Hey I was just wondering if you guys could go back and forth about 1,000 more times about how you hate each other making this the single longest two-person thread in AI history? Just saying get a room or something I hear that angry love can be therapeutic .
Currrent Apple glossy displays are already low-glare.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
After reading the first 141 comments in this thread, that's the funniest one yet. The current displays are so reflective that they should be called the MacMirror Pro line.
Seriously, you must be joking, right? Those are NOT low-glare screens, by any stretch of the imagination. I would love it if they kept the glass but upgraded it to something that's less reflective than a mirror, but that's just the way they are.
You can argue that you don't care, and that's fine. Most people apparently don't care, and have some sort of magical switch in their brain to turn off their awareness of reflections that are absolutely unequivocally there. Even in relatively low light there is enough light coming from the screen itself (when it's turned up moderately bright) to cause a reflection of yourself. What a joke.
I just went to our local Apple store 2 days ago because someone suggested looking at the newest models. But they are every bit as reflective as the previous ones.
So, NO, they are NOT low-glare screens. You can say you don't mind the reflections, but please don't spread misinformation.
The website http://macmatte.wordpress.com has a review of a number of online polls on the glossy and matte debate, and the average is that 40% prefer matte. So yes, 40% is a minority, but not a small minority. Some polls indicate 66% or 75% prefer matte, so it can depend. But the polls indicate it is a large portion of Mac users who prefer matte.
Ask yourself this question, if it weren't such a large majority, would these debates be so vociferous?
If you're one of those who thinks the matte crowd are small, but vocal, go to http://macmatte.wordpress.com and see the review of polls, and you're realize that the matte crowd is only loud because it is around 40% of Apple users, i.e. a large minority.
The matte crowd is vocal because the issue of how you feel at ease with a screen is fundamental to the computer user's experience.
Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.
You've gotta be kidding. Like Apple did their research that told them to remove Firewire from the MacBook -- and only after the outcry, they bring Firewire back in the latest MacBook?
Apple takes on the persona of its founder, Steve Jobs. The TIME magazine article indicates Steve is a dictator, and does not take kindly to people who differ with his opinions.
The website http://macmatte.wordpress.com has a review of a number of online polls on the glossy and matte debate, and the average is that 40% prefer matte. So yes, 40% is a minority, but not a small minority. Some polls indicate 66% or 75% prefer matte, so it can depend. But the polls indicate it is a large portion of Mac users who prefer matte.
Ask yourself this question, if it weren't such a large majority, would these debates be so vociferous?
If you're one of those who thinks the matte crowd are small, but vocal, go to http://macmatte.wordpress.com and see the review of polls, and you're realize that the matte crowd is only loud because it is around 40% of Apple users, i.e. a large minority.
The matte crowd is vocal because the issue of how you feel at ease with a screen is fundamental to the computer user's experience.
It?s not about the size of the market, it?s about Apple?s desire to address that market. I can?t see the engineering being complex or costly enough for Apple to ignore 40% of their potential market, but that is the way these polls usually go. They are usually worded in ways or put on certain websites that skew the polling, although internet polls themselves are flawed. For instance, do a poll to see if people prefer the AIO iMac or the elusive xMac. I?m sure you?ll find that most people responding to the polls want the xMac, but that doesn?t mean it?s viable for Apple. That is not to say that matte displays are out of the question for Apple, but we should at least to consider why Apple would not have the option on the 15? and 13? models after 9 months of the glossy displays. Or why they charge $50 more for a display that could potentially appeal to 40% or more of their customers when the cost doesn?t appear to be higher than the glossy display. Or why Apple stated that they moved to glossy because an overwhelming percentage of their customer-base preferred glossy if it wasn?t true. The re is no solution in calling people ignorant for not preferring glossy or calling Apple stupid for not offering what a particular person wants. Apple will do what is best for Apple, as all companies in a free market should do, but we can at least use some reasoning to figure potential process behind their thinking.
