It's just funny to see how people take the sentence "many ignorant users like glossy screen" as "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap".
If you people just can't figure out that many products that you think are good might have many ignorant users as well, that's fine with me. I can't stop you from embarrassing yourself.
Mechingit your continual attempt to hide behind logical argument is just a joke. To be honest, I get the impression that you don't really understand the logical terms you are using, but you certainly seem to think you are some kind of super genius for your logic observations here. So, let's break it down and get to the core of what you say you were attempting to communicate, as opposed to what you accuse others of arguing you did communicate: Apparently, your argument is that you have 'deduced' that some consumers buy some products out of ignorance of some of the pros and cons of said products.
Is that correct? You are laying claim to that bit of intellectual achievement?
If that is what you are attempting to communicate, then thank you for the pointless observation. I think we all could have reached that conclusion without your help. However, you, I, and (I suspect) most others here know that is not what you were attempting to communicate. Here is what I suspect: I suspect that what is really going on, under the veneer of logical argument you want to hide behind, is that you think that making the choice for a matte screen, or at least a less reflective glossy, is the superior choice, and you believe that people who have chosen otherwise have done so because they are ignorant of the factors that you considered when coming to your conclusion. Your reasoning is based on the assumption of your own logical infallibility; it revolves around you and what youthink. It is not 'logical' and it is certainly what could be considered 'faulty deduction.' It is also quite narcissistic and juvenile.
If it?s a fact, produce a single post where i said Apple will produce no more matte displays. Note, finding a post that states my preference for glossy is not a Teckstudian disdain for matte, nor is concrete statement that matte is going away forever. One day, you?ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.
Wrong. Where is the market for the failing shuffle? Where is the market for the AppleTV?
If it’s a fact, produce a single post where i said Apple will produce no more matte displays. Note, finding a post that states my preference for glossy is not a Teckstudian disdain for matte, nor is concrete statement that matte is going away forever. One day, you’ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.
Right and that's the reason why firewire was omitted then re-instated. You are so full of it. Stop already- you are embarassing yourself!
Wrong. Where is the market for the failing shuffle? Where is the market for the AppleTV?
1) You say that it?s failing from reading a report that sales have subsided months after the initial launch. That is not the mentality of an adult to speak in such terms, at least not where I grew up.
2) The AppleTV is a hobby, it?s a placeholder for Apple?s media in your home. Not everything has to sell like the iPod to be a success. It also appears to be the most successful standalone media extender appliance on the market.
I suggest you read it then comprehend it. End of story.
Common sense, my friend, common sense. No "thesis" required.
I have read it and it is a good point. Reformulating it: in a badly lit training room/area in which students share screens and the displays have glare issues, some students won't be able to see well.
I have not recently visited that particular store so I do not know if these conditions are met. Assume that they are: does this make it a fact that Apple use the old displays because of this possible problem? Only Apple knows. So, why state your opinion in CAPS categorically as if it were fact? Why attack others who said "well, there is another plausible reason". And finally, just because someone with reasoning ability came to your rescue with a plausible justification, does this make it "End of story"? So we are supposed to shut up and accept this as fact, are we?
PS Having looked up the word "thesis" you are not quite so sure that you knew what it meant now, are you?
Right and that's the reason why firewire was omitted then re-instated. You are so full of it. Stop already- you are embarassing yourself!
FW400 was removed from a MB. FW has never left the MBP line. As stated in the posts you continually fail to read, I predicted this move many times over.
PS: I am simply fascinated by whatever it is that make it impossible to comprehend the English language. Or is it your inability to admit when you are wrong despite the evidence presented to you. Rod Blagojevich could learn from you.
PPS: Don?t you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?
Mechingit your continual attempt to hide behind logical argument is just a joke. To be honest, I get the impression that you don't really understand the logical terms you are using, but you certainly seem to think you are some kind of super genius for your logic observations here. So, let's break it down and get to the core of what you say you were attempting to communicate, as opposed to what you accuse others of arguing you did communicate: Apparently, your argument is that you have 'deduced' that some consumers buy some products out of ignorance of some of the pros and cons of said products. Is that correct? You are laying claim to that bit of intellectual achievement?
If that is what you are attempting to communicate, then thank you for the pointless observation. I think we all could have reached that conclusion without your help.
