The objects are not in the exact same place, the camera is not in the same positions, the lighting in the background varies, etc.
Yeah, it's a rather unfair image. The person should have taken several photos at different angles to prove the glare is really that bad.
Besides that, the glossy screen looks a little darker. If you turn the screen's brightness way down, doesn't that affect glare as well? I see that on my phone all the time.
Amazing. I simply ask why it cost so much, looking for an honest response, and I'm told that I'm bitching and I expect a free laptop.
Yes, the only thing worse than someone bitching, is someone bitching about someone bitching.
But, as others have pointed out, they cost more because they are quite obviously buying and making these in smaller quantities, so the parts and assembly costs are higher, which is pretty much the case with any optional configuration for anything. $50 is a pretty reasonable additional cost given the nature of the option.
Why? Because it proves you wrong? That photo is of a unibody MacBook Pro with glossy at full brightness, and a unibody MacBook Pro with matte at full brightness. The glossy reflects like crazy and the matte doesn't. Surely if glossy beats matte hands-down outside, a photograph wouldn't show the opposite? The photos are not taken at weird angles, but at what looks to me to be normal viewing position.
I (via someone else's photos) have provided evidence that matte beats glossy outside, you have nothing to back up your waffling.
Both the pictures that showed major reflections were not taken from the mac users point of view. One was taken from the side and the other was taken from above. I would consider the pictures taken there to be far from objective.
On a completely different note, the matt screen protector you can get for the iPhone makes it look a lot better and makes it easier to glide your finger (no sticky smudges). Matt FTW.
Yeah, it's a rather unfair image. The person should have taken several photos at different angles to prove the glare is really that bad.
Besides that, the glossy screen looks a little darker. If you turn the screen's brightness way down, doesn't that affect glare as well? I see that on my phone all the time.
Yes, but keep in mind that there is a difference between 'glare' and 'reflection.'
Reflection can be altered by adjusting the amount, position or angle of light shining on the object seen in the reflection.
Glare can be altered by adjusting the intensity of the light shining directly on the reflective surface or the refractive index of the reflective surface, i.e, in this case the screen.
In any case, it should be buyer beware. Gloss and Mattes have their unique features and for some, demanding advantages. Now we have a choice. To continue to dwell on it in an accusatory fashion is childish. As is somebody dissing anyone who attemp to help those make a choice.
Agree absolutely. The new backlit LCDs on the MacBooks with a glossy screen are significantly superior vs a matte screen outside (especially sporting events), or in an equally, brightly diffussed indoor room, as well as in a darkened interior.
Are there any notebooks that have stronger Rayleigh coatings? That would be ideal in my opinion, both gloss and matte fall short of a good Rayleigh type antiglare surface. I have camcorders and still cameras with that kind of surface and they are more usable outdoors than glossy or matte devices. I had several 17, 19" and 21" CRT screens that had Rayleigh coatings. Even Apple's "studio" CRTs had them before they switched to LCD.
Grey is good for critical color work. Grey is neutral and does not corrupt your eye against colors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
Nice. Too bad that it uses a grey bezel though. That makes no sense. A matte black bezel frames the image so much nicer. That's passive-aggressive Apple though, no matter what they give you, they always insist on taking something away at the same time.
See I was under the impression it was the other way around, where more people wanted matte. They have the numbers though I guess. If it was the other way around, it would really appear as though they were taking advantage of that and getting some extra cash from everyone for the most logical choice in the two.
The iVisor costs like 35 bucks. I guess an extra 15 to have it actually part of the screen aint too bad.
Amazing. I simply ask why it cost so much, looking for an honest response, and I'm told that I'm bitching and I expect a free laptop.
Yeah that's it. I think Apple should give us free laptops because this matte screen business costs too much.
see matte dude's are the loudest most annoying complainers ever. Over and over they bitched for months with stupid bogus eye claims and such .
the glossy glare reflection problem is a firmware issue to be fixed in 2 or 3 yrs . A simple german/swiss glass treatment used in dubai's bright sun. And we will be able to switch anti glare on and off .
What happened is APPLE went green and glass is greenest screen .
AND glass reflects light > law of nature . My MBP movie playback is incredible . Yes i can read the newspaper behind me . But after a few months you barely notice seeing front and back at the same time.
peace all you happy matte campers and a special hug to mactripper ./
Yes, the only thing worse than someone bitching, is someone bitching about someone bitching.
But, as others have pointed out, they cost more because they are quite obviously buying and making these in smaller quantities, so the parts and assembly costs are higher, which is pretty much the case with any optional configuration for anything. $50 is a pretty reasonable additional cost given the nature of the option.