TS, I'm sorry, but everything i've seen from you in these forums leads me to believe that's just a bunch of transference; you aren't talking about someone else, you are talking about yourself. Reflect for a moment on your chosen screen name: it clearly evidences both your general attitude and your primary character trait here: arrogance and self superiority.
The glossy screens made people realize how fucking ugly they are because they can see their reflection in the screen and that led to their injuries.
Here is the problem with a matte screen: A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle. Came directly from Popular Mechanics.
If you don't like the glossy screens, go buy a different computer and shut the hell up. By the way, other computer manufacturers use glossy screens too, far longer than Apple has used them. In a Macworld poll, more people preferred the glossy screen.
The glossy screens made people realize how fucking ugly they are because they can see their reflection in the screen and that led to their injuries.
Here is the problem with a matte screen: A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle. Came directly from Popular Mechanics.
The hybrid screens are a decent in-between option, but like matte v. glossy they have their pros and cons, too. You never get the best features of the other.
I first mentioned the glare issues on Macbooks that Apple has acknowledged of. Does that mean I'm saying "glossy screen are definitely worse than matte and now only ignorant will use glossy screen. Glossy screen sucks and matte screen rules"? No. Ironically, you're the one who has been emphasizing the pros and cons of both sides!
I also mentioned that many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen in post #7. Does that mean I'm saying "whoever uses or likes glossy screen are ignorant"? Obviously not.
I'm glad that my words are recorded because it only goes to show your obviously inappropriate deduction.
By the way, I can say it again and again that many consumers, if not all, are ignorant. There, you have it and I can say that as many times as you like. That will not hide the fact that your misunderstanding is based on your own deduction.
Man, you are cracking me up and really made my day.
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
Oh... so that draws to the conclusion that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
Man, you are really cracking me up. You not only misread once, but four times.
You are the perfect candidate to use this famous quote. (Credited to R.M. Nixon, and others) Copy and Paste at will. I'll save you a whole lot of typing.
"I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
It’s that ol’ ingrained glossy-liking ignorance in me.
Keep dodging. Fine with me.
If you insist on your faulty deduction that you and user_23 have been making, thinking that the sentence "bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen" means that "glossy screen is necessarily worse than matte screen", you will inevitably come to a stupid conclusion that whatever better or good products (either glossy or matte screen) must have very few ignorant owners, if not none. In reality this has never been the case. I don't even need to argue for that.
The sentence "bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen" obviously does not mean that "all glossy screen users are ignorant". Come on. This is a simple logic.
Your signature "mechengit : "ignorant consumers like the glossy screen."" not only provides your pathetic intention of misleading, but also goes to show that the statement "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" is obviously based on your faulty deductions which are recorded clearly on this forum.
Of course, it's obvious that you're either dodging my points (and have been doing that for quite awhile) or really stupid to not understand, which I hope is not the case.
Seriously, what do you get from this other than embarrassing yourself especially when your misunderstanding isn't even because of the exact quote or paraphrase of what I said but rather your faulty deduction?
You are the perfect candidate to use this famous quote. (Credited to R.M. Nixon, and others) Copy and Paste at will. I'll save you a whole lot of typing.
"I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
And you are seemingly to be one of the idiots who happen to believe that good products have a very few ignorant users, if not none. Please stop trying to be a smart ass especially when you're only reading quotes taken out of context.
What exactly did you not like about the glossy screens? Did you have a lot of glare or reflections, or was it the colors seemed more purple and out of gamut? Did you calibrate them? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltman
The problem was glare and reflections. I work as a senior software developer so gamut, saturation etc is not a very big deal for me.
Ditto, ditto, ditto. Honestly, calibration is not a big deal for most people, although consumers tend to like things that are brighter and shinier, which the glossy screens are.
I wonder if software developers are less able to turn off parts of their vision? ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll
How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.
I think teckstud has a good point (OMG!). If you have a bunch of people sitting in fixed positions, then at least one set of people (if not more) are not going to be able to see parts of the screen. That would suck if you were in a class and couldn't see the screen due to the store light reflections.