Apparently you keep dodging my points and keep bringing your subjective feeling of what you think/want me to say.
You and solipsism again and again failed to quote any wording like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap" from me, but continually accusing me of saying those. The quote you keep bringing up is "many ignorant users like glossy screen" which your misunderstanding is derived from. That apparently does not mean "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or whatsoever. This is more than obvious that you are making the deduction based on what you want me to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
However, you, I, and (I suspect) most others here know that is not what you were attempting to communicate.
How convenient... you and those who responded me negatively represent the most others, based on what you suspect? Oh, let's ignore those who actually understand what I'm really saying because that doesn't match with what you suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
Here is what I suspect: I suspect that what is really going on....
Isn't this apparent that what you think I mean is based on what you suspect and what you think/want me to say, not even hard facts or quotes? Accusing me of making deduction while coming up with a deduction that is based on what you suspect? I rest my case.
Is this what I should expect from someone who have a solid record of misreading what I said earlier? Randomly questioning me the comparison of matte and glossy cost even though I didn't mention a word about such comparison? Seriously, now he is telling me that he represents the "most others"? I hope that isn't the case.
Apparently you keep dodging my points and keep bringing your subjective feeling of what you think/want me to say.
You and solipsism again and again failed to quote any wording like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap" from me, but continually accusing me of saying those. The quote you keep bringing up is "many ignorant users like glossy screen" which your misunderstanding is derived from. That apparently does not mean "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or whatsoever. This is more than obvious that you are making the deduction based on what you want me to say.
How convenient... you and those who responded me negatively represent the most others, based on what you suspect? Oh, let's ignore those who actually understand what I'm really saying because that doesn't match with what you suspect.
Isn't this apparent that your obvious deduction you're making now is based on what you suspect and what you think/want me to say, not even hard facts or quotes? I rest my case.
Is this what I should expect from someone who have a solid record of misreading what I said earlier? Randomly questioning me the comparison of matte and glossy cost even though I didn't mention a word about such comparison? Seriously, now he is telling me that he represents the "most others"? I hope that isn't the case.
The actual issue, mech, is that you do not have a point. If you do, I encourage you to make it right now, succinctly and directly. What is your argument?
I have read it and it is a good point. Reformulating it: in a badly lit training room/area in which students share screens and the displays have glare issues, some students won't be able to see well.
I have not recently visited that particular store so I do not know if these conditions are met. Assume that they are: does this make it a fact that Apple use the old displays because of this possible problem? Only Apple knows. So, why state your opinion in CAPS categorically as if it were fact? Why attack others who said "well, there is another plausible reason". And finally, just because someone with reasoning ability came to your rescue with a plausible justification, does this make it "End of story"? So we are supposed to shut up and accept this as fact, are we?
PS Having looked up the word "thesis" you are not quite so sure that you knew what it meant now, are you?
Why would Apple use their old technology they don't sell anymore? Think before you write.
The actual issue, mech, is that you do not have a point. If you do, I encourage you to make it right now, succinctly and directly. What is your argument?
For crying out loud, I'm doing this pointless defense because you folks started the tangent of accusing me of saying something that I have not said in the first place.
I emphasized my points/arguments several times, but you kept accusing me of backpedaling yet you have failed to prove that I have said anything that you think I backpedaled from.
What I'm trying to say is that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed or improved on particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen and they are either not able to acknowledge or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros which is an ignorant action itself, especially when the glare issue is something that Apple can fix but chose not to. If you don't agree that the glare on the Macbook Pros is an issue or anyone should be bothered by it, that is fine with me.
However... pulling statements out from thin air and accusing me of saying such statements is simply wrong.
Am I saying or implying that all glossy screens have no pros or advantages at all? No.
Am I saying or implying that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant? No.
Just because there are many ignorant users that use a certain product does not mean that the product itself is necessarily bad. This is a simple logic.
FW400 was removed from a MB. FW has never left the MBP line. As stated in the posts you continually fail to read, I predicted this move many times over.
PS: I am simply fascinated by whatever it is that make it impossible to comprehend the English language. Or is it your inability to admit when you are wrong despite the evidence presented to you. Rod Blagojevich could learn from you.
PPS: Don’t you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?
