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.
Like coming here to give an apocalyptic "BUYER BEAWAAAAARE!" PSA?
People who loved the glossy were having a parade when the lowly matte screen clingers on were sad and depressed. Now they give us an option again (proving just like FW they made a mistake in removing it) and you come back with BUT WATCH OUT! MATTE MAY TAKE YOUR LIFE!!! BOOOO!!!!"
Give us a break. (and I don't mean a Kit Kat bar either)
There is nothing wrong with his logic. Apple is offering an option for an additional cost. It?s not the default configuration, any cost difference would be negligible if the matte and glossy sold in equal numbers but they don?t, and the most popular, highest volume selling notebook from notebook doesn?t even come with a matte option. All of that screams that it?s not a popular as glossy. I certainly prefer glossy but I?m glad the option is available for those that need/want it and for those that truly do prefer it I don?t think the extra cost should be a deal breaker with all things considered.
How could matte and glossy possibly sell in equal numbers when you can walk in an Apple Store (or a third-party seller) and buy a glossy one, but have to go home and order online if you want a matte one (and pay $50 for privelege of waiting)? You can also order glossy ones (only glossy ones) on Amazon and other online stores. That's where the fallacy lies - it's not an equal comparison to look at sales numbers.
And when you talk about more people wanting glossy, what if it's not that many more? What if 30% of people would prefer matte? That's a lot of people to ignore. Yes, they may buy glossy if matte isn't available or is harder to get. If Apple made all of their computers hot pink with green polka-dots, I might still buy one because I can't stand Windows.
If you can make 30% of your customers happier with a matte option, it makes good sense to offer it.
In 2-3 years, when I buy my next laptop with a matte screen, I will be able to sit in my office with the lights on again. Honestly, thank you for this. Best $50 I will spend.
And yes, I don't turn my lights on in my office because of my laptop. And yes, I have a special material across my screen to reduce glare. And yes, I still find the reflection annoying and headache inducing. And no, I am not a troll, this is a simple statement of how I have to use my laptop and I am happy that apple is changing their ways.
I just ordered a previous gen macbook pro 17 incher from macmall yesterday, with, ta-da, the anti-glare screen.
I will say this: I went to the apple store to give the screens a final look. There's no denying the glossy screens sure are purty. They are. They almost enticed me to give up the ghost.
Until.
There on one table, was a 17 incher with the matte screen next to a 15 incher with the glossy. And once again, I remembered why I feel so strongly about this whole issue. The glossy screens, as pretty as they may be-- that glare is just (in my opinion obviously) way too ridiculous.
I'll tell you the truth. I look forward to the day when all these screens are OLED, because from what I've heard, those screens are truly the best of all worlds.
Until then, I think the matte has the edge. But to each their own. As someone else pointed out, what's really good here is that Apple is providing more of a choice, and that they are actually listening and responding to what customers have to say.
I'll tell you the truth. I look forward to the day when all these screens are OLED, because from what I've heard, those screens are truly the best of all worlds.
The underlying technology makes no difference. The screen still has to have a face of some description, and that face is going to have reflective and refractive properties.
I've checked out Sony's 11" OLED TVs and they weren't anything to write home about IHMO. LCD with LED backlighting is able to compete quality-wise. OLED is thinner and more efficient, but still very expensive.
I don't think there is an ideal that suits everyone. And even the ideal for one person is not always ideal.
In this case, I don't know about that. The real antiglare seems to be the best of both the gloss and matte. The only real disadvantage is that it costs a little more and can be harder to clean. For a premium product, the cost is negligible. People really shouldn't be touching their computer screens, and that's more than 95% of what makes a screen dirty.
Quote:
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.
Which does kind of make this glass surface seem nonsensical, because in the case of the Apple machines, it's an additional piece of glass between you and the screen.
Quote:
Anything in between reminds me of those, 'transition' lenses. Great for some. But for most, it just isn't worth the compromise.
Thank goodness. I'm only 1/3 of the way into the lifespan of my current laptop (on average) but I was already worried about what I'd do when it came time for my next one. I wouldn't blink at an extra $50 when I'm buying an essential piece of professional equipment that will last approximately three years.
