or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple lays claim to greenest notebooks ever in new ad campaign
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple lays claim to greenest notebooks ever in new ad campaign - Page 2

post #41 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post

It is important to recycle, I guess, but think about those gas guzzling diesel piles of crap that pick up your recyclable material.

The very same ones that pick up your trash. Given that it takes the same amount of fossil fuel to haul garbage as it does to haul recyclables, it's still an overall environmental gain to have them reused rather than in a landfill.
Quote:
OH and the part where you put your recyclables in a PLASTIC bin. I laughed a little there.

You mean the same plastic bin I've had for the past 10 years and will likely have for the rest of my life? One piece of plastic vs thousands of cubic meters/feet of waste, which do you think is worse for the environment?

I guess people will always find reasons not to change their habits. What are you going to complain about when recyclables can be teleported directly from your house to the processing facility? The potential effects of the teleportation beam on the environment?
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #42 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Sorry- environmentally friendly is not necessarily state-of -the art. What's good for Al Gore is not particularly good in the real world- especially those Leopard folders that look like recycled paper- whatever!

If you think 'environmentalism' = 'Al Gore,' all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.

Please educate yourself a bit more.
post #43 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

So I take it you don't recycle? All your cardboard boxes, beer cans, plastic bottles, grocery bags, magazines, and glass bottles go in the trash?

Of course I recycle- but I do not wear Earth Shoes.
post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If you think 'environmentalism' = 'Al Gore,' all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.

Please educate yourself a bit more.

I don't think that at all. But someone has misguided Apple on this fanatical quest for a higher green rating- and guess who sits on their board of Directors? It's also a known fact that environmentalists have push him to make "a Greener Apple".
post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phizz View Post

Well then please, buy one of those light dispersing anti reflection films to cover your screen and quit whining. Or move to Dell, whatever.

No-I'd rather Apple just make a matte screen with animal fur exterior, thank you.
post #46 of 74
Diesel is already a much more efficient source of fuel than petroleum gas. That is the reason its used for heavy duty vehicles. Newer diesel engines, new refinement and blends of diesel fuel make it a lot more cleaner than gas also.

Their is a movement for municipal state and city vehicles to use natural gas, which is even more fuel efficient and cleaner than diesel. Already city's are using natural gas in their mass transit bus lines.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post

.
It is important to recycle, I guess, but think about those gas guzzling diesel piles of crap that pick up your recyclable material. The machines that run to get your crap recycled. OH and the part where you put your recyclables in a PLASTIC bin. I laughed a little there.
post #47 of 74
To again explain with critical color and visual work.

Matte LCD screens have never really been considered great for critical color work. CRT screens are still considered the best medium for critical color work. CRT screens use reflective glass. To use them effectively they need to be used in a darkened room where ambient light is not able to corrupt the image.

Not working in the proper environment is bad for critical color work. Reflection is reflection whether its glossy or matte. Glossy and matte handle the reflection in different ways, either way you still corrupt the image with reflection.

Primarily the reason why their isn't much talk of CRT screens anymore is that mass production of them are winding down and will soon stop. But matte LCD screens have never been considered as good.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meeksdigital View Post

then you totally don't use your computer for any sort of professional visual arts work. the glass/glossy screens are an absolute abomination, and while I commend apple for their move towards "green," they need to think twice about taking away matte screens from us professionals who NEED them. the move to all-glass notebook screens is complete bullshit, and that's why I bought a refurbished 2.6ghz 15" macbook pro to hold me over for the next few years until they bring back the damn matte screens.

[/rant]
post #48 of 74
Apple isn't going back to matte screens. Your continued complaining about it isn't changing their minds, its only annoying us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No-I'd rather Apple just make a matte screen with animal fur exterior, thank you.
post #49 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I'd rather have a matte or semi-matte screen laptop any day over a glossy glare reflecting laptop -and I don't care how environmentally unfriendly it is. I mean really- how more dangerous could that be over a car, boat or spaceship?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran View Post

I totally disagree about the glossy screen. It is beautiful. You hardly notice any reflection or glare, even when there is any.

