Is a Matte Notebook Screen Worth $50 Over Glossy? Apple Bets it is
There is one question that is quickly asked about nearly every notebook we cover — is the screen matte or glossy? Matte screens are the typical old-school displays that don’t reflect much when viewed. Glossy screens display brighter and more vivid colors but tend to reflect light, making them more difficult to use in bright conditions, such as outdoors. Those who prefer matte screens are often unwilling to compromise on them, and notebooks only available with glossy screens are rejected out of hand. When Apple went whole hog on glossy screens for the MacBook line, many were upset. Apple is listening to the displeasure and is making matte screens an option on the 15-inch MacBook Pro, for $50.
Apple must be pretty sure that matte screen lovers will be willing to pony up the $50 and give up the glossy black screen border to boot. It is likely the company is testing this option on the 15-inch MacBook Pro model and will roll it out on the 13-inch model later if it pays to do so. It is already a $50 option on the super-pricy 17-inch model. So how about it, will you pay up for matte?
(via engadget)
I wouldn’t because I wouldn’t waste my money on Apple and they’re the only company that I know of that would try and rip customers off like this.
It should be a option and not charge.
i personally think its a nice option to at least offer.
do other makers like HP offer this option on their laptops, just curious?
i know i would have got it for my DV6700t i got last year if they offered it. i really am not a fan of glossy. it looks purty but man do you get glare in any lighting situation (except a dark room).
just my .02
Alas, they got me. I definitely think they should offer this on the 13″ as well if it’s a Macbook Pro. $50? It’s extortion, plain and simple. I will gladly pay it to have a useable screen and NOT have to see my own face while working on projects.
I don’t get how anybody could think that glossy displays were a good idea, least of all an obsessive company like Apple. I gladly paid the $50 for a matte screen on my 17-inch MBP and I really wish that Apple had offered the option on the 15-inch MBP that my work purchased for me six months ago…
The MBP is already expensive, and since the screen is the thing youre going to be using the most (duh) I probably would pay 50 bucks to make it actually usable. Glossy screens are horrible
The $50 charge is cheaper for me than all the Extra Strength Excedrin I would have to buy for my migraines over the lifetime of the ‘book.
Seriously, what’s with all the fanboyism for the glossy “night blind” screens? They’re horrrible.
Quit whining folks! Apple realized they made a mistake and are being flexible in offering people options and they still complain. As I remember there were a bunch of PC laptops that were offering glossy displays well before Apple did. They weren’t first to market with glossy by any means and I don’t hear people complaining about the glossy displays on Vaios or HP screens. What a bunch of hypocrites. As for the $50 option, that’s for the fact that they are assembled specifically apart from the manufacturing process for the glossy displays. I’m no Apple fanboy, but I’m glad I now have a choice, Apple does listen from time to time, which is a lot more than I can say for other companies.
Wayne,
Apple realized THEY made a mistake and they’re going to charge YOU $50 to rectify it? You really are an Apple fanboy if you think that’s justified.
I second the quit whining note.
First of all. I went from a 867MHz 12″ G4 (antiglare) and went to Windows machine that had a glossy display. I noticed the glare but I noticed the beautiful picture. When I bought my Macbook Pro (October 2006) I had a choice to make. To get the default matte or the not so widely available glossy. I set the two machines down next to each other and it was a total no brainer. Glossy had soooo much better picture. I hate matte finish. And I would pay extra $50 (and up to say $200) to get the better picture glossy screens could offer. (That is, I would pay $200 for the difference between the October 2006 matte and glossy.)
This being said I have not compared the new 17″ antiglare to the default displays. I do not know how they compare today. Maybe I would change my mind. If the antiglare offers the same picture that the glassy but without the glare, maybe I would be willing to pay extra for that. I don’t know. If I were making a purchase today I would be comparing th two screens side by side like I did in October.
Is the extra cost justified? That is a wonderful question. And I am going to try to put a different perspective on the question.
What is Apple’s anti-glare? Back in the day (October 2006) one model came with one TFT model, the other came with another TFT model. It probably had the same cost to apple so it cost the same for the consumer. But I cannot help to notice the changes in the Macbook Pro line since. Last I checked Apple slapped a big hunking glass in front of the part that used to be the uncovered TFT display. Also, last I checked glasses were glossy?
So to discuss this question, the first thing we need to examine is what makes the antiglare display antiglare? Is it the same TFT but a different piece of glass? Does the glass get a treatment? For all of you who call for a $0 option, maybe you should consider the possibility that whatever makes the display antiglare might cost Apple extra. (OK, OK, it is already expensive, I am sure they have a nice profit margin without the extra $50 but trust me, if it costs them $40 extra they will charge you $50 for it. Especially since they know that most of the anti-glossy whining fanboys will in fact pay up over hackintoshing or using Windows/Linux/etc.
I agree that apple is quite cunning. I am convinced that they introduced the 17″ first so all them whiners will have to buy their most expensive machine. (And we know how the anti-glossy crowd is. That is the #1 feature they look for so they will buy based on that one feat. I am certain Apple’s market research team can back me up on this, but you really do not need surveys to figure this out. Reading the comments here and on similar sites is more then enough.) Now that all the people who were willing to drop the extra cash for the 17″ antiglare did so, they move to 15″. I wonder if the series will continue in 4-8 months. Until it does, this question does not pertain to me. My selling feature is weight so I will never buy a 15+” again.
Aside from its design, Notebook’s portability is also one of the main reason why people want to own one.
The matte display on the 17″ MBP I saw at MWSF last January was nice but clearly a prototype. The production model I saw recently in an Apple store was beautiful. The image was creamy and smooth. To me glossy screens are too garish. I’m glad there is a choice available to us.
Funny – I paid $CDN70 less for my Eee 1005HA with a matte screen (and marginally slower processor)over its glossy version.
Never have it be said that Apple will miss the opportunity to gouge its users – especially when it comes to functionality.
My roommate owns a Macbook and I loved the Matte screen that came with. So I decided to buy the latest and greatest 13-inch MBP from bestbuy. As soon as I turned it on, I took it back…I have a ton of mirrors at home already…