MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

After worrying about the "glossy screen issue" -- I went ahead anyway and bought an iMac 24" a couple months ago. I love it and have never once even noticed a single reflection of any kind. I just made sure to position it pointing away from windows and lamps. Photos are just stunning, like a large glossy photograph. But this non-glare film looks like a good idea for sketchier locations.

i love the metric system. so precise and not retarded

Very welcoming.

I agree also with dialtone.
Apple glossy screens are nice. Takes getting one to love it.

Jay and my usual useless input

Ok, seriously. I really dont get what the deal with the whole glossy screens is on the Macbooks. I love my screen, a major improvement over the G4 days.

I mean, you can get glare, but you have a different solution...you tilt your screen!

I can see what the fuss is with the iMacs...you cant always just move it....

This is nothing but adver-spam.

CRT screens were reflective for 40 years. The new glossy screens pop far better than matte. I have no issues with glassy screens, and prefer them to the washed-out matte screens (like my last powerbook had).

Each to their own.

People who keep saying they can deal with glossy screens because of CRT screens would accept Apple's decision to abandon DVD and go back to CD Rom. They'll say "Floopy disks were used and we could live with it".

Face it, Apple made a mistake.

Not by offering glossy screens, but by NOT offering matte option.

A very small part (that happens to include myself) of the dislike of the glossy is the color accuracy for photo/video work. Not a huge problem if a second display is available, but not having a choice kinda sucks too.

That being said, I still want one.

I personally despise the glossy screens.

I like glossy,
matte is too mossy,
Bitch all you like,
I don't give a tossy.

uh ...

whah, it's too SHINY ?!

things were so much better when they were dull

- matte

I prefer the matte screen on my MBP than to glossy. However, my opinion could be in err. I spend 8 hours a day on this thing and have never had a problem with a matte screen. Glossy is too new for me to venture out to. Glossy looks pretty, but also looks pretty annoying if I spent too much time looking at it, IMO. Anyone have experience with this?

Dear Ron,

Thanks for the rhyme; quite improved my morning.

Reflections are a bit of an issue on my MBP, but I still luurve the screen more than the old matte one. What I really want is a glossy screen that doesn't reflect

Ron's rhyme --
I like glossy,
matte is too mossy,
Bitch all you like,
I don't give a tossy.

have an imac g3 233 rev b, glossy crt, an imac core duo, matte screen, and a macbook core 2 duo, glossy screen, as well as a mac mini intel, with a dell 17" crt. the dell sucks the worst. i like the imac for WoW, the macbook for surfing, and the imac 233 for photoshop, believe it or not!

So, what happens after this film has been on your mac screen for 6 month to a year?

Are you able to remove the film or do you have to throw your mac away as you cant remove it?

Tell you what, someone buy this film and report back here in 6 months - THEN I will buy this film!

I will let someone else ruin their hardware before I buy this stuff.

If the metric system is so precise, why is it that 1 degree C equals nearly 2 degree Fahrenheit?
Seems rather course and sloppy to me, kinda like using a fat Sharpie on a drafting table.

@@de kölsche jung: that's because the Celcius and Fahrenheit systems were not intended to be compatible one-to-one. Just the same thing with weight or length - one liter doesn't equal one gallon, and neither does one meter and one foot. But yes, the metric (or SI) system is more precise and logical.

But to stay on-topic: for some reason (tradition), TV and computer screens, glossy and matte alike, are measured in inches everywhere in the world.

I love glossy, and would never put a dull-ifying non-glare film on my MacBook's screen.

g...l...a...m...o...r...o...u...s........, glossy is glamorous..., glamorous, glamorous, g, g, g, glamorous, oh the glossy, glossy!

sorry, had to do it

Just a quick note on the realities of mass-producing a product. Apple would love to give EVERYONE choices of matte or glossy on their iMacs, but it just isn't cost effective. First of all the screen on the iMac is GLASSS which means they would have had to use a special coated glass to make it non-reflective and that would require two separate lines to produce. They can do it on the laptops because the components were probably available already(as Windows laptops have been shiny for years).