Or someone pompously commenting about someone bitching about someone bitching. He was asking a valid question and the fanboy express jumped down his throat because you people have nothing but blind allegiance for Apple. The point is, matte should have been there all along. Period. To charge $50 for that option now is nickel and diming Apples loyal customers, professionals that prefer matte. Don't give me any shit about production costs, they have plenty of money and all the resources already in place.
I read an interesting article of people who would not purchase a iPhone due to cost, and when apple reduced the price to $99 for the older model, 84% of those in the study went out and purchased, but grabbed the 3GS version. Turns out price was not the driving factor, just the excuse.
Now that this and firewire are available, everyone who took issue with these items being removed run out and purchase. I will sit here and watch the stock.
Think about it. Apple is now selling more laptops than it's ever sold in it's history. Would that be true if most people were against a glossy only option. The matte people are a vocal minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
See I was under the impression it was the other way around, where more people wanted matte. They have the numbers though I guess. If it was the other way around, it would really appear as though they were taking advantage of that and getting some extra cash from everyone for the most logical choice in the two.
Well, I know you have to pay more, but it is understandable, it's an option and not part of their standard system spec, they are not buying the matte screens in bulk anymore.
Yep. they have this as an option only because they likely don't believe it to be a high enough demand to really go full out. based partially, i would guess, on the previous sales numbers. The loud complaints of folks on places like this are a small fraction of the user base. as would be the yelling of advanced industries like professional photographers, video editors etc (not all of whom are guaranteed to be griping).
because it is option only they would be buying the parts in smaller amounts which means they can't get the price deals they could get on their standard parts. plus the labor to build a machine from scratch for you etc. be glad it is just $50. it is very possible that that only covers the cost of the screen and bezel, forget the labor etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
This also illustrates very clearly that "being vocal" has merit,
don't pat yourself on the back too much. you still have to order it. true merit would be if they could have it as a standard form, so you can go to a store and buy it whenever you want without the 10 day wait.
Quote:
May now the voices of reason begin to cry out over the insanity of Apple's MACK-truck-flattened abominations they call "keyboards."
funny. you hate them. I know quite a number of folks that love the new keyboard. quieter, lighter tap needed. and surprise -- some of those folks are actually Wintel users that replaced the 'fat' keyboard that came with their PC with the Apple one.
The only complaint anyone had was that the wireless didn't have a 10 key pad. and that was one guy that was doing Final Cut (seems some of the shortcuts are on that pad). he would have liked to have gone wireless.
Quote:
Indeed, I have little doubt that Jobs and Ive both want a 100% non-mechanical keyboard in the future, with recent keyboards from Apple acting as mere stepping-stones to a truly horrific tomorrow.
what is so horrific about that. I've seen talk of a touchscreen keyboard that would adjust to the software and settings being used that would be brilliant. When you have final cut on, the keys are the shortcuts. when you have on Word it is your keyboard and when the tap of a button your shortcuts appear, if you switch to another language such as russian, the labels change etc.
clearly with your anachronistic proclivities, you think such an idea to be retched, but many would probably jump at the possibility. or even take it a step further and eliminate physical keyboard altogether and use one that is laser based (and similarly flexible) from the bottom of the display
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner
I read an interesting article of people who would not purchase a iPhone due to cost, and when apple reduced the price to $99 for the older model, 84% of those in the study went out and purchased, but grabbed the 3GS version. Turns out price was not the driving factor, just the excuse.
keep in mind that the cost and storage changed. $199 for 8gb was too expensive but many of them likely felt that $199 for 16gb was more reasonable.
and for many the 'cost' isn't the phone but the added bill
Think about it. Apple is now selling more laptops than it's ever sold in it's history. Would that be true if most people were against a glossy only option. The matte people are a vocal minority.
I think there's a fallacy in this line of reasoning, I'm just not sure which one. It might be a post hoc fallacy, or maybe some variant of affirming the consequent. I think I might need more coffee.
Are there any notebooks that have stronger Rayleigh coatings? That would be ideal in my opinion, both gloss and matte fall short of a good Rayleigh type antiglare surface. I have camcorders and still cameras with that kind of surface and they are more usable outdoors than glossy or matte devices.
I have no idea.
I don't think there is an ideal that suits everyone. And even the ideal for one person is not always ideal.
Having worn glasses most of my life and then getting laser surgery, I really appreciate nothing between me and the object I am looking at.
Anything in between reminds me of those, 'transition' lenses. Great for some. But for most, it just isn't worth the compromise.
Now of course, we are all waiting for the massive increase in MacBook sales generated by all those who so adamantly declared they were just waiting for Apple to give them the choice.
Comments
The objects are not in the exact same place, the camera is not in the same positions, the lighting in the background varies, etc.
