Hey- where are all the matte haters today? The glossy kool aid drinkers? You know the ones who insist that it ain't ever gonna happen- it's not in Apple's business model, blah, blah ,blah. I know it's just a rumour, but...
Hey- where are all the matte haters today? The glossy kool aid drinkers? You know the ones who insist that it ain't ever gonna happen- it's not in Apple's business model, blah, blah ,blah. I know it's just a rumour, but...
I never quite understood why Apple, a company claiming to offer BTO (build to order) computers had too many missing options. At some point the BTO rings hollow if you're proverbially telling folks "you can have any color you want as long as it's Black"
I understand having a limited setup in the stores that meet the most popular setups but Apple really needs to allow more BTO options. Not just displays, but for SSDs, too. The boutique-style business model doesnt? scale well with this kind of growth.
PS: Anand breifly mentions in a recent Mac Pro article that Apple can?t sell Intel?s X25 SSDs but couldn?t get into it. Does anyone why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Didn't I tell you?
(you're welcome solipism )
We already know that some people prefer matte and most of us have stated that Apple should offer the option, but you?ve infered that only ignorant people like glossy and that glossy sucks. For you to be right, Apple will have to drop glossy from the line up, not merely expand matte to its other MBPs. As I and others have stated, bringing back matte in the 17? MBP was an experiment. If the sales were worth the expense then they would bring it to the other sizes too (or the at time to the other size since the 13? wasn?t a pro then).
Matte displays, up until very recently, were quite dull and didn't cope well with bright sunlight. Compare a PowerBook to an anti-glare MacBook Pro and there's an obvious difference.
I don't know about color matching with museum type glass, but for me it would be the best choice.
My G5 died last week and I have replaced it with a Mac mini and external RAID because the current iMac has too many flaws. To get me to buy one the iMac needs LED backlighting, museum glass, a quad core processor and a user accessible HD bay.
What part of this rumour did you contribute to getting Apple to add an option for glossy screens?
BTW, did you read, "Still, Apple's glossy displays offer their advantages and are here to stay for the foreseeable future. In addition to being easier to clean, they produce brighter, richer colors and deeper blacks, for a crisper overall image. These traits play well to the company's offerings, all of which cater to consumers' digital lifestyles.?
Glossy is not likely to go anywhere. The best you can hope for to substantiate your hatred for gloss is for Apple to adopt a hybrid technology, which allows them to go with a single screen again, but glossy doesn?t appear to be going anywhere, glossy will be the de facto standard and matte will likely cost a premium.
We already know that some people prefer matte and most of us have stated that Apple should offer the option, but you’ve infered that only ignorant people like glossy and that glossy sucks. For you to be right, Apple will have to drop glossy from the line up, not merely expand matte to its other MBPs. As I and others have stated, bringing back matte in the 17” MBP was an experiment. If the sales were worth the expense then they would bring it to the other sizes too (or the at time to the other size since the 13” wasn’t a pro then).
I never ever said or infered that ignorant people like glossy. Show me where I've said that and I'll eat my new iPhone.
As I and others have said , professionals who demand matte in their 17' pros who have accepted nothing less. Apple did it right. This was no experiment. To think of that as an experiment is a very naive view of things.
It's nice they would have the option but the 17" MBP looks so ugly w/ the option. The bezel does not look right.
It is quite ugly in comparison. It really does like a home-brew bolt on. Hopefully for matte users this rumour --which has a ring of legitimacy to it-- also means that Apple has found a better way to incorporate this BTO option into thoer lineup.
It is quite ugly in comparison. It really does like a home-brew bolt on. Hopefully for matte users this rumour --which has a ring of legitimacy to it-- also means that Apple has found a better way to incorporate this BTO option into thoer lineup.
Who- cares? The screen image is absolutely gorgeous. I and others would rather have function over form anyday.
What part of this rumour did you contribute to getting Apple to add an option for glossy screens?
BTW, did you read, "Still, Apple's glossy displays offer their advantages and are here to stay for the foreseeable future. In addition to being easier to clean, they produce brighter, richer colors and deeper blacks, for a crisper overall image. These traits play well to the company's offerings, all of which cater to consumers' digital lifestyles.”