2nd they would have tested the largest part of the market segment for the iMac, the home user. Their market research would show that they don't mind the glare, and they like the shiny screens and the "richness" in color that it brings. So they went with the majority. And for most of them the shiny screen will be fine.

Now if you just don't like the look of a glossy screen, I can't argue that. Apple made a decision and it doesn't work for you. I don't care for SUVs so I don't own one.

But for all of you bitching about professional photography and graphic design uses, and accurate color etc etc etc. Well you are full of crap on at least 3 levels. The most important of which is if you really care about color and if it is really critical you should be working on a highly specialized highly accurate monitor. Something like a LaCie, NEC, Samsung, etc. something produced by a company who isn't having to sell that same product to Soccer moms, accountants, and gamers.

And you wouldn't have glare issues anyways because you would be working in controlled lighting, glare is an issue even on "matte" screens. Also a monitor will lose it ability to accurately reproduce color after a certain amount of time. I normally find that the longest I can push one is 3 years, and then no matter how much tweaking I do, its just too pooped. I don't want to have to replace a perfectly functional production machine because the monitor is hinky. So an all in one is not a smart investment for a pro. Professionals have very specific needs, and Apple cannot hope to be successful having to build one machine that will please pros and consumers. It would be madness.

@ No choice for a reason.

I totally agree.

The other thing to consider is that the iMac has not been designed by Apple for professional use.

It's a consumer all-in-one mac, who's core target audience are home users - NOT professional designers or people in any of the creative industries that rely on accurate on-screen colour or image representation.

If you are a professional creative user and use an iMac then you have made a bad choice, because you have brought the wrong machine for the job. You should have bought a MacPro with a separate large monitor of a MacBook Pro.

Why do you think Apple has introduced the 'Pro' at th end of its professional product ranges??

No, this is not adver-spam. THIS is a solution to your problem. Now if you hate glossy screens as much as you say you do, then you'd be jumping at this opportunity to fix it. Instead what do we hear? No, this will ruin my hardware. No, you first. No, it's the scary unknown. My gosh, here is a solution to your problem! Don't you want to fix your problem? No? You mean you'd rather complain and whine and get into fights with other people? Oh, I see.

Alright. Now all you anti-glossy ranters can go SHADDUP!

Get your car keys and get going to the store to buy this.

"Face it, Apple made a mistake."

OOOOH the definitive answer. Face it everyone!!! go ahead... face it!!!!!. All of you who love your glossy screens are WRONG!!!!!

WRONG!! so FACE IT everyone.

yeah whatever Dolita. Get over yourself.

Bogus: wrong, practically all CRTs have a subtle yet very effective anti-glare coating. Especially the pre-trinitron monitors with their curved surfaces would have been unusable without this, because they would be mirrorballs that reflect anything bright in the room no matter how you position them. I don't understand why this kind of coating isn't used on TFTs, because it has almost no noticeable effect on colors yet eliminates reflections almost entirely.

For me, having to tilt my screen to some uncomfortable angle or sit in that particular corner of my house where there's nothing bright behind me, is not a solution. I want to sit with my laptop where I want, not where my glossy screen dictates me to. I'm pretty sure the glossy hype will eventually fade away and all screens within 7 years will again have anti-glare coatings, except a few to cater for the die-hard fans.

The rich blacks, that everyone claims see on a glossy, come at a price... shadow detail.

For critical video and photographic work, it important to see the shadows in dark areas. They just aren't there on a glossy screen.

It's true that the glare may not be an issue in a dim editing suite, but but the loss of shadow detail would be.
Of course it's also true that someone doing professional work is not going to buy a home computer that has a glossy screen, but the choice would be nice.

MW: toward - I look forward toward the day when we have a choice.

I had planned on replacing all the PCs in my business office with iMacs -- but everyone is in their 50s here and the glossy is way too much. We have one PowerPC G5 for publishing and everyone loves Macs -- but the glossy is the deal breaker. And frankly the stick on screen seems like a silly solution. Steve Jobs: Can't you offer a matte screen for us older folks? C,mon man!

