I have NEVER had to replace a phone battery in my life, nor do I know anyone that has. Phones are disposable items designed to last two years max, where i come from (england) owning the same phone for a year is absolute maximum!
Some people get through two or three phones a year, lost, stolen, blocking toilets, broken joystick, sitting on them and smashing the screen, throwing them at partners, using them to punch people with, opening beer bottles with.... it's a harsh world for a phone.
And if a phone does last a year, it gets sent a special congratulatory letter from the queen.
To add to the list of reasons people get through phones, people simply get bored of them.
Also, being seen with last years phone in certain circles means you are an inferior human being like driving round in a clapped out Ford Escort, it just aint cool.
I honestly know people who get through near on 10 phones a year, infact i can think of many!
ok let's get something straight here. The Phone part in the iPhone costs only $100, the rest of it is an iPod Touch which costs $299. Therefore, $299+$100=$399
So stop calling it a $400 phone!
fine, $400 for two years of phone and ipod. I think that helps my point more than it hurts it.
Wouldn't it be closer to $2000 for two years of phone and iPod?
I was thinking hardware rather than plan, but granted. and again, i think this is still only helping my point that an extra $90 for a battery really is chump change after that sorta spending.
No matter what features the iPhone delivers, there will be people that want more...they'll find many things inadequate and the griping will continue...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
BTW, has anyone heard about whether it will have copy and paste functions?
ok let's get something straight here. The Phone part in the iPhone costs only $100, the rest of it is an iPod Touch which costs $299. Therefore, $299+$100=$399
So stop calling it a $400 phone!
You can't break it out quite that way.
The extras for the phone still depend on much of the rest of what's there. So while it may be true that $100 consists of phone requirements alone, without the rest of the parts, it wouldn't work.
The new iPhone will have the expected 3G access, but should also have a "proper" GPS receiver that lets it track map data in real time, the alleged tipster says.
I think GPS will be important. I hope that it's not always on - it drains my battery on my 3G Nokia incredibly fast... perhaps 2 hours GPS instead of 2 days standby (not using data).
I'd love to see an iPhone program by skyhookwireless that we can run to update their wireless-access-point database with real GPS locations. Anyone could take a short drive through their suburb with the app switched on and then upload the whole suburb's information to SkyHook.
This will help iPhone users who don't have GPS get better location fixes (and for saving power for iPhone users with GPS and getting quicker GPS assisted locations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
i would split the iphone line in two.<snip>
1) I would basically repackage the current iphone into a smaller sleeker form (without 3G
2) Make an 3G iPhone Brick slightly thicker than it is now, the back utilized for a second screen but E-ink instead, used for keyboard and ebooks etc. Proximity sensor on the front for new interactive capabilities, oh and GPS.
I agree with making 2 lines - though I wouldn't choose your vision of a 3G iPhone.
It's probably possible for Apple to make a thinner iPhone 2G (in Nano colours?) that's cheaper, focussed on small data usage (eg: flickr, instant messages/sms), and could be targeted at a young crowd.
I have NEVER had to replace a phone battery in my life, nor do I know anyone that has. Phones are disposable items designed to last two years max, where i come from (england) owning the same phone for a year is absolute maximum!
Some people get through two or three phones a year, lost, stolen, blocking toilets, broken joystick, sitting on them and smashing the screen, throwing them at partners, using them to punch people with, opening beer bottles with.... it's a harsh world for a phone.
And if a phone does last a year, it gets sent a special congratulatory letter from the queen.
err, I'm only on my second phone in the last ten years.... Where is my letter from the queen, that's what I'd like to know!?
I do have two batteries for my phone, so that I can last camping for a week or two with no electricity. My criteria for phones are:
1. Long Battery Life,
2. Ability to check email,
3. Ability to check google reader,
4. Durable,
5. Small enough to easily fit in pocket,
6. Can be made to work silently.
7. Inexpensive
I am saving to replace my desktop though, so I'm interested to see these new Imacs (have linux / windows pc at the moment).