Glossy is not likely to go anywhere. The best you can hope for to substantiate your hatred for gloss is for Apple to adopt a hybrid technology, which allows them to go with a single screen again, but glossy doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, glossy will be the de facto standard and matte will likely cost a premium.
Your point only works for LEDs- again which the iMac is not.
Matte displays, up until very recently, were quite dull and didn't cope well with bright sunlight. Compare a PowerBook to an anti-glare MacBook Pro and there's an obvious difference.
I don't know about color matching with museum type glass, but for me it would be the best choice.
My G5 died last week and I have replaced it with a Mac mini and external RAID because the current iMac has too many flaws. To get me to buy one the iMac needs LED backlighting, museum glass, a quad core processor and a user accessible HD bay.
Have to agree about previous matt screens - I've had a WallStreet and two 17 inch PowerBooks in the last few years and all were a nightmare in bright light.
At work we have three 20 inch "gloss" iMacs used by people who are not aware of this debate and none have complained.
We have 4 "other make" matt screens off PowerMacs/Mac Pro's in our Artroom (its a Printers) and two of the Designers are wanting iMacs - another one is hanging on to his CRT and bad mouthing everything else. I use a 24 inch iMac at home and overall, the gloss screen is better than the "washed out" problem with the (old) PowerBooks.
Just goes to show that people like/need different things, so giving a choice has got to be the way - but "try before you buy" (or make your mind up!), if possible, should be the rule.
When I bought my late 2008 15" MBP, only the glossy was offered. At first, I thought all the ruckus about the matte not being available was much ado about nothing and I thought the color and especially the blacks were quite good on the display - better than the previous matte had been.
But when they came out with the new 17" MBP with the matte option and I checked it out, it seemed to me that the color and blacks were just as good as the glossy and I really wanted the matte. In fact, I didn't even realize I was on the matte version at first aside from there not being any bad reflections. Since they seem to have gotten the IQ as good, I think they should just go back to the matte -- I don't see how the glossy provides any advantage whatsoever.
IMO, it's a bit different on the iPhone where the overall surface area is small and can easily be redirected to not reflect any light.
IMO, it's a bit different on the iPhone where the overall surface area is small and can easily be redirected to not reflect any light.
Exactly- the iPhone is no problem (do you hear that solipism?). The iMac however is a major problem that Apple will hopefully, finally correct. Expect a sales surge from all of us holdouts.
Sorry but glossy is better than matte. You can get a cheap ($20) matte sheet to make a glossy screen matte but you cannot get ANY glossy sheet to make a matte screen brighter and more vibrant.
A company that listens to its customers. Imagine that!
Apple's decision to drop matte screens was profit driven and pig headed. This never should have happened. Had they listened to their clients in the first place it never would have.
Glossy screens are better than matte in the clarity, color and contrast department.
The problem with glossy screens is glare and reflections.
Eliminate that and most of the matte crowd would be happy with glassy screens as the eyestrain and headaches would disappear.
See my signature link to see the vast improvement with the RIGHT TYPE of glass.
Quote:
Our magnetron sputtered, anti-reflective coating is engineered for demanding optical requirements, durability, and strength - virtually becoming as hard as the glass itself. Combinations of absorbing coatings and substrates provide contrast, sharpness, and clarity.
Our coating significantly reduces overall reflection levels, as low as 1% (first surface reflection <1%), and provides a variety of transmission levels, up to 98%. In addition, our acrylic coatings have the ability to dissipate static discharge and reduce dust build-up.
Our anti-reflective products are inspected via on-line laser inspection according to Tru Vue cosmetic specifications.
High performance, optical coatings that:
* Are anti-reflective
* Increase brightness
* Improve contrast and clarity
* Minimize eye strain
* Reduce dust build-up
* Reduce glare
The anti-reflective qualities of this type of quality glass doesn't appear any different than regular glass. Most people won't know the difference.