I wll buy the new 13" LED model not because the screen is my choiuce buy because I have no option. I mean how long can I wait? At least now it is a brighter Pro LED not average LED like the previous 13" UNibody.
You're going to be sorry... :-( I guess if you spend your hard-earned cash to buy it you might be able to convince yourself over time that you like it, but because you see the reflections now (unlike so many) I doubt you'll ever get around that.
My suggestion? Look for a gently-used previous generation MBP w/matte screen. The newer screens may be brighter, but they have no less reflections than the previous version.
... The issue with the reflection is easily fixed by making sure you're not working in an environment that has a lot of light sources to create glare or reflections that would distract you. Anybody that's been using computers for more than 15 years should remember that in the early 90's glare was a real problem on CRTs.
Wow, so easy to say, but a laptop is designed for mobility. Unless you have a fixed desk with ideal lighting, how are you supposed to achieve "not working in an environment that has a lot of light sources to create glare or reflections that would distract you"?
I own a laptop so I can work wherever I'm at, be it in a client's office, a coffee shop, or at home. And "at home" can mean any comfortable seat in the house. Are you saying I should sacrifice all that flexibility? I might as well go back to a friggin' desktop (and deal with all kinds of bad back issues)!
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.
I've seen that quoted elsewhere, but where is it stated as more than rumor? It's also a very conveniently round number, that 10-1, I don't believe it. Do a bunch of googling and you'll find others who say matte outsold glossy by inverse ratios (various machines, not just Macs). Right now, of course glossy is outselling matte because that's what's more common in the stores.
Hey I was just wondering if you guys could go back and forth about 1,000 more times about how you hate each other making this the single longest two-person thread in AI history? Just saying get a room or something I hear that angry love can be therapeutic .
What can I say? The misunderstanding is not even based on any hard fact but on people's subjective feeling that I want to condemn all glossy screens in the world and thier users just because I said something like "many ignorant users like glossy screen." Seriously, do people know that products that they think are good might have many ignorant users as well? It's just so funny how people can't figure this out.
If anyone who is rational enough to put my word in context, I'm obviously trying to say that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen. They are either not able to acknowledge the issue or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros, which is an ignorant action itself. This is simply not equivalent to "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens in the world are worse screens than the matte ones.", especially when you put my words in context.
I'm definitely fine if anyone disagrees with my point of view on how Apple is going to deal with their screen, but the fact that pulling statements like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are worse screens than the matte ones" out from thin air and accusing me of saying those is simply wrong and unethical. They can't even quote such sentence from me and now they are dodging my defense. Worst of all, solipsism even intentionally put misleading signature by over-generalizing what I said:"mechengit : "ignorant consumers like the glossy screen."" which is VERY DIFFERENT from what I said: "many ignorant like the glossy screen". Really, what kind of learned adult is this?
It?s not about the size of the market, it?s about Apple?s desire to address that market. I can?t see the engineering being complex or costly enough for Apple to ignore 40% of their potential market, but that is the way these polls usually go. They are usually worded in ways or put on certain websites that skew the polling, although internet polls themselves are flawed. For instance, do a poll to see if people prefer the AIO iMac or the elusive xMac. I?m sure you?ll find that most people responding to the polls want the xMac, but that doesn?t mean it?s viable for Apple. That is not to say that matte displays are out of the question for Apple, but we should at least to consider why Apple would not have the option on the 15? and 13? models after 9 months of the glossy displays. Or why they charge $50 more for a display that could potentially appeal to 40% or more of their customers when the cost doesn?t appear to be higher than the glossy display. Or why Apple stated that they moved to glossy because an overwhelming percentage of their customer-base preferred glossy if it wasn?t true. ...