Funny, but my 40" HDTV has a matte screen...

I've applied these types of films to different Palm handhelds and it's tricky, even with a screen that's only about 4" diagonal. You can get bubbles and little rumpled areas and have to start over. Getting fingerprints on the adhesive side is a nice feature.

It must be a pain to apply this stuff to a screen the size of a 24" iMac. It DOES seem like a fairly reasonable and inexpensive solution to the glossy screen problem.

If you READ the blurb, it says that it's removable.

I like my glossy MacBook screen. It's a matter of taste obviously.

ANTI-GLARE SCREENS ARE BULLSH*T!!!

I know, I've used them for years. What a hassle!

Look at these polls:

1: 86% prefer matte finish, 8% prefer glossy

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061018-8022.html

2: 44% prefer matte over 32% prefer glossy

http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527
(MacRumors has a lot of younger computer users that might be somewhat ignorant of the eyestrain caused by glossy screens)

3: 73% to 20% prefer matte over glossy

http://macslash.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=192§ion=AskMacSlash&aid=2

Glossy CRT's were "fixed" with matte screens long ago.

Nobody wants to go back to anti-glare filers and nasty films collecting dirt and peeling from the monitor heat. That's why most people prefer matte screens.

Glossy screens with anti-glare film is so PC retro and anti-Apple progressive it's not even funny.

Not to mention the eye damage being done to all the ignorant young computer users from a glossy defective product.

Why do we, the matte majority, have to fix a Apple product?

Apple can easily afford a choice of glossy or matte in all their computer lines. THEY GOT 15 BILLION OF OUR CONSUMER DOLLARS IN THE BANK!!!

The days of "poor little Apple Computer" are over. It's time Apple LISTEN TO THE NEEDS OF IT'S CONSUMERS.

WE WANT A MATTE CHOICE APPLE!! QUIT DICTATING OUR HARDWARE NEEDS!!

I've bought tons of Apple hardware for friends and family for the holidays over the years. Your cut off Apple as your "glossy only route" goes to show the dangers of a hardware and OS monopoly.

wow, polls and everything

I think a lot of this is about being different, not better, but different.
If you've been on the planet long enough, you start to see recycling trends.
Take car design. I've seen body chrome come in and out of style a few times. (and I prefer it when it's out)

It's probably the same with glossy screens. "We haven't done that in a while. Let's go glossy and we'll be new and different!" (but not better)

I'm going to buy stock in a tire company that makes whitewalls. That's probably going to be the next big "modern" craze for those that haven't lived through it.

DrLex writes:
Bogus: wrong, practically all CRTs have a subtle yet very effective anti-glare coating. Especially the pre-trinitron monitors with their curved surfaces would have been unusable without this, because they would be mirrorballs that reflect anything bright in the room no matter how you position them. I don't understand why this kind of coating isn't used on TFTs, because it has almost no noticeable effect on colors yet eliminates reflections almost entirely.

The answer is, it is used. As people have mentioned in this forum before, and in many reviews of the new iMacs, "the glass is treated with antireflective and strengthening coatings that cut glare and make the glass scratch- and break-resistant". You can look up the details for each of the LCD's used in the new iMacs. Just because they don't use frosted glass to cut glare doesn't mean the iMac's don't already have an anti-glare finish.

Well Apple "Thought Differently" right out of potential hardware sales. Especially from older computer users who don't want to inflict their children with the same problems of glossy screens they had.

Apple would have done better to offer a choice.

Apple's computer product line is getting much to limited with the rapid increase of exposure the company is getting.

People just have more needs than a mere three or four products.

Apple need to "Think Bigger"

I went to the Apple Store last night to buy a MBP. I carefully compared the glossy and matte screens (also hadn't really looked at them since the change to LED).

The matte screens didn't look as crisp and clear as the glossy did.
They were actually blurry.

I bought my third glossy screened Mac portable and I'm very happy.

