— People who buy larger notebooks tend to be less ignorant than people who buy smaller notebooks.
— People who buy the 17” MBP are most likely buying the plastic-screened version.
Neither one of those rings true to me. Do you have anything to back your previous statement? There seems to be evidence that supports the use of both types of displays. Stating that someone is ignorant for preferring the type you don’t care for is, in itself, ignorant.
You're obviously taking my statement out of the context of how Apple sell laptops and put it into where it isn't intended for. You're so pathetic if you're trying to mislead the other readers.
First of all, I've never said larger laptops are necessarily the high-end for other brands. I made it very clear in context that is the case for Macbook Pro lines, where the 17" Macbook Pro model is the high-end model for Apple. It is more than obvious you misunderstood me or trying to mislead the readers.
Also, I've never said people who buy the 17” MBP are most likely buying the plastic-screened version. What I was trying to say was those who tend to buy the high-end 17" Macbook Pro has a higher portion of people that are aware and intelligent of the screen quality. That doesn't necessarily mean most 17" MBP buyers will choose matte screen. You're obviously reading into it and it is your problem.
Still, you choose to ignore what I said. If glare is not an issue, then why should Apple provide an anti-glare? A matter of preference? Then why not on 13" and 15" as well?
I hate the glossy screens. As a MacBook Pro owner, I was glad there was the option to buy a new MacBook Pro with the anti-glare screen last year. I wonder what I'll do in a few years when I need to upgrade and all Apple offers is the glossy screens. I remember buying addon anti-glare screens that clipped onto the monitor or laptop when the manufacturers hadn't perfected the anti-glare screen as standard equipment.
I guess Apple is moving us backwards in the quest to make video look better on their products. I guess the anti-glare screen addon manufacturers are very happy about this turn of events.
Yes, yes. We all know that this report has aroused matte fanboys across the globe. I can almost hear the orgasms taking place.
...this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
It keeps us busy complaining here instead of worrying about Geithner destroying our currency. Hey, paper money is glare free! Not like that dangerously shiny Gold!
They just don't want to admit the issue because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
And yes, you are in a minority - otherwise Apple would support both across the board. And no, I don't think glossy only notebooks have hurt their sales - just look at the growth rate in the notebook category vs. desktop and the success they had last quarter.
I have a Blackbook with glossy screen and it works BETTER than the matte screen in direct sunlight. In fact I can turn brightness all the way off and still see the image while in direct sunlight. If you do encounter glare, move the screen NOT your body. What's so difficult about that?
Each variation on a product has a cost associated with it.
Apple has made the business decision that the cost of supporting additional matte SKUs across the board outweighs the benefits in sales (i.e. profit!) they would get.
Now you can disagree with them all you want (as many have and I'm sure will continue to do) but 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 hope Apple is hearing this. I've avoided all of Apple's displays since they went glossy. I even bought my first ever Windows laptop mainly for its matte display and, well, it's a nice inexpensive netbook which Apple doesn't have either.
...this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
I don't think it's that dumb. I think Apple should offer matte as an option on all their products, so we can get on with our lives. I'll still choose glossy, but I know a few people - and at least one university - who would choose matte.
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
That's what you said. If you think you're an ignorant that's your problem. I never said that. I know there are others who buy Macbooks because they have no choice of choosing matte screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
And yes, you are in a minority - otherwise Apple would support both across the board. And no, I don't think glossy only notebooks have hurt their sales - just look at the growth rate in the notebook category vs. desktop and the success they had last quarter.
That is why Apple is going to stick with glossy screen, at least for awhile. Since everyone likes, so why bother?
The fact that Apple sells millions of Macs every quarter with glossy screens tells me that people happen to like them.
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.
Ah, then you already knew your health is a function of your environment and what you eat.
Shocking, isn't it? And it didn't take a team of lawyers and scientists for me to figure out that instead of sitting for hours with my head shoved under my armpit and one foot up my ass, I should just turn my screen slightly.
