I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?
I DID NOT SAY that glossy screen is more expensive to manufacture than a matte screen AT ALL. You guys are driving me crazy.
Let me quote myself again and read CAREFULLY, please.
"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
"...because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen." DOES NOT MEAN "whoever like these glossy screens are ignorant"
What I see in your comments is a lot of back-peddling. You said what you said, and the implication in what you said is very very clear to virtually anyone reading it but you. Either you aren't very competent to express yourself using the English language or you know very well the implication you made and now you are disingenuously spinning like mad to paint everyone who has responded as ignorant and incapable of reading.
Come to think of it, there is a common thread there: you being much smarter and and less 'ignorant' than everyone else. You might want to think about that; us ignorant types out here are more inclined to recognize that as a huge ego with arrogance to match than to see your obvious superiority at grammar, reading, and monitor selection.
On the one hand, seeing the reflection of your ugly face in the screen could lead to depression and then, suicide.
On the other, the gloss screen may act as a rearview mirror and let you notice attackers approaching you from behind, giving you time to successfully defend yourself. So, in this way, the glossy screen is actually life-saving.
I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?
I think they are trying to say that there are more expensive glossy screens out there which handle glare better than Apple's line of glossy screens.
Currrent Apple glossy displays are already low-glare.
Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
They probably ditched the Matte option because it added additional cost to keep that option in on the 13" and the 15" lines when too few people asked for it.
If I were running a business, and it was costing me money to leave a little used option in a product line, I would 86 that option.
The matte option is more expensive than the glossy to produce. The matte option is simply a plastic coating that goes over the glass, much like the anti-glare coating you get added to your eye glasses.
-they ditched it because it wasn't environmentally friendly. Do you all remember this began back with the ugly racoon glossy iMac- the "best" envitonmentally friendly" iMac? No one asked for glossy- it was jammed down our throats by Al Gore on the Board of Directors.
Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
On the other hand, which manufacturer is producing these screens you are talking about.
I'm genuinely interested in seeing one of these things in person as my MBP handles glare quite well in my experience.
I'm not at all surprised with the university's recommendation. It may be pretty worse-case, but is generally correct.
I have a broad background as an industrial designer, designing products that meet not only industrial design criteria, but human factors requirements, as well. I have enough experience designing displays to call myself an expert with this type of product. We NEVER would have designed a product with a glossy display. I have been very surprised that Apple, a company well-known for excellent design, has done this.
Glossy displays have the advantage of being clearer because you are seeing the display generator through an essentially flat "window" that does not distort the image. Unfortunately, this flat surface can also result in glare because of lights or lighter surfaces being reflected on the display. If this occurs, you can't see the display at all!
Displays with some type of anti-glare surface, will appear slightly distorted, because you're seeing the display generator through an uneven surface. Designers must choose the particular anti-glare solution carefully as to minimize the dulling effect while maximizing the glare reduction. This does cost money but is generally felt to be necessary. As I began, we NEVER designed a display with a glossy surface for this reason. The use of some type of anti-glare solution was just assumed.
I don't know who is responsible for human factors or ergonomics at Apple these days, but Jonathan Ive should know better than to do this. It certainly would be interesting to see him defend this design.
What I see in your comments is a lot of back-peddling. You said what you said, and the implication in what you said is very very clear to virtually anyone reading it but you. Either you aren't very competent to express yourself using the English language or you know very well the implication you made and now you are disingenuously spinning like mad to paint everyone who has responded as ignorant and incapable of reading.
Come to think of it, there is a common thread there: you being much smarter and and less 'ignorant' than everyone else. You might want to think about that; us ignorant types out here are more inclined to recognize that as a huge ego with arrogance to match than to see your obvious superiority at grammar, reading, and monitor selection.
OK, so let us go back to see how you read my post.
"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
Did I ever say that Matte screens are more expensive to manufacture? Did I make any bit of implication about that? Seriously, what are you reading? You still don't think that is your problem?
Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
I'll dig up the sources that I read a while back (there were at least two), but from what I've read Apple uses two layers of anti-glare coating that seem to distort the reflections making them much more dull and indirect. And this goes back a few years.
