Apple drops anti-glare display from 15" Macbook Pro, adds it to 17"...
I was just configuring a 15" Macbook Pro, and wanted the "Antiglare display" option. The problem is that Apple no longer offers the "Antiglare display option" with the 15" Macbook Pro. One has to buy the 17" Macbook Pro to get the option. Seriously - WTF? Is this old news? If it is, I hadn't heard about it. Previously, during my previous browsing sessions on Apple's website, the 17" MBP lacked the "Antiglare display" option...
Why does Apple do stupid things like this? It's infuriating as hell. And have the screen resolutions been reduced for the 15"? I swear, it offered 1900 x 1200 at one time, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, I didn't plan on my first post being a pisser about Apple, but I was ready to give them my $2900.00, now -- no way.
Is more of this moronic behavior the future of Apple? Why not just offer the "Antiglare display" for all of the MBPs? The 15" form factor being desirable for professionals has been well established, but even so, why does one who would spend thousands on a Macbook PRO, get treated like a low end Mac buyer?
Maybe no one likes the 17" enough to buy it: It's form over function, and I don't think it's desirable. Maybe it needed more features to entice buyers. But: Why would Apple screw up the well-featured products that customers would buy? Makes no sense at all.
*Sigh* I'm so angry right now.
FYI
Why does Apple do stupid things like this? It's infuriating as hell. And have the screen resolutions been reduced for the 15"? I swear, it offered 1900 x 1200 at one time, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, I didn't plan on my first post being a pisser about Apple, but I was ready to give them my $2900.00, now -- no way.
Is more of this moronic behavior the future of Apple? Why not just offer the "Antiglare display" for all of the MBPs? The 15" form factor being desirable for professionals has been well established, but even so, why does one who would spend thousands on a Macbook PRO, get treated like a low end Mac buyer?
Maybe no one likes the 17" enough to buy it: It's form over function, and I don't think it's desirable. Maybe it needed more features to entice buyers. But: Why would Apple screw up the well-featured products that customers would buy? Makes no sense at all.
*Sigh* I'm so angry right now.
FYI
Comments
(Just in case some think I'm trolling, I'm not. It took me nearly two years to say anything at all.)
One has to buy the 17" Macbook Pro to get the option. Seriously - WTF? Is this old news?
Why does Apple do stupid things like this? It's infuriating as hell. And have the screen resolutions been reduced for the 15"? I swear, it offered 1900 x 1200 at one time, but I could be wrong.
Why not just offer the "Antiglare display" for all of the MBPs?
Yeah, it's kinda old news but it hasn't really gotten any easier to bear. I think it's a very stupid decision too and I'm not sure what their real reason is for it. Apple claim it's because significantly more people were buying the blinding glare models but I think they just wanted to do it themselves so they could avoid inventory issues by offering two types.
I would be ok with it if I knew that they would actually be usable but in my office, we have a couple of the new ones and the overhead directed halogen lights burn right into your retinas, which means you have to tilt the screen to a totally unusable angle - we had to hook up external matte screens to them. The old matte ones we have are just fine and we won't be buying any more of the new ones.
I don't think they ever had a high-res option on the 15" model. This annoys me too because 1440 x 900 isn't that high. I think 1920 x 1200 on a 15" would be too cramped but 1680 x 1050 should be an option by now and 1440 x 900 on the 13" Macbook.
Perhaps getting resolution independence will improve non-native resolutions so that it won't matter if they go higher but it doesn't improve the current lineup.
It's a shame they've done this to the new models because the rest of the machine is close to perfect. The new MBP has a great build quality, FW 800, easy to replace battery and HDD. The screen is really the only problem for me, although the price could do with dropping a little too.
The thing with Apple is they don't care about giving consumers choices, it's as if they are forever trying to persuade people to think like them. In some cases this is a good thing but in the case of the display options, it's not. You can let them know in their store feedback that you were going to buy the MBP but chose not to because of the display options. If enough people let them know, I'm sure they'll do something.
There must be a reason why they even bothered to offer the option on the 17" model. Given that this model came out a while after the 13" and 15", I have a suspicion they may offer matte options on the next laptop revision or simply use a best-of-both type of display.
Whereas I am unaware of the reverse being true-- that there are people who would simply refuse to buy an (Apple) computer that didn't have a glossy screen.