These are all very good thoughts and questions. Honestly, unless the polls are *grossly* wrong, I can't understand Apple's decision. The MacPolls poll has over 30,000 votes. It would be hard to imagine that poll being dreadfully wrong. For those who don't want to take the time to click away, here's what it says:
Prefer:
Glossy\t 32.31 % (10,007)
Matte\t 44.04 % (13,639)
Don't Know\t 23.65 % (7,324)
---------------
Total votes: 30,970
Yes, these are more likely to be experienced users than your average first-time purchaser, so that's one thing to take into account. But Apple, don't you want to keep the love with experienced users too?
The other thing to take note of is the number of "dont' know" (or we can presume "don't care") votes. Neither glossy nor matte has a majority. If you consider the market for switchers, newbies, and everyone else, you can probably bump the Don't Care votes to 40-50%. Seriously, they will buy whatever Apple makes. All this talk of Most People Prefer Glossy is hogwash. Neither do most people prefer matte. Most people just don't care. And Apple is catering to them with bright, shiny screens.
Meanwhile, they don't make a computer that I can use, and that sucks.
The glossy screens made people realize how fucking ugly they are because they can see their reflection in the screen and that led to their injuries.
Here is the problem with a matte screen: A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle. Came directly from Popular Mechanics.
If you don't like the glossy screens, go buy a different computer and shut the hell up. By the way, other computer manufacturers use glossy screens too, far longer than Apple has used them. In a Macworld poll, more people preferred the glossy screen.
You care to find a link to this poll please?
Thanks.
With this Queensland University of Technology report, combined with numerous user reports and preferences, the very slight color benefits of glossy displays doesn't seem outweigh the need to eliminate reflections.
Most people don't need the sharper contrasts etc., so bad that it obstructs the use of the computer. Apple can go ahead and make glossy displays, and say 10 to 1 buy them over matte, but if they are not offering the customer a full range of choices, then that's sort of skewing the results in the favor of glossy.
After all, who's counting the matte screen users who simply walks out of a Apple Store in disgust?
NO MATTE? - NO SALE!!
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford
"Our customers love the glossy displays" - Philip Schiller
Comments
Currrent Apple glossy displays are already low-glare.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
After reading the first 141 comments in this thread, that's the funniest one yet. The current displays are so reflective that they should be called the MacMirror Pro line.
Seriously, you must be joking, right? Those are NOT low-glare screens, by any stretch of the imagination. I would love it if they kept the glass but upgraded it to something that's less reflective than a mirror, but that's just the way they are.
You can argue that you don't care, and that's fine. Most people apparently don't care, and have some sort of magical switch in their brain to turn off their awareness of reflections that are absolutely unequivocally there. Even in relatively low light there is enough light coming from the screen itself (when it's turned up moderately bright) to cause a reflection of yourself. What a joke.
I just went to our local Apple store 2 days ago because someone suggested looking at the newest models. But they are every bit as reflective as the previous ones.
So, NO, they are NOT low-glare screens. You can say you don't mind the reflections, but please don't spread misinformation.
Ask yourself this question, if it weren't such a large majority, would these debates be so vociferous?
If you're one of those who thinks the matte crowd are small, but vocal, go to http://macmatte.wordpress.com and see the review of polls, and you're realize that the matte crowd is only loud because it is around 40% of Apple users, i.e. a large minority.
The matte crowd is vocal because the issue of how you feel at ease with a screen is fundamental to the computer user's experience.
Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.
You've gotta be kidding. Like Apple did their research that told them to remove Firewire from the MacBook -- and only after the outcry, they bring Firewire back in the latest MacBook?
Apple takes on the persona of its founder, Steve Jobs. The TIME magazine article indicates Steve is a dictator, and does not take kindly to people who differ with his opinions.
Anyway, this article has a misprint. There is a made-to order matte screen option; though, only on the 17" MBP.
The website http://macmatte.wordpress.com has a review of a number of online polls on the glossy and matte debate, and the average is that 40% prefer matte. So yes, 40% is a minority, but not a small minority. Some polls indicate 66% or 75% prefer matte, so it can depend. But the polls indicate it is a large portion of Mac users who prefer matte.