Yeah, it's a rather unfair image. The person should have taken several photos at different angles to prove the glare is really that bad.
Besides that, the glossy screen looks a little darker. If you turn the screen's brightness way down, doesn't that affect glare as well? I see that on my phone all the time.
Amazing. I simply ask why it cost so much, looking for an honest response, and I'm told that I'm bitching and I expect a free laptop.
Yes, the only thing worse than someone bitching, is someone bitching about someone bitching.
But, as others have pointed out, they cost more because they are quite obviously buying and making these in smaller quantities, so the parts and assembly costs are higher, which is pretty much the case with any optional configuration for anything. $50 is a pretty reasonable additional cost given the nature of the option.
Why? Because it proves you wrong? That photo is of a unibody MacBook Pro with glossy at full brightness, and a unibody MacBook Pro with matte at full brightness. The glossy reflects like crazy and the matte doesn't. Surely if glossy beats matte hands-down outside, a photograph wouldn't show the opposite? The photos are not taken at weird angles, but at what looks to me to be normal viewing position.
I (via someone else's photos) have provided evidence that matte beats glossy outside, you have nothing to back up your waffling.
Both the pictures that showed major reflections were not taken from the mac users point of view. One was taken from the side and the other was taken from above. I would consider the pictures taken there to be far from objective.
On a completely different note, the matt screen protector you can get for the iPhone makes it look a lot better and makes it easier to glide your finger (no sticky smudges). Matt FTW.
Which brand?
Yeah, it's a rather unfair image. The person should have taken several photos at different angles to prove the glare is really that bad.
Besides that, the glossy screen looks a little darker. If you turn the screen's brightness way down, doesn't that affect glare as well? I see that on my phone all the time.
Yes, but keep in mind that there is a difference between 'glare' and 'reflection.'
Reflection can be altered by adjusting the amount, position or angle of light shining on the object seen in the reflection.
Glare can be altered by adjusting the intensity of the light shining directly on the reflective surface or the refractive index of the reflective surface, i.e, in this case the screen.
In any case, it should be buyer beware. Gloss and Mattes have their unique features and for some, demanding advantages. Now we have a choice. To continue to dwell on it in an accusatory fashion is childish. As is somebody dissing anyone who attemp to help those make a choice.
Yeah that's it. I think Apple should give us free laptops because this matte screen business costs too much.
LOL
A glossy unibody MacBook Pro side-by-side with a previous-gen matte MacBook Pro | Source: Flickr user Loustechworld
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Looks just like my iPhone, till I turn it on.
Well would ya look at that.
we MAY never see mac tripper again.
Be Forewarned.
Agree absolutely. The new backlit LCDs on the MacBooks with a glossy screen are significantly superior vs a matte screen outside (especially sporting events), or in an equally, brightly diffussed indoor room, as well as in a darkened interior.
Are there any notebooks that have stronger Rayleigh coatings? That would be ideal in my opinion, both gloss and matte fall short of a good Rayleigh type antiglare surface. I have camcorders and still cameras with that kind of surface and they are more usable outdoors than glossy or matte devices. I had several 17, 19" and 21" CRT screens that had Rayleigh coatings. Even Apple's "studio" CRTs had them before they switched to LCD.
Nice. Too bad that it uses a grey bezel though. That makes no sense. A matte black bezel frames the image so much nicer. That's passive-aggressive Apple though, no matter what they give you, they always insist on taking something away at the same time.
See I was under the impression it was the other way around, where more people wanted matte. They have the numbers though I guess. If it was the other way around, it would really appear as though they were taking advantage of that and getting some extra cash from everyone for the most logical choice in the two.
The iVisor costs like 35 bucks. I guess an extra 15 to have it actually part of the screen aint too bad.
Amazing. I simply ask why it cost so much, looking for an honest response, and I'm told that I'm bitching and I expect a free laptop.
Yeah that's it. I think Apple should give us free laptops because this matte screen business costs too much.
see matte dude's are the loudest most annoying complainers ever. Over and over they bitched for months with stupid bogus eye claims and such .
the glossy glare reflection problem is a firmware issue to be fixed in 2 or 3 yrs . A simple german/swiss glass treatment used in dubai's bright sun. And we will be able to switch anti glare on and off .
What happened is APPLE went green and glass is greenest screen .
AND glass reflects light > law of nature . My MBP movie playback is incredible . Yes i can read the newspaper behind me . But after a few months you barely notice seeing front and back at the same time.
peace all you happy matte campers and a special hug to mactripper ./
9
Yes, the only thing worse than someone bitching, is someone bitching about someone bitching.