Am I the only one surprised at new iMacs? I mean, a complete redesign of the macbook/pro line has been rumored for a year now, but iMacs were refreshed pretty recently. Is this just a speed bump or are we talking a redesign (or at least a matte screen as previously mentioned)? I think a redesign is unlikely, especially since the portable line is purportedly being redesigned to resemble the iMac line.
They're only redesigned every three years. The speed of iMacs is often bumped around every 9 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
I have NEVER had to replace a phone battery in my life, nor do I know anyone that has. Phones are disposable items designed to last two years max, where i come from (england) owning the same phone for a year is absolute maximum!
Some people get through two or three phones a year, lost, stolen, blocking toilets, broken joystick, sitting on them and smashing the screen, throwing them at partners, using them to punch people with, opening beer bottles with.... it's a harsh world for a phone.
And if a phone does last a year, it gets sent a special congratulatory letter from the queen.
Frankly, I don't understand the deal here. Don't abuse it and you won't have to be so frigging wasteful buying "disposable" phones. I've been using a mobile of some sort for maybe 7 years. I lost one phone after two years, bought another one like it used, and used it for about four years and it worked pretty well. In a month or so I'll be on the first year and it still looks pretty good. And these aren't ruggedized devices that I'm using, I just don't treat them like they're missiles, door props or anything else. Yes, I do drop them on occasion, they should be able to take some hits, but deliberately abusing them is just retarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Anyhow I have taken steps to resolve the mobile phone battery issue myself, here is an image of one of my inventions...
....I have designed, manufactured, and installed these in all the pubs in my area, it means nobody has to worry about running out of batteries again, and it's a good excuse to sink an ale.
What's your security system to prevent people from walking away with the device? It looks like an easy place to look for someone to find themselves a free phone. It's hard to justify walking very far away.
There are valid excuses why Apple doesn't allow it.
1) Lithium batteries are not alkaline batteries, therefor not in need of frequent changing. And in most cases never.
2) Adding a battery cover requires additional engineering which adds complexity and cost to the design while increasing its thickness and potentially lowering the durability
3) Apple can make things the way they to. (Of course, you don't have to like it either).
But it's not about replacing the battery when it doesn't accept a charge, although that can be a benefit if you have a defective battery, just turn in the battery and you're not without a phone for a week like you would be with an ipod or iphone. It's about having a spare battery when the charge goes away so you can get your 24 hours of operation with two spare batteries rather than saddling everyone with a 1" thick phone for capacity they don't need like you want here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'd pay an extra $200 for a one inch thick iPhone that has enough battery for 24+ hours of "interneting" while listening to music, taking calls and with the brightness to full.
And you'd be able to pop in a spare in a few seconds rather than babysitting a wall charger for an hour.
I know there are some benefits to having a sealed case too, but I wouldn't ignore what I think should be obvious benefits to having a removeable battery as well.
ok let's get something straight here. The Phone part in the iPhone costs only $100, the rest of it is an iPod Touch which costs $299. Therefore, $299+$100=$399
So stop calling it a $400 phone!
So it's a $100 phone which you have to pay yet another $299 in order to be allowed to walk out the door with it because the itouch part of it can't be removed from it if you wanted the phone. Rather than trying to sell that absurd concept, why not just call it a $400 phone?
It's about having a spare battery when the charge goes away so you can get your 24 hours of operation with two spare batteries rather than saddling everyone with a 1" thick phone for capacity they don't need like you want here.
My needs are definitely not conventional. I just don't want to carry a loose space battery in my pocket that requires me to turn off the device, take it apart, put in the spare battery and turn it back on.
You seem to indicate that the spare battery can charge separately from the phone. IS it common to have a separate charging unit? My camera came with one and I bought a spare battery for it. It's been quite useful, but I've never seen one for a cell phone. BTW, I have two spare batteries for my Mac and don't have an external charger for them. That, plus the TechShell I use makes it a real PITA to change out.
