or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury - Page 4

post #121 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

This and no Firewire on the MacBook have been among Apple's most controversial issues. Apple listened on the Firewire issue. I hope they will on this.

it might save your life.
post #122 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

So you're telling me that the 6-bit TN screen is a preference for others?

Preference, no, viable choice because of cost, yes. People usually dony buy exactly what they want, they buy what they want within their price range. I am well aware of the differences in display types, but the desire for a 13 display outweighed my desire for higher-end display. I guess my lack of whining about not having a 13 MB with non-glossy IPS display makes me ignorant.

PS: 1280x800 is fine for me, too.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #123 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

3) You’ve missed the point that we’re all saying that choice is great, while you are stating over and over that choosing glossy means you’re ignorant. Oh wait, you say most, not all, so I guess that qualifier gives you an out. One of those “present company excluded" comments so you can say that you didn’t mean anyone here.

Taking several quotes out from me only goes to show that your understanding of "choosing glossy means being ignorant" is based on your own deduction.
post #124 of 333
Turns out previous generations of Macs, the Glossy outsold Matte by 10 to 1. I can see why they dropped it. It costs too much to leave a little used option in the product line.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...op,2130-4.html
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #125 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

This and no Firewire on the MacBook have been among Apple's most controversial issues. Apple listened on the Firewire issue. I hope they will on this.

So does whining work? I will say yes.
post #126 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfoaf View Post

it might save your life.

No but it might have me buying a Mac again.
post #127 of 333
I thought this was appleinsider not the onion.
post #128 of 333
Well sure people love the glassy/glossy but for decades people have also enjoyed the sweet sickness of Marlboro that causes lung/mouth cancer and Alcohol that kills your liver.

Just because the pusher gives the masses what they want doesn't mean it is good for them in the long run.

* This post was meant as both sarcasm and a jab at Apple's new consumer base.
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
post #129 of 333
Ridiculous.

The gloss issue has been completely exaggerated, and has remained so since Apple introduced glossy screens.

Nearly ALL displays on the market today have glossy screens. And the average user doesn't seem to give a sweet damn one way or the other. But I suppoose it's a backhanded compliment that Apple is mentioned specifically. Speaks to the growing use of Apple notebooks. Very good.

I'd actually prefer a glossy screen for general use. Colours look much richer and deeper (especially blacks), and overall it's more attractive, and much easier to clean, too. But my Sammy SyncMaster TOC T240 is such a beauty that I can live with no gloss for the time being.
post #130 of 333
Guys, I just got back from the hospital. They said the screen on my lappy has caused severe nerve damage in my spine and they have to amputate.
post #131 of 333
I think it is pretty shocking of Apple to sell inferior glare screens and then charge $50 for matte which they now call anti-glare. I expect we will see $50 anti-glare screens across the range soon.
post #132 of 333
if only matte screens could pop colors...
"Stay hungry, stay foolish."
Reply
"Stay hungry, stay foolish."
Reply
post #133 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Apple knows that glossy screen has glaring issues. How do I know? Because they have an anti-glare option for the 17" MacBook Pro. They just don't want to admit the issue because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.

So someone who likes these screens is now ignorant, basically, because they don't share your personal views?

Grow up.
post #134 of 333
Oh god - it was terrible - the glare from my screen was coming right at me? what was I to do?

I have both - although on the glossy it was a refurb and I would have chosen it if there was a matte option at the time.

Yes there is a bit of glare - but the glare causing injury? Yes I read about the guy with the left leaning chiropractic deal - but come on - maybe it wasn't the glare but hours spent staring at a computer screen that causes strain?

and how severe or damaging or permanent is this "injury" - now if someone's laptop caught fire then I could see the use of the word "injury"

then again the laptop problem could occur even when operated in the safest possible manner.

Glossy screen is not an engineering defect.

am I rambling? hmm could be - I tend to do that sometime - oh well.
post #135 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

So someone who likes these screens is now ignorant, basically, because they don't share your personal views?

Grow up.

Wow... can people even read these days? Is this the "broad, sweeping generalization" that someone is refering to?
"...because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen." DOES NOT MEAN "whoever like these glossy screens are ignorant"
post #136 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Guys, I just got back from the hospital. They said the screen on my lappy has caused severe nerve damage in my spine and they have to amputate.