Are you a ROBOT? You keep spewing the same tired mantra whenever someone backs you into a corner:
Quote:
One day, you’ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.
Only a ROBOT would say anything that asinine over and over. What's next: " Danger- Aliens approaching!" ?? Geesh!
For crying out loud, I'm doing this pointless defense because you folks started the tangent of accusing me of saying something that I have not said in the first place.
I emphasized my points/arguments several times, but you kept accusing me of backpedaling yet you have failed to prove that I have said anything that you think I backpedaled from.
What I'm trying to say is that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed or improved on particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen and they are either not able to acknowledge or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros which is an ignorant action itself, especially when the glare issue is something that Apple can fix but chose not to. If you don't agree that the glare on the Macbook Pros is an issue or anyone should be bothered by it, that is fine with me.
However... pulling statements out from thin air and accusing me of saying such statements is simply wrong.
Am I saying or implying that all glossy screens have no pros or advantages at all? No.
Am I saying or implying that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant? No.
Just because there are many ignorant users that use a certain product does not mean that the product itself is necessarily bad. This is a simple logic.
If you ever question anything that Apple currently does not have or issues Apple has problems with - you will be attacked. Pay them no mind. They can't think for themselves- plain and simple.
...I really don't understand why Apple has abandoned non glare as an option. This is a rare step back in ergonomics, and a medium sized blunder as far as I am concerned.
I know why Apple choose to go glossy.
It's because HP, Apple's former ally, wanted to storm into the consumer market (Apple's turf) and was first to introduce this glossy crap. HP found out that people are suckers for shiny objects with bright colors and it increased sales.
So it sort of forced Apple's hand, but that doesn't excuse the reason for not offering a matte option on all their models either.
...You and mechengit need to learn that words have meaning, you should think before you type and that no amount of backpedaling is going to help when there is written proof of your lies all over the place.
Some people don't have as such a strong command of the English language as others. So one has to make allowances and look for the true meaning when reading others posts, or ask them to clarify it, or just ignore it if it's a problem.
It's because HP, Apple's former ally, wanted to storm into the consumer market (Apple's turf) and was first to introduce this glossy crap. HP found out that people are suckers for shiny objects with bright colors and it increased sales.
So it sort of forced Apple's hand, but that doesn't excuse the reason for not offering a matte option on all their models either.
I thought it was to get a better (GOLD) rating from EPEAT due to the fact that it's now an arsenic free display that needs glass on its front which decomposes easier. All AL Gore BS.
Why would Apple use their old technology they don't sell anymore? Think before you write.
Closing your post with "think before you write" does not lend additional credibility to your opinion. Stop resorting to personal attacks. I do think, I just have a different opinion. You have not provided additional arguments, you repeat the question as if it had an obvious, single answer: the one you like. It does not.
If there were a problem (as far as Apple are concerned) with the new displays, perhaps it would not be so good to draw attention to it by using "old technology". Do I hear you saying "Nonsense, it's not that old and it is just for training, who would notice?". Precisely. Which means that it is just as logical to assume that they haven't bothered to change the displays yet; or they are connected to old kit which does not have the new mini display ports; or that this "old technology" is not selling so they had to find something to do with it; <insert other theory here>...
The point you seem to fail to grasp is that your opinion, while respected, is not a fact. We don't have to agree with it (and vice versa, of course). If you could formulate your opinions as such, and respect those voiced by others, then we would not be having these pointless exchanges.
The point you seem to fail to grasp is that your opinion, while respected, is not a fact. We don't have to agree with it (and vice versa, of course). If you could formulate your opinions as such, and respect those voiced by others, then we would not be having these pointless exchanges.
Listen ratpoll- It is a fact. I was there- you weren't. You can't view a glossy screen with mutiple flourescent lights bouncing off all over it. Are you that dense? Apple would put an old matte screen in the middle of their display floor for any other reason?
You simply can't view it from multiple angles with all those reflections. Geesh!
And by the way - it's the best looking screen on the floor, save the new 17" matte.
Comments
It's just funny to see how people take the sentence "many ignorant users like glossy screen" as "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap".
If you people just can't figure out that many products that you think are good might have many ignorant users as well, that's fine with me. I can't stop you from embarrassing yourself.