I'm not a fan of that keyboard, either, but the screen is what really had me worried.
Total bullshit. Check out the photos in this post. To me, the matte looks a hell of a lot more usable outside than does the glossy. If either of you would care to provide photographs to back up your claims, I'd like to see them.
I don't need to see photographs - I own both. My matte display Powerbook is completely unreadable outside in the sun. As is my much newer work provided Windows laptop.
My late 2008 MBP with it's glossy screen, while not ideal (duh!) is perfectly useable in full sun.
Rather then falling prey to the Internet echo chamber, I brought a MacBook Pro home myself to see if the fuss was warranted. For me, it wasn't so I kept it. If it had been warranted, I would have taken it back for a refund. At worse, I would have been hit for a restocking fee.
Same thing with LCD/Plasma/rear screen HDTV debates. You can circle jerk for hours on internet forums and hang out in stores all you want, but in the end the best buying advice is to buy from a store that has a good return policy and TAKE IT HOME and see how it looks in your home.
That applies to this mostly overblown glossy vs. matte debate. I'm glad Apple finally offered a choice. Now people will just have to find something else to whine about. I have faith they will manage
My late 2008 MBP with it's glossy screen, while not ideal (duh!) is perfectly useable in full sun.
Rather then falling prey to the Internet echo chamber, I brought a MacBook Pro home myself to see if the fuss was warranted. For me, it wasn't so I kept it. If it had been warranted, I would have taken it back for a refund. At worse, I would have been hit for a restocking fee.
Did you get info on the restocking fee before doing this? It looks to be 10%. You're talking about possibly taking a US$200 hit just to see if you don't like it. Isn't that a bit of a risk to do on a whim like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Anti-glare coatings work by scattering light. That softens the image and also darkens it.
It's a compromise.
Can we just be happy that Apple offers a choice, let everyone pick their personal preference and move on?
That is only one kind of anti-glare. If you think that is the only kind, then you are very mistaken. There is is at least one other kind, one I was talking about alters the index of diffraction of the surface with coatings that are close to the wavelength of optical light. It is a smooth surface that doesn't reflect much light at all, nor does it scatter light. From some angles, you don't even see reflections at all.
What I'm saying is that I would like Apple to offer that kind, because I really do feel that is the best of both worlds and I don't think the drawbacks are very severe.
I feel that both matte and glossy are unnecessary compromises The plain glass has the shine, and matte is just a bit gritty, and has that diffusion that you mention.
The pre-glass 'glossy' MacBook Pro was closer to my ideal than the glass glossy, because it actually does have a light Rayleigh coating on it and it's clearly less reflective than my friend's new MBP. The treatment is not as aggressive as I would like, but it's there.
Because Apple already attempted to sell both glossy and matte equally. They reported that people overwhelmingly chose glossy, they said it wasn't even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Now how would you know whether Apple would be selling even more if matte were offered currently? Apparently Apple has done the math and realizes that there is more to be made by those who don't want the high gloss mess, myself included.
Graphics and web designer here, who used to *hate* glossy screens. I have been using them for two generations of Apple laptops now, and it doesn't bother me one bit at all. With the brighter screen of my new Macbook Pro, it is a non issue. I don't even notice glare. Anybody who is adamantly opposed to this probably hasn't given it an honest shot, at all.
Nonsense pictures like the one in this article are completely misleading.
You got a pretty high computer turnover rate there, glossy displays haven't been out that long.
And yes, I bought a glossy white MacBook for a girlfriend and even she detests it now.
Plus I've used glossy CRT's over the years, so I know the harmful effects of glare and reflections. It might take some time for the adverse effects to be realized.
When you begin to rub your eyes and get headaches when using the computer everyday for hours, you'll know what causes it.
How could matte and glossy possibly sell in equal numbers when you can walk in an Apple Store (or a third-party seller) and buy a glossy one, but have to go home and order online if you want a matte one (and pay $50 for privelege of waiting)? You can also order glossy ones (only glossy ones) on Amazon and other online stores. That's where the fallacy lies - it's not an equal comparison to look at sales numbers.
Exactly, Apple should have both glossy and matte screens on and next to each other for people to compare in store and online, in equal numbers.