Contrast is beautiful.

I think Apple DOES offer choice to the people who might complain- the Pro line.

Otherwise, move away from the window and stop complaining.

Norm writes:
The answer is, it is used. ...

I haven't seen the screen of the new iMac yet so I don't know how glossy it is, but nearly all glossy screens I've seen until now were as shiny as a polished glass (or plastic) pane can be. There are two laptops in this office which have glossy screens that can be used as a shaving mirror when turned off. My CRT on the other hand only shows a hazy dark silhouette of my face when turned off.
I have recently seen someone using a Macbook whose screen visibly had an anti-glare treatment. I assumed this must have been an extra layer like described in the article, because I didn't notice any anti-glare on the Macbooks when they first came out. It is possible that Apple has reduced glare on its latest 'glossy' screens, but a friend who has seen the new iMac says otherwise.

Through I was leery at first about the glossy screen, I have had no problems whatsoever with my Macbook screen. Onthe other hand, I have a company-supplied AT&T;-branded Nokia cell phone and can't read the screen outdoors or in my car on a sunny day. Any screen films or similar products available to solve this problem?

@ Bad News: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You accuse Apple of dictating your needs, but nobody's dictating what you </i>need</i>. If the iMac doesn't fit your needs, buy something else. Sounds like what you (and a few others like Dolita) really need is a Dell.

This glossy issue is for the birds...read the headlines...make your decision...and shaddup. I'm tired of hearing about this.
This is a non-issue. If you are a professional, then buy a Cinema Display. If you can't afford one or write one off, then you are NOT a professional, and should shaddup also. If your room is that bright with natural ambient sunlight, then buy yourself some curtains or position your Mac differently...and shaddup. Glossy or non glossy is a non-issue...I own both, and it is NOT that dramatic.

Yeah, of course everyone will readily pay $1000 extra for a Pro machine that's otherwise unnecessarily big and powerful, just to have the option to get a non-glossy screen!
Because we didn't have the obligatory silly car analogy in this discussion yet, here is one. It's like having to buy a 200MPH capable Porsche for your daily commute, just because it's the only model that still offers a feature that all other car manufacturers have dropped for some reason, but that's pretty much essential for many people to comfortably drive a car.

It's amazing how religious some people can get about something banal like computer monitors. Suddenly I realize that I have sinned against my intention to stay clear of discussions on the internet. So, bye bye and have fun!

@DJ "What I really want is a glossy screen that doesn't reflect" << Uhuh... like, dunno, a matte screen, right?

I agree with DrLex on this one: you should be able to view and read the screen in any position no matter where you sit. The screen should adapt to your needs, not the other way round.

People who think they could work with the new iMac when sitting in front a window, look here. The review (in Dutch) I took that image from also mentions that even though you can tilt the screen, you'll have a hard time to eliminate all the reflections. And even if you do, the iSight won't be pointed to your face anymore afterwards. Hmmm... convenient.

Oh well, I'm sure Apple had a perfectly good reason to switch to glossy screens. I still haven't found it though...

Nobody is suggesting that one use an add-on anti-reflective screen, so the repeated references to them (probably by the same, rabidly anti-glossy person) are inane and tiresome.

The film in question using a silicon resin backing has been proven on mobile phones and PDA's over the past few years. It is much better than other products, designed for use with CRT monitors that were more or less permanently bonded to the screen until they flaked off. They were bad, but they are not what is being suggested here.

Apple will offer matte screens when they become convinced that not having them on the MacBook and iMac is hurting their bottom line. At this point it seems that they are convinced that the cost of offering both matte and glossy outweighs the potential benefits. As long as sales of those models continue to grow at a pace that outstrips the competition, it is a bit challenging to make the business case that they are making a huge mistake, no matter how passionately you may feel about it.

One more thing...

It would be nice if people who had actually tried the product in question could report back on it. It could be crap, or it could be really good, but we don't really know yet. A recent poll showed that the chance of getting a impartial and reliable review and impression from any member of the AGT (Anti-Glossy Taliban) is under 6.5%

I've had several opportunities to compare my matte screen MacBook Pro side by side with my Dad's glossy MB Pro and the colors do have more saturation on the glossy. He's a retired professional photographer and bought it to work with his 50,000+ image library. But to be fair it does tax his elder eyes more than the iMac G5. I'm not likely to buy a glossy screen iMac, sorry Steve.

Matte or Glossy - life is full of tough choices!

what kind off professional photographer uses a dinky and wimpy 13.3 inch macbook with 1280 x 800 pixels ?


if you're a ''real'' pro. you can justify the pro line. otherwise your not.


what next? matte screen for your iPhone for you people who edit pictures ''professionally'' on your iphone?

The anti-antiglossy crowd can shut their collective traps!!!

The matte crowd just wants a choice of either across Apple's computer line.

So this has nothing to do with you bozo's who want to ruin your eyesight with glossy screens.

what kind off professional photographer uses a dinky and wimpy 13.3 inch macbook with 1280 x 800 pixels?

One who does their editing on a 30" MacPro at home and just needs something to view/email photo's to himself when he's out in the field perhaps?

Perhaps his clumsy daughter with bad eyesight?

The answers are limitless. People have different needs and Apple needs to start paying attention to them if they want to continue selling computers.

"The matte crowd just wants a choice of either across Apple's computer line.

Right. The option would be nice. I mean, a Mac Pro is too expensive and just too much for my needs. Plus, I would have to pay for a Cinema or 3rd party display. It would be nice to have the matte option. For now, that's not the case. Go to the Apple feedback section and let them know -- I did. Who knows, maybe they'll have a CTO if they get enough feedback.

I have question for those who have already purchased the Alu iMacs and this is highly influencing my purchasing decision -- Have any of you out there experienced issues such as:

This

This(related)

< a href="http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/condensation-problems-arise-with-some-aluminum-imacs"> Or This (related)</a>

Need to know. Thanks...

^^^
Or This:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/condensation-problems-arise-with-some-aluminum-imacs

We all understand that Apple could do a better job of meeting the full range of the potential needs by offering both matte and glossy screens across the entire model line. That has never been in question.

The question that Apple management and stockholders should be considering is whether adding matte options will generate enough additional sales revenue to be worth the cost involved.

With MacBooks and iMacs selling as well as they apparently are without a matte option, it might be difficult to make the case that the problem is large enough to warrant immediate action strictly from a sales standpoint. When demand drops significantly below current manufacturing capacity and product begins to back up in supply channels it will be time to reevaluate.

Calling those who actually prefer glossy screens Bozos and implying that they all have knowingly chosen to ruin their eyesight does little to convince us of your ability to reason objectively in this matter.

Saying that Apple needs to start paying attention to every possible interest group if they want to continue selling computers also demonstrates a profound lack of awareness of Apple and the realities of the industry as a whole. You could say the same thing about the lack of a 12" pro laptop, or a laptop with a flash memory HD or standard 7200 rpm HD, or a laptop with a built-in slot for a Turbo 3G SIM card, or the lack of 3G or Turbo 3G in the iPhone, or availability of the iPhone in countries such as Canada or Japan or Spain. All of those concerns are legitimate and technically feasible today and would meet specific needs that many people currently have. That doesn't mean that Apple should be taken to task for not having satisfied every whim or desire of every potential customer.

Lots of people have made the claim that the glossy screen would ruin one's eyesight. Is there any actual evidence to back that up? Anyone? I'm not pro- or anti-glossy, just wondering.

How come people who want a matte option are considered bitchy? OK, glossy fans. You've had your day. You got choice a while back on the MacBook Pros and now you rule the MacBooks and the iMacs.

And somehow someone wanting a simple matte screen that they don't have to reposition based on lighting and all that is bitchy?

That's weak. You're getting what you want. Why do you have to resent people who simply want what they want too?

Everyone should tell Apple, give everyone what they want. Screens are very personal and should have options for either group.

Has been great in the MBPs to date.