Mechingit your continual attempt to hide behind logical argument is just a joke. To be honest, I get the impression that you don't really understand the logical terms you are using, but you certainly seem to think you are some kind of super genius for your logic observations here. So, let's break it down and get to the core of what you say you were attempting to communicate, as opposed to what you accuse others of arguing you did communicate: Apparently, your argument is that you have 'deduced' that some consumers buy some products out of ignorance of some of the pros and cons of said products.
Is that correct? You are laying claim to that bit of intellectual achievement?
If that is what you are attempting to communicate, then thank you for the pointless observation. I think we all could have reached that conclusion without your help. However, you, I, and (I suspect) most others here know that is not what you were attempting to communicate. Here is what I suspect: I suspect that what is really going on, under the veneer of logical argument you want to hide behind, is that you think that making the choice for a matte screen, or at least a less reflective glossy, is the superior choice, and you believe that people who have chosen otherwise have done so because they are ignorant of the factors that you considered when coming to your conclusion. Your reasoning is based on the assumption of your own logical infallibility; it revolves around you and what you think. It is not 'logical' and it is certainly what could be considered 'faulty deduction.' It is also quite narcissistic and juvenile.
If it?s a fact, produce a single post where i said Apple will produce no more matte displays. Note, finding a post that states my preference for glossy is not a Teckstudian disdain for matte, nor is concrete statement that matte is going away forever. One day, you?ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.
Wrong. Where is the market for the failing shuffle? Where is the market for the AppleTV?
If it’s a fact, produce a single post where i said Apple will produce no more matte displays. Note, finding a post that states my preference for glossy is not a Teckstudian disdain for matte, nor is concrete statement that matte is going away forever. One day, you’ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.
Right and that's the reason why firewire was omitted then re-instated. You are so full of it. Stop already- you are embarassing yourself!
Wrong. Where is the market for the failing shuffle? Where is the market for the AppleTV?
1) You say that it?s failing from reading a report that sales have subsided months after the initial launch. That is not the mentality of an adult to speak in such terms, at least not where I grew up.
2) The AppleTV is a hobby, it?s a placeholder for Apple?s media in your home. Not everything has to sell like the iPod to be a success. It also appears to be the most successful standalone media extender appliance on the market.
Perhaps you missed this from Blah64:
...
I suggest you read it then comprehend it. End of story.
Common sense, my friend, common sense. No "thesis" required.
I have read it and it is a good point. Reformulating it: in a badly lit training room/area in which students share screens and the displays have glare issues, some students won't be able to see well.
I have not recently visited that particular store so I do not know if these conditions are met. Assume that they are: does this make it a fact that Apple use the old displays because of this possible problem? Only Apple knows. So, why state your opinion in CAPS categorically as if it were fact? Why attack others who said "well, there is another plausible reason". And finally, just because someone with reasoning ability came to your rescue with a plausible justification, does this make it "End of story"? So we are supposed to shut up and accept this as fact, are we?
PS Having looked up the word "thesis" you are not quite so sure that you knew what it meant now, are you?
Right and that's the reason why firewire was omitted then re-instated. You are so full of it. Stop already- you are embarassing yourself!
FW400 was removed from a MB. FW has never left the MBP line. As stated in the posts you continually fail to read, I predicted this move many times over.
PS: I am simply fascinated by whatever it is that make it impossible to comprehend the English language. Or is it your inability to admit when you are wrong despite the evidence presented to you. Rod Blagojevich could learn from you.
PPS: Don?t you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?
Wrong. Where is the market for the failing shuffle? Where is the market for the AppleTV?
In what way do these questions possibly address the very simple request below?
If it’s a fact, produce a single post where i said Apple will never produce another matte displays. ...
Mechingit your continual attempt to hide behind logical argument is just a joke. To be honest, I get the impression that you don't really understand the logical terms you are using, but you certainly seem to think you are some kind of super genius for your logic observations here. So, let's break it down and get to the core of what you say you were attempting to communicate, as opposed to what you accuse others of arguing you did communicate: Apparently, your argument is that you have 'deduced' that some consumers buy some products out of ignorance of some of the pros and cons of said products. Is that correct? You are laying claim to that bit of intellectual achievement?
If that is what you are attempting to communicate, then thank you for the pointless observation. I think we all could have reached that conclusion without your help.
Apparently you keep dodging my points and keep bringing your subjective feeling of what you think/want me to say.
