Why does everone complain about the screen quality?

[Xapphire13]

Why does everyone complain about the screen quality of the new Alu MacBooks? I don't own one yet (its on its way =]), but I have seen them in various shops and the quality seems amazing! Far better than the white MacBooks! And I didn't notice any annoying glare problems (maybe i will when mine arrives...).

 

[neiltc13]

For one reason - there are much, much better displays on the market.

 

[268144]

i own the white macbook, and i gotto say the new screen looks awesome, but only for yourself (if that makes sense). one of my friends has the alu one with the glossy, and when he turns his macbook to show me something, all i see is a reflection of himself. glare is very annoying when outdoors but, there still good.

 

[Xapphire13]

i own the white macbook, and i gotto say the new screen looks awesome, but only for yourself (if that makes sense). one of my friends has the alu one with the glossy, and when he turns his macbook to show me something, all i see is a reflection of himself. glare is very annoying when outdoors but, there still good.

I would have to also admit glare would get annoying outdoors (again i havent used one outdoors). And thanks for the non-bias oppinion 🙂

 

[urkel]

Why does everyone complain about the screen quality of the new Alu MacBooks? I don't own one yet (its on its way =]), but I have seen them in various shops and the quality seems amazing! Far better than the white MacBooks! And I didn't notice any annoying glare problems (maybe i will when mine arrives...).

I was doing a diskcheck for bootcamp up my MBP and my wifes MB and was surprised at how both machines compare.

People are going to jump on the defense and say things like "yeah, but who works on black", "the brightness is too high" or "windowz suxx" but thats not the point. The reason I'm showing this pic is because:

1) Notice the keyboard reflection in the Macbook Pro. Seeing a glowing keyboard under your fingers is neat. Seeing it reflected on your insanely reflective screen is not.

2) at full brightness you can see how poorly the Macbook handles blacks compared to the Macbook Pro. Apple has a beautiful (and accurate) 13" screen in the Macbook Air so it's really twisted that they intentionally went out and looked for an inferior screen for the Macbook line.

So yes, the complaining is justified. (That doesn't mean we aren't happy, it just means we hope Apple can hear us and do something about it. It worked in getting anti-glare as an option on the 17"...)

 

[aaquib]

Because they've seen MacBook Pro's...

 

[VSMacOne]

lol because people like complaining. It's what they do! If Apple put the Air screen in the MB, I can guarantee you there would still be people complaining that the quality is NOT as good as other screens on the market or as the MBP.

 

[Primejimbo]

lol because people like complaining. It's what they do! If Apple put the Air screen in the MB, I can guarantee you there would still be people complaining that the quality is NOT as good as other screens on the market or as the MBP.

Oh yea, I agree. No matter what people would complain.

 

[Mikey B]

i don't get it either. I think the screen on my new Al MacBook is awesome.

 

[sammy2066]

so it's really twisted that they intentionally went out and looked for an inferior screen for the Macbook line.

Very very well put.

 

[Jolly Jimmy]

Are the screens all the same in the new macbooks? There are 3 white mackbooks in my household : a rev A, an early 2007 and a late 2007 (mine), they are all different but my one has by far the worst screen.

 

[robanga]

While i certainly like the matte screen on my MBP better, the Glossy screen on the Alum MB is perfectly fine. No complaints at all.

 

[Demosthenes X]

For one reason - there are much, much better displays on the market.

At the same price point?

If Apple installed a better screen that cost more, they would pass that cost on to the consumer, and then you'd be whining about how the MacBook cost too much.

It's a compromise. Which generates less whining - a sub-par display, or too high a price? Most people outside of Mac forums have no clue about the quality of the display, so it's an obvious choice...

If Apple made a MacBook with a better screen, more connectivity, etc. etc. etc., it would cost $2000 and be called a MacBook Pro.

(And yes, for the record, I would love to see a 13.3" MacBook Pro with a better screen, Firewire, discrete graphics, etc...)

 

[JackSYi]

A big difference between the Pros and the regular. Check them out at the stores.

 

[bozz2006]

and why wouldn't there be a big difference? GM makes a lot of cars. You're not going to expect the same stuff in a Geo Metro as you would in a Cadillac CTS.

 

[Sun Baked]

and why wouldn't there be a big difference? GM makes a lot of cars. You're not going to expect the same stuff in a Geo Metro as you would in a Cadillac CTS.

If the Geo Metro was made by Apple, they would. 😉

 

[bozz2006]

touché

 

[Doju]

At the same price point?

If Apple installed a better screen that cost more, they would pass that cost on to the consumer, and then you'd be whining about how the MacBook cost too much.

It's a compromise. Which generates less whining - a sub-par display, or too high a price? Most people outside of Mac forums have no clue about the quality of the display, so it's an obvious choice...

If Apple made a MacBook with a better screen, more connectivity, etc. etc. etc., it would cost $2000 and be called a MacBook Pro.

(And yes, for the record, I would love to see a 13.3" MacBook Pro with a better screen, Firewire, discrete graphics, etc...)

Wrong.

You can get a MBA right now for what, $900? And it has a much better screen than the Macbook, equal to the pro.

Just a horrid screen.

 

[Primejimbo]

Wrong.

You can get a MBA right now for what, $900? And it has a much better screen than the Macbook, equal to the pro.

