Apple Brings Back Matte LCD to 15'' MBP

[Marcus Yam]

MacBook Pro is back in matte.

Apple Brings Back Matte LCD to 15'' MBP : Read more

 

[dman3k]

Only Apple and Sony would charge more for a cheaper product...

But only Apple could brand a cheaper and older product like "antiglare" as innovation. At least Sony's PSP2, although cheaper, is in fact newer.

 

[Pei-chen]

Apple is going to release a UV spectrum screen next time and charge people to "convert" the screen back to visible light.

 

[mindless728]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]Apple is going to release a UV spectrum screen next time and charge people to "convert" the screen back to visible light.[/citation]

nope they are going to ship the laptops without the lcd panel and charge extra for it

 

[bk420]

Apple might as well put a plasma screen. Doesn't glass make this heavy and dangerous?

 

[jdamon113]

Good, a shinny screen on a laptop is stupid anyway.
Now its worth buying.

 

[zubai]

I want real tech news.

 

[10tacle]

I've always preferred the glossy screens. I've got one on a Dell 17" Inspiron laptop (1920x1200). The display just looks clearer than a friend's non-glossy Inspiron 17" with the same resolution. Same goes for my Sammy 40" 1080p LCD with a glossy screen compared to his 40" Sony XBR7 with a matte screen. Games and movies just seem to "pop out" at you better.

That said, if you absolutely *must* use a laptop in broad daylight or where ever else you could possibly be in overlit conditions, you can always buy a glare reducing insert. But, to each his own as with just about everything else in life.

 

[jerther]

50$? Wow, that's crazy...

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

If this wasn't from Apple I'd be amazed at the $50 markup. That's ridiculous.

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]10tacle[/nom]That said, if you absolutely *must* use a laptop in broad daylight or where ever else you could possibly be in overlit conditions, you can always buy a glare reducing insert. But, to each his own as with just about everything else in life.[/citation]
I would debate the logic in purchasing a Laptop you never intended to take into uncontrolled lighting situations. If you plan to just set it up in a design studio with muted lighting, get a desktop, it'll be more powerful for the same money. For everyone else, I've found even sitting in the living room or kitchen can cause unsightly glare on a glossy screen (not my laptop). When there is no price difference between glossy and matte, go matte. If Apple wants to charge you $50, however, that anti-glare insert might be a better purchase (along with avoiding Apple altogether).

 

[tayb]

I like to use my laptop under fluorescent lighting, outdoors, etc. If I want to look at myself I'll get a mirror.

 

[Greg_77]

It seems it is Apple's goal to incorporate "mirrors" in their products. The Ipod Touches back is another "mirror" product from Apple that comes to mind...

 

[nukemaster]

In the controlled place where I keep my desktop, a glossy screen would look GREAT(but the only one they had at the time sucked at color reproduction so i got a matte screen). my laptop has one. it looks great too, just not outside...

I do not find you see too much glare once the screen is on under normal light.

 

[The_Blood_Raven]

Well if they are going to charge insane amounts of money for their products, I guess the screen might as well be good enough to contend with my girlfriends $199 netbook. I will never by a laptop with a glossy screen, never.

 

[pocketdrummer]

$50 is bullshit.

 

[back_by_demand]

Apple are charging $50 extra for the privilige of having a screen that is minus the shiny coating. Pay more for getting less. Does that mean if I don't have the carry case I pay $40 more, if I don't get a USB mouse it is another $20 extra? I should be very careful when buying one, if I remove all of the options and have just the laptop on its own it could cost a fortune.

 

[shabaa]

Many folks don't remember when gasoline was that .... gasoline. Then they found out that by adding lead to the gas it would cause less engine wear, and we paid more for the additive. Then we found out that the lead was causing us harm and the oil companies took the lead out, and we paid more for not having the additive put in. It is the same thing. Just "spin" the change as a benefit and people will flock to spend more on a product that costs less to manufacture. It is all "spin" .... new.... improved....BETTER!

 

[scryer_360]

YAY!!!! I can buy a MBP again! Now to just get it on the 13.3 model...
(a coworker walking by said he thought I was being sarcastic: no, I really am going to get a new MBP now, I just couldn't live with the size of the 17" model)

Still, $50? I guess its better than nothing, but at least Apple is responding to the (well leveled) criticism.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]scryer_360[/nom]Still, $50? I guess its better than nothing, but at least Apple is responding to the (well leveled) criticism.[/citation]

Actually, it's not better than nothing. Nothing would have cost $0, this costs you $50. You see there's a fundamental level of economics that needs to be addressed here regarding monies being paid to a third party. $50 is WORSE than nothing and nothing is BETTER than $50. If however you are the third party and monies are being paid to you, ONLY THEN is $50 in fact better than nothing.

[/sarcasm]

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Apple are charging $50 extra for the privilige of having a screen that is minus the shiny coating. [/citation]The glossy screen is not due to a shiny coating, glass is naturally shiny. Anti-glare is in because of an added anti-reflective coating applied to the glass. You're paying extra for getting a screen that has an extra coating applied. $50 does seem high, but it's in the same price range as an aftermarket anti-glare filter, and it's a whole lot more convenient, lighter, and better looking than adding a filter. For those who detest glare on their screens, $50 for usability and sanity is a cheap price.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]shabaa[/nom]Many folks don't remember when gasoline was that .... gasoline. Then they found out that by adding lead to the gas it would cause less engine wear, and we paid more for the additive. Then we found out that the lead was causing us harm and the oil companies took the lead out, and we paid more for not having the additive put in. It is the same thing. Just "spin" the change as a benefit and people will flock to spend more on a product that costs less to manufacture. It is all "spin" .... new.... improved....BETTER![/citation]When they took the lead out, they had to add in other additives to raise the octane rating. Those other additives cost more than lead or gasoline, therefore, they increase the cost and the price.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]But only Apple could brand a cheaper and older product like "antiglare" as innovation.[/citation]And just where exactly did Apple call it innovative?

 

[Guest]

It was Al Gores idea to have Glass only Macs. Plastics is not green.