Quote:
"Reflections and glare on high gloss monitor screens and their relation to the angle of the monitor screen, could cause the operator to adopt awkward postures when viewing the monitor screen and using related equipment," the advisory says.
I have a Blackbook with glossy screen and it works BETTER than the matte screen in direct sunlight. In fact I can turn brightness all the way off and still see the image while in direct sunlight. If you do encounter glare, move the screen NOT your body. What's so difficult about that?
I've never said that the glossy screen ITSELF IS A PROBLEM. I use many glossy screens that don't have much glare issues, at least to the point that it is not visible. The problems that I have is that the glare issue of Apple's glossy screen is bad enough to not ignore it.
First of all, I've never said larger laptops are necessarily the high-end for other brands. I made it very clear in context that is the case for Macbook Pro lines, where the 17" Macbook Pro model is the high-end model for Apple. It is more than obvious you misunderstood me or trying to mislead the readers.
Also, I've never said people who buy the 17” MBP are most likely buying the plastic-screened version. What I was trying to say was those who tend to buy the high-end 17" Macbook Pro has a higher portion of people that are aware and intelligent of the screen quality. That doesn't necessarily mean most 17" MBP buyers will choose matte screen. You're obviously reading into it and it is your problem.
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.
Quote:
If glare is not an issue, then why should Apple provide an anti-glare? A matter of preference? Then why not on 13" and 15" as well?
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.
Shocking, isn't it? And it didn't take a team of lawyers and scientists for me to figure out that instead of sitting for hours with my head shoved under my armpit and one foot up my ass, I should just turn my screen slightly.
But it might take such a team to convince you that a cute little Apple computer might do this to you. You should take heart in the fact that you knew... and help others to know.
But it might take such a team to convince you that a cute little Apple computer might do this to you. You should take heart in the fact that you knew... and help others to know.
Comments
You make some very unusual statements:
— People who buy larger notebooks tend to be less ignorant than people who buy smaller notebooks.
— People who buy the 17” MBP are most likely buying the plastic-screened version.
Neither one of those rings true to me. Do you have anything to back your previous statement? There seems to be evidence that supports the use of both types of displays. Stating that someone is ignorant for preferring the type you don’t care for is, in itself, ignorant.
You're obviously taking my statement out of the context of how Apple sell laptops and put it into where it isn't intended for. You're so pathetic if you're trying to mislead the other readers.
First of all, I've never said larger laptops are necessarily the high-end for other brands. I made it very clear in context that is the case for Macbook Pro lines, where the 17" Macbook Pro model is the high-end model for Apple. It is more than obvious you misunderstood me or trying to mislead the readers.
Also, I've never said people who buy the 17” MBP are most likely buying the plastic-screened version. What I was trying to say was those who tend to buy the high-end 17" Macbook Pro has a higher portion of people that are aware and intelligent of the screen quality. That doesn't necessarily mean most 17" MBP buyers will choose matte screen. You're obviously reading into it and it is your problem.
Still, you choose to ignore what I said. If glare is not an issue, then why should Apple provide an anti-glare? A matter of preference? Then why not on 13" and 15" as well?
You can make a glossy screen matte by slapping a filter on it, but you can't make a matte screen glossy with a filter
If that's what Apple had in mind in going almost entirely glossy, then why can't you buy matte filters for Apple displays in the Apple Store?
I hate the glossy screens. As a MacBook Pro owner, I was glad there was the option to buy a new MacBook Pro with the anti-glare screen last year. I wonder what I'll do in a few years when I need to upgrade and all Apple offers is the glossy screens. I remember buying addon anti-glare screens that clipped onto the monitor or laptop when the manufacturers hadn't perfected the anti-glare screen as standard equipment.
I guess Apple is moving us backwards in the quest to make video look better on their products. I guess the anti-glare screen addon manufacturers are very happy about this turn of events.