So it's really not a debate of "glossy vs matte" rather a way to improve the glassy screens to eliminate a problem a lot of people are suffering from.
Not everyone was thrilled with the move, especially those members of Apple's core professional video and image editing communities, who argued that the glossy displays tend to complicate color matching. Others are indifferent to this effect, but just can't stomach the glare given off by the glossy screens. Some are road warriors who take their notebooks on different assignments each day, and sometimes find themselves at sunny sporting events, unable to escape the reflective properties of the screens.
Whatever the case, Apple appreciates the concern, as it did with the outrage over the brief absence of FireWire on its 13-inch notebook offerings. The Mac maker has been following the numerous petitions and online threads dedicated to the display matter and hears their customers' collective voice, those familiar with the matter say.
As an expensive, exclusive brand, Apple can't adopt the 'Take it or leave it' attitude with its loyal customer base. Give us a choice, if you can't find it in you to recognize how bad the glossy screens really are. At best, they look CHEAP, at worst, they exclude Mac users over the age of 25 (and especially the aging baby boomers).
Glossy screens are better than matte in the clarity, color and contrast department.
The problem with glossy screens is glare and reflections.
Eliminate that and most of the matte crowd would be happy with glassy screens as the eyestrain and headaches would disappear.
See my signature link to see the vast improvement with the RIGHT TYPE of glass.
The anti-reflective qualities of this type of quality glass doesn't appear any different than regular glass. Most people won't know the difference.
So it's really not a debate of "glossy vs matte" rather a way to improve the glassy screens to eliminate a problem a lot of people are suffering from.
Peace.
You are still missing a major piece of the puzzle- it is what's under the glass that matters more than the glass screen itself. There is a big diff between manufacturers of LEDs (Pros vs MacBooks) and the iMac which is not LED at all.
Actually I thought about pulling the trigger today for a 13" Macbook Pro to replace my over 6 year old 12" Powerbook. The glossy screen was (and still is) the only thing holding me back! I tried to use in everyday situations a macbook with glossy screen. Even in relatively dark rooms there are still reflections, and my eyes keep focusing on them. My eyes get tired very fast on this type of screen, and I have good eyes otherwise.. I hope this rumor is true and doesn't take too long, because I will really have to upgrade until September. And I don't want to go the Linux route on a Lenovo for my normal work (I like Linux, but I much prefer Mac OSX).
So please Apple, give me an option, and yes, I'm willing to pay a premium for a better computing experience (even if there is no real need for a higher price for matt screens other then a possible lower demand).
Comments
Why are they conspicuously absent?
Hey- where are all the matte haters today? The glossy kool aid drinkers? You know the ones who insist that it ain't ever gonna happen- it's not in Apple's business model, blah, blah ,blah. I know it's just a rumour, but...
Why are they conspicuously absent?
Now, now, now...don't be a sore winner!
I never quite understood why Apple, a company claiming to offer BTO (build to order) computers had too many missing options. At some point the BTO rings hollow if you're proverbially telling folks "you can have any color you want as long as it's Black"
I understand having a limited setup in the stores that meet the most popular setups but Apple really needs to allow more BTO options. Not just displays, but for SSDs, too. The boutique-style business model doesnt? scale well with this kind of growth.
PS: Anand breifly mentions in a recent Mac Pro article that Apple can?t sell Intel?s X25 SSDs but couldn?t get into it. Does anyone why?
Didn't I tell you?
(you're welcome solipism
We already know that some people prefer matte and most of us have stated that Apple should offer the option, but you?ve infered that only ignorant people like glossy and that glossy sucks. For you to be right, Apple will have to drop glossy from the line up, not merely expand matte to its other MBPs. As I and others have stated, bringing back matte in the 17? MBP was an experiment. If the sales were worth the expense then they would bring it to the other sizes too (or the at time to the other size since the 13? wasn?t a pro then).
I don't know about color matching with museum type glass, but for me it would be the best choice.
My G5 died last week and I have replaced it with a Mac mini and external RAID because the current iMac has too many flaws. To get me to buy one the iMac needs LED backlighting, museum glass, a quad core processor and a user accessible HD bay.