Ask yourself this question, if it weren't such a large majority, would these debates be so vociferous?
If you're one of those who thinks the matte crowd are small, but vocal, go to http://macmatte.wordpress.com and see the review of polls, and you're realize that the matte crowd is only loud because it is around 40% of Apple users, i.e. a large minority.
The matte crowd is vocal because the issue of how you feel at ease with a screen is fundamental to the computer user's experience.
It?s not about the size of the market, it?s about Apple?s desire to address that market. I can?t see the engineering being complex or costly enough for Apple to ignore 40% of their potential market, but that is the way these polls usually go. They are usually worded in ways or put on certain websites that skew the polling, although internet polls themselves are flawed. For instance, do a poll to see if people prefer the AIO iMac or the elusive xMac. I?m sure you?ll find that most people responding to the polls want the xMac, but that doesn?t mean it?s viable for Apple. That is not to say that matte displays are out of the question for Apple, but we should at least to consider why Apple would not have the option on the 15? and 13? models after 9 months of the glossy displays. Or why they charge $50 more for a display that could potentially appeal to 40% or more of their customers when the cost doesn?t appear to be higher than the glossy display. Or why Apple stated that they moved to glossy because an overwhelming percentage of their customer-base preferred glossy if it wasn?t true. The re is no solution in calling people ignorant for not preferring glossy or calling Apple stupid for not offering what a particular person wants. Apple will do what is best for Apple, as all companies in a free market should do, but we can at least use some reasoning to figure potential process behind their thinking.
And you're siding with the Master of them.
TS, I'm sorry, but everything i've seen from you in these forums leads me to believe that's just a bunch of transference; you aren't talking about someone else, you are talking about yourself. Reflect for a moment on your chosen screen name: it clearly evidences both your general attitude and your primary character trait here: arrogance and self superiority.
Here is the problem with a matte screen: A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle. Came directly from Popular Mechanics.
If you don't like the glossy screens, go buy a different computer and shut the hell up. By the way, other computer manufacturers use glossy screens too, far longer than Apple has used them. In a Macworld poll, more people preferred the glossy screen.
The glossy screens made people realize how fucking ugly they are because they can see their reflection in the screen and that led to their injuries.
Here is the problem with a matte screen: A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle. Came directly from Popular Mechanics.
The hybrid screens are a decent in-between option, but like matte v. glossy they have their pros and cons, too. You never get the best features of the other.
You still don't want to admit your inappropriate deductions? How pathetic.
From post #7
I first mentioned the glare issues on Macbooks that Apple has acknowledged of. Does that mean I'm saying "glossy screen are definitely worse than matte and now only ignorant will use glossy screen. Glossy screen sucks and matte screen rules"? No. Ironically, you're the one who has been emphasizing the pros and cons of both sides!
I also mentioned that many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen in post #7. Does that mean I'm saying "whoever uses or likes glossy screen are ignorant"? Obviously not.
I'm glad that my words are recorded because it only goes to show your obviously inappropriate deduction.
By the way, I can say it again and again that many consumers, if not all, are ignorant. There, you have it and I can say that as many times as you like. That will not hide the fact that your misunderstanding is based on your own deduction.
Man, you are cracking me up and really made my day.
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
Oh... so that draws to the conclusion that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
So does that mean I said that a glossy screen is necessarily a worse screen than a matte one?
Obviously not!
Man, you are really cracking me up. You not only misread once, but four times.
You are the perfect candidate to use this famous quote. (Credited to R.M. Nixon, and others) Copy and Paste at will. I'll save you a whole lot of typing.
"I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
It’s that ol’ ingrained glossy-liking ignorance in me.
Keep dodging. Fine with me.
If you insist on your faulty deduction that you and user_23 have been making, thinking that the sentence "bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen" means that "glossy screen is necessarily worse than matte screen", you will inevitably come to a stupid conclusion that whatever better or good products (either glossy or matte screen) must have very few ignorant owners, if not none. In reality this has never been the case. I don't even need to argue for that.