Yes, yes. We all know that this report has aroused matte fanboys across the globe. I can almost hear the orgasms taking place.
This is nothing compared to the damage done by glossy pages in over-priced textbooks. I encourage students to avoid buying textbooks.
Only ignorant students buy textbooks with glossy pages, which is why I learned braille.
...this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
It keeps us busy complaining here instead of worrying about Geithner destroying our currency. Hey, paper money is glare free! Not like that dangerously shiny Gold!
They just don't want to admit the issue because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
And yes, you are in a minority - otherwise Apple would support both across the board. And no, I don't think glossy only notebooks have hurt their sales - just look at the growth rate in the notebook category vs. desktop and the success they had last quarter.
...this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Ah, then you already knew your health is a function of your environment and what you eat.
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
Men are in the minority.
Are matte displays so hard?
Each variation on a product has a cost associated with it.
Apple has made the business decision that the cost of supporting additional matte SKUs across the board outweighs the benefits in sales (i.e. profit!) they would get.
Now you can disagree with them all you want (as many have and I'm sure will continue to do) but 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.
Shiny things don't do it for everyone.
...this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
I don't think it's that dumb. I think Apple should offer matte as an option on all their products, so we can get on with our lives. I'll still choose glossy, but I know a few people - and at least one university - who would choose matte.
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
That's what you said. If you think you're an ignorant that's your problem. I never said that. I know there are others who buy Macbooks because they have no choice of choosing matte screen.
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
And yes, you are in a minority - otherwise Apple would support both across the board. And no, I don't think glossy only notebooks have hurt their sales - just look at the growth rate in the notebook category vs. desktop and the success they had last quarter.
That is why Apple is going to stick with glossy screen, at least for awhile. Since everyone likes, so why bother?
The fact that Apple sells millions of Macs every quarter with glossy screens tells me that people happen to like them.
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?
Ah, then you already knew your health is a function of your environment and what you eat.
Shocking, isn't it? And it didn't take a team of lawyers and scientists for me to figure out that instead of sitting for hours with my head shoved under my armpit and one foot up my ass, I should just turn my screen slightly.
"Reflections and glare on high gloss monitor screens and their relation to the angle of the monitor screen, could cause the operator to adopt awkward postures when viewing the monitor screen and using related equipment," the advisory says.
I have a Blackbook with glossy screen and it works BETTER than the matte screen in direct sunlight. In fact I can turn brightness all the way off and still see the image while in direct sunlight. If you do encounter glare, move the screen NOT your body. What's so difficult about that?
I've never said that the glossy screen ITSELF IS A PROBLEM. I use many glossy screens that don't have much glare issues, at least to the point that it is not visible. The problems that I have is that the glare issue of Apple's glossy screen is bad enough to not ignore it.
First of all, I've never said larger laptops are necessarily the high-end for other brands. I made it very clear in context that is the case for Macbook Pro lines, where the 17" Macbook Pro model is the high-end model for Apple. It is more than obvious you misunderstood me or trying to mislead the readers.
Also, I've never said people who buy the 17” MBP are most likely buying the plastic-screened version. What I was trying to say was those who tend to buy the high-end 17" Macbook Pro has a higher portion of people that are aware and intelligent of the screen quality. That doesn't necessarily mean most 17" MBP buyers will choose matte screen. You're obviously reading into it and it is your problem.
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.
If glare is not an issue, then why should Apple provide an anti-glare? A matter of preference? Then why not on 13" and 15" as well?
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.
Shocking, isn't it? And it didn't take a team of lawyers and scientists for me to figure out that instead of sitting for hours with my head shoved under my armpit and one foot up my ass, I should just turn my screen slightly.
But it might take such a team to convince you that a cute little Apple computer might do this to you. You should take heart in the fact that you knew... and help others to know.
But it might take such a team to convince you that a cute little Apple computer might do this to you. You should take heart in the fact that you knew... and help others to know.
Remember kids, keep it safe: buy a Dell.