Is it really that costly to maintain extra inventory, compared to lost sales? I'm going to want a new desktop pretty soon, and I really like the looks of the iMac, but will be obliged to get a Mini and a matte monitor. I can't be the only one, or even a small minority. Is that really the direction Apple wants to drive sales?
I pre-ordered two months ago in South Africa, the distributors here have now been told by Apple that this model is not in production.
Also I have tried to make an order with BHPhotovideo today, they said the all Macbooks are now glossy screen only.
The option is still listed on Apple's website, but I suspect not for long.
UPDATE: Speculation could also be that there are faster MBP's coming out soon, whereby superseded models will not be fitted with anti glare
Does anybody have any ideas about the non-emotional content of my previous post? I read this site 3 or 4 times a week, and I didn't hear anything about Apple recently changing the specs of its MBP line. Is that old news?
(Just in case some think I'm trolling, I'm not. It took me nearly two years to say anything at all.)
It's exceedingly old news. Apple hasn't offered a 15" with an antiglare screen since the unibody machines came out last fall. The 17" always had the choice, and it was retained when the 17" went unibody in January. The resolutions of the screens have not changed. It sounds like you've been looking at the 17" all this time, because the 15" hasn't changed in quite a while.
I walked in and to the first guy that approached me I said, "My company is sick of Windows and has decided to switch entirely to Mac." I let him explain to me all the models and options (all 3 of them) and said "Sounds good sign me up." I proceeded to order 20 iMacs and a mix of 15 and 17 Uni MBPs. The guy's eyes went wide and he said let me check to see if we have all that in stock.
Because I was clearly a very important customer he dispatched a few of his guys and they started hauling the machines out of the back. We went up to the register and he rang everything up (I think it was a little over $50k+ tax), I took out the corporate amex and just before swiping it asked him...
"Can I get these in matte?"
He said no, but I wouldn't notice the difference. I told him I really just wanted them in matte and asked him to order them for me instead, that I didn't need them that day (knowing the response I was going to receive). He said they didn't make them in matte. I said "Well thats silly." and put away my card and proceeded to walk out.
I'm not sure if my point was passed up the chain of command but it certainly ruffled all the feathers in that Apple store and I felt like I had won a tiny battle. I'm not sure if this is a good tactic to take but I certainly felt like I got my point across more so than if I had simply complained on their forums, email, online store, etc. Perhaps if more people tried this we'd get our point across.
Frankly I won't be buying another mac if they don't come out with the matte option for the 15" and the fact that they now charge extra for this option (when it is available) is an insult. This older model MBP will be my last, and it's truly unfortunate, because I love OSX, I love all the apps, and I really liked my MBP.
I think it's a very stupid decision too and I'm not sure what their real reason is for it. Apple claim it's because significantly more people were buying the blinding glare models but I think they just wanted to do it themselves so they could avoid inventory issues by offering two types.
It means that not enough people were buying the anti-glare model to make it worth stocking both models. It's as simple as that. Apple is a company that intends to make money ... what do you expect?
If you really care, anti-glare plexiglass (or glass) is nothing more than a scuffed-up sheet of glass/plexiglass. I'm sure you can find someone to buff the screen. I'm serious: I used to design outdoor electronics. That's all it is. Anti-reflective coating is more complicated, but you can probably have that done, too.
If you really care, anti-glare plexiglass (or glass) is nothing more than a scuffed-up sheet of glass/plexiglass. I'm sure you can find someone to buff the screen. I'm serious: I used to design outdoor electronics. That's all it is. Anti-reflective coating is more complicated, but you can probably have that done, too.
One could imagine it be this crude, I think not though.
I'm not sure if my point was passed up the chain of command but it certainly ruffled all the feathers in that Apple store and I felt like I had won a tiny battle. I'm not sure if this is a good tactic to take but I certainly felt like I got my point across more so than if I had simply complained on their forums, email, online store, etc. Perhaps if more people tried this we'd get our point across.
Frankly I won't be buying another mac if they don't come out with the matte option for the 15" and the fact that they now charge extra for this option (when it is available) is an insult. This older model MBP will be my last, and it's truly unfortunate, because I love OSX, I love all the apps, and I really liked my MBP.