Apple used to have a very limited product line, but they realized they needed to adopt more build to order options, much the rest of the PC box builders to cater to the needs of the market.
Apple should create the next lines of Mac's with easily switchable monitors, so a glossy monitor can be made matte or even vice versa in the Apple Store itself before the sale as to better control inventory.
I can only imagine the thousands of people bringing their glossy Mac's back to the Apple Stores because of glare and reflection issues with no recourse for Apple to make things better.
Apple opened a can of worms with these glossy displays, because before, everyone was happy with matte.
Now people are split between matte and glossy, and that problem didn't exist before.
The glossy displays are really not that much improved over matte, just a slightly better clarity, but with limited usage locations that for a lot isn't worth it.
Thank goodness. I'm only 1/3 of the way into the lifespan of my current laptop (on average) but I was already worried about what I'd do when it came time for my next one. I wouldn't blink at an extra $50 when I'm buying an essential piece of professional equipment that will last approximately three years.
I'm not a fan of that keyboard, either, but the screen is what really had me worried.
I'm working on a silver keyboard 15" MacBook Pro with matte myself.
The new black keyboard "chiclet" isn't my cup of tea either, the glossy only option was a deal killer.
Also it's about time for quad core laptops to make their debut, but since Apple nearly eliminated the MacBooks and demoted the MacBook Pro's makes me wonder if we will ever see a new fully functional laptop from Apple ever again.
Apple might be going in the direction of the MacBook Air's, where if you want to do anything, you'll have to do it via external devices. External drives suck in my opinion, the ports get worn out and cables lost.
Remember, SDXC is coming, it's 2TB on a SD card at about 2x speed of a 7,200 RPM hard drive.
Don't know what Apple will make of that, but it could be very thin.
from what i understand anti glare and matte are not the same thing. They said its anti glare not matte. To me anti glare means picture quality of glossy minus the glare. Matte to me means dull and washed out.
Don't LCD HDTV's have anti glare and still maintain the picture quality so why can't laptops?
Personally i prefer the picture quality of glossy but not the reflectiveness, why can't they find a way to fix that?
You mean the one where he has faced the screen towards the sun?
Even an idiot knows better.
Doesn't matter if he is facing the sun or not.
Light gets reflected off of all objects and then onto the reflective screen, which is then reflected into your eyes and blocks the image on the screen, causes eyestrain and headaches for a lot of people.
Now like I said before, different people have different reactions to different levels of glare and reflections.
Some can accept all glare, some can accept a little and some can't accept any at all.
What is fine for you isn't fine for everyone. You can't wear my eyes, but if you could perhaps you would understand.
The LCD monitor industry appears to be pushing for these glossy monitors because (in my opinion) it seems to be cheaper to make, as they don't have to apply a matte film and with the anti-reflective (aka glossy) screens all they have to do is spray a ineffective coating.
Apple goes ahead and wraps their iMac matte LCD's with a reflective glass, so with a suction cup one can remove the glass.
Pure white backgrounds as one uses in word processing, vs the extreme to black, doesn't cause reflection or glare...
It doesn't matter what the background image is, the surface of the screen is reflective and that's where the light rays are bounced at and into your eyes. The background image can enhance that effect, but not reduce it.
People are different in respects to how much glare they can take, some mistake some bright light source as the only glare. But the fact is light bounces off of nearly everything and onto the reflective screens in different degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
By the way, matte does reflect. We just tested the Museum Glass and it reflects as well. Everything does in the right position. As everything doesn't in the right position.
Yes, matte does reflect, but has the lowest reflection rate, thus has the most functionality in nearly any environment. I thought Museum Glass would do the trick and produce the clarity of a glass without the glare and reflections. But it's not strong enough to replace matte finishes, it's more like a anti-reflective which isn't as strong as anti-glare/matte.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Everybody has the choice now, why not let them decide for themselves?
There isn't a choice for 13" laptops, MacBook Airs, iMacs (remove the glass) and so on.
Apple knows laptop owners prefer 15" and matte, but (in my opinion) was trying to get people to upscale to the 17" and offered matte on that only.
I think the 15" was the easiest and fastest way to respond to the huge demand, the other models will take some time to redesign.