No, YOU hardly notice any reflection or glare.

How is it that people can be so friggin' blind to the overpowering reflections on these screens?! Are you guys blind, or can you just selectively turn off certain receptors in your eyes and brain?


You: Hey, aren't you going to clean up the graffiti all over the walls before I move in?
Landlord: Nah, you'll hardly notice it. Just pretend it's not there. Really, you won't see it.
You: Uh, okay.

Crap, I am so tired of people saying "you won't notice, blah blah blah". Bullshit. These machines are UNUSABLE to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.

http://www.macosxhints.com/polls/ind...8glossy&aid=-1

With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy. Even accounting for a bias due to the recent change, that's bad news. Note that 30% hate it so bad they (at least say they) won't buy one. That is something Apple needs to pay attention to. If only 1/2 of those folks are true to their word (I certainly am), then they have lost an enormous amount of sales. Or at the very least, delayed until they fix the problem. Fortunately, I have a 2.2 C2D, so I can hold out for a while.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #50 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Matte LCD screens have never really been considered great for critical color work. CRT screens are still considered the best medium for critical color work. CRT screens use reflective glass. To use them effectively they need to be used in a darkened room where ambient light is not able to corrupt the image.

Not working in the proper environment is bad for critical color work. Reflection is reflection whether its glossy or matte. Glossy and matte handle the reflection in different ways, either way you still corrupt the image with reflection....

This is of course true. If you are working in a proper, light-controlled environment, and have need for critical color work, then you want a CRT, or glass LCD.

But for the other 99% of the world, that's mostly irrelevant and/or infeasible. And for those of us using laptops (i.e. most people now), we buy them so we are free to move around and use in all kinds of different locations and environments, therefore making the notion of an ideal lighting environment totally moot.

I have no problem with people wanting glass for certain work, but why the hell put it on laptops. No, that isn't even right.... go ahead and make it available on laptops, but matte needs to be available, and should probably be the default choice for most people.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #51 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

How is it that people can be so friggin' blind to the overpowering reflections on these screens?! Are you guys blind, or can you just selectively turn off certain receptors in your eyes and brain?

Crap, I am so tired of people saying "you won't notice, blah blah blah". Bullshit. These machines are UNUSABLE to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.

The reflection you speak of is called a specular highlight. Matte screens don't eliminate specular highlights, matte screen diffuse specular highlights. If their is a bright light source a specular highlight is always there, laws of physics and all. Matte screens cause a specular highlight to bloom into a wider softer spot. Instead of reflecting a more defined specular highlight the way glossy does.

A bright blooming reflection is still distracting. You do tilt the screen to eliminate it as much as possible. Its just softer and not quite as harsh as a defined reflection. Mentally you decide a softer reflection is more tolerable than a defined reflection.


Quote:
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy.

6,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

6,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.

Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.

A valid question to ask would be: could they be selling even -more- units if they used matte instead of glossy? Or better yet, if they sold both? It's clear that user preference is fairly evenly split, with a pretty strong bias to the extreme on the dislike side of the equation. And allowing for matte does not entail significant hardware design effort, etc. Basically one BTO option on a couple models of laptops. It's baffling.

Also, while 6,000 is statistically small compared to the number of units sold/year, it is by far large enough to get a good measure, provided there isn't a significant bias to the population. MacOSXHints serves a wide cross section of Mac users, and the only bias I can imagine would be users who are pissed off about the change might be slightly more likely to vote. But this isn't the only poll around, just a well-trafficked one.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #53 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.

When you make a statement like this, do you fully understand how Apple has grown its computer sales?

Quote:
A valid question to ask would be: could they be selling even -more- units if they used matte instead of glossy? Or better yet, if they sold both? It's clear that user preference is fairly evenly split, with a pretty strong bias to the extreme on the dislike side of the equation. And allowing for matte does not entail significant hardware design effort, etc. Basically one BTO option on a couple models of laptops. It's baffling.

Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte. Sales of MacBooks without the option of matte have significantly increased every quarter for the past two years. So no, their is little evidence that Apple would sell many more with matte as an option.

