Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by Retina MacBook, Jul 20, 2012.
What do you think? And why didn't Apple do that?
The reasons that they didn't do it were probably cost, thickness, and weight because of the way that the MBPs use a glass panel to create the bezel.
Now that they've come up with a new way to have the edge-to-edge surface without an extra layer of glass for the Retina MBP it's possible that they could do the same for the Air. That probably costs more than the standard panels + aluminum bezel piece that they use in the Airs now.
It would definitely be nice looking! I always thought the aluminum bezel was ugly until I bought my first MBA a week ago! Now I really like the look!
Thinness - To have a black glossy bezel a layer of plastic is required over the top of the existing screen, making it thicker. Besides, the aluminium bezel on the MacBook Airs look just as good, if not better, than the black glossy ones in my opinion.
Not all MBP's have that ugly black bezel. That's the good news. Only Apple in it's compulsive desire to be different, affixed a shiny glass panel on the front of the display.
Feeling quite certain they'd created a display that was superior to everything else, they had a lapse of common sense & decided to discontinue their excellent anti-glare display. The one that was a standard (no extra cost) part of every Apple laptop since the original PowerBook.
So for an unspecified period of time, Apple offered no choices. If you wanted a MBP, you got stuck with this rather bizarre screen. Luckily even many of the Apple faithful just couldn't deal with glare & reflection, so the complaints began. As the push back grew, Apple got the message.
Unable to admit they screwed up by eliminating the anti-glare many of us preferred, they quietly tucked their tail between their legs and put the Anti-Glare back. However, as a "screw-you for not accepting our brilliant idea" message they added it as a pricey option, instead of making it free as before.
What a class act
Glossy produces more accurate colors. Antiglare displays have a coating which reduces color accuracy.
I thought it would be nice until I saw a picture of a macbook air with a black bezel skin on it. It looks silly with it once you see it. IMHO
Attachment Macbook air picture from Macrumors user: robjmurphy
From mcfinch's picture, it looks absolutely disgusting. Not something Apple would do.
We don't use either our MBP's or ThinkPads without calibrating the displays. It's the only way we can assure accurate colors.
Looks good enough for me. I'll take it.
Calibration doesn't change the fact that Apple's "glossy" displays aren't because of coatings. It's just glass which is naturally "glossy". But antiglare is a coating that affects how the light is reflected and therefore negatively affects color accuracy. Calibration is a good idea regardless because it might help with color accuracy regardless of glossy or antiglare.
Black makes things look smaller. On a bigger laptop, that makes sense. On a smaller laptop, like the 11" MBA, you want it to look a little bigger and therefore a lighter color (something like silver or white) will produce that effect.
I just switched from a MBP 13" to a MBA 13" and I have to disagree with the OP. I much prefer the aluminum bezel over the black glossy one. Not only does it result in less glare, for me it's much more aesthetically pleasing and makes the laptop feel even more unified (aluminum all around the machine, whereas the MBP seems a little disjointed in the screen section). This is just my opinion though. Everyone has different preferences.
I just can't help but notice - the MBA 11 is sooooo cute! It's like a baby MacBook Air 13!
Absolutely love the silver Bezel.
An Apple store employee told me that all graphics people use the non-glare screens because the colors more accurately represent the hard copy.
I notice that the MBP is the only one that comes with a non-glare screen. All the other monitors are glossy... Not sure how many graphics people work on laptops rather than larger screens.
That is incorrect. The ordinary MBP has a piece glass in front of it but both the MBA and the MBPr have a glossy coating which is less reflective (and that's exactly how Apple managed to reduce the glare by 75%). Remember, TFT-panels are 2 pieces of glass with crystals sandwiched between them. They need something to protect them like a coating.
Glossy coating and glass do the same thing. It all has to do with the texture of the surface and how it reflects light. Matte reflects it in all directions (diffuse) but glossy surfaces (some coatings, glass) will reflect it in 1 direction. That is why it makes the colours look nicer and why glossy/glass is reflective as hell. It is just simple physics and the reason why we see objects.
Exactly. Every display is different.
The actual and final result is not what you've posted, but this:
The lighting is not the best in the photo either... Also, the 13" model looks a tad bit better because the bezel isn't as wide as on the 11" model ( the one in the photo ).
The skin is of course not a perfect solution...
This is a myth. The matte coating reduces contrast as it diffuses reflections via a bump coating. Glossy ones can reflect independent colors rather than just brightness. You cannot tell me that this is more "accurate" to display a clear reflection of as an overlay. Your brain can't fully separate the two whether you realize it or not. That reflection biases the way you view the image. In a darkened room assuming everything else is equal, the glossy one probably has an edge. Personally I wish we'd see a trend toward something like treated glass or better coatings. If someone was purchasing one for photography, my best suggestion would be to look at it when fully warmed up under controlled lighting after proper colorimeter profiling if they wish to trust the display. Otherwise it's not that great.
Yes, I know that antiglare/matte coatings diffuse light in all directions. For most people, it makes little to no difference. But a matte coating affects how light is emitted from the panel itself. Glass (glossy) does not. That is why matte displays look dull compared to glossy. And I completely agree with the trend toward treated glass or better coatings. I wish we would go in that direction too.
I know, my Dad worked with a LCD company before. All of my knowledge comes from him. I prefer glossy because barring all else, the actual colors emitted from the display are more accurate than antiglare/matte. If you introduce lighting conditions, the comparison moves beyond a simple panel to panel comparison. Most people don't work outside in direct sunlight and the problem of lighting conditions is partially negated by the fact that we can move laptops around. You could argue against that with an iMac, which is a stationary computer but it can be adjusted to face away from the direct light or something.
I think I understand you better now. I just wouldn't extrapolate it to Apple's display is more accurate than this other display due to lack of a matte coating when it is only one factor. That's how I took your statement initially, but it's clear that you do understand and i just made a mistake. I've worked with NEC and Hitachi panel based displays. Both used matte coatings, but they were different from the matte coatings used by LG. They weren't quite so strong. My point on treated glass was that you can do quite a lot there if cost isn't a severe issue. It could be feasible for display manufacturers that carry a lot in the $1000+ realm. LG panels took over largely due to price. NEC, Mitsubishi, and Hitachi all basically pulled out of the oem panel market.
Sorry, I reread my post and I realize I wasn't clear. I apologize. Your assessment of the display industry is quite extensive and I have nothing to add since you covered most of the important points.
can't say that the bezel not being black has stood out to me. i really don't mind the look of the silver bezel and it just reminds me of my 12" powerbook that i had ages ago.
Hehe... I read too much. I read published white papers for fun. I'm really that much of a nerd. Combine that with the fact that I've worked in front of different brands and seen a lot of these in use, including some very expensive ones from Sony, Barco, NEC, Eizo, Lacie, and Apple. I've become somewhat opinionated and immuninized to spec sheet marketing or the argument that this and this display use a similar panel number so they must be identical in actual use.