[hillstones]

Of course will Mac users be willing to give up "MacBook Pro" at the bottom of their display, making their Mac look like a generic laptop? Time will tell.

[Macalways]

Did anybody notice that there is no reflection on that part of the screen, i.e., the yellow arrow and the 'white' space underneath it, that is brighter than the reflected area.
Most of us compute on white, much like this page I am responding on now, which on my shiny monitor shows no evidence any reflection.
Note that the referenced image is set to display reflection. Even a grip would know not to set up as such unless it was purposed done so.

[griffman]

It was obviously purposely done so: black is where reflections are most evident. Hence, if you're going to demonstrate where your product improves things, use black.

Given that, I can see reflections on a glossy screen on any background, without even trying. I wish I couldn't, but alas, I can. And I spend much of my time working in non-white backgrounds. iPhoto isn't white. Final Cut Express isn't white. Terminal isn't white (as I prefer white-on-black for the text). My text editor isn't white, etc.

All I can offer (so far) is my experience on the show floor. Using the non-modified and modified MBPs side by side, there's no comparison: the matte version is, for me, superior in every way except for screen flex. Where reflections dominated my time on the stock machine, they were dulled to the point of invisibility on the modified machine.

This modification only makes sense for people like me, who simply cannot work on a glossy screen, but would really like to use one of the nice new MacBook Pros. If glossy doesn't bother you, then clearly, this isn't something you'd ever consider.

-rob.

[vulpine]

griffman said:

OK, a few follow-ups in one reply...

7) The image in the story was shot in a hurry. I've attached a thumbnail (linked to a 320 pixel wide original) that shows the old and new screens, and makes the differences much clearer. If you prefer, I've also made a 640px wide medium size (129KB) and a 1000px wide large size (262KB) available.

!matte_small.jpg|thumbnail=true!

-rob.

In response to this one point, I would like to note that, 1) I actually had to look for the reflections in the glossy screen and 2) the matte screen was clearly not as black as the glossy screen, evidenced by the visible black surround that was obviously darker than the display.

Interestingly, even in your photos, at no point does any reflection seem to impinge upon the working portion of the image, though background lights do reflect at either side of the photographer.

[griffman]

If you work in Keynote, or any other app that doesn't use a mainly-white background, there are most definitely reflections in the wrong spots. As I've stated, myself (and more than a few others) seem to be highly sensitive to reflections, and I can see them against any color background. I just confirmed on the family's shiny iMac that even an all-white TextEdit background shows too many reflections for me to comfortably use -- that's why I only use that machine either remotely, or at night.

-rob.

[wpwily]

If anyone from TechRestore reads this thread:

PLEASE make these replacements available for iMacs (specifically the 20", since that's what I have) :)

[lwdesign]

I find it amazing that Apple's matte option on the 17" MBP looks like a bad aftermarket solution made in China. The aluminum bezel makes it look rather cheap to my eyes. Why couldn't Apple have created something like what TechRestore has come up with? Part of the whole new look of the new MacBooks and MBPs is the black bezel.
This new glossy direction is creating a lot of PR flack for Apple, as evidenced by so many posts here on Macworld.com. Hopefully they'll pay attention and offer an elegant matte or semi-matte option that looks aesthetically as nice as the new glossy glass version.

[Macalways]

The only way that an object reflects light is if the actual object seen in the reflection is brighter than the screen it is being projected from.

Otherwise, this would imply that your computer screen is not angled properly relatively to the lighting on hand Or as you have already indicated and without any argument from me, it may be physiological. Funny, I thought you said psychological.

Anyway, I like to take my Macbook Pro outside at times and unfortunately because it is matte, I don't have the advantage of the new shiny screens.

My next machine, and one I recommend to all my clients with the new MacBook Pro with the shiny display. Even if a matte version is offered, I would still suggest the shiny display and those that have concerns, I would have them get a matte overlay. A Lot cheaper and well worth trying out before they make a more costly and/or final decision they can't reverse.

[folklore]

palane said:

They don't replace the entire LCD display, just the glass cover. Given that it's a $200 service, there's no way it could include a new display.

Sure there is: they sell the glossy display that they remove from the MBP.

[IEBA1]

Simple but elemental question....

Why can't Apple (& others) just give the glossy screens anti-glare coatings.

Tube displays have them. Eyeglasss have them. Camera lenses have them.
Heck, even the crappy camera in my phone has a clearly visible coating on the cover glass.

I do not understand why Apple's issue is Glossy vs. Anti-Glare
when glossy can BE anti-glare.

Anthony Burokas
Publisher, TechThoughts.org.

[flybynight]

I agree with Anthony. Go into any framing shop and you will see glass options with an anti-glare coating. I would think it would be easier to just replace the glass with a piece with such a coating.