Quote:
Also, while 6,000 is statistically small compared to the number of units sold/year, it is by far large enough to get a good measure, provided there isn't a significant bias to the population. MacOSXHints serves a wide cross section of Mac users, and the only bias I can imagine would be users who are pissed off about the change might be slightly more likely to vote. But this isn't the only poll around, just a well-trafficked one.

MacOSXHints only represents the people who care enough to go on MacOSXHints to complain. That is not a good measure of Mac users. Most Mac users don't go on these internet lists and post opinions one way or the other.
post #54 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy. Even accounting for a bias due to the recent change, that's bad news. Note that 30% hate it so bad they (at least say they) won't buy one. That is something Apple needs to pay attention to. If only 1/2 of those folks are true to their word (I certainly am), then they have lost an enormous amount of sales. Or at the very least, delayed until they fix the problem. Fortunately, I have a 2.2 C2D, so I can hold out for a while.

Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?

Note: Ignoring the ~2 others
post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple isn't going back to matte screens. Your continued complaining about it isn't changing their minds, its only annoying us.

NO- Your belligerence to the fact that glossy is inferior is annoying me and many others on here. Keep your FUGLY green Glossy screen and I'll stay with my fantastic matte iMac and MacBookPro. The Old G3 iMacs needed Scotch glare screens to compensate for all that headache inducing, glossy glareness- ENJOY!
post #56 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?

Not if 80% are uneducated.
post #57 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte.

PCs were glossy long before Macs so I guess you agree that we should follow the PC route?
Dont believe everything you read or hear- this is all about being GREEN.
post #58 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

No, YOU hardly notice any reflection or glare.

That's crazy . Compare it next to a SONY semi- matte Vaio laptop screen -big difference. Too bad Sony has a patent on it.
post #59 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The reflection you speak of is called a specular highlight. Matte screens don't eliminate specular highlights, matte screen diffuse specular highlights. If their is a bright light source a specular highlight is always there, laws of physics and all. Matte screens cause a specular highlight to bloom into a wider softer spot. Instead of reflecting a more defined specular highlight the way glossy does.

A bright blooming reflection is still distracting. You do tilt the screen to eliminate it as much as possible. Its just softer and not quite as harsh as a defined reflection. Mentally you decide a softer reflection is more tolerable than a defined reflection.

,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.

Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.
post #60 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.

It looked to me that he was explaining what was going on, not that it was better or worse. The explanation is correct.

Personally, I think both methods are less than ideal. I would prefer to see Rayleigh coatings applied like it was for many late model CRTs, the surface was smooth but it canceled out reflections.
post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It looked to me that he was explaining what was going on, not that it was better or worse. The explanation is correct.

Personally, I think both methods are less than ideal. I would prefer to see Rayleigh coatings applied like it was for many late model CRTs, the surface was smooth but it canceled out reflections.

No- he is specifically shooting down matte. Glossy gives me and many others headaches besides the problems with color rendering. If I wanted glossy I would have bought an HP -like 2 years ago.
Question - For HDTVs - why do you think that 90% of LCDs are matte and sell better than glossy Plasmas? Answer - Glare annoys.
I like the hybrid SONY laptop screens- too bad they have a patent.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

NO- Your belligerence to the fact that glossy is inferior is annoying me and many others on here. Keep your FUGLY green Glossy screen and I'll stay with my fantastic matte iMac and MacBookPro. The Old G3 iMacs needed Scotch glare screens to compensate for all that headache inducing, glossy glareness- ENJOY!

My belligerence, huh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

PCs were glossy long before Macs so I guess you agree that we should follow the PC route? Dont believe everything you read or hear- this is all about being GREEN.

Apple claims the glass screen is easier to recycle than the plastic it was using before. Do you have any real info that disputes this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You are free to feel any way you want. But to continuously complain about glossy screens in every thread does nothing to change the situation, the rest of us get tired of hearing about it.