So it's a $100 phone which you have to pay yet another $299 in order to be allowed to walk out the door with it because the itouch part of it can't be removed from it if you wanted the phone. Rather than trying to sell that absurd concept, why not just call it a $400 phone?
because if you buy an iphone you wouldn't need to buy an ipod.
because if you buy an iphone you wouldn't need to buy an ipod.
This is a point that is sorely missed by those who claim the iphone is too expensive. The iPhone is has a hefty price tag, but it really is a pretty darned expensive iPod (touch) combined with a not too expensive phone. At least... that's how I sold the idea to myself.
Then again, there are those who insist on carrying their entire music/video collection with them who also buy a classic... but if they're willing to spend that kind of money then I think they've lost the right to complain.
Am I the only one surprised at new iMacs? I mean, a complete redesign of the macbook/pro line has been rumored for a year now, but iMacs were refreshed pretty recently. Is this just a speed bump or are we talking a redesign (or at least a matte screen as previously mentioned)? I think a redesign is unlikely, especially since the portable line is purportedly being redesigned to resemble the iMac line.
The iMac's last revision was 8 months ago... I'm sure if it was a complete redesign, there would be some sort of Apple event scheduled..
Honestly I wouldn't consider the inclusion of a matte screen worthy enough in itself to announce in grande fashion although it seems to be a big deal to a lot of people.
Like the initial report said... CPU speed bumps and bigger hard drives....
I am in the market for a new iMac but if it doesn't include a updated graphics card I will be purchasing one from the refurb store.
because if you buy an iphone you wouldn't need to buy an ipod.
I'm pretty sure most prospective iphone buyers already have an ipod, making that argument moot. Even though the iphone is a fantastic device and well worth the money, it is still a lot of money.
I just hope this somehow includes a matte screen option.
Matte vs gloss.
Well here is what Popular Mechanics say:
"Each screen has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why manufacturers waver between the two. Glossy screens produce an image that's generally regarded as "richer." …more color depth and vibrancy. On the downside, glossy screens are more susceptible to glare, reflecting light from windows and light bulbs. And they tend to show fingerprints and smudges more readily, especially when they are off.
Matte screens tend to handle glare better, due to a polarized coating over the glass that diffuses ambient light. A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle.
Which is better is a matter of environment and personal preference. If the screen is in a room that's generally dark, consider a glossy finish. In a controlled environment it offers a best-case picture. But I wouldn't be too afraid of a matte finish. Most of us use our screens in mixed light where the minor qualitative difference is offset by the anti-reflective benefit."
In either case, why not have both. Power Support and Photodon, for example offer anti-glare films that can be quickly added or removed to suit the situation. Viewing photos, videos, graphic presentations, etc., nothing beats a gloss screen. Glare an issue, no problem. An option that only works if yours is a 'gloss' screen in the first place.
And if you are anything like our gloss- and matte-screened users in my previous agency, most of those that originally went for the mattes now wished they had the gloss, but not the other way around. Go figure.
My current Macbook Pro is matte. For client presentations, borrowed a gloss. Next one will definitely be gloss. Will probably get an anti-glare film to use were necessary. But just like the extra battery, modem, ethernet cable and security lock I bought for every portable, I will probably never use it.
"Each screen has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why manufacturers waver between the two. Glossy screens produce an image that's generally regarded as "richer." …more color depth and vibrancy. On the downside, glossy screens are more susceptible to glare, reflecting light from windows and light bulbs. And they tend to show fingerprints and smudges more readily, especially when they are off.
Matte screens tend to handle glare better, due to a polarized coating over the glass that diffuses ambient light. A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle.
Which is better is a matter of environment and personal preference. If the screen is in a room that's generally dark, consider a glossy finish. In a controlled environment it offers a best-case picture. But I wouldn't be too afraid of a matte finish. Most of us use our screens in mixed light where the minor qualitative difference is offset by the anti-reflective benefit."
In either case, why not have both. Power Support and Photodon, for example offer anti-glare films that can be quickly added or removed to suit the situation. Viewing photos, videos, graphic presentations, etc., nothing beats a gloss screen. Glare an issue, no problem. An option that only works if yours is a 'gloss' screen in the first place.