I'm waiting for my thank you?s.
What part of this rumour did you contribute to getting Apple to add an option for glossy screens?
BTW, did you read, "Still, Apple's glossy displays offer their advantages and are here to stay for the foreseeable future. In addition to being easier to clean, they produce brighter, richer colors and deeper blacks, for a crisper overall image. These traits play well to the company's offerings, all of which cater to consumers' digital lifestyles.?
Glossy is not likely to go anywhere. The best you can hope for to substantiate your hatred for gloss is for Apple to adopt a hybrid technology, which allows them to go with a single screen again, but glossy doesn?t appear to be going anywhere, glossy will be the de facto standard and matte will likely cost a premium.
We already know that some people prefer matte and most of us have stated that Apple should offer the option, but you’ve infered that only ignorant people like glossy and that glossy sucks. For you to be right, Apple will have to drop glossy from the line up, not merely expand matte to its other MBPs. As I and others have stated, bringing back matte in the 17” MBP was an experiment. If the sales were worth the expense then they would bring it to the other sizes too (or the at time to the other size since the 13” wasn’t a pro then).
I never ever said or infered that ignorant people like glossy. Show me where I've said that and I'll eat my new iPhone.
As I and others have said , professionals who demand matte in their 17' pros who have accepted nothing less. Apple did it right. This was no experiment. To think of that as an experiment is a very naive view of things.
It's nice they would have the option but the 17" MBP looks so ugly w/ the option. The bezel does not look right.
It is quite ugly in comparison. It really does like a home-brew bolt on. Hopefully for matte users this rumour --which has a ring of legitimacy to it-- also means that Apple has found a better way to incorporate this BTO option into thoer lineup.
It is quite ugly in comparison. It really does like a home-brew bolt on. Hopefully for matte users this rumour --which has a ring of legitimacy to it-- also means that Apple has found a better way to incorporate this BTO option into thoer lineup.
Who- cares? The screen image is absolutely gorgeous. I and others would rather have function over form anyday.
What part of this rumour did you contribute to getting Apple to add an option for glossy screens?
BTW, did you read, "Still, Apple's glossy displays offer their advantages and are here to stay for the foreseeable future. In addition to being easier to clean, they produce brighter, richer colors and deeper blacks, for a crisper overall image. These traits play well to the company's offerings, all of which cater to consumers' digital lifestyles.”
Glossy is not likely to go anywhere. The best you can hope for to substantiate your hatred for gloss is for Apple to adopt a hybrid technology, which allows them to go with a single screen again, but glossy doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, glossy will be the de facto standard and matte will likely cost a premium.
Your point only works for LEDs- again which the iMac is not.
Matte displays, up until very recently, were quite dull and didn't cope well with bright sunlight. Compare a PowerBook to an anti-glare MacBook Pro and there's an obvious difference.
I don't know about color matching with museum type glass, but for me it would be the best choice.
My G5 died last week and I have replaced it with a Mac mini and external RAID because the current iMac has too many flaws. To get me to buy one the iMac needs LED backlighting, museum glass, a quad core processor and a user accessible HD bay.
Have to agree about previous matt screens - I've had a WallStreet and two 17 inch PowerBooks in the last few years and all were a nightmare in bright light.
At work we have three 20 inch "gloss" iMacs used by people who are not aware of this debate and none have complained.
We have 4 "other make" matt screens off PowerMacs/Mac Pro's in our Artroom (its a Printers) and two of the Designers are wanting iMacs - another one is hanging on to his CRT and bad mouthing everything else. I use a 24 inch iMac at home and overall, the gloss screen is better than the "washed out" problem with the (old) PowerBooks.
Just goes to show that people like/need different things, so giving a choice has got to be the way - but "try before you buy" (or make your mind up!), if possible, should be the rule.
But when they came out with the new 17" MBP with the matte option and I checked it out, it seemed to me that the color and blacks were just as good as the glossy and I really wanted the matte. In fact, I didn't even realize I was on the matte version at first aside from there not being any bad reflections. Since they seem to have gotten the IQ as good, I think they should just go back to the matte -- I don't see how the glossy provides any advantage whatsoever.