Perhaps you guys could open a "we hate glossy" thread. You can complain as much as you want, I won't have to keep seeing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No- he is specifically shooting down matte. Glossy gives me and many others headaches besides the problems with color rendering. If I wanted glossy I would have bought an HP -like 2 years ago.
Question - For HDTVs - why do you think that 90% of LCDs are matte and sell better than glossy Plasmas? Answer - Glare annoys.
I like the hybrid SONY laptop screens- too bad they have a patent.

I didn't say anything against matte.
post #63 of 74
I'm more concerned about the toxins from computers affecting me while I use it.
My iBook G4 makes me a little sick when it gets warm. I'm sensitive to chemicals.
I would have been interested in the new macbook pro but I also hate glare. I thought about getting the previous version macbook pro but worried that I may react to the chemicals in it.
I guess I'm f'ed!
I'm praying that Apple upgrades the Mini, making it less toxic and more powerful. Then, I can buy a matte LCD and be done with it.
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The freshly posted campaign page backs up the confident stance by centering on the unibody aluminum and glass displays of the MacBook designs, which together cut down on the number of parts and are easy to recycle versus the plastic and other materials used by rivals.

Putting a glass panel over the display does not make the laptop more recyclable than if the glass was not there in the first place.
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?

Wow, talk about stretching credibility with poor analysis....

Let's turn the silly argument around the other way, shall we? Suppose for a moment that ALL of the people voting "Love glossy" or "Already bought glossy" wouldn't purchase a matte machine. Which, by the way, almost certainly hugely overstates the case. That totals to 23%, leaving the other 77% as willing to purchase matte. Wow, even a bigger "majority" than your scenario.

Trying to flip it around like that in either direction is silly, as there was no such category "I won't purchase matte". You can bet your bottom dollar a category like that would be much, much smaller than the 30% who categorically state "I will not buy glossy". I would be concerned if I was Apple and seeing #s like that.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It also touts the elimination of brominated flame retardants and PVC from the insides of all three models, better power management that includes the LED-backlit displays, and the smaller packaging that lets Apple ship and store more units in a single space than earlier models as well as competitors.

Instead of going into so much detail to explain their new green initiatives, why doesn't Apple explain the new MacBook features the same way they explain their software updates? Just say something like "Environmental fixes".
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

When you make a statement like this, do you fully understand how Apple has grown its computer sales?

Huh?? Not sure where you're going with this. Do you?

Apple has grown for many reasons, in many markets. Rather than spell it all out in an essay, let's just summarize by saying they're building a quality product, and people are paying attention to that fact more and more. I can't imagine anyone would (seriously) say they are growing their market due to glossy screens!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte. Sales of MacBooks without the option of matte have significantly increased every quarter for the past two years. So no, their is little evidence that Apple would sell many more with matte as an option.

I agree that there really isn't any evidence to say that's true. However, sales matrices are not always derived by simple functions. Even this example is grossly oversimplified, but illustrates a point:
- Two similar products, A and B.
- 80% of the market prefers version A, 20% prefers B.
- For 90% of those who prefer A, version B is an adequate substitute.
- For 90% of those who prefer B, A is out of the question.

If the company makes only product A, they sell to 82% of their market.
If the company makes only product B, they sell to 92% of their market.

Of course if they make both products they will sell to 100% of the addressable market, at some small incremental cost.

These numbers are just made up for easy calculation, but hopefully the point comes across. It's a combination of overall numbers as well as suitability and adamancy at the extremes. And without -real- sales numbers, none of us have a clue. Steve J's "overwhelming" could be a 60/40 split. The one thing we do know is that there's a sizable chunk of people who are pretty adamant about their hatred of glossy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

MacOSXHints only represents the people who care enough to go on MacOSXHints to complain....

Here I will respectfully disagree. No idea why you would even say that. MOSXH is a resource site that people visit for many reasons, probably the least of which is to complain about stuff like this. They go because it's a "daily visit", or to find a fix for some kind of software snafu, etc.