So you're getting a firmware update.
post #137 of 333
I can understand the problem with high gloss displays. Most workers have zero control over the lighting in their workplace and therefore cannot avoid reflections.

I just picked up my iPod touch and confirmed what I thought when reading this thread: I never hold it so it directly faces me. I've always got it at some angle that yields the fewest unwanted reflections. I sit in a corner in my office so I can point it into a relatively dark area. On the train it's much harder to deal with light coming in the windows and people with bright shirts so I usually keep it in my bag and just listen to music.

In order to avoid reflections with a notebook computer you may have to turn the entire machine, including keyboard, to an angle. I don't know about you, but I don't like trying to type on diagonal keyboards.

Many older matte Apple displays were awful. They were dull, lifeless and a bit blurry. The last generation of matte cinema and notebook displays overcame those problems so I personally saw no need to move to glossy.

If they insist on putting a layer of glass over the display then they should try to use something that cuts the glare. Museums and art galleries have special glass that offers excellent clarity and color accuracy without glare. I'm sure it's expensive, but Apple is a premium price brand.
post #138 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiekiduk View Post

I think it is pretty shocking of Apple to sell inferior glare screens and then charge $50 for matte which they now call anti-glare. I expect we will see $50 anti-glare screens across the range soon.

How are glossy screens "inferior" exactly?
post #139 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Again, you missed my point. Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro, just like they did with the TN display.

I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?
post #140 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I can understand the problem with high gloss displays. Most workers have zero control over the lighting in their workplace and therefore cannot avoid reflections.

I just picked up my iPod touch and confirmed what I thought when reading this thread: I never hold it so it directly faces me. I've always got it at some angle that yields the fewest unwanted reflections. I sit in a corner in my office so I can point it into a relatively dark area. On the train it's much harder to deal with light coming in the windows and people with bright shirts so I usually keep it in my bag and just listen to music.

In order to avoid reflections with a notebook computer you may have to turn the entire machine, including keyboard, to an angle. I don't know about you, but I don't like trying to type on diagonal keyboards.

Many older matte Apple displays were awful. They were dull, lifeless and a bit blurry. The last generation of matte cinema and notebook displays overcame those problems so I personally saw no need to move to glossy.

If they insist on putting a layer of glass over the display then they should try to use something that cuts the glare. Museums and art galleries have special glass that offers excellent clarity and color accuracy without glare. I'm sure it's expensive, but Apple is a premium price brand.

Currrent Apple glossy displays are already low-glare.
post #141 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?

I DID NOT SAY that glossy screen is more expensive to manufacture than a matte screen AT ALL. You guys are driving me crazy.

Let me quote myself again and read CAREFULLY, please.

"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
post #142 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Wow... can people even read these days?
"...because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen." DOES NOT MEAN "whoever like these glossy screens are ignorant"

What I see in your comments is a lot of back-peddling. You said what you said, and the implication in what you said is very very clear to virtually anyone reading it but you. Either you aren't very competent to express yourself using the English language or you know very well the implication you made and now you are disingenuously spinning like mad to paint everyone who has responded as ignorant and incapable of reading.

Come to think of it, there is a common thread there: you being much smarter and and less 'ignorant' than everyone else. You might want to think about that; us ignorant types out here are more inclined to recognize that as a huge ego with arrogance to match than to see your obvious superiority at grammar, reading, and monitor selection.
post #143 of 333
On the one hand, seeing the reflection of your ugly face in the screen could lead to depression and then, suicide.

On the other, the gloss screen may act as a rearview mirror and let you notice attackers approaching you from behind, giving you time to successfully defend yourself. So, in this way, the glossy screen is actually life-saving.
post #144 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?

I think they are trying to say that there are more expensive glossy screens out there which handle glare better than Apple's line of glossy screens.
post #145 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Currrent Apple glossy displays are already low-glare.

Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
post #146 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

They probably ditched the Matte option because it added additional cost to keep that option in on the 13" and the 15" lines when too few people asked for it.

If I were running a business, and it was costing me money to leave a little used option in a product line, I would 86 that option.

The matte option is more expensive than the glossy to produce. The matte option is simply a plastic coating that goes over the glass, much like the anti-glare coating you get added to your eye glasses.

-they ditched it because it wasn't environmentally friendly. Do you all remember this began back with the ugly racoon glossy iMac- the "best" envitonmentally friendly" iMac? No one asked for glossy- it was jammed down our throats by Al Gore on the Board of Directors.
post #147 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.

