University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury

1235717

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 335
    i totally agree with this statement. i never was impressed with the "glossy" display concept. it makes visuals "appear" better to consumers. for professionals, no way! professional hated these glossy displays since day 1. the photo included in this post is a great example of the consequences of glossy vs. matte. seriously apple, what are you doing? there is nothing better than a glossy-free display. especially for long periods of time working.
  • Reply 82 of 335
    mechengitmechengit Posts: 133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You wrote: "People who tend to buy the 17" are more likely to be more aware and intelligent about the screen quality”

    How else is that be taken. Seriously.



    That doesn't mean most 17" Macbook Pro are going to go for matte screen. Like you said, you know many professionals that prefer glossy displays. Seriously, it is more than obvious that your conclusion of what I'm saying is drawn from your own deduction.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post




    If glare was such an issue then why do all their machine types come with glossy displays. Only one has an option for matte. Oh yeah, consumers are ignorant and 17” MBP owners are more aware and intelligent.



    There are pros and cons with each type, but most people prefer glossy. There are plenty of graphics-related professionals that prefer glossy displays. The inclusion of the matte option doesn’t miraculously validate your feelings that glossy is inherently bad and all consumers and professionals that prefer glossy are inherently stupid. Your preference is your preference, and I’m glad that Apple has an option for. I even hope they move that option down to their other MBP sizes, but that doesn’t mean that your preference should be the only option.



    I've never said that glossy screen itself is evil or essentially bad. I've used some glossy screens that have minimal glare. What I'm trying to say is that Apple is ignoring the glare issue when there is room for improvement because most users have no problem with the glare, despite that fact that there is a huge room for improvement.
  • Reply 83 of 335
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mechengit View Post


    Yours as well. People who can't acknowledge a problem doesn't mean there is no problem.



    Just because I don't perceive the same item as a problem that you do doesn't mean I'm ignorant, it just means that in your OPINION it's an issue, and in my opinion it's not.



    If you are unwilling to accept that it makes you intolerant and obstinate and maybe even a little narcissistic.



    It's a preference, not something like a law of physics
  • Reply 84 of 335
    macnycmacnyc Posts: 342member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mechengit View Post


    Apple knows that glossy screen has glaring issues. How do I know? Because they have an anti-glare option for the 17" MacBook Pro. They just don't want to admit the issue because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.



    What warped logic! The anti-glare option is exactly that: an "OPTION" for people who prefer non glossy.



    I've used both and I still don't see what the big deal is, but I guess that just makes me ignorant, right?
  • Reply 85 of 335
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    The only question is why focus on Apple. These screens have been around for quite some time, as has the problems identified. It makes no sense not to issue a general comment. Why focus on any particular manufacturer?



    Exactly. If they go to the trouble of naming Apple, they should also mention all other manufacturers of computer screens that use glossy screens. Whether intended or not this gives the appearance of a hatchet job against Apple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Where was this study when we had glossy CRT monitors and standard TV sets years back? I even remember using glossy monitor filters at that time. Well, I guess it is a university and somehow they need research funding.



    My previous employer IT people were going crazy because employees keep scratching their desktop LCD screen with their fingernails and their pens when they try to point out at things on the screen. LOL.



    The fact that CRTs are considered glossy is totally irrelevant, LCD screens come in both matte and glossy. And there obviously were concerns about CRT's glare, you could buy aftermarket screen covers, hoods, etc.



    Me, I'd prefer matte, but Apple hasn't called me for my advice.
  • Reply 86 of 335
    macnycmacnyc Posts: 342member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mechengit View Post


    That doesn't mean most 17" Macbook Pro are going to go for matte screen. Like you said, you know many professionals that prefer glossy displays. Seriously, it is more than obvious that your conclusion of what I'm saying is drawn from your own deduction.







    I've never said that glossy screen itself is evil or essentially bad. I've used some glossy screens that have minimal glare. What I'm trying to say is that Apple is ignoring the glare issue when there is room for improvement because most users have no problem with the glare, despite that fact that there is a huge room for improvement.



    WOW! Do you even proofread your comments to see if they make any sense at all?!
  • Reply 87 of 335
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mechengit View Post


    That doesn't mean most 17" Macbook Pro are going to go for matte screen. Like you said, you know many professionals that prefer glossy displays. Seriously, it is more than obvious that your conclusion of what I'm saying is drawn from your own deduction.



    So the few that go with the 17? matte are not ignorant and the ones that do go with the 17? glossy are ignorant.



    We?ve had this discussion before, many times in fact. While I?ve used both display types I much prefer glossy for the richer, more vibrant colours compared to the more washed out look of matte. Using a glossy display does limit you location choices if you are doing professional work, but that is not difficult to counter, but I wouldn?t imagine any such professionals would be working in such a free environment anyway. audio professionals don?t master audio with a lot background noise, so why would a visual professional work in an area with a lot of unregulated light sources producing glare.



    We?re just trying to point out that there are pros and cons for each display type.
  • Reply 88 of 335
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Apple wins awards and best competitors constantly for profit, supply chain efficiency and top revenue generation per square footage in their stores. So pardon me if I believe them more then a few disgruntled wags on the Internet.