Hopefully I'm making for a more thoughtful discussion than Mr. Teckstud (although I agree with his overall viewpoint). I just happen to be one of the (apparently) many people, for which the glossy screens are absolutely unacceptable. Actually, "unusable" would be a better way to put it.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Yes, Chernobyl was bad, very, very bad but it's flat out impossible for something like that to happen in todays world. I point out 3 mile island because it's by far the worst US nuclear disaster and not a single person died from it but we're all worried the old NIMBY crap. Now we're freakin' out about where to put it and the EPA is requiring scientific data for 1 million years...

I threw nuclear in there because it's another one of those NIMBY things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._safety_device

Also, one of your links says don't live within 2 miles of a dump. 2 miles - that's it? We're arguing about 2 miles?? I'm from a fairly rural area of the country - 2 miles was considered a fairly close neighbor for me...



the problem with nuclear is less with the reactors (having spent my entire life living near either TMI or Limerick) and more with the disposal of radioactive waste. Sure, Yucca Mountain... lets bury things with a half-life of 500,000 years in containers tested to last 10,000 years. We don't really care about the future, right?

But the bigger solution with waste? Already, the backlog of nuclear waste is approaching 70,000 metric tons - right about Yucca's total capacity when it is expected to open in 2020. And the DOE expects Yucca to last for 5 decades...



Personally, i pay an extra 5% in my electric bill to guarantee it is bought from a renewable power plant (wind farms in the Philadelphia suburbs) and am continually looking at the developments in solar electricity generation. For what it is worth, research labs are already developing "solar panels" that can be embedded in any material, allowing the actual roof or siding of a home to be a large solar panel. Imagine the electricity generation available if all new roofs were inherently power generating plants? I'm not saying solar is the answer, i'm saying i see a mix of everything over the next decade or two, and research bringing out two or three excellent evolutions of existing renewable power to become the basis of production.

Or we can hope the fusion plant in France actually works....


http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/index.htm





Oh and for another point of view, i live in a large urban area, and 2 miles is a HUGE HUGE distance. more than enough to take you from multi-million dollar homes to ghetto and back to multi-million dollar homes and past tens of thousands of residents. Heck, on election day a 6 block walk took me past 4 polling places!
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Wow, talk about stretching credibility with poor analysis....

Let's turn the silly argument around the other way, shall we? Suppose for a moment that ALL of the people voting "Love glossy" or "Already bought glossy" wouldn't purchase a matte machine. Which, by the way, almost certainly hugely overstates the case. That totals to 23%, leaving the other 77% as willing to purchase matte. Wow, even a bigger "majority" than your scenario.

Trying to flip it around like that in either direction is silly, as there was no such category "I won't purchase matte". You can bet your bottom dollar a category like that would be much, much smaller than the 30% who categorically state "I will not buy glossy". I would be concerned if I was Apple and seeing #s like that.

Let's not suppose anything, shall we? the poll is clear. Opinions don't matter, sales do. If Apple listened to every poll out their and changed their business model to satisfy these polls then they will go back to where the were in 1990s. Apple spend million of dollars on market research and analysis and they know exactly what customers want and how may computer they will sell everyday.
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Huh?? Not sure where you're going with this. Do you?

Yes I do. Apple sales have greatly increased since it switched to glossy screens. Yes the sales increase are from a number of different factors. But to say the least glossy screens has had no negative impact on sales.

Quote:
These numbers are just made up for easy calculation, but hopefully the point comes across. It's a combination of overall numbers as well as suitability and adamancy at the extremes. And without -real- sales numbers, none of us have a clue. Steve J's "overwhelming" could be a 60/40 split. The one thing we do know is that there's a sizable chunk of people who are pretty adamant about their hatred of glossy.

Whatever the glossy/matte split is, Apple felt it was enough that sales would continue to increase with glossy.

This past quarter Apple sold 1,433,000 notebooks, most of which sold with glossy screens. How are a few thousand extremely vocal people on the internet a sizable chunk.


Quote:
Here I will respectfully disagree. No idea why you would even say that. MOSXH is a resource site that people visit for many reasons, probably the least of which is to complain about stuff like this. They go because it's a "daily visit", or to find a fix for some kind of software snafu, etc.