On the other hand, which manufacturer is producing these screens you are talking about.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing one of these things in person as my MBP handles glare quite well in my experience.
post #148 of 333
I'm not at all surprised with the university's recommendation. It may be pretty worse-case, but is generally correct.

I have a broad background as an industrial designer, designing products that meet not only industrial design criteria, but human factors requirements, as well. I have enough experience designing displays to call myself an expert with this type of product. We NEVER would have designed a product with a glossy display. I have been very surprised that Apple, a company well-known for excellent design, has done this.

Glossy displays have the advantage of being clearer because you are seeing the display generator through an essentially flat "window" that does not distort the image. Unfortunately, this flat surface can also result in glare because of lights or lighter surfaces being reflected on the display. If this occurs, you can't see the display at all!

Displays with some type of anti-glare surface, will appear slightly distorted, because you're seeing the display generator through an uneven surface. Designers must choose the particular anti-glare solution carefully as to minimize the dulling effect while maximizing the glare reduction. This does cost money but is generally felt to be necessary. As I began, we NEVER designed a display with a glossy surface for this reason. The use of some type of anti-glare solution was just assumed.

I don't know who is responsible for human factors or ergonomics at Apple these days, but Jonathan Ive should know better than to do this. It certainly would be interesting to see him defend this design.
post #149 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

What I see in your comments is a lot of back-peddling. You said what you said, and the implication in what you said is very very clear to virtually anyone reading it but you. Either you aren't very competent to express yourself using the English language or you know very well the implication you made and now you are disingenuously spinning like mad to paint everyone who has responded as ignorant and incapable of reading.

Come to think of it, there is a common thread there: you being much smarter and and less 'ignorant' than everyone else. You might want to think about that; us ignorant types out here are more inclined to recognize that as a huge ego with arrogance to match than to see your obvious superiority at grammar, reading, and monitor selection.

OK, so let us go back to see how you read my post.

"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."

Did I ever say that Matte screens are more expensive to manufacture? Did I make any bit of implication about that? Seriously, what are you reading? You still don't think that is your problem?
post #150 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.

I'll dig up the sources that I read a while back (there were at least two), but from what I've read Apple uses two layers of anti-glare coating that seem to distort the reflections making them much more dull and indirect. And this goes back a few years.
post #151 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

-they ditched it because it wasn't environmentally friendly. Do you all remember this began back with the ugly racoon glossy iMac- the "best" envitonmentally friendly" iMac? No one asked for glossy- it was jammed down our throats by Al Gore on the Board of Directors.

I don't think this is correct. The 'matte' is not a 'coating' that goes over the 'glass'. Any TFT type display has a plastic front piece and that sheet of plastic is typically matte. The way a sheet of plastic gets to be matte or gloss has entirely to do with how it is manufactured. Plastic is not 'glossy' by default.

In machines like the iMac, there is a front on the mac itself that is glossy; the display underneath is not. This is also the way a number of other manufacturers make them. This was not an effort to be green. It probably costs Apple more to do it this way. I would suggest they did it because consumers like it.

By the way, I have both glossy and matte displays around my work spaces, and my iMac display produces less glare than my HP L1906 matte monitors do in ambient lighting. I just don't think this issue can be presented as a matter of 'good design' or 'human factors'. This is a matter of taste, regardless of how some here would like to present it.
post #152 of 333
Wake me up when there is a class action lawsuit in Marshall Texas, which should be about 5 hours from now. Other then that, this is just more crap, "how can we get our school in the news, oh let's write something about apple!".

THIS JUST IN:

After some serious research I, my institution has discovered that repeatedly ramming your face into a display used by APPLE computer, could cause serious injury.
post #153 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by DdubRes79 View Post

Well sure people love the glassy/glossy but for decades people have also enjoyed the sweet sickness of Marlboro that causes lung/mouth cancer and Alcohol that kills your liver.

Just because the pusher gives the masses what they want doesn't mean it is good for them in the long run.

* This post was meant as both sarcasm and a jab at Apple's new consumer base.

I like the way you put it.
post #154 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."

Did I ever say that Matte screens are more expensive to manufacture? Did I make any bit of implication about that? Seriously, what are you reading? You still don't think that is your problem?