You and solipsism again and again failed to quote any wording like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap" from me, but continually accusing me of saying those. The quote you keep bringing up is "many ignorant users like glossy screen" which your misunderstanding is derived from. That apparently does not mean "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or whatsoever. This is more than obvious that you are making the deduction based on what you want me to say.
However, you, I, and (I suspect) most others here know that is not what you were attempting to communicate.
How convenient... you and those who responded me negatively represent the most others, based on what you suspect? Oh, let's ignore those who actually understand what I'm really saying because that doesn't match with what you suspect.
Here is what I suspect: I suspect that what is really going on....
Isn't this apparent that what you think I mean is based on what you suspect and what you think/want me to say, not even hard facts or quotes? Accusing me of making deduction while coming up with a deduction that is based on what you suspect? I rest my case.
Is this what I should expect from someone who have a solid record of misreading what I said earlier? Randomly questioning me the comparison of matte and glossy cost even though I didn't mention a word about such comparison? Seriously, now he is telling me that he represents the "most others"? I hope that isn't the case.
Apparently you keep dodging my points and keep bringing your subjective feeling of what you think/want me to say.
You and solipsism again and again failed to quote any wording like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap" from me, but continually accusing me of saying those. The quote you keep bringing up is "many ignorant users like glossy screen" which your misunderstanding is derived from. That apparently does not mean "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or whatsoever. This is more than obvious that you are making the deduction based on what you want me to say.
How convenient... you and those who responded me negatively represent the most others, based on what you suspect? Oh, let's ignore those who actually understand what I'm really saying because that doesn't match with what you suspect.
Isn't this apparent that your obvious deduction you're making now is based on what you suspect and what you think/want me to say, not even hard facts or quotes? I rest my case.
Is this what I should expect from someone who have a solid record of misreading what I said earlier? Randomly questioning me the comparison of matte and glossy cost even though I didn't mention a word about such comparison? Seriously, now he is telling me that he represents the "most others"? I hope that isn't the case.
The actual issue, mech, is that you do not have a point. If you do, I encourage you to make it right now, succinctly and directly. What is your argument?
In what way do these questions possibly address the very simple request below?
it doesn''t- who said it did?
I have read it and it is a good point. Reformulating it: in a badly lit training room/area in which students share screens and the displays have glare issues, some students won't be able to see well.
I have not recently visited that particular store so I do not know if these conditions are met. Assume that they are: does this make it a fact that Apple use the old displays because of this possible problem? Only Apple knows. So, why state your opinion in CAPS categorically as if it were fact? Why attack others who said "well, there is another plausible reason". And finally, just because someone with reasoning ability came to your rescue with a plausible justification, does this make it "End of story"? So we are supposed to shut up and accept this as fact, are we?
PS Having looked up the word "thesis" you are not quite so sure that you knew what it meant now, are you?
Why would Apple use their old technology they don't sell anymore? Think before you write.
The actual issue, mech, is that you do not have a point. If you do, I encourage you to make it right now, succinctly and directly. What is your argument?
For crying out loud, I'm doing this pointless defense because you folks started the tangent of accusing me of saying something that I have not said in the first place.
I emphasized my points/arguments several times, but you kept accusing me of backpedaling yet you have failed to prove that I have said anything that you think I backpedaled from.
What I'm trying to say is that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed or improved on particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen and they are either not able to acknowledge or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros which is an ignorant action itself, especially when the glare issue is something that Apple can fix but chose not to. If you don't agree that the glare on the Macbook Pros is an issue or anyone should be bothered by it, that is fine with me.
However... pulling statements out from thin air and accusing me of saying such statements is simply wrong.
Am I saying or implying that all glossy screens have no pros or advantages at all? No.
Am I saying or implying that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant? No.
Just because there are many ignorant users that use a certain product does not mean that the product itself is necessarily bad. This is a simple logic.
FW400 was removed from a MB. FW has never left the MBP line. As stated in the posts you continually fail to read, I predicted this move many times over.
PS: I am simply fascinated by whatever it is that make it impossible to comprehend the English language. Or is it your inability to admit when you are wrong despite the evidence presented to you. Rod Blagojevich could learn from you.
PPS: Don’t you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?