    I also believe Apple makes more money by only offering glossy displays, but I (and I believe many other people) would be happier customers if Apple offered matte displays. Let's see the company with the best supply chain management really test itself by offering a broader range of options.



    BTW: when trying to support an argument, never appeal to "authority".
  • Reply 89 of 335
    mechengitmechengit Posts: 133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Just because I don't perceive the same item as a problem that you do doesn't mean I'm ignorant, it just means that in your OPINION it's an issue, and in my opinion it's not.



    If you are unwilling to accept that it makes you intolerant and obstinate and maybe even a little narcissistic.



    It's a preference, not something like a law of physics



    Well, guess what... I used some other glossy screen that haven't had much glare. Oh... the glare is a preference for you when Apple choose not to improve it even though they can? How about the 6-bit TN screen on the earlier Macbooks? Is that considered a preference for you as well?
  • Reply 90 of 335
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,282member
    Attempting to stem bad Ergonomics by the Individual via Apple moving back to a Matte screen are asinine. Bad posture will continue even with Matte screens.
  • Reply 91 of 335
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,896member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    The fact that Apple ONLY offers glossy screens on EVERY Mac they sell (excluding the $50 option of the 17" MBP) says absolutely nothing. If there's no choice, there's no point to be made.



    The "choice" is between a Mac with a glossy screen or some POS DOSBox from Dell or HP with a matte screen. NOT being able to run Mac OS X is NOT a choice, OR an option in my book.



    The thing I don't get is why some people who prefer glossy displays stoop to insulting those of us who prefer matte? It's ridiculous. That's like calling people idiots for the style or brand of headphones they prefer. I don't care if you like glossy screens, enjoy it, that's really not the issue.



    All we're asking of Apple is a choice. If I'm already going to spend upwards of $2500 for a BTO MacBook Pro, then forced to pay an extra $50 to get it with a matte screen, I won't like it, but so be it. I'll pay the $50. For something I'll be using EVERY day for 2 or 3 years, it's worth it to me. But I DO want a matte screen and would prefer not to be forced to dick around with anti-glare films or spend $200 and void my warranty to get the glass replaced.



    So, what's your problem?





    If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else. Thats my point. Apple isn't twisting everyone's arm to buy a Mac. If it pisses you off that much that Apple only offers a glossy display, then go find something else that suits your needs.



    I in now way insulted anyone with my post other than calling the quoted person ignorant for thinking everyone who likes glossy displays ignorant. His post makes no sense and his reply makes no sense. He just refused to acknowledge that just because he doesn't like them that everyone who does is an idiot.





    So should Apple offer it? Yeah, no problem. I don't have a problem with them offering the matte screen. There is a little extra engineering involved to get the matte display set in place correctly and steadily since it can't use the glass to keep it strong and steady. This I would assume would be the reason for the extra charge for the matte option.



    We also have to realize its not just as simple as just throwing a matte display in the case and calling it good. If it were that the case they would have just done it. Like I just said...there's extra engineering involved to make them work as they've designed their products with the glass cover. I don't think its in Apple's best interest to spend the extra time and money to design a product that will fit both glossy and matte displays when the glossy display would be the primary selection anyways. Like I said in my previous post, there are more people who like glossy displays than people who like matte displays. Just the matte display people are very vocal about the lack of the option which makes them seem like a very large crowd.



    I think Apple does acknowledge this issue, especially in the higher end Macs where its more of a problem. I think this is why there isn't a 30" LED Cinema yet. This is why there's the option for matte on the 17" MBP. These are the high end products Apple is concerned with on a professional basis and therefore offer the matte finish.
  • Reply 92 of 335
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Where was this study when we had glossy CRT monitors and standard TV sets years back? I even remember using glossy monitor filters at that time.



    The reason people used the antireflective filters was because early monitors and cheap monitors lacked antireflective coatings. One reason the AR filters were glossy is because it would be virtually impossible to apply a film smoothly and without wrinkles over the entire surface of a curved CRT. A matte filter that isn't in close contact with the display surface would blur the image to an unacceptable degree.
  • Reply 93 of 335
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rickag View Post


    The fact that CRTs are considered glossy is totally irrelevant, LCD screens come in both matte and glossy. And there obviously were concerns about CRT's glare, you could buy aftermarket screen covers, hoods, etc.



    There are also similar products for glossy screens. I used anti-glare screen protector for my first iPhone. After few months it had damage and I had to remove it and was shocked how awful the display was with the anti-glare looked. My current iPhone screen protector is not anti-glare. Sure, there are problems with glossy displays but there are also problems with matte screens as well. For example, cleaning matte screens with the wrong cloth can be a disaster.
  • Reply 94 of 335
    mechengitmechengit Posts: 133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    So the few that go with the 17” matte are not ignorant and the ones that do go with the 17” glossy are ignorant.