While you are asking that, in all honestly why don't you answer the same question? You've spent a lot of time and energy here defending your comments by implying or outright stating that everyone else cannot read or is somehow distorting what you say. Well, given the number of people that have reacted to your statements, how is it that you do not think you might potentially be the root of these misunderstandings?

I did miss your reference to a 'better' anti-glare gloss technology, I will admit that. But doesn't that just distract from the whole point? You started by making some statements that were glittering generalities, and when you got called on it, you dug yourself deeper by adding implications that everyone cannot read, etc.

So listen, don't you think maybe, just maybe... you are the root of the issue, here? Maybe people are reacting to your rhetoric because in fact, there is something there to react to.
post #155 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else.

If you want to run Mac OS X, it's the only choice. I'm not interested in Linux or any flavor of Windows.

When it came time for me to buy a new external display, I bought a ViewSonic VP2650wb. 26", better specs than the new Apple display and a matte display.

The hostility in regard to people's display preference is idiotic.
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #156 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

While you are asking that, in all honestly why don't you answer the same question? You've spent a lot of time and energy here defending your comments by implying or outright stating that everyone else cannot read or is somehow distorting what you say. Well, given the number of people that have reacted to your statements, how is it that you do not think you might potentially be the root of these misunderstandings?

I did miss your reference to a 'better' anti-glare gloss technology, I will admit that. But doesn't that just distract from the whole point? You started by making some statements that were glittering generalities, and when you got called on it, you dug yourself deeper by adding implications that everyone cannot read, etc.

So listen, don't you think maybe, just maybe... you are the root of the issue, here? Maybe people are reacting to your rhetoric because in fact, there is something there to react to.

I already responded earlier and ironically you started this rhetoric topic again by misreading my post yourself. Maybe I'm harsh and there are points that I didn't make clear, but that doesn't justify the misinterpretation that some few people have made, especially the "whoever use glossy screen are ignorant" statement.

I've never said that matte screen is necessarily better than glossy screen. The point of mentioning anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen. This doesn't mean matte screen is better than glossy screen and that is not my point at all. What I'm criticizing is the fact that Apple acknowledge the glare issue but chose not to improve the glossy screen even though they can because many users either don't acknowledge the issue or chose to ignore the issue that can be fixed, which is ignorant. This does not mean that whoever use glossy screen are ignorant AT ALL.

Some people just like to tense up when they hear different opinions from theirs.
post #157 of 333
Anyone care to provide an example of a glossy screen that defeats glare more effectively than Apple's line.

Feel free, any time now.
post #158 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglavin View Post

Anyone care to provide an example of a glossy screen that defeats glare more effectively than Apple's line.

Feel free, any time now.

the SONY Hybrid glossy/matte patented XBrite screen used in the TT line- hands down the best.
post #159 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

the SONY Hybrid patented screen used in the TT line- hands down the best.

That's definitely a nice one, but I probably will wait for the OLED... jk...
post #160 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If the glare was such an issue then why is it only on the 17. Why is it only an option? Why do customers like it more if its such a problem?

Between the matte screen and ExpressCard slot only available on the 17", Apple is clearly trying to force those users with higher-end requirements into purchasing the more expensive, and likely higher profit margin, laptop.

It's within Apple's rights to run their business that way, if they wish. But usually advanced technology and options trickle down to lower end models as a product line matures. Apple seems to be going in the opposite direction, taking options away from the mid and low end in order to boost sales of the high end. In the day of netbooks and iPhones, it seems odd for Apple to push people into chosing the larger computer. Apple typically thinks smaller is better, not in this case.

And Apple's market share is now big enough that it's past time they should expand their options for Macs. Back when Apple was "beleaguered" in the late 90's, Steve Jobs rightly trimmed their product line-up to a bare minimum to reduce expenses and overhead. It's time Apple stops acting like a company on the brink, hoarding cash and limiting choices, and offering customers more options.

As far as why customers buy glossy... same as why LCD TVs outsell vs plasma. Not because LCDs are inherantly better, but in part due to the fact that in big bright show rooms, LCDs look better because they crank the brightness all the way up. Plasma's look dim compared to LCD when you view them side by side. But nobody would watch their LCD with the bightness turned up that high at home. Apple is making their screens glossy, not because it's necessarly better, but because it "appears" better when sitting next to a matte screen. Consumers like shiny objects.

I could live with no matte option if the glossy was the old glossy (which was less glossy than the current glossy). That seemed like a good middle ground.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury