It's about time Apple did this.
However, Apple needs to ALSO bring back the ExpressCard Slot to the 15" MacBook Pro as well, which they disgracefully STOLE from us users.
I discuss this more on my website at http://scottworldblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/apple-bring-the-expresscard-slot-back-to-the-15-macbook-pro/
Also, as you stated in your article, Apple needs to bring the matte screen option to the 13" MacBook Pro as well. Apple thinks that they can just call a machine a "Pro" machine as part of an overall marketing gimmick, without actually treating it like a Pro machine.
Apple, if you're going to call these machine Pro machines, then we need Pro features!
Give us our ExpressCard slot back!
And give us matte options on the 13" MacBook Pro!
I completely disagree. The matte option is one that is wanted by a very small percentage of Mac buyers. If it were popular, it would be across the line. I've had both, and the matte screen is fuzzy and harder to read, especailly when viewed side-by-side with a glossy screen. The fact Apple brought this back in one model means they think there is enough demand to justify it. The fact they did not bring it back across all models indicates that Apple feels the demand is light. The fact that they are charging for it means they think the demand is VERY light and justifies a BTO charge for the associated costs of stocking and assembling a separate display.
not so! I use the powerbook for presenting, tutorials, teaching, business, etc. the glossy screen was liked by virtually NO ONE in our office that uses the powerbook for desk presentations.
Good but, what I want to know is WHY won't Apple use a non-reflective coating on their screens. Not that optional matte crap but non-reflective like my glasses or the iSight camera lens in the top of the screen. It was used in the CRT screens in the past. Can anyone answer that?
A long time ago, non-reflective CRT flat-screens were in use by Apple. Sony Trinitron flat screens had them. But it was the glass not the actual screens themselves that had the coating. Because of that there was no double-reflections. The last CRT screens were the eMac. Strange how short peoples memories are nowadays. I'm looking at my Cube that came with a 17" CRT non-reflective glass screen. It's not as bright as my iMac but I can hardly see myself in it when it's off.
I'll be honest, matte is rubbish compared to non-reflective glass. For a better understanding:
...a cheap solution...
I've used CRT's, LCD's for decades. I feel that the matte LCD on new MBP's are excellent, and were on the previous gen LED MBP (non-unibody).
The glass-covered screens on the new unibodies, and the 24" display, have reflection problems in anything but darkened room. If the new user has nothing to compare the glass-covered screen to, then they may dismiss the limitations as 'normal'.
Yesterday I spent 30 mins. at an Apple store with a 17" MBP matte & glass covered comparing PS4 image adjustments. To me, the matte screened 17 is a much better tool for image work.
I believe that the numbers of pro-users complaining about glass-covered screen was greater than Apple expected. (Hence the TechRestore firm offering a quick panel replacement to matte on all the new Apple laptops). Hopefully the 13" will get the same option.
As to Apple charging a $50 fee? That's a Apple pushing to see what the market will bear. Their costs are the same.
Apple brought back the matte screen option to the 15-inch. Thank you Apple.
Now the next step: please bring back matte screens to the iMac. I would like to replace my old iMac and I cannot because of the glossy screen. Again: I do NOT buy any iMac with glossy screen!
Well, I like the glossy screens much better than the matte, I think because my old eyes need much more contrast and brighter backlighting. The glossy is better for me.
That said I also use a privacy filter on my MBP, as the flashing of windows bothers my spouse, when I use the computer. I have not noticed a glare problem without without the filter.
I do a lot of image work and do worry about color balance and brightness of images seen on various LCDs. I seem to get much more variation than with my calibrated CRT which I use as a standard.
Having worked with visual professionals since 1996 I have to point out a couple important facts. I'll list them within a couple comments.
First, any serious visual professional is not going to be performing serious work on a laptop. Despite the 'millions of colors' marketing by Apple, laptop displays are not. They most often provide only 6 bits per color. (I'll skip the math). Even the recent improved laptop displays don't qualify. Also, the viewing angle for most laptop displays is too poor for quality control.
. . .
. . .
Second, even if a visual professional was forced to use a laptop for work, they would perform that work in a controlled lighting environment allowing them the maximum amount of screen fidelity possible. Using a matte screen is out of the question as it creates blur. The glossy screen is required. Reflection from the glossy surface is not an issue in a controlled lighting environment.
There are those who disagree with the above, but this can only be considered their personal choice, at odds with what is considered the professional's choice.
Meanwhile, out in uncontrolled lighting environments, the matte screen can clearly be of benefit to anyone making the best of a difficult situation.