-they ditched it because it wasn't environmentally friendly. Do you all remember this began back with the ugly racoon glossy iMac- the "best" envitonmentally friendly" iMac? No one asked for glossy- it was jammed down our throats by Al Gore on the Board of Directors.
I don't think this is correct. The 'matte' is not a 'coating' that goes over the 'glass'. Any TFT type display has a plastic front piece and that sheet of plastic is typically matte. The way a sheet of plastic gets to be matte or gloss has entirely to do with how it is manufactured. Plastic is not 'glossy' by default.
In machines like the iMac, there is a front on the mac itself that is glossy; the display underneath is not. This is also the way a number of other manufacturers make them. This was not an effort to be green. It probably costs Apple more to do it this way. I would suggest they did it because consumers like it.
By the way, I have both glossy and matte displays around my work spaces, and my iMac display produces less glare than my HP L1906 matte monitors do in ambient lighting. I just don't think this issue can be presented as a matter of 'good design' or 'human factors'. This is a matter of taste, regardless of how some here would like to present it.
Wake me up when there is a class action lawsuit in Marshall Texas, which should be about 5 hours from now. Other then that, this is just more crap, "how can we get our school in the news, oh let's write something about apple!".
THIS JUST IN:
After some serious research I, my institution has discovered that repeatedly ramming your face into a display used by APPLE computer, could cause serious injury.
Well sure people love the glassy/glossy but for decades people have also enjoyed the sweet sickness of Marlboro that causes lung/mouth cancer and Alcohol that kills your liver.
Just because the pusher gives the masses what they want doesn't mean it is good for them in the long run.
* This post was meant as both sarcasm and a jab at Apple's new consumer base.
"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
Did I ever say that Matte screens are more expensive to manufacture? Did I make any bit of implication about that? Seriously, what are you reading? You still don't think that is your problem?
While you are asking that, in all honestly why don't you answer the same question? You've spent a lot of time and energy here defending your comments by implying or outright stating that everyone else cannot read or is somehow distorting what you say. Well, given the number of people that have reacted to your statements, how is it that you do not think you might potentially be the root of these misunderstandings?
I did miss your reference to a 'better' anti-glare gloss technology, I will admit that. But doesn't that just distract from the whole point? You started by making some statements that were glittering generalities, and when you got called on it, you dug yourself deeper by adding implications that everyone cannot read, etc.
So listen, don't you think maybe, just maybe... you are the root of the issue, here? Maybe people are reacting to your rhetoric because in fact, there is something there to react to.
If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else.
If you want to run Mac OS X, it's the only choice. I'm not interested in Linux or any flavor of Windows.
When it came time for me to buy a new external display, I bought a ViewSonic VP2650wb. 26", better specs than the new Apple display and a matte display.
The hostility in regard to people's display preference is idiotic.
While you are asking that, in all honestly why don't you answer the same question? You've spent a lot of time and energy here defending your comments by implying or outright stating that everyone else cannot read or is somehow distorting what you say. Well, given the number of people that have reacted to your statements, how is it that you do not think you might potentially be the root of these misunderstandings?
I did miss your reference to a 'better' anti-glare gloss technology, I will admit that. But doesn't that just distract from the whole point? You started by making some statements that were glittering generalities, and when you got called on it, you dug yourself deeper by adding implications that everyone cannot read, etc.
So listen, don't you think maybe, just maybe... you are the root of the issue, here? Maybe people are reacting to your rhetoric because in fact, there is something there to react to.
I already responded earlier and ironically you started this rhetoric topic again by misreading my post yourself. Maybe I'm harsh and there are points that I didn't make clear, but that doesn't justify the misinterpretation that some few people have made, especially the "whoever use glossy screen are ignorant" statement.
I've never said that matte screen is necessarily better than glossy screen. The point of mentioning anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen. This doesn't mean matte screen is better than glossy screen and that is not my point at all. What I'm criticizing is the fact that Apple acknowledge the glare issue but chose not to improve the glossy screen even though they can because many users either don't acknowledge the issue or chose to ignore the issue that can be fixed, which is ignorant. This does not mean that whoever use glossy screen are ignorant AT ALL.