And if you are anything like our gloss- and matte-screened users in my previous agency, most of those that originally went for the mattes now wished they had the gloss, but not the other way around. Go figure.
My current Macbook Pro is matte. For client presentations, borrowed a gloss. Next one will definitely be gloss. Will probably get an anti-glare film to use were necessary. But just like the extra battery, modem, ethernet cable and security lock I bought for every portable, I will probably never use it.
Let me add a few things to this.
The first is that very few people are actually bothered by the glare (usually very small) that may occur from a glossy screen. Once the screen is turned on, most of the glare is washed out from the even brighter image.
Secondly, usually a small reposition of the computer will eliminate most, or all of the glare. Some people insist that it must be exactly in the position they want it to be, and refuse to adjust, even a little bit. That's bad. Some accommodation should be made, if required.
Thirdly (is that a word?). Those of us who have done major color correction over the decades really prefer a glossy screen, though it's more difficult to get one today, because there are no longer small manufacturers who make their own as we had in the days of the crt monitor. Any photo work should be done with the lights down, or even off anyway. If not, then a shield around the monitor is a must, EVEN WITH A MATTE SCREEN!!! Sorry for the caps, but that emphasis is required.
The reason is the matte screens are even MORE affected by ambient light than are gloss screens, people just don't realize it.
Oh, and the information in the article about polarizing matte screens is basically wrong. Very few matte screens are anything but. They are just matte. But many glossy screens have anti glare coatings. There're thinking about the old days, when we could get a separate screen that would fit over the glossy glass, and would have some sort of polarizing surface.
Comments
I have NEVER had to replace a phone battery in my life, nor do I know anyone that has. Phones are disposable items designed to last two years max, where i come from (england) owning the same phone for a year is absolute maximum!
Some people get through two or three phones a year, lost, stolen, blocking toilets, broken joystick, sitting on them and smashing the screen, throwing them at partners, using them to punch people with, opening beer bottles with.... it's a harsh world for a phone.
And if a phone does last a year, it gets sent a special congratulatory letter from the queen.
To add to the list of reasons people get through phones, people simply get bored of them.
Also, being seen with last years phone in certain circles means you are an inferior human being
I honestly know people who get through near on 10 phones a year, infact i can think of many!
ok let's get something straight here. The Phone part in the iPhone costs only $100, the rest of it is an iPod Touch which costs $299. Therefore, $299+$100=$399
So stop calling it a $400 phone!
fine, $400 for two years of phone and ipod. I think that helps my point more than it hurts it.
fine, $400 for two years of phone and ipod. I think that helps my point more than it hurts it.
Wouldn't it be closer to $2000 for two years of phone and iPod?
Wouldn't it be closer to $2000 for two years of phone and iPod?
I was thinking hardware rather than plan, but granted. and again, i think this is still only helping my point that an extra $90 for a battery really is chump change after that sorta spending.
No matter what features the iPhone delivers, there will be people that want more...they'll find many things inadequate and the griping will continue...
BTW, has anyone heard about whether it will have copy and paste functions?
Ahhh, irony.
ok let's get something straight here. The Phone part in the iPhone costs only $100, the rest of it is an iPod Touch which costs $299. Therefore, $299+$100=$399
So stop calling it a $400 phone!
You can't break it out quite that way.
The extras for the phone still depend on much of the rest of what's there. So while it may be true that $100 consists of phone requirements alone, without the rest of the parts, it wouldn't work.
The new iPhone will have the expected 3G access, but should also have a "proper" GPS receiver that lets it track map data in real time, the alleged tipster says.
I think GPS will be important. I hope that it's not always on - it drains my battery on my 3G Nokia incredibly fast... perhaps 2 hours GPS instead of 2 days standby (not using data).
I'd love to see an iPhone program by skyhookwireless that we can run to update their wireless-access-point database with real GPS locations. Anyone could take a short drive through their suburb with the app switched on and then upload the whole suburb's information to SkyHook.
