I bought a MacBook Pro four years ago (first edition after they started using Intel) and I believe there was no price premium for it either. I like the Matte a lot more than the glossy display but this might be because I have been using it for so long. I like the anti-glare and possibly might buy one of these new MB pros. Why does it cost so much more for them to implement the anti-glare these days, am I missing something?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do the anit glare "matte" screens cost $150 more?
- Thread starter wtmcghee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because on the new models, the matte option is only available in the hi-res option. You can't have a standard res screen with matte anymore.
The anti-glare feature was discontinued for a while. They brought it back as an option. The anti-glare is only $50 more. The other $100 is for the high-res option.
So is this new high res display, 1680 by 1050 that much better than 1440 by 900? I'm about to graduate and just do the normal computing stuff so I don't really know what the benefits are except that I like having a lot of room on my screen to move things around so I feel like the high res matte would be a better choice for me, I guess.
Sounds like you know what the benefits are. Its up to you to decide if they're worth 150.
I just used the high res antiglare at the apple store and it's pretty nice.. upgrade is worth it if you want antiglare. The resolution increase from 1440 to 1680 is noticable but it's not that significant.. I'd be fine with either, if you're getting glossy I'd just stick with the standard 1440 display..
Because you are inconveniencing their production system by asking for a non-standard option.
doris
doris