This seems like a step backward, why would anybody want the extra glare and distraction? Is it so it can be wiped clean more easily?
I don't get it.
Maybe it's cheaper? I dunno the thing only cost like 1K. I'm surprised it's as good as it is. Now begins the wait for a black Pro. I know Sony and some other companies market it as their own with different names for "glare reduction".
This is potentially a problem for me too. I was going to buy, but now I feel I have to see one, and this is not easy.
yeah..i went to the local Apple retailer (Baillos in Santa Fe) and of course they didn't have one...freaking 1-2 weeks...i hate being out in the middle of nowhere. I ***HAVE*** to see it before I lay any money down.
I believe you have a choice between glossy and matte screens. No extra costs either way. Choice is good.
Unfortunately, that's only with the MacBook Pro. The MacBooks have glossy screens, no choice about it.
In response to the original poster, glossy screens are very popular in the "PC" world. Presumably because they look cool. They increase colour saturation, contrast and perceived sharpness, in exchange for increased glare. They are therefore pretty cool for showing off photos or watching movies. Personally, I prefer a matte screen, but it seems that the majority of the market disagrees. It would be lovely if Apple offered the option, but perhaps the 13" screens they are using only come in the glossy flavour?
Its like a coating they spray on/stick on/whatever.
I suspect this is true. The question is: who sprays on the coating? The screen manufacturer or Apple?
Thinking about it, even if it's the screen manufacturer, you would have thought Apple will be buying enough to ask them to supply some without the coating.
No, I think they're matte screens covered with plastic. Most PC screens are; they're matte underneath.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. If you are in the position to buy a bunch of LCD's, you'll find that it's not at all a pure OEM industry. In other words, there are a lot of value added services. In other other words, if you're buying large enough quantities you can specify the way you want the backlight installed, the reflector (if you want a reflector), the interface, the actual glass (i.e. silicon), the polarization, and the plastic lamiinate. The plastic laminate goes straight on top of the glass & liquid crystals.
Apple should have no problem specifying the exact type of plastic used for the laminate, the thickness, the AR coating. . . everything.
If one goes into a store and looks at an iBook or a MacBook for that matter, the glossy Toshibas, Sonys, etc right next to them just look so new, shiny, and so very "neato!," as I have heard. I surmise that deep inside the consciousness of the consumer the matte screen is considered "old" and "outdated." As well, I relate this very similarly to the deer in the headlight syndrome--the practicality is lost to the "wow! factor." And I'd put money on the "wow! factor" 9 times out 10 when dealing with entry level computer buyers..
Also, again, I don't have the focus group or marketing data to back this up, but I bet the closer Apple gets to matching the specs of similarly priced entry level laptops, while surpassing them on non specable things such as look and feel, they are predicting they will have exponentially greater sales..
Jeez LGnome is right. It'll please all the stupidass switchers, and PISS OFF all the Mac users that want a nice but small laptop. Good thing they don't have a 12" MacBook Pro..
I was going to buy this thing after a month or two of logic board bug-killing revs. Now...I just don't know. Perhaps they'll fix this? I'll wait and see.
I seems to me that this should be similar to the old days of CRTs. They were glass too and in some circumstances displayed quite a lot of glare. The differens is that the displays of yore were supposed to sit in offices everywhere where the lighting conditions could be adjusted to work well with the displays, whereas these MacBooks are supposed to be used everywhere, including outside, where direct sunlight can be a real problem.
buddy of mine came over tonight who bought the first black macbook from the santa monica store. i have to say the glossy screen didn't seem that bad at all. certainly not compared to some pc laptops i've seen. of course most of the other glossy screen laptops i've fooled with were in best buy. but i'm sure there's a way to control just how glossy the screen is. i found his screen to be quite nice. i'm not sure if i'd opt for it personally on a mbp, but it wasn't bad at all.
Well, the nice thing is the screen is so freakin' bright, I doubt the glare is noticeable. And like a previous poster said, it increases colour saturation and contrast ratio, making your computer screen more 'lickable'...