I think Apple should design newer models to be easily switched from matte to glossy and vise versa in the Apple Stores. Would save on overproducing and distribution problems.
Comments
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.
Like coming here to give an apocalyptic "BUYER BEAWAAAAARE!" PSA?
People who loved the glossy were having a parade when the lowly matte screen clingers on were sad and depressed. Now they give us an option again (proving just like FW they made a mistake in removing it) and you come back with BUT WATCH OUT! MATTE MAY TAKE YOUR LIFE!!! BOOOO!!!!"
Give us a break. (and I don't mean a Kit Kat bar either)
There is nothing wrong with his logic. Apple is offering an option for an additional cost. It?s not the default configuration, any cost difference would be negligible if the matte and glossy sold in equal numbers but they don?t, and the most popular, highest volume selling notebook from notebook doesn?t even come with a matte option. All of that screams that it?s not a popular as glossy. I certainly prefer glossy but I?m glad the option is available for those that need/want it and for those that truly do prefer it I don?t think the extra cost should be a deal breaker with all things considered.
How could matte and glossy possibly sell in equal numbers when you can walk in an Apple Store (or a third-party seller) and buy a glossy one, but have to go home and order online if you want a matte one (and pay $50 for privelege of waiting)? You can also order glossy ones (only glossy ones) on Amazon and other online stores. That's where the fallacy lies - it's not an equal comparison to look at sales numbers.
And when you talk about more people wanting glossy, what if it's not that many more? What if 30% of people would prefer matte? That's a lot of people to ignore. Yes, they may buy glossy if matte isn't available or is harder to get. If Apple made all of their computers hot pink with green polka-dots, I might still buy one because I can't stand Windows.
If you can make 30% of your customers happier with a matte option, it makes good sense to offer it.
And yes, I don't turn my lights on in my office because of my laptop. And yes, I have a special material across my screen to reduce glare. And yes, I still find the reflection annoying and headache inducing. And no, I am not a troll, this is a simple statement of how I have to use my laptop and I am happy that apple is changing their ways.
I will say this: I went to the apple store to give the screens a final look. There's no denying the glossy screens sure are purty. They are. They almost enticed me to give up the ghost.
Until.
There on one table, was a 17 incher with the matte screen next to a 15 incher with the glossy. And once again, I remembered why I feel so strongly about this whole issue. The glossy screens, as pretty as they may be-- that glare is just (in my opinion obviously) way too ridiculous.
I'll tell you the truth. I look forward to the day when all these screens are OLED, because from what I've heard, those screens are truly the best of all worlds.
Until then, I think the matte has the edge. But to each their own. As someone else pointed out, what's really good here is that Apple is providing more of a choice, and that they are actually listening and responding to what customers have to say.
I'll tell you the truth. I look forward to the day when all these screens are OLED, because from what I've heard, those screens are truly the best of all worlds.
The underlying technology makes no difference. The screen still has to have a face of some description, and that face is going to have reflective and refractive properties.
I've checked out Sony's 11" OLED TVs and they weren't anything to write home about IHMO. LCD with LED backlighting is able to compete quality-wise. OLED is thinner and more efficient, but still very expensive.
...I've checked out Sony's 11" OLED TVs and they weren't anything to write home about IHMO. ...
I think the same thing. I wonder if there is a more noticeable difference on a larger screen size?
But yeah, at 11" I don't see that big a difference from LCD with LED BL.
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.
In this case, I don't know about that. The real antiglare seems to be the best of both the gloss and matte. The only real disadvantage is that it costs a little more and can be harder to clean. For a premium product, the cost is negligible. People really shouldn't be touching their computer screens, and that's more than 95% of what makes a screen dirty.
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.
Which does kind of make this glass surface seem nonsensical, because in the case of the Apple machines, it's an additional piece of glass between you and the screen.
Anything in between reminds me of those, 'transition' lenses. Great for some. But for most, it just isn't worth the compromise.
I don't know if that's comparable.
Your joking right?
Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X0wo6dIsMU
You mean the one where he has faced the screen towards the sun?
Even an idiot knows better.
I'm not a fan of that keyboard, either, but the screen is what really had me worried.
