that out until they have it ready for more than one large sized product.