The sentence "bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen" obviously does not mean that "all glossy screen users are ignorant". Come on. This is a simple logic.
Your signature "mechengit : "ignorant consumers like the glossy screen."" not only provides your pathetic intention of misleading, but also goes to show that the statement "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" is obviously based on your faulty deductions which are recorded clearly on this forum.
Of course, it's obvious that you're either dodging my points (and have been doing that for quite awhile) or really stupid to not understand, which I hope is not the case.
Seriously, what do you get from this other than embarrassing yourself especially when your misunderstanding isn't even because of the exact quote or paraphrase of what I said but rather your faulty deduction?
You are the perfect candidate to use this famous quote. (Credited to R.M. Nixon, and others) Copy and Paste at will. I'll save you a whole lot of typing.
"I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
And you are seemingly to be one of the idiots who happen to believe that good products have a very few ignorant users, if not none. Please stop trying to be a smart ass especially when you're only reading quotes taken out of context.
What exactly did you not like about the glossy screens? Did you have a lot of glare or reflections, or was it the colors seemed more purple and out of gamut? Did you calibrate them? ...
The problem was glare and reflections. I work as a senior software developer so gamut, saturation etc is not a very big deal for me.
Ditto, ditto, ditto. Honestly, calibration is not a big deal for most people, although consumers tend to like things that are brighter and shinier, which the glossy screens are.
I wonder if software developers are less able to turn off parts of their vision? ;-)
How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.
I think teckstud has a good point (OMG!). If you have a bunch of people sitting in fixed positions, then at least one set of people (if not more) are not going to be able to see parts of the screen. That would suck if you were in a class and couldn't see the screen due to the store light reflections.
I wll buy the new 13" LED model not because the screen is my choiuce buy because I have no option. I mean how long can I wait? At least now it is a brighter Pro LED not average LED like the previous 13" UNibody.
You're going to be sorry... :-( I guess if you spend your hard-earned cash to buy it you might be able to convince yourself over time that you like it, but because you see the reflections now (unlike so many) I doubt you'll ever get around that.
My suggestion? Look for a gently-used previous generation MBP w/matte screen. The newer screens may be brighter, but they have no less reflections than the previous version.
... The issue with the reflection is easily fixed by making sure you're not working in an environment that has a lot of light sources to create glare or reflections that would distract you. Anybody that's been using computers for more than 15 years should remember that in the early 90's glare was a real problem on CRTs.
Wow, so easy to say, but a laptop is designed for mobility. Unless you have a fixed desk with ideal lighting, how are you supposed to achieve "not working in an environment that has a lot of light sources to create glare or reflections that would distract you"?
I own a laptop so I can work wherever I'm at, be it in a client's office, a coffee shop, or at home. And "at home" can mean any comfortable seat in the house. Are you saying I should sacrifice all that flexibility? I might as well go back to a friggin' desktop (and deal with all kinds of bad back issues)!
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
I've seen that quoted elsewhere, but where is it stated as more than rumor? It's also a very conveniently round number, that 10-1, I don't believe it. Do a bunch of googling and you'll find others who say matte outsold glossy by inverse ratios (various machines, not just Macs). Right now, of course glossy is outselling matte because that's what's more common in the stores.
Because people like bright and shiny!
...
Apple is selling over 50% of their Apple Store sales to NEW to Mac/first time users.
I have nothing against using glossy displays to sucker new users into a "look shiny" impulse purchase.
Just give us regulars/experienced types the option to have a matte option.
Yes, thank you! I couldn't have written it better.
Hey I was just wondering if you guys could go back and forth about 1,000 more times about how you hate each other making this the single longest two-person thread in AI history? Just saying get a room or something I hear that angry love can be therapeutic
What can I say? The misunderstanding is not even based on any hard fact but on people's subjective feeling that I want to condemn all glossy screens in the world and thier users just because I said something like "many ignorant users like glossy screen." Seriously, do people know that products that they think are good might have many ignorant users as well? It's just so funny how people can't figure this out.