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
This seems like a step backward, why would anybody want the extra glare and distraction? Is it so it can be wiped clean more easily?
I don't get it.
Maybe it's cheaper? I dunno the thing only cost like 1K. I'm surprised it's as good as it is. Now begins the wait for a black Pro. I know Sony and some other companies market it as their own with different names for "glare reduction".
Makes my pictures look like photos.
Originally posted by hledgard
This is potentially a problem for me too. I was going to buy, but now I feel I have to see one, and this is not easy.
yeah..i went to the local Apple retailer (Baillos in Santa Fe) and of course they didn't have one...freaking 1-2 weeks...i hate being out in the middle of nowhere. I ***HAVE*** to see it before I lay any money down.
Originally posted by satchmo
I believe you have a choice between glossy and matte screens. No extra costs either way. Choice is good.
I think they're all glossy, no choice.
Originally posted by satchmo
I believe you have a choice between glossy and matte screens. No extra costs either way. Choice is good.
Unfortunately, that's only with the MacBook Pro. The MacBooks have glossy screens, no choice about it.
In response to the original poster, glossy screens are very popular in the "PC" world. Presumably because they look cool. They increase colour saturation, contrast and perceived sharpness, in exchange for increased glare. They are therefore pretty cool for showing off photos or watching movies. Personally, I prefer a matte screen, but it seems that the majority of the market disagrees. It would be lovely if Apple offered the option, but perhaps the 13" screens they are using only come in the glossy flavour?
Originally posted by Mr. H
It would be lovely if Apple offered the option, but perhaps the 13" screens they are using only come in the glossy flavour?
No, I think they're matte screens covered with plastic. Most PC screens are; they're matte underneath.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Placebo
No, I think they're matte screens covered with plastic. Most PC screens are; they're matte underneath.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Its like a coating they spray on/stick on/whatever.
Originally posted by spyder
Its like a coating they spray on/stick on/whatever.
I suspect this is true. The question is: who sprays on the coating? The screen manufacturer or Apple?
Thinking about it, even if it's the screen manufacturer, you would have thought Apple will be buying enough to ask them to supply some without the coating.
Originally posted by Placebo
No, I think they're matte screens covered with plastic. Most PC screens are; they're matte underneath.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. If you are in the position to buy a bunch of LCD's, you'll find that it's not at all a pure OEM industry. In other words, there are a lot of value added services. In other other words, if you're buying large enough quantities you can specify the way you want the backlight installed, the reflector (if you want a reflector), the interface, the actual glass (i.e. silicon), the polarization, and the plastic lamiinate. The plastic laminate goes straight on top of the glass & liquid crystals.
Apple should have no problem specifying the exact type of plastic used for the laminate, the thickness, the AR coating. . . everything.
Originally posted by Placebo
I don't get it.
This makes perfect sense to me.
If one goes into a store and looks at an iBook or a MacBook for that matter, the glossy Toshibas, Sonys, etc right next to them just look so new, shiny, and so very "neato!," as I have heard. I surmise that deep inside the consciousness of the consumer the matte screen is considered "old" and "outdated." As well, I relate this very similarly to the deer in the headlight syndrome--the practicality is lost to the "wow! factor." And I'd put money on the "wow! factor" 9 times out 10 when dealing with entry level computer buyers..
Also, again, I don't have the focus group or marketing data to back this up, but I bet the closer Apple gets to matching the specs of similarly priced entry level laptops, while surpassing them on non specable things such as look and feel, they are predicting they will have exponentially greater sales..
I was going to buy this thing after a month or two of logic board bug-killing revs. Now...I just don't know. Perhaps they'll fix this? I'll wait and see.
What about looking a the glossy screen for hours at a time. Will the eyes get more "tired", or is there no difference?
Any thoughts?
Soeren
Straight-on, glare is no worse than any CRT I've used. From angles (people trying to watch the screen) it can be a little more distracting.
The saturation and black level is very, very nice. It's a fair trade-off for me, but I agree that it would have been nice if they'd made it an option.