Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Bankaimadness, May 9, 2015.
I don't get why Apple doesn't add an anti-glare option.
Because it doesn't sell well.
Even if there are a small number of customers who want it, the BTO cost (to Apple) makes it not worth offering. It adds complexity and cost into their supply chain that has to be offset by an increase in revenue.
They will have run these numbers during the time where they did offer it as an option and clearly have decided that overall it wasn't worth it to them.
I don't get why anti-glare isn't popular among macbook buyers...
Because the people buying them aren't willing to pay the extra for the anti-glare screens.
If they brought it back with a retina display as well, I'd immediately jump on it, even if it's an $200 premium.
I work outdoors all the time and my 15" rMBP's display attracts glare like a solar panel compared to my early-2011 15" with antiglare display.
Vast majority of people dont use their laptops outside enough (if at all) to justify the premium. Plus glossy looks better, IMO.
Also, with things getting thinner I would imagine the glass is pretty important to rigidity of the lid.
I think it comes down to two things with Apple: The vision of the Apple brand (the style of Apple), and the business practices of Apple (keeping costs down).
Ever since Steve Jobs died, Apple has been complicating their products. Their business practices (as far as keeping costs down) have remained pretty much the same. Their brand artistic vision also has remained the same in most regards, but they have complicated some things in ways Jobs likely never would have. The iPhone has multiple sizes, and there are "C" versions which are cheaper. The iPad has two different sizes, and they released patches which bug up and slow down the keyboard on older iPads. They've released a watch line which has a rather expansive array of options to choose from. They have also complicated their Macbook line with the "New Macbook" (which is basically an alternate version and vision to what the Macbook Air should be), and they have made the Pro line so thin that it's almost as ultraportable/thin/light as the Air line.
I think Apple can recognize the fine line that they are treading with complicating their product offerings. By providing a matte screen, they really move away from two key aspects of their company: Apple's iconic simplicity, and low costs.
We could start asking why they don't build the unibody with a detachable unibody battery. That's just another thing that would likely dilute the Apple brand (and I think the brand has become a little less Apple ever since they released the last iPhone, came out with the "New Macbook", and offered a little bit of a messy line-up of watches).
Compared to the non-retina screens, the newer macs are already quite glare-resistant. This is enough for most users. I have tried an old anti-glare Mac with a retina one side by side and I can't see noticeable difference in usability. Both of them are unusable in bright daylight (no computer screen is) and the retina is more then adequate outdoors in a shadow.
Because most people don't see a need for an anti-glare screen. There's only a handful of cases where an anti-glare screen would have advantages over the current rMBP screen, and there's just not enough people in those situations to warrant such an outlay for development and production of another version of the retina display.
I agree. I have both and the coating on the rMBP glass does cut glare without spoiling the resolution.
I bought a high res Dell monitor a few years back and it came with the matte screen. Text shimmers. It's extremely annoying and hard on the eyes. It also softens the sharpness of a display that isn't even "retina" DPI.
A lot of anti-glare coatings actually add a slight graininess to the screen, which kind of defeats the purpose of paying for the high res retina display. It can also make the display seem a bit more washed out and less vibrant depending on the type of coating.
I think Apple will continue along the path that they have over the last couple of generations of notebook/iMac screens, which is to reduce reflections and glare as much as possible without compromising on the sharpness and colors of the display. The newer displays are already a pretty big improvement over the older non-retina super glossy glass-covered screens.
As a few other have stated, cost and complexity with manufacturing, supply chain and marketing are probably the issues.
I've always had a Mac with a non-glare screen - until last year when my 2011 MBP with the high density matte screen succumbed to Radeongate. I replaced it with a rMBP - with glossy screen. I'm a fan of matte screens, so I wasn't too pleased with the reflection. I purchased and applied a non-glare film. It worked out quite well. There were no shimmery or other effects.
I"ve got a different brand on my phone and it does have shimmery effects that drive me nuts, but it's not a big deal on my phone because I don't read lengthy articles on it.
It was a pain to apply without air bubbles or dust underneath, but once it was on, it did the job!
It's this one, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C2CRDJU/
Unlike back when it was the super mirror glass on the old MBPs, with the retinas thin AR coating you can actually apply those anti-glare films with good results. It is therefore not a huge loss that they don't offer it anymore but unlike the glass screens the AR coated ones are worlds better.
There is grainy AG but there is also high quality AG that works well with high res screens. Grainyness is not an excuse. Apple could afford the good stuff if they wanted to. They just think that AR coated display is the best of both worlds. Better contrast and almost 80% darkend glare than the glass screen. Nor the downsides of matte displays with the blurred fogginess that glares result in on those screens.
It is Apple though function follows form. The glossy just looks better in the store and in an ad. Hell, they used a glass panel which is like the least functional way to make a display you don't touch anyway with your fingers. Now they kept the looks while making the display much thinner and negating most of the glare issues. They won't bother with AG options for the same reason there isn't a 17" notebook. They try to offer as few options as possible so people don't worry about what to purchase and just go ahead and spend the money. The whole watch business is really an outlier to that business model which they followed everywhere else.
On the pre-retina macbooks it was a must. But the retina ones are pretty glare resistant as it is. I don't really run into issues with real world use
I really want a matte screen. The rMBP should add a matte screen, I would gladly pay $100 or perhaps even $200 for that.
When I went from an AG MBP to the rMBP, I was concerned that the lack of AG would be an issue. I have not found that to be the case. It's not as AG as a proper AG screen, but it's not as bad as the old glossy screen MBPs.
I'd pay whatever it cost to CTO a matte screen. I am still using a 2011 15" MBP specifically because of the anti-glare screen. This is 1 of the 2 hold outs that have prevented me from upgrading to a newer Mac. The other was storage (my current machine has 2tb internal storage and anything less would be a downgrade/dealbreaker) - they've finally addressed this with the latest 15" MBP. The day they offer an anti-glare screen option (at any cost) is the day I buy a new Mac.
My 2010 MBP 15" has an anti-glare screen. Even after seven years of use, I still love the damn thing!! Typing on it right now, as a matter of fact.
I prefer the glossy screen, myself, but it would be nice to see the matte option available again.
I'd suggest you might only be harming yourself here. Apple's anti-glare coatings have become truly excellent in recent years. I own and have used outdoors, in direct sunlight, both Macbooks, iPads, and a new, top of the line Thinkpad X1 Carbon with the high-end matte screen. If anything, the Macbooks are more usable in direct sunlight even though absolute brightness isn't all that different. The matte screens may not have any reflections, but they have plenty of glare, which is frankly, even worse than the Macs with the newer coatings. The matte screen also color shifts badly under intense light - much more so than the Apple glossy screens.
Yes. When I eventually buy a MBP 2017 (hopefully by the end of this year), I'll be applying a matte screen protector. I'll give Apple's anti-glare coating a chance first but based on what I've seen in the Apple store, the reflections would still drive me crazy.
Any screen larger than a phone (eg iPad) needs to be matte for my usage.
I’ve gone so far as to bring my anti-glare screen into an Apple Store (a very brightly lit place with lots of glare) and compare side by side. Even with the latest screens on the 2017 MBP, I still vastly prefer my anti-glare/matte screen. Tech specs be damned. It’s a preference, not an argument of what’s better or worse.
You (mostly) get used to the reflections. I too prefer anti glare and miss the option. People have commented on costs and supply chain considerations, but I suspect that's not the driver. I think it's aesthetics driving the bus over functionality options.