This will help iPhone users who don't have GPS get better location fixes (and for saving power for iPhone users with GPS and getting quicker GPS assisted locations).
i would split the iphone line in two.<snip>
1) I would basically repackage the current iphone into a smaller sleeker form (without 3G
2) Make an 3G iPhone Brick slightly thicker than it is now, the back utilized for a second screen but E-ink instead, used for keyboard and ebooks etc. Proximity sensor on the front for new interactive capabilities, oh and GPS.
I agree with making 2 lines - though I wouldn't choose your vision of a 3G iPhone.
It's probably possible for Apple to make a thinner iPhone 2G (in Nano colours?) that's cheaper, focussed on small data usage (eg: flickr, instant messages/sms), and could be targeted at a young crowd.
I have NEVER had to replace a phone battery in my life, nor do I know anyone that has. Phones are disposable items designed to last two years max, where i come from (england) owning the same phone for a year is absolute maximum!
Some people get through two or three phones a year, lost, stolen, blocking toilets, broken joystick, sitting on them and smashing the screen, throwing them at partners, using them to punch people with, opening beer bottles with.... it's a harsh world for a phone.
And if a phone does last a year, it gets sent a special congratulatory letter from the queen.
err, I'm only on my second phone in the last ten years.... Where is my letter from the queen, that's what I'd like to know!?
I do have two batteries for my phone, so that I can last camping for a week or two with no electricity. My criteria for phones are:
1. Long Battery Life,
2. Ability to check email,
3. Ability to check google reader,
4. Durable,
5. Small enough to easily fit in pocket,
6. Can be made to work silently.
7. Inexpensive
I am saving to replace my desktop though, so I'm interested to see these new Imacs (have linux / windows pc at the moment).
Am I the only one surprised at new iMacs? I mean, a complete redesign of the macbook/pro line has been rumored for a year now, but iMacs were refreshed pretty recently. Is this just a speed bump or are we talking a redesign (or at least a matte screen as previously mentioned)? I think a redesign is unlikely, especially since the portable line is purportedly being redesigned to resemble the iMac line.
They're only redesigned every three years. The speed of iMacs is often bumped around every 9 months.
I have NEVER had to replace a phone battery in my life, nor do I know anyone that has. Phones are disposable items designed to last two years max, where i come from (england) owning the same phone for a year is absolute maximum!
Some people get through two or three phones a year, lost, stolen, blocking toilets, broken joystick, sitting on them and smashing the screen, throwing them at partners, using them to punch people with, opening beer bottles with.... it's a harsh world for a phone.
And if a phone does last a year, it gets sent a special congratulatory letter from the queen.
Frankly, I don't understand the deal here. Don't abuse it and you won't have to be so frigging wasteful buying "disposable" phones. I've been using a mobile of some sort for maybe 7 years. I lost one phone after two years, bought another one like it used, and used it for about four years and it worked pretty well. In a month or so I'll be on the first year and it still looks pretty good. And these aren't ruggedized devices that I'm using, I just don't treat them like they're missiles, door props or anything else. Yes, I do drop them on occasion, they should be able to take some hits, but deliberately abusing them is just retarded.
Anyhow I have taken steps to resolve the mobile phone battery issue myself, here is an image of one of my inventions...
....I have designed, manufactured, and installed these in all the pubs in my area, it means nobody has to worry about running out of batteries again, and it's a good excuse to sink an ale.
What's your security system to prevent people from walking away with the device? It looks like an easy place to look for someone to find themselves a free phone. It's hard to justify walking very far away.
There are valid excuses why Apple doesn't allow it.
1) Lithium batteries are not alkaline batteries, therefor not in need of frequent changing. And in most cases never.
2) Adding a battery cover requires additional engineering which adds complexity and cost to the design while increasing its thickness and potentially lowering the durability
3) Apple can make things the way they to. (Of course, you don't have to like it either).