If anyone who is rational enough to put my word in context, I'm obviously trying to say that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen. They are either not able to acknowledge the issue or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros, which is an ignorant action itself. This is simply not equivalent to "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens in the world are worse screens than the matte ones.", especially when you put my words in context.
I'm definitely fine if anyone disagrees with my point of view on how Apple is going to deal with their screen, but the fact that pulling statements like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are worse screens than the matte ones" out from thin air and accusing me of saying those is simply wrong and unethical. They can't even quote such sentence from me and now they are dodging my defense. Worst of all, solipsism even intentionally put misleading signature by over-generalizing what I said:"mechengit : "ignorant consumers like the glossy screen."" which is VERY DIFFERENT from what I said: "many ignorant like the glossy screen". Really, what kind of learned adult is this?
It?s not about the size of the market, it?s about Apple?s desire to address that market. I can?t see the engineering being complex or costly enough for Apple to ignore 40% of their potential market, but that is the way these polls usually go. They are usually worded in ways or put on certain websites that skew the polling, although internet polls themselves are flawed. For instance, do a poll to see if people prefer the AIO iMac or the elusive xMac. I?m sure you?ll find that most people responding to the polls want the xMac, but that doesn?t mean it?s viable for Apple. That is not to say that matte displays are out of the question for Apple, but we should at least to consider why Apple would not have the option on the 15? and 13? models after 9 months of the glossy displays. Or why they charge $50 more for a display that could potentially appeal to 40% or more of their customers when the cost doesn?t appear to be higher than the glossy display. Or why Apple stated that they moved to glossy because an overwhelming percentage of their customer-base preferred glossy if it wasn?t true. ...
These are all very good thoughts and questions. Honestly, unless the polls are *grossly* wrong, I can't understand Apple's decision. The MacPolls poll has over 30,000 votes. It would be hard to imagine that poll being dreadfully wrong. For those who don't want to take the time to click away, here's what it says:
Prefer:
Glossy\t 32.31 % (10,007)
Matte\t 44.04 % (13,639)
Don't Know\t 23.65 % (7,324)
---------------
Total votes: 30,970
Yes, these are more likely to be experienced users than your average first-time purchaser, so that's one thing to take into account. But Apple, don't you want to keep the love with experienced users too?
The other thing to take note of is the number of "dont' know" (or we can presume "don't care") votes. Neither glossy nor matte has a majority. If you consider the market for switchers, newbies, and everyone else, you can probably bump the Don't Care votes to 40-50%. Seriously, they will buy whatever Apple makes. All this talk of Most People Prefer Glossy is hogwash. Neither do most people prefer matte. Most people just don't care. And Apple is catering to them with bright, shiny screens.
Meanwhile, they don't make a computer that I can use, and that sucks.
The glossy screens made people realize how fucking ugly they are because they can see their reflection in the screen and that led to their injuries.
Here is the problem with a matte screen: A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle. Came directly from Popular Mechanics.
If you don't like the glossy screens, go buy a different computer and shut the hell up. By the way, other computer manufacturers use glossy screens too, far longer than Apple has used them. In a Macworld poll, more people preferred the glossy screen.
You care to find a link to this poll please?
Thanks.
With this Queensland University of Technology report, combined with numerous user reports and preferences, the very slight color benefits of glossy displays doesn't seem outweigh the need to eliminate reflections.
Most people don't need the sharper contrasts etc., so bad that it obstructs the use of the computer. Apple can go ahead and make glossy displays, and say 10 to 1 buy them over matte, but if they are not offering the customer a full range of choices, then that's sort of skewing the results in the favor of glossy.
After all, who's counting the matte screen users who simply walks out of a Apple Store in disgust?
NO MATTE? - NO SALE!!
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford
"Our customers love the glossy displays" - Philip Schiller