Are you a ROBOT? You keep spewing the same tired mantra whenever someone backs you into a corner:
One day, you’ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.
Only a ROBOT would say anything that asinine over and over. What's next: " Danger- Aliens approaching!" ?? Geesh!
For crying out loud, I'm doing this pointless defense because you folks started the tangent of accusing me of saying something that I have not said in the first place.
I emphasized my points/arguments several times, but you kept accusing me of backpedaling yet you have failed to prove that I have said anything that you think I backpedaled from.
What I'm trying to say is that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed or improved on particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen and they are either not able to acknowledge or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros which is an ignorant action itself, especially when the glare issue is something that Apple can fix but chose not to. If you don't agree that the glare on the Macbook Pros is an issue or anyone should be bothered by it, that is fine with me.
However... pulling statements out from thin air and accusing me of saying such statements is simply wrong.
Am I saying or implying that all glossy screens have no pros or advantages at all? No.
Am I saying or implying that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant? No.
Just because there are many ignorant users that use a certain product does not mean that the product itself is necessarily bad. This is a simple logic.
If you ever question anything that Apple currently does not have or issues Apple has problems with - you will be attacked. Pay them no mind. They can't think for themselves- plain and simple.
...I really don't understand why Apple has abandoned non glare as an option. This is a rare step back in ergonomics, and a medium sized blunder as far as I am concerned.
I know why Apple choose to go glossy.
It's because HP, Apple's former ally, wanted to storm into the consumer market (Apple's turf) and was first to introduce this glossy crap. HP found out that people are suckers for shiny objects with bright colors and it increased sales.
So it sort of forced Apple's hand, but that doesn't excuse the reason for not offering a matte option on all their models either.
...You and mechengit need to learn that words have meaning, you should think before you type and that no amount of backpedaling is going to help when there is written proof of your lies all over the place.
Some people don't have as such a strong command of the English language as others. So one has to make allowances and look for the true meaning when reading others posts, or ask them to clarify it, or just ignore it if it's a problem.
No sense going round and round about it.
Right?
I know why Apple choose to go glossy.
It's because HP, Apple's former ally, wanted to storm into the consumer market (Apple's turf) and was first to introduce this glossy crap. HP found out that people are suckers for shiny objects with bright colors and it increased sales.
So it sort of forced Apple's hand, but that doesn't excuse the reason for not offering a matte option on all their models either.
I thought it was to get a better (GOLD) rating from EPEAT due to the fact that it's now an arsenic free display that needs glass on its front which decomposes easier. All AL Gore BS.
As stated in the posts you continually fail to read, I predicted this move many times over.
Go to any MacWorld or Consumer Reports review of Apple products and what do you see in the Con column? "GLOSSY SCREENS."
I Can't help it if you don't know how to read. End of story.
Why would Apple use their old technology they don't sell anymore? Think before you write.
Closing your post with "think before you write" does not lend additional credibility to your opinion. Stop resorting to personal attacks. I do think, I just have a different opinion. You have not provided additional arguments, you repeat the question as if it had an obvious, single answer: the one you like. It does not.
If there were a problem (as far as Apple are concerned) with the new displays, perhaps it would not be so good to draw attention to it by using "old technology". Do I hear you saying "Nonsense, it's not that old and it is just for training, who would notice?". Precisely. Which means that it is just as logical to assume that they haven't bothered to change the displays yet; or they are connected to old kit which does not have the new mini display ports; or that this "old technology" is not selling so they had to find something to do with it; <insert other theory here>...
The point you seem to fail to grasp is that your opinion, while respected, is not a fact. We don't have to agree with it (and vice versa, of course). If you could formulate your opinions as such, and respect those voiced by others, then we would not be having these pointless exchanges.
The point you seem to fail to grasp is that your opinion, while respected, is not a fact. We don't have to agree with it (and vice versa, of course). If you could formulate your opinions as such, and respect those voiced by others, then we would not be having these pointless exchanges.
Listen ratpoll- It is a fact. I was there- you weren't. You can't view a glossy screen with mutiple flourescent lights bouncing off all over it. Are you that dense? Apple would put an old matte screen in the middle of their display floor for any other reason?
You simply can't view it from multiple angles with all those reflections. Geesh!
And by the way - it's the best looking screen on the floor, save the new 17" matte.