But it's not about replacing the battery when it doesn't accept a charge, although that can be a benefit if you have a defective battery, just turn in the battery and you're not without a phone for a week like you would be with an ipod or iphone. It's about having a spare battery when the charge goes away so you can get your 24 hours of operation with two spare batteries rather than saddling everyone with a 1" thick phone for capacity they don't need like you want here:
I'd pay an extra $200 for a one inch thick iPhone that has enough battery for 24+ hours of "interneting" while listening to music, taking calls and with the brightness to full.
And you'd be able to pop in a spare in a few seconds rather than babysitting a wall charger for an hour.
I know there are some benefits to having a sealed case too, but I wouldn't ignore what I think should be obvious benefits to having a removeable battery as well.
teh
Teh !!
ok let's get something straight here. The Phone part in the iPhone costs only $100, the rest of it is an iPod Touch which costs $299. Therefore, $299+$100=$399
So stop calling it a $400 phone!
So it's a $100 phone which you have to pay yet another $299 in order to be allowed to walk out the door with it because the itouch part of it can't be removed from it if you wanted the phone. Rather than trying to sell that absurd concept, why not just call it a $400 phone?
It's about having a spare battery when the charge goes away so you can get your 24 hours of operation with two spare batteries rather than saddling everyone with a 1" thick phone for capacity they don't need like you want here.
My needs are definitely not conventional. I just don't want to carry a loose space battery in my pocket that requires me to turn off the device, take it apart, put in the spare battery and turn it back on.
You seem to indicate that the spare battery can charge separately from the phone. IS it common to have a separate charging unit? My camera came with one and I bought a spare battery for it. It's been quite useful, but I've never seen one for a cell phone. BTW, I have two spare batteries for my Mac and don't have an external charger for them. That, plus the TechShell I use makes it a real PITA to change out.
Fuck the what?
Actually, it's For The Win.
Is it not also F**k The World? Like The Vines tune?
I usually use it for that purpose, or w00t, or Hooty Hoo. F...T..W......
Or like OS X until OS XI on iPhone 4.0! FTW!! w00t w00t!
I'm sure there are other examples...
So it's a $100 phone which you have to pay yet another $299 in order to be allowed to walk out the door with it because the itouch part of it can't be removed from it if you wanted the phone. Rather than trying to sell that absurd concept, why not just call it a $400 phone?
because if you buy an iphone you wouldn't need to buy an ipod.
because if you buy an iphone you wouldn't need to buy an ipod.
This is a point that is sorely missed by those who claim the iphone is too expensive. The iPhone is has a hefty price tag, but it really is a pretty darned expensive iPod (touch) combined with a not too expensive phone. At least... that's how I sold the idea to myself.
Then again, there are those who insist on carrying their entire music/video collection with them who also buy a classic... but if they're willing to spend that kind of money then I think they've lost the right to complain.
Am I the only one surprised at new iMacs? I mean, a complete redesign of the macbook/pro line has been rumored for a year now, but iMacs were refreshed pretty recently. Is this just a speed bump or are we talking a redesign (or at least a matte screen as previously mentioned)? I think a redesign is unlikely, especially since the portable line is purportedly being redesigned to resemble the iMac line.
The iMac's last revision was 8 months ago... I'm sure if it was a complete redesign, there would be some sort of Apple event scheduled..
Honestly I wouldn't consider the inclusion of a matte screen worthy enough in itself to announce in grande fashion although it seems to be a big deal to a lot of people.
Like the initial report said... CPU speed bumps and bigger hard drives....
I am in the market for a new iMac but if it doesn't include a updated graphics card I will be purchasing one from the refurb store.
We'll find out late tomorrow night!
Bryan
because if you buy an iphone you wouldn't need to buy an ipod.
I'm pretty sure most prospective iphone buyers already have an ipod, making that argument moot. Even though the iphone is a fantastic device and well worth the money, it is still a lot of money.
I just hope this somehow includes a matte screen option.
Matte vs gloss.