Some people just like to tense up when they hear different opinions from theirs.
If the glare was such an issue then why is it only on the 17?. Why is it only an option? Why do customers like it more if it?s such a problem?
Between the matte screen and ExpressCard slot only available on the 17", Apple is clearly trying to force those users with higher-end requirements into purchasing the more expensive, and likely higher profit margin, laptop.
It's within Apple's rights to run their business that way, if they wish. But usually advanced technology and options trickle down to lower end models as a product line matures. Apple seems to be going in the opposite direction, taking options away from the mid and low end in order to boost sales of the high end. In the day of netbooks and iPhones, it seems odd for Apple to push people into chosing the larger computer. Apple typically thinks smaller is better, not in this case.
And Apple's market share is now big enough that it's past time they should expand their options for Macs. Back when Apple was "beleaguered" in the late 90's, Steve Jobs rightly trimmed their product line-up to a bare minimum to reduce expenses and overhead. It's time Apple stops acting like a company on the brink, hoarding cash and limiting choices, and offering customers more options.
As far as why customers buy glossy... same as why LCD TVs outsell vs plasma. Not because LCDs are inherantly better, but in part due to the fact that in big bright show rooms, LCDs look better because they crank the brightness all the way up. Plasma's look dim compared to LCD when you view them side by side. But nobody would watch their LCD with the bightness turned up that high at home. Apple is making their screens glossy, not because it's necessarly better, but because it "appears" better when sitting next to a matte screen. Consumers like shiny objects.
I could live with no matte option if the glossy was the old glossy (which was less glossy than the current glossy). That seemed like a good middle ground.
Comments
I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?
I DID NOT SAY that glossy screen is more expensive to manufacture than a matte screen AT ALL. You guys are driving me crazy.
Let me quote myself again and read CAREFULLY, please.
"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
Wow... can people even read these days?
"...because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen." DOES NOT MEAN "whoever like these glossy screens are ignorant"
What I see in your comments is a lot of back-peddling. You said what you said, and the implication in what you said is very very clear to virtually anyone reading it but you. Either you aren't very competent to express yourself using the English language or you know very well the implication you made and now you are disingenuously spinning like mad to paint everyone who has responded as ignorant and incapable of reading.
Come to think of it, there is a common thread there: you being much smarter and and less 'ignorant' than everyone else. You might want to think about that; us ignorant types out here are more inclined to recognize that as a huge ego with arrogance to match than to see your obvious superiority at grammar, reading, and monitor selection.
On the other, the gloss screen may act as a rearview mirror and let you notice attackers approaching you from behind, giving you time to successfully defend yourself. So, in this way, the glossy screen is actually life-saving.
I don't think that is true at all. Do you have some evidence to support that, or is that merely your personal view? Please provide some evidence that a glossy screen is less expensive to manufacture than a matte screen. As a matter of fact, please recognize that lurking beneath the glossy glass front of an iMac is a normal old matte display. So, unit per unit, how would the additional manufacturing step and the additional materials required for the glass pane be 'cost cutting'?
I think they are trying to say that there are more expensive glossy screens out there which handle glare better than Apple's line of glossy screens.
Currrent Apple glossy displays are already low-glare.
Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
They probably ditched the Matte option because it added additional cost to keep that option in on the 13" and the 15" lines when too few people asked for it.
If I were running a business, and it was costing me money to leave a little used option in a product line, I would 86 that option.
The matte option is more expensive than the glossy to produce. The matte option is simply a plastic coating that goes over the glass, much like the anti-glare coating you get added to your eye glasses.
-they ditched it because it wasn't environmentally friendly. Do you all remember this began back with the ugly racoon glossy iMac- the "best" envitonmentally friendly" iMac? No one asked for glossy- it was jammed down our throats by Al Gore on the Board of Directors.
Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
On the other hand, which manufacturer is producing these screens you are talking about.
I'm genuinely interested in seeing one of these things in person as my MBP handles glare quite well in my experience.