IMO, it's a bit different on the iPhone where the overall surface area is small and can easily be redirected to not reflect any light.
IMO, it's a bit different on the iPhone where the overall surface area is small and can easily be redirected to not reflect any light.
Exactly- the iPhone is no problem (do you hear that solipism?). The iMac however is a major problem that Apple will hopefully, finally correct. Expect a sales surge from all of us holdouts.
Sorry but glossy is better than matte. You can get a cheap ($20) matte sheet to make a glossy screen matte but you cannot get ANY glossy sheet to make a matte screen brighter and more vibrant.
en
Sorry, but matte is better than glossy.
A company that listens to its customers. Imagine that!
Apple's decision to drop matte screens was profit driven and pig headed. This never should have happened. Had they listened to their clients in the first place it never would have.
Sorry, but matte is better than glossy.
Glossy screens are better than matte in the clarity, color and contrast department.
The problem with glossy screens is glare and reflections.
Eliminate that and most of the matte crowd would be happy with glassy screens as the eyestrain and headaches would disappear.
See my signature link to see the vast improvement with the RIGHT TYPE of glass.
Our magnetron sputtered, anti-reflective coating is engineered for demanding optical requirements, durability, and strength - virtually becoming as hard as the glass itself. Combinations of absorbing coatings and substrates provide contrast, sharpness, and clarity.
Our coating significantly reduces overall reflection levels, as low as 1% (first surface reflection <1%), and provides a variety of transmission levels, up to 98%. In addition, our acrylic coatings have the ability to dissipate static discharge and reduce dust build-up.
Our anti-reflective products are inspected via on-line laser inspection according to Tru Vue cosmetic specifications.
High performance, optical coatings that:
* Are anti-reflective
* Increase brightness
* Improve contrast and clarity
* Minimize eye strain
* Reduce dust build-up
* Reduce glare
The anti-reflective qualities of this type of quality glass doesn't appear any different than regular glass. Most people won't know the difference.
So it's really not a debate of "glossy vs matte" rather a way to improve the glassy screens to eliminate a problem a lot of people are suffering from.
Peace.
I'm living in Catalonia (Near Spain)...
Not everyone was thrilled with the move, especially those members of Apple's core professional video and image editing communities, who argued that the glossy displays tend to complicate color matching. Others are indifferent to this effect, but just can't stomach the glare given off by the glossy screens. Some are road warriors who take their notebooks on different assignments each day, and sometimes find themselves at sunny sporting events, unable to escape the reflective properties of the screens.
Whatever the case, Apple appreciates the concern, as it did with the outrage over the brief absence of FireWire on its 13-inch notebook offerings. The Mac maker has been following the numerous petitions and online threads dedicated to the display matter and hears their customers' collective voice, those familiar with the matter say.
As an expensive, exclusive brand, Apple can't adopt the 'Take it or leave it' attitude with its loyal customer base. Give us a choice, if you can't find it in you to recognize how bad the glossy screens really are. At best, they look CHEAP, at worst, they exclude Mac users over the age of 25 (and especially the aging baby boomers).
Glossy screens are better than matte in the clarity, color and contrast department.
The problem with glossy screens is glare and reflections.
Eliminate that and most of the matte crowd would be happy with glassy screens as the eyestrain and headaches would disappear.
See my signature link to see the vast improvement with the RIGHT TYPE of glass.
The anti-reflective qualities of this type of quality glass doesn't appear any different than regular glass. Most people won't know the difference.
So it's really not a debate of "glossy vs matte" rather a way to improve the glassy screens to eliminate a problem a lot of people are suffering from.
Peace.
You are still missing a major piece of the puzzle- it is what's under the glass that matters more than the glass screen itself. There is a big diff between manufacturers of LEDs (Pros vs MacBooks) and the iMac which is not LED at all.
So please Apple, give me an option, and yes, I'm willing to pay a premium for a better computing experience (even if there is no real need for a higher price for matt screens other then a possible lower demand).