Total bullshit. Check out the photos in this post. To me, the matte looks a hell of a lot more usable outside than does the glossy. If either of you would care to provide photographs to back up your claims, I'd like to see them.
I don't need to see photographs - I own both. My matte display Powerbook is completely unreadable outside in the sun. As is my much newer work provided Windows laptop.
My late 2008 MBP with it's glossy screen, while not ideal (duh!) is perfectly useable in full sun.
Rather then falling prey to the Internet echo chamber, I brought a MacBook Pro home myself to see if the fuss was warranted. For me, it wasn't so I kept it. If it had been warranted, I would have taken it back for a refund. At worse, I would have been hit for a restocking fee.
Same thing with LCD/Plasma/rear screen HDTV debates. You can circle jerk for hours on internet forums and hang out in stores all you want, but in the end the best buying advice is to buy from a store that has a good return policy and TAKE IT HOME and see how it looks in your home.
That applies to this mostly overblown glossy vs. matte debate. I'm glad Apple finally offered a choice. Now people will just have to find something else to whine about. I have faith they will manage
In this case, I don't know about that. The real antiglare seems to be the best of both the gloss and matte.
Anti-glare coatings work by scattering light. That softens the image and also darkens it.
It's a compromise.
Can we just be happy that Apple offers a choice, let everyone pick their personal preference and move on?
My late 2008 MBP with it's glossy screen, while not ideal (duh!) is perfectly useable in full sun.
Rather then falling prey to the Internet echo chamber, I brought a MacBook Pro home myself to see if the fuss was warranted. For me, it wasn't so I kept it. If it had been warranted, I would have taken it back for a refund. At worse, I would have been hit for a restocking fee.
Did you get info on the restocking fee before doing this? It looks to be 10%. You're talking about possibly taking a US$200 hit just to see if you don't like it. Isn't that a bit of a risk to do on a whim like this?
Anti-glare coatings work by scattering light. That softens the image and also darkens it.
It's a compromise.
Can we just be happy that Apple offers a choice, let everyone pick their personal preference and move on?
That is only one kind of anti-glare. If you think that is the only kind, then you are very mistaken. There is is at least one other kind, one I was talking about alters the index of diffraction of the surface with coatings that are close to the wavelength of optical light. It is a smooth surface that doesn't reflect much light at all, nor does it scatter light. From some angles, you don't even see reflections at all.
What I'm saying is that I would like Apple to offer that kind, because I really do feel that is the best of both worlds and I don't think the drawbacks are very severe.
I feel that both matte and glossy are unnecessary compromises The plain glass has the shine, and matte is just a bit gritty, and has that diffusion that you mention.
The pre-glass 'glossy' MacBook Pro was closer to my ideal than the glass glossy, because it actually does have a light Rayleigh coating on it and it's clearly less reflective than my friend's new MBP. The treatment is not as aggressive as I would like, but it's there.
Now how would you know whether Apple would be selling even more if matte were offered currently? Apparently Apple has done the math and realizes that there is more to be made by those who don't want the high gloss mess, myself included.
Graphics and web designer here, who used to *hate* glossy screens. I have been using them for two generations of Apple laptops now, and it doesn't bother me one bit at all. With the brighter screen of my new Macbook Pro, it is a non issue. I don't even notice glare. Anybody who is adamantly opposed to this probably hasn't given it an honest shot, at all.
Nonsense pictures like the one in this article are completely misleading.
You got a pretty high computer turnover rate there, glossy displays haven't been out that long.
And yes, I bought a glossy white MacBook for a girlfriend and even she detests it now.
Plus I've used glossy CRT's over the years, so I know the harmful effects of glare and reflections. It might take some time for the adverse effects to be realized.
When you begin to rub your eyes and get headaches when using the computer everyday for hours, you'll know what causes it.
How could matte and glossy possibly sell in equal numbers when you can walk in an Apple Store (or a third-party seller) and buy a glossy one, but have to go home and order online if you want a matte one (and pay $50 for privelege of waiting)? You can also order glossy ones (only glossy ones) on Amazon and other online stores. That's where the fallacy lies - it's not an equal comparison to look at sales numbers.
Exactly, Apple should have both glossy and matte screens on and next to each other for people to compare in store and online, in equal numbers.
Apple used to have a very limited product line, but they realized they needed to adopt more build to order options, much the rest of the PC box builders to cater to the needs of the market.
Apple should create the next lines of Mac's with easily switchable monitors, so a glossy monitor can be made matte or even vice versa in the Apple Store itself before the sale as to better control inventory.
I can only imagine the thousands of people bringing their glossy Mac's back to the Apple Stores because of glare and reflection issues with no recourse for Apple to make things better.
Apple opened a can of worms with these glossy displays, because before, everyone was happy with matte.
Now people are split between matte and glossy, and that problem didn't exist before.
The glossy displays are really not that much improved over matte, just a slightly better clarity, but with limited usage locations that for a lot isn't worth it.
Thank goodness. I'm only 1/3 of the way into the lifespan of my current laptop (on average) but I was already worried about what I'd do when it came time for my next one. I wouldn't blink at an extra $50 when I'm buying an essential piece of professional equipment that will last approximately three years.
I'm not a fan of that keyboard, either, but the screen is what really had me worried.
I'm working on a silver keyboard 15" MacBook Pro with matte myself.
The new black keyboard "chiclet" isn't my cup of tea either, the glossy only option was a deal killer.
Also it's about time for quad core laptops to make their debut, but since Apple nearly eliminated the MacBooks and demoted the MacBook Pro's makes me wonder if we will ever see a new fully functional laptop from Apple ever again.
Apple might be going in the direction of the MacBook Air's, where if you want to do anything, you'll have to do it via external devices. External drives suck in my opinion, the ports get worn out and cables lost.
Remember, SDXC is coming, it's 2TB on a SD card at about 2x speed of a 7,200 RPM hard drive.
Don't know what Apple will make of that, but it could be very thin.
Don't LCD HDTV's have anti glare and still maintain the picture quality so why can't laptops?
Personally i prefer the picture quality of glossy but not the reflectiveness, why can't they find a way to fix that?
You mean the one where he has faced the screen towards the sun?
Even an idiot knows better.
Doesn't matter if he is facing the sun or not.
Light gets reflected off of all objects and then onto the reflective screen, which is then reflected into your eyes and blocks the image on the screen, causes eyestrain and headaches for a lot of people.
Now like I said before, different people have different reactions to different levels of glare and reflections.
Some can accept all glare, some can accept a little and some can't accept any at all.
What is fine for you isn't fine for everyone. You can't wear my eyes, but if you could perhaps you would understand.
The LCD monitor industry appears to be pushing for these glossy monitors because (in my opinion) it seems to be cheaper to make, as they don't have to apply a matte film and with the anti-reflective (aka glossy) screens all they have to do is spray a ineffective coating.
Apple goes ahead and wraps their iMac matte LCD's with a reflective glass, so with a suction cup one can remove the glass.
Pure white backgrounds as one uses in word processing, vs the extreme to black, doesn't cause reflection or glare...
It doesn't matter what the background image is, the surface of the screen is reflective and that's where the light rays are bounced at and into your eyes. The background image can enhance that effect, but not reduce it.
People are different in respects to how much glare they can take, some mistake some bright light source as the only glare. But the fact is light bounces off of nearly everything and onto the reflective screens in different degrees.
By the way, matte does reflect. We just tested the Museum Glass and it reflects as well. Everything does in the right position. As everything doesn't in the right position.
Yes, matte does reflect, but has the lowest reflection rate, thus has the most functionality in nearly any environment. I thought Museum Glass would do the trick and produce the clarity of a glass without the glare and reflections. But it's not strong enough to replace matte finishes, it's more like a anti-reflective which isn't as strong as anti-glare/matte.
Everybody has the choice now, why not let them decide for themselves?
There isn't a choice for 13" laptops, MacBook Airs, iMacs (remove the glass) and so on.
Apple knows laptop owners prefer 15" and matte, but (in my opinion) was trying to get people to upscale to the 17" and offered matte on that only.
I think the 15" was the easiest and fastest way to respond to the huge demand, the other models will take some time to redesign.
I think Apple should design newer models to be easily switched from matte to glossy and vise versa in the Apple Stores. Would save on overproducing and distribution problems.