I have a broad background as an industrial designer, designing products that meet not only industrial design criteria, but human factors requirements, as well. I have enough experience designing displays to call myself an expert with this type of product. We NEVER would have designed a product with a glossy display. I have been very surprised that Apple, a company well-known for excellent design, has done this.
Glossy displays have the advantage of being clearer because you are seeing the display generator through an essentially flat "window" that does not distort the image. Unfortunately, this flat surface can also result in glare because of lights or lighter surfaces being reflected on the display. If this occurs, you can't see the display at all!
Displays with some type of anti-glare surface, will appear slightly distorted, because you're seeing the display generator through an uneven surface. Designers must choose the particular anti-glare solution carefully as to minimize the dulling effect while maximizing the glare reduction. This does cost money but is generally felt to be necessary. As I began, we NEVER designed a display with a glossy surface for this reason. The use of some type of anti-glare solution was just assumed.
I don't know who is responsible for human factors or ergonomics at Apple these days, but Jonathan Ive should know better than to do this. It certainly would be interesting to see him defend this design.
What I see in your comments is a lot of back-peddling. You said what you said, and the implication in what you said is very very clear to virtually anyone reading it but you. Either you aren't very competent to express yourself using the English language or you know very well the implication you made and now you are disingenuously spinning like mad to paint everyone who has responded as ignorant and incapable of reading.
Come to think of it, there is a common thread there: you being much smarter and and less 'ignorant' than everyone else. You might want to think about that; us ignorant types out here are more inclined to recognize that as a huge ego with arrogance to match than to see your obvious superiority at grammar, reading, and monitor selection.
OK, so let us go back to see how you read my post.
"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
Did I ever say that Matte screens are more expensive to manufacture? Did I make any bit of implication about that? Seriously, what are you reading? You still don't think that is your problem?
Do you have any information, links, or fact sheets about your statement? I'm not trying to offend you here. I'm just hoping that you can elaborate more on that.
I'll dig up the sources that I read a while back (there were at least two), but from what I've read Apple uses two layers of anti-glare coating that seem to distort the reflections making them much more dull and indirect. And this goes back a few years.
-they ditched it because it wasn't environmentally friendly. Do you all remember this began back with the ugly racoon glossy iMac- the "best" envitonmentally friendly" iMac? No one asked for glossy- it was jammed down our throats by Al Gore on the Board of Directors.
I don't think this is correct. The 'matte' is not a 'coating' that goes over the 'glass'. Any TFT type display has a plastic front piece and that sheet of plastic is typically matte. The way a sheet of plastic gets to be matte or gloss has entirely to do with how it is manufactured. Plastic is not 'glossy' by default.
In machines like the iMac, there is a front on the mac itself that is glossy; the display underneath is not. This is also the way a number of other manufacturers make them. This was not an effort to be green. It probably costs Apple more to do it this way. I would suggest they did it because consumers like it.
By the way, I have both glossy and matte displays around my work spaces, and my iMac display produces less glare than my HP L1906 matte monitors do in ambient lighting. I just don't think this issue can be presented as a matter of 'good design' or 'human factors'. This is a matter of taste, regardless of how some here would like to present it.
THIS JUST IN:
After some serious research I, my institution has discovered that repeatedly ramming your face into a display used by APPLE computer, could cause serious injury.
Well sure people love the glassy/glossy but for decades people have also enjoyed the sweet sickness of Marlboro that causes lung/mouth cancer and Alcohol that kills your liver.
Just because the pusher gives the masses what they want doesn't mean it is good for them in the long run.
* This post was meant as both sarcasm and a jab at Apple's new consumer base.
I like the way you put it.
"Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro."
Did I ever say that Matte screens are more expensive to manufacture? Did I make any bit of implication about that? Seriously, what are you reading? You still don't think that is your problem?
While you are asking that, in all honestly why don't you answer the same question? You've spent a lot of time and energy here defending your comments by implying or outright stating that everyone else cannot read or is somehow distorting what you say. Well, given the number of people that have reacted to your statements, how is it that you do not think you might potentially be the root of these misunderstandings?