Yeah, that's a great way to let them know about any lack of critical options. I've felt like doing this on a few occasions.
I would just stand at the laptops and look around a little as though I needed help and then say I'm interested in buying one but ask if they had the matte versions in store pointing out the reflections in the screen telling them that my office is lit like their Apple store and yes I do notice the glare.
Having to concede that they simply don't have a product suitable enough times has to get the message across that consumers need options.
If you really care, anti-glare plexiglass (or glass) is nothing more than a scuffed-up sheet of glass/plexiglass. I'm sure you can find someone to buff the screen. I'm serious: I used to design outdoor electronics. That's all it is. Anti-reflective coating is more complicated, but you can probably have that done, too.
Yeah it should be that simple and there are a number of solutions like:
http://www.amazon.com/Glare-Buster-T.../dp/B0006OBRN4
but coatings aren't always applied right or they produce fuzzy images, grainy output, have uneven distribution and Apple sure won't cover any damage to the display under warranty. Apple's original anti-glare screens didn't have any issues at all.
Even if they offered a magnetic layer that just snapped onto the front of the display - the laptop displays are inset anyway.
It means that not enough people were buying the anti-glare model to make it worth stocking both models.
That's what they said anyway - we don't know the exact figures - and they said the same about the 4GB iphone but I would have bought one if it was available. Plus, it was a new thing that was introduced that happens to make the machines stand out more in the store. People like to buy nice, new, shiny things. It's only when they use them for a while that they get to know the flaws. But Apple are way too quick to make rash judgements about things and they've discontinued matte during the first batch of laptops that had them.
That's what they said anyway - we don't know the exact figures - and they said the same about the 4GB iphone but I would have bought one if it was available. .
If people were busting down the door for anti-glare screen covers, then you bet your ass that it would be an option, or possibly the only option.
And yes, an anti-glare screen cover is just a scuffed-up version of the normal version. There's a buffing process that in undergone to produce AG plexiglass, which typically is sold in 80% and 90% versions (refers to transparency). Thing is, if you've ever seen the solitary product on its own, you swear-off ever buying an AG screen cover! I may even have some lexan samples lying around somewhere ... If I can find them I'll post photos.
If people were busting down the door for anti-glare screen covers, then you bet your ass that it would be an option, or possibly the only option.
I agree but Apple used to sell 100% matte so by that logic, glossy should never have been introduced given that no one was buying or asking for glossy. They took a risk and introduced it and with it being a new thing, we are to believe people opted for it far more than matte because they thought it was better not because it was different. Now, the most popular model - the Macbook, was never available in matte since the Intel switch. What about people who didn't bother upgrading their ibooks/powerbooks?
There's also a question of ratios. Was it 60-40 in favor of glossy, 80-20? We don't know. I would say that anything higher than 20% deserves to remain as an option. If only a majority rules and a minority who consider another option superior can be ignored then applying the same thing to software, we shouldn't use OS X at all.
As I've said before, when I first became aware of the glossy screens with the Sony X-black displays, I was blown away by the saturated colors in store and at that time, I would have loved Apple to switch entirely. Now when I walk into a store, I feel very differently towards them because I am now aware of their flaws but I probably would have bought a first generation glossy.
And yes, an anti-glare screen cover is just a scuffed-up version of the normal version. There's a buffing process that in undergone to produce AG plexiglass, which typically is sold in 80% and 90% versions (refers to transparency). Thing is, if you've ever seen the solitary product on its own, you swear-off ever buying an AG screen cover! I may even have some lexan samples lying around somewhere ... If I can find them I'll post photos.
The photos would be good to see but in the end it still comes down to usability. All the details about how the cover affects the light etc doesn't change the fact that a matte screen is usable in almost all lighting conditions whereas glossy isn't.
I have the same issue with the iphone. I try to use it outside and I can barely see anything on the display without shielding it with my hand - I only have 2 hands though, one to hold the phone and one to shield it. I didn't have the problem with my old matte phone, although I can partly forgive this on the iphone because glass makes the touch experience great.
Maybe this is the real reason why they are planning the move to glass-based glossy. To pave the way for touch and make sure people are used to the display type. If it's for this reason, I would still fault them on not trying hard enough to use techniques on the glass to keep it smooth to touch but diffuse the glare.