Simply because Mac people use the site does not make it a good reference for the average Mac user. I could go into a Starbucks and randomly ask all of the Mac users if they use MacOSXHints. Most will have never heard of it.

When survey companies do these surveys of Mac users, they want random people so they can get as diverse an opinion as possible. They are never going to come to AppleInsider (or any Apple enthusiast website) where it would be easy to get a large number of Mac users. Appleinsider is only representative of a certain type of Mac user and is not that diverse.
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte.

When Apple offered both matte and glossy screen options for MacBook Pro, what was the default choice in the Apple Store? Did people just order it with glossy screen by default and not realize it, or did they have to actually choose the glossy screen option?

Quote:
Sales of MacBooks without the option of matte have significantly increased every quarter for the past two years. So no, their is little evidence that Apple would sell many more with matte as an option.

This does not prove that people will prefer glossy screens over matte screens. It simply means that for various reasons, they bought the MacBooks anyway regardless of the glossy screen. That doesn't mean they "preferred" the glossy screen. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as Apple makes a sale. Replace the words Mac and Apple with HP and Dell, and you get a very PC-like argument. Apple is often praised for supposedly listening to their customers while PC manufacturers only care about their bottom line. But this statement shows that Apple is not much different after all.

By the way, based on market share numbers, people "overwhelmingly" choose Windows PCs over Macs. So that justifies the lack of Mac support from third party software developers and web site designers.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

When Apple offered both matte and glossy screen options for MacBook Pro, what was the default choice in the Apple Store? Did people just order it with glossy screen by default and not realize it, or did they have to actually choose the glossy screen option?



This does not prove that people will prefer glossy screens over matte screens. It simply means that for various reasons, they bought the MacBooks anyway regardless of the glossy screen. That doesn't mean they "preferred" the glossy screen. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as Apple makes a sale. Replace the words Mac and Apple with HP and Dell, and you get a very PC-like argument. Apple is often praised for supposedly listening to their customers while PC manufacturers only care about their bottom line. But this statement shows that Apple is not much different after all.

By the way, based on market share numbers, people "overwhelmingly" choose Windows PCs over Macs. So that justifies the lack of Mac support from third party software developers and web site designers.

Apple couldn't give a rats ass about its customers. They have always been the most arrogant company in tech. Jobs gives us what Jobs wants, not what we want.
How long have folks been clamoring for a consumer tower? How about a larger screened consumer laptop?
The omission of firewire and the removal of matte screens as an option from laptops and iMacs is just further proof of their arrogance.
If Microbloat wasn't so incompetent I would have loved to tell Apple to shove it a long time ago.
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

When Apple offered both matte and glossy screen options for MacBook Pro, what was the default choice in the Apple Store? Did people just order it with glossy screen by default and not realize it, or did they have to actually choose the glossy screen option?

From what I remember the matte was the default option.


Quote:
This does not prove that people will prefer glossy screens over matte screens. It simply means that for various reasons, they bought the MacBooks anyway regardless of the glossy screen. That doesn't mean they "preferred" the glossy screen. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as Apple makes a sale. Replace the words Mac and Apple with HP and Dell, and you get a very PC-like argument. Apple is often praised for supposedly listening to their customers while PC manufacturers only care about their bottom line. But this statement shows that Apple is not much different after all.

By the way, based on market share numbers, people "overwhelmingly" choose Windows PCs over Macs. So that justifies the lack of Mac support from third party software developers and web site designers.


My over all point is that most people don't care about glossy vs matte. I don't know if you can say Apple receives praise for listening directly to its customers. They are good at putting together products that people want.

Yes their has been a lack of support for Macs by software because of marketshare, I'm not sure that has much to do with anything.
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

By the way, based on market share numbers, people "overwhelmingly" choose Windows PCs over Macs. So that justifies the lack of Mac support from third party software developers and web site designers.

Most people don't even know that there are other OS other that Windows. Those who know are misinformed about Mac software and hardware compatibility. Most think that they cannot use MS Office or Mac is not compatible with their digital camera or printer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple lays claim to greenest notebooks ever in new ad campaign