But, as others have pointed out, they cost more because they are quite obviously buying and making these in smaller quantities, so the parts and assembly costs are higher, which is pretty much the case with any optional configuration for anything. $50 is a pretty reasonable additional cost given the nature of the option.
Or someone pompously commenting about someone bitching about someone bitching. He was asking a valid question and the fanboy express jumped down his throat because you people have nothing but blind allegiance for Apple. The point is, matte should have been there all along. Period. To charge $50 for that option now is nickel and diming Apples loyal customers, professionals that prefer matte. Don't give me any shit about production costs, they have plenty of money and all the resources already in place.
Now that this and firewire are available, everyone who took issue with these items being removed run out and purchase. I will sit here and watch the stock.
Ready, set, go!
See I was under the impression it was the other way around, where more people wanted matte. They have the numbers though I guess. If it was the other way around, it would really appear as though they were taking advantage of that and getting some extra cash from everyone for the most logical choice in the two.
Or someone pompously commenting about someone bitching about someone bitching.
Yes, that's exactly my point!
Which brand?
This one
Power Support.
Nice, but FIFTY DOLLARS! It used to be free!
Well, I know you have to pay more, but it is understandable, it's an option and not part of their standard system spec, they are not buying the matte screens in bulk anymore.
Yep. they have this as an option only because they likely don't believe it to be a high enough demand to really go full out. based partially, i would guess, on the previous sales numbers. The loud complaints of folks on places like this are a small fraction of the user base. as would be the yelling of advanced industries like professional photographers, video editors etc (not all of whom are guaranteed to be griping).
because it is option only they would be buying the parts in smaller amounts which means they can't get the price deals they could get on their standard parts. plus the labor to build a machine from scratch for you etc. be glad it is just $50. it is very possible that that only covers the cost of the screen and bezel, forget the labor etc.
This also illustrates very clearly that "being vocal" has merit,
don't pat yourself on the back too much. you still have to order it. true merit would be if they could have it as a standard form, so you can go to a store and buy it whenever you want without the 10 day wait.
May now the voices of reason begin to cry out over the insanity of Apple's MACK-truck-flattened abominations they call "keyboards."
funny. you hate them. I know quite a number of folks that love the new keyboard. quieter, lighter tap needed. and surprise -- some of those folks are actually Wintel users that replaced the 'fat' keyboard that came with their PC with the Apple one.
The only complaint anyone had was that the wireless didn't have a 10 key pad. and that was one guy that was doing Final Cut (seems some of the shortcuts are on that pad). he would have liked to have gone wireless.
Indeed, I have little doubt that Jobs and Ive both want a 100% non-mechanical keyboard in the future, with recent keyboards from Apple acting as mere stepping-stones to a truly horrific tomorrow.
what is so horrific about that. I've seen talk of a touchscreen keyboard that would adjust to the software and settings being used that would be brilliant. When you have final cut on, the keys are the shortcuts. when you have on Word it is your keyboard and when the tap of a button your shortcuts appear, if you switch to another language such as russian, the labels change etc.
clearly with your anachronistic proclivities, you think such an idea to be retched, but many would probably jump at the possibility. or even take it a step further and eliminate physical keyboard altogether and use one that is laser based (and similarly flexible) from the bottom of the display
I read an interesting article of people who would not purchase a iPhone due to cost, and when apple reduced the price to $99 for the older model, 84% of those in the study went out and purchased, but grabbed the 3GS version. Turns out price was not the driving factor, just the excuse.
keep in mind that the cost and storage changed. $199 for 8gb was too expensive but many of them likely felt that $199 for 16gb was more reasonable.
and for many the 'cost' isn't the phone but the added bill
Think about it. Apple is now selling more laptops than it's ever sold in it's history. Would that be true if most people were against a glossy only option. The matte people are a vocal minority.
I think there's a fallacy in this line of reasoning, I'm just not sure which one. It might be a post hoc fallacy, or maybe some variant of affirming the consequent. I think I might need more coffee.
Are there any notebooks that have stronger Rayleigh coatings? That would be ideal in my opinion, both gloss and matte fall short of a good Rayleigh type antiglare surface. I have camcorders and still cameras with that kind of surface and they are more usable outdoors than glossy or matte devices.
I have no idea.
I don't think there is an ideal that suits everyone. And even the ideal for one person is not always ideal.
Having worn glasses most of my life and then getting laser surgery, I really appreciate nothing between me and the object I am looking at.
Anything in between reminds me of those, 'transition' lenses. Great for some. But for most, it just isn't worth the compromise.
Now of course, we are all waiting for the massive increase in MacBook sales generated by all those who so adamantly declared they were just waiting for Apple to give them the choice.
Further Reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating