If you find the display of your new iMac or MacBook display too glossy and reflective, you might consider applying non-glare LCD protective film from Photodon.
Non-glare film eliminates the glossy, reflective surface that many of today’s displays have without noticeable loss of resolution. These films apply over the surface of your existing screen and adhere with a silicone resin over the entire screen surface. The adhesion layer is exposed by removing a protective backing liner. These films do not become a permanent part of the screen and can be removed, if necessary at a later date without damage to your screen, but they are not something you would take on and off on a daily basis. These films protect your original screen surface from damage from ink pens, fingerprints and are a good idea for screens that are in public use such as in schools or libraries. The films can be cleaned with regular screen cleaner products.
The benefits of this type of non-glare LCD film are:
• Silicone resin adhesion – No residue from glue or paste
• No color tint
• Direct impact protection, thicker than most films at up to .009″ / 0.2 mm
• H3 – Hard coat finish does not easily scratch
• Operation temperature: -30°C to 75°C (-22°F to 167°F)
• Good protection from the elements, fingerprints, ink pens, stylus use etc.
iMac films are custom cut to cover the entire screen up to the frame with 1/2″ rounded corners and an opening for the camera lens, top center.
Pricing:
• 13″ MacBook – US$9.95
• 20″ iMac – $28.50
• 24″ iMac – $34.25
(Quantity discounts start with the second item ordered.)
Photodon has most standard sizes precut and will custom cut films up to approximately 42″ diagonal dimension.
More info here.
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!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”rolleyes” style=”border:0;” />
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.