Just a horrid screen.

Where can you get a new MBA for $900?

 

[Mikey B]

Wrong.

You can get a MBA right now for what, $900? And it has a much better screen than the Macbook, equal to the pro.

Just a horrid screen.

The part you are missing is that the $999 MBA is a refurb on which Apple isn't trying to command their normal margin. That same computer was once $1799. Of course the price of the MB would go up if Apple used a more expensive screen.

 

[urkel]

At the same price point?

If Apple installed a better screen that cost more, they would pass that cost on to the consumer, and then you'd be whining about how the MacBook cost too much.

It's a compromise. Which generates less whining - a sub-par display, or too high a price? Most people outside of Mac forums have no clue about the quality of the display, so it's an obvious choice...

That argument doesn't work because even though the Macbook is the cheapest Apple notebook, it is far from being a "budget" notebook. And any "additional cost" for a better screen would be easily absorbed by the $1599 pricetag. (IF the screen can even be proven to cost more. Managing 2 seperate SKU's for the MB and MBA 13" LED's may even cost more for Apple)

The bottom line here is that Apple was already well stocked in high quality 13" LED screens (that match in quality to the MBP) but they intentionally chose to ONLY put those in the Macbook Air, while they went out of their way to put an inferior screen in the Macbook just so they can force an unnecessary price difference.


Anyway, it should be pointed out that "Complaining about a product" has resulted in things like a 17" matte option and the death of DRM. What exactly is the result of these people "Complaining about complainers"? Things won't change if you don't go out and say it.

 

[Ron21]

and why wouldn't there be a big difference? GM makes a lot of cars. You're not going to expect the same stuff in a Geo Metro as you would in a Cadillac CTS.

This analogy makes no sense. A Macbook is priced in the mid to upper end of the notebook market. Yet it uses a screen that you would expect to see on the very low end of the notebook market ($500 range), not $1599.

Also I've spoken to numerous Apple reps (including customer relations), they said that's just the way the screen is and nothing can be done. Basically Apple purposely put in a crappy display so there would be more reason for one to get a MBA or Pro.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Wrong.

You can get a MBA right now for what, $900? And it has a much better screen than the Macbook, equal to the pro.

Just a horrid screen.

🙄 You can get a refurbished, last-gen MacBook Air for $999. That's clearance pricing, not regular pricing.

A brand new Air lists at $1799, compared to $1299 for an aluminum MacBook. End result? You get what you pay for. And you're paying for a better screen (among other things) when you choose an Air or Pro over the regular MacBook.

That argument doesn't work because even though the Macbook is the cheapest Apple notebook, it is far from being a "budget" notebook. And any "additional cost" for a better screen would be easily absorbed by the $1599 pricetag. (IF the screen can even be proven to cost more. A separate SKU for 13" LED's on MB and MBA may even cost more for apple)

The bottom line here is that Apple was already well stocked in high quality 13" LED screens (that match in quality to the MBP) but they intentionally chose to ONLY put those in the Macbook Air, while they went out of their way to put an inferior screen in the Macbook just so they can force an unnecessary price difference.

So, you're well-placed within Apple, then? Because otherwise you're statement that any "additional cost" would be "easily absorbed" are meaningless. And illogical. Better quality usually means higher cost.

I think the assumption that Apple "went out of their way to put an inferior screen in the MacBook" is beyond silly. Yes, they could have used a better screen, but it would have cost more. Would the average MacBook buyer be willing to spend an extra $100+ for a better display? I highly doubt it.

 

[urkel]

So, you're well-placed within Apple, then? Because otherwise you're statement that any "additional cost" would be "easily absorbed" are meaningless. And illogical. Better quality usually means higher cost.

I think the assumption that Apple "went out of their way to put an inferior screen in the MacBook" is beyond silly. Yes, they could have used a better screen, but it would have cost more. Would the average MacBook buyer be willing to spend an extra $100+ for a better display? I highly doubt it.

Why would you doubt it? The ONLY difference between the $1300 and $1600 MB is .4ghz and a lighted keyboard. Are you also saying that it would kill apple profits if they put a lighted keyboard in the low end model? Or did they intentionally put a different keyboard to get people to upgrade to the next level up?

As for "better quality = higher cost" then there's one word to dispute that. Sony.

 

[Mikey B]

🙄 You can get a refurbished, last-gen MacBook Air for $999. That's clearance pricing, not regular pricing.

A brand new Air lists at $1799, compared to $1299 for an aluminum MacBook. End result? You get what you pay for. And you're paying for a better screen (among other things) when you choose an Air or Pro over the regular MacBook.



So, you're well-placed within Apple, then? Because otherwise you're statement that any "additional cost" would be "easily absorbed" are meaningless. And illogical. Better quality usually means higher cost.

I think the assumption that Apple "went out of their way to put an inferior screen in the MacBook" is beyond silly. Yes, they could have used a better screen, but it would have cost more. Would the average MacBook buyer be willing to spend an extra $100+ for a better display? I highly doubt it.

Seriously, I do not understand how they could be so far off base. I think it just comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses set prices for their products. How hard is it to comprehend that a more expensive component is going to raise the overall price tag of a device? Especially a company like Apple that runs such healthy margins (hence, why they will never make a netbook).