Well here is what Popular Mechanics say:
"Each screen has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why manufacturers waver between the two. Glossy screens produce an image that's generally regarded as "richer." …more color depth and vibrancy. On the downside, glossy screens are more susceptible to glare, reflecting light from windows and light bulbs. And they tend to show fingerprints and smudges more readily, especially when they are off.
Matte screens tend to handle glare better, due to a polarized coating over the glass that diffuses ambient light. A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle.
Which is better is a matter of environment and personal preference. If the screen is in a room that's generally dark, consider a glossy finish. In a controlled environment it offers a best-case picture. But I wouldn't be too afraid of a matte finish. Most of us use our screens in mixed light where the minor qualitative difference is offset by the anti-reflective benefit."
In either case, why not have both. Power Support and Photodon, for example offer anti-glare films that can be quickly added or removed to suit the situation. Viewing photos, videos, graphic presentations, etc., nothing beats a gloss screen. Glare an issue, no problem. An option that only works if yours is a 'gloss' screen in the first place.
And if you are anything like our gloss- and matte-screened users in my previous agency, most of those that originally went for the mattes now wished they had the gloss, but not the other way around. Go figure.
My current Macbook Pro is matte. For client presentations, borrowed a gloss. Next one will definitely be gloss. Will probably get an anti-glare film to use were necessary. But just like the extra battery, modem, ethernet cable and security lock I bought for every portable, I will probably never use it.
Matte vs gloss.
Well here is what Popular Mechanics say:
"Each screen has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why manufacturers waver between the two. Glossy screens produce an image that's generally regarded as "richer." …more color depth and vibrancy. On the downside, glossy screens are more susceptible to glare, reflecting light from windows and light bulbs. And they tend to show fingerprints and smudges more readily, especially when they are off.
Matte screens tend to handle glare better, due to a polarized coating over the glass that diffuses ambient light. A side effect of the matte finish is a slight blurring, reduced contrast and a narrower viewing angle.
Which is better is a matter of environment and personal preference. If the screen is in a room that's generally dark, consider a glossy finish. In a controlled environment it offers a best-case picture. But I wouldn't be too afraid of a matte finish. Most of us use our screens in mixed light where the minor qualitative difference is offset by the anti-reflective benefit."
In either case, why not have both. Power Support and Photodon, for example offer anti-glare films that can be quickly added or removed to suit the situation. Viewing photos, videos, graphic presentations, etc., nothing beats a gloss screen. Glare an issue, no problem. An option that only works if yours is a 'gloss' screen in the first place.
And if you are anything like our gloss- and matte-screened users in my previous agency, most of those that originally went for the mattes now wished they had the gloss, but not the other way around. Go figure.
My current Macbook Pro is matte. For client presentations, borrowed a gloss. Next one will definitely be gloss. Will probably get an anti-glare film to use were necessary. But just like the extra battery, modem, ethernet cable and security lock I bought for every portable, I will probably never use it.
Let me add a few things to this.
The first is that very few people are actually bothered by the glare (usually very small) that may occur from a glossy screen. Once the screen is turned on, most of the glare is washed out from the even brighter image.
Secondly, usually a small reposition of the computer will eliminate most, or all of the glare. Some people insist that it must be exactly in the position they want it to be, and refuse to adjust, even a little bit. That's bad. Some accommodation should be made, if required.
Thirdly (is that a word?). Those of us who have done major color correction over the decades really prefer a glossy screen, though it's more difficult to get one today, because there are no longer small manufacturers who make their own as we had in the days of the crt monitor. Any photo work should be done with the lights down, or even off anyway. If not, then a shield around the monitor is a must, EVEN WITH A MATTE SCREEN!!! Sorry for the caps, but that emphasis is required.
The reason is the matte screens are even MORE affected by ambient light than are gloss screens, people just don't realize it.
Oh, and the information in the article about polarizing matte screens is basically wrong. Very few matte screens are anything but. They are just matte. But many glossy screens have anti glare coatings. There're thinking about the old days, when we could get a separate screen that would fit over the glossy glass, and would have some sort of polarizing surface.