I did miss your reference to a 'better' anti-glare gloss technology, I will admit that. But doesn't that just distract from the whole point? You started by making some statements that were glittering generalities, and when you got called on it, you dug yourself deeper by adding implications that everyone cannot read, etc.
So listen, don't you think maybe, just maybe... you are the root of the issue, here? Maybe people are reacting to your rhetoric because in fact, there is something there to react to.
If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else.
If you want to run Mac OS X, it's the only choice. I'm not interested in Linux or any flavor of Windows.
When it came time for me to buy a new external display, I bought a ViewSonic VP2650wb. 26", better specs than the new Apple display and a matte display.
The hostility in regard to people's display preference is idiotic.
While you are asking that, in all honestly why don't you answer the same question? You've spent a lot of time and energy here defending your comments by implying or outright stating that everyone else cannot read or is somehow distorting what you say. Well, given the number of people that have reacted to your statements, how is it that you do not think you might potentially be the root of these misunderstandings?
I did miss your reference to a 'better' anti-glare gloss technology, I will admit that. But doesn't that just distract from the whole point? You started by making some statements that were glittering generalities, and when you got called on it, you dug yourself deeper by adding implications that everyone cannot read, etc.
So listen, don't you think maybe, just maybe... you are the root of the issue, here? Maybe people are reacting to your rhetoric because in fact, there is something there to react to.
I already responded earlier and ironically you started this rhetoric topic again by misreading my post yourself. Maybe I'm harsh and there are points that I didn't make clear, but that doesn't justify the misinterpretation that some few people have made, especially the "whoever use glossy screen are ignorant" statement.
I've never said that matte screen is necessarily better than glossy screen. The point of mentioning anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen. This doesn't mean matte screen is better than glossy screen and that is not my point at all. What I'm criticizing is the fact that Apple acknowledge the glare issue but chose not to improve the glossy screen even though they can because many users either don't acknowledge the issue or chose to ignore the issue that can be fixed, which is ignorant. This does not mean that whoever use glossy screen are ignorant AT ALL.
Some people just like to tense up when they hear different opinions from theirs.
Feel free, any time now.
Anyone care to provide an example of a glossy screen that defeats glare more effectively than Apple's line.
Feel free, any time now.
the SONY Hybrid glossy/matte patented XBrite screen used in the TT line- hands down the best.
the SONY Hybrid patented screen used in the TT line- hands down the best.
That's definitely a nice one, but I probably will wait for the OLED... jk...
If the glare was such an issue then why is it only on the 17?. Why is it only an option? Why do customers like it more if it?s such a problem?
Between the matte screen and ExpressCard slot only available on the 17", Apple is clearly trying to force those users with higher-end requirements into purchasing the more expensive, and likely higher profit margin, laptop.
It's within Apple's rights to run their business that way, if they wish. But usually advanced technology and options trickle down to lower end models as a product line matures. Apple seems to be going in the opposite direction, taking options away from the mid and low end in order to boost sales of the high end. In the day of netbooks and iPhones, it seems odd for Apple to push people into chosing the larger computer. Apple typically thinks smaller is better, not in this case.
And Apple's market share is now big enough that it's past time they should expand their options for Macs. Back when Apple was "beleaguered" in the late 90's, Steve Jobs rightly trimmed their product line-up to a bare minimum to reduce expenses and overhead. It's time Apple stops acting like a company on the brink, hoarding cash and limiting choices, and offering customers more options.
As far as why customers buy glossy... same as why LCD TVs outsell vs plasma. Not because LCDs are inherantly better, but in part due to the fact that in big bright show rooms, LCDs look better because they crank the brightness all the way up. Plasma's look dim compared to LCD when you view them side by side. But nobody would watch their LCD with the bightness turned up that high at home. Apple is making their screens glossy, not because it's necessarly better, but because it "appears" better when sitting next to a matte screen. Consumers like shiny objects.
I could live with no matte option if the glossy was the old glossy (which was less glossy than the current glossy). That seemed like a good middle ground.