    Oh gosh... making your own deduction again. What I was trying to say is that since the 17" Macbook Pro buyers have a higher portion of users who are aware of the screen quality. It makes sense for Apple to give a matte screen option to choose from, especially when the fact that the glossy screen on Macbook Pro has the glare issue that is worse than some other glossy screens out there. I know there are good glossy screens that has much less glare than those on Macbook Pro.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    We’ve had this discussion before, many times in fact. While I’ve used both display types I much prefer glossy for the richer, more vibrant colours compared to the more washed out look of matte. Using a glossy display does limit you location choices if you are doing professional work, but that is not difficult to counter, but I wouldn’t imagine any such professionals would be working in such a free environment anyway. audio professionals don’t master audio with a lot background noise, so why would a visual professional work in an area with a lot of unregulated light sources producing glare.



    We’re just trying to point out that there are pros and cons for each display type.



    Are you trying to prove to me that you have reading problems? I already stated earlier that glossy screen is not in essence evil or bad and you spent another paragraph to prove a point that I have nothing against?
  • Reply 95 of 335
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mechengit View Post


    Well, guess what... I used some other glossy screen that haven't had much glare. Oh... the glare is a preference for you when Apple choose not to improve it even though they can? How about the 6-bit TN screen on the earlier Macbooks? Is that considered a preference for you as well?



    The discussion is about glare v. matte, so why even mention screen type?



    MacBooks have been using TN displays for years, like most notebook makers. I?d rather have a non-TN display that is glossy than a TN display that matte. You may think differently but that is why it?s an opinion AND an option for you.
  • Reply 96 of 335
    gyokurogyokuro Posts: 83member
    I have developed Carpal Tunnel from my iPhone's glossy screen cause I've had to tilt it slightly to the side to properly text. We human's have turned into a bunch of whiney pussies. OMG.



    People should seriously consider some of the world's real problems and maybe their own and realize how awesome a time it is to live in, and how some people are so spoiled to feel slighted by a stupid computer screen.



    Anyone feel the same?
  • Reply 97 of 335
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Where was this study when we had glossy CRT monitors and standard TV sets years back? I even remember using glossy monitor filters at that time.



    CRT monitors have a convex face, not flat like an LCD. That made the problem an order of magnitude or two less serious. Even then, many CRT monitors were made with matte surfaces. Anti glare filters were necessary in many cases even though the problem was less serious than with flat panels.



    All you have done is drawn attention to, and highlighted, how appalling Apple's use of flat gloss screens is, not justified it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    This comes form a country, where crocks, and sharks can kill and eat you, more people are stung by jellyfish, where a kangaroo could kick your ass, and more people die in cars because of impact with kangaroo, I think there is more to worry about then whether stupid people know how to adjust their screen to reduce glare..



    And the gloss screen comes from a country where the populace is heavily armed and over 75K people are killed with them per annum. Why shouldn't we be surprised.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KindredMac View Post


    stop the whining already......



    If people really hated them that much don't you think the MacBook would be a horrible sales flop?



    I've had my glossy MacBook since the first gen was introduced and I have no issues with it whatsoever.



    Just because they sell, doesn't mean people like them. I hate mine with a passion. I only bought it because my previous Powerbook died. I would have much preferred to have waited a few years until they bring back matte screens, but I had little choice if I wanted to keep using OSX. I didn't buy the plastic macbook because I didn't think it was structurally strong enough for my purposes. I now think I probably made an error and should have bought one. The Macbook has lousy audio, a lousy audio jack, no firewire and a wretched screen. If I had known about the first two issues prior to purchasing it, I don't think I would have bought it.



    I think I wouldn't be the only person to buy an Apple with a gloss screen despite the screen, not because of it.
  • Reply 98 of 335
    allblueallblue Posts: 393member
    In the early 90s I was running a hostel when a new raft of Health and Safety regulations came in. My favourite was the one where a man had to come and attach a small sign on the wall above every hot tap (faucet to our American friends) in every bathroom (and there were quite a few). The sign, written in red to emphasise the danger, read:



    Warning! Water from this tap may be hot!
  • Reply 99 of 335
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post


    If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else.



    Or hold off on "upgrading".



    Quote:

    Apple isn't twisting everyone's arm to buy a Mac. If it pisses you off that much that Apple only offers a glossy display, then go find something else that suits your needs.



    Yes, Apple isn't twisting my arm, but they are not making me happy. And I just might just go elsewhere. Thanks for the advice!



    Quote:

    So should Apple offer it? Yeah, no problem. I don't have a problem with them offering the matte screen. There is a little extra engineering involved...



    It's almost certainly not a matter of engineering--Apple has offered matte displays before as an option--but is entirely a matter of overhead, supply chain management and retail space limitations. How else would Apple do so well at supply chain management if it didn't limit customers' options?
  • Reply 100 of 335
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mechengit View Post


    That's what you said. If you think you're an ignorant that's your problem. I never said that.



    Sure you did when you made your broad, sweeping generalization.



    Quote:

    That is why Apple is going to stick with glossy screen, at least for awhile. Since everyone likes, so why bother?



    I don't think it's that at all - I think it has more to do with stocking extra SKU's.



    If it was enough of an issue where it was to their monetary benefit to do it, they would. It's not a vast conspiracy or "stubbornness" as some would like to believe
Sign In or Register to comment.