10 ms·

It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option, and then to eventually roll out a matte screen as a "premium"

It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option, and then to eventually roll out a matte screen as a "premium" feature with a bunch of marketing around it.

m463 11mo ago
I wonder if they will (re)introduce premium keyboards with sculpted keys that self-center your fingers someday. magsafe coming back was nice, maybe more extra ports?
- dylan604 11mo ago
  MagSafe + SD card reader + headphone jack + USB-C/TB4 only ports is fine by me. In 2025, I'm well past needing USB-C to USB-A dongles. We've had since what 2015/16 to start the conversion to C only.
  - fpoling 11mo ago
    My car from 2023 still came with USB-A port. No-so cheap USB camera that I recently bought came with USB-A port.
    - dylan604 11mo ago
      The camera came with a USB-A port, or simply provided a cable that had a USB-A end? I've never seen a camera with an A port
      - fpoling 11mo ago
        It was a cable with USB-A end. The cable cannot be detached from the camera.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
LeoPanthera 11mo ago
Historically, traditional matte screen finishes exhibited poor optical qualities by scattering ambient light, which tended to wash out colors. This scattering process also affected the light from individual pixels, causing it to refract into neighboring pixels. This reduced overall image quality and caused pixel-fine details, such as small text, to appear smeary on high-density LCDs. In contrast, well-designed glossy displays provide a superior visual experience by minimizing internal refraction and reflecting ambient light at high angles, which reduces display pollution. Consequently, glossy screens often appear much brighter, blacks appear blacker without being washed out, colors show a higher dynamic range, and small details remain crisper. High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight, and reflections are manageable because they are full optical reflections with correct depth, allowing the user to focus on the screen content. Apple's "nano texture" matte screens were engineered to solve the specific optical problems of traditional matte finishes, the washed-out colors and smeary details. But they cost more to make. The glossy option is still available, and still good.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - kergonath 11mo ago
    > What exactly are they "engineering" here? The coatings, which do matter quite a bit when you are optimising for some durability/optical quality tradeoff. Glass covers make screens more durable, but imply internal and external reflections. Laminated screens on glass panes solves the internal reflections and improve transmission, but do not help with glare and external reflections. Those can be improved by texturing the glass, but at the cost of diffraction and smearing, leading to a decrease in effective resolution. Unless the texture becomes small enough, but then you need it to be durable enough to avoid being wiped or damaged by things that might come into contact with the screen. It turns out that there is a lot more than the bottom layers that matter in a display. You can see all these problems being solved in succession when looking at the evolution of Apple’s displays over the years (and others’, but it is much easier to find information about the good and bad sides of any Apple product). It’s fascinating, actually. [edit] add the issue of oils on the human skin and you have do deal with oleophobic coatings for touch screens, which is another very important factor to consider. In addition to how the touch sensors are integrated.
shuckles 11mo ago
It’s classic Apple commenter not know about Apple. They offered matte display upgrades to the MacBook Pro almost 20 years ago. The current glossy black display only became a product line wide choice with the retina displays in 2012, likely because they didn’t prioritize getting an appropriate matte glass finish on the retina screens due to low demand.
- marcosscriven 11mo ago
  Are you an Apple commenter?
  - shuckles 11mo ago
    No since I’m not making claims about the company and its marketing directly.
- iAMkenough 11mo ago
  I can make the same argument about you. Matte display was the standard prior to Unibody MacBook Pros in 2008. Glossy was an available option, but not the product line wide choice. The top of the line Late 2008 MacBook Pro (not Unibody) included: > An antiglare CCFL-backlit 17" widescreen 1680x1050 active-matrix display (a glossy display was offered via build-to-order at no extra cost, and a higher resolution LED-backlit 1920x1200 display also was offered for an extra US$100). https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.6-17-early-2008-penryn-specs.html https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook...
  - shuckles 11mo ago
    I wasn’t making claims that Apple was marketing one as better or implying some contradiction between glossy and matte upgrades, so this information isn’t relevant to my point. Matte has been sold as an upgrade in the lineup for a long time which is contradictory to the point I was replying to. Your citation is doubly irrelevant because the primary benefit of the glossy upgrade in the year or so it was an upgrade (glossy has been standard for 18 years) was a wider color gamut and higher resolution, not the glossiness of the screen itself.
inference-god 11mo ago
As someone who buys and likes Apple stuff, I agree, it's a signature move from them.
bee_rider 11mo ago
They are really good at selling a small quantitative improvement that causes them to start using something, as a new type of thing going from impossible to possible. As if the tech didn’t just didn’t exist before Apple started using it. It is probably a pretty good screen, though. I don’t really like Apple overall. But, to some extent, it’s like… well, maybe that’s a good way of selling incremental engineering improvements.
lapcat 11mo ago
> It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option I don't recall Apple ever "insisting" anything about glossy vs. matte. They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later. If you have a reference to a public statement from Apple defending the elimination of the matte option, I'd like to see it. To be clear, I've been complaining about glossy Macs ever since matte was eliminated, and I too purchased an M4 MacBook Pro soon after it was available.
- dbbk 11mo ago
  The "matte" options also are totally different approaches, different quality levels. They're not the same product.
- kergonath 11mo ago
  > They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later. Wasn’t the matte option that disappeared just then removing the glass in front of the screen? I seem to remember that (my MBP from that time was glossy). The nano textured coating they are using now is quite complex and I am not quite sure it was applicable at such scales cheaply enough back in 2015.
  - lapcat 11mo ago
    The PowerBook and the first MacBook Pro were only matte. A glossy option was introduced in 2006, but the MacBook Pro was still matte by default. In 2008, the MacBook Pro case was redesigned, and then the display situation changed significantly.
    - bickfordb 11mo ago
      I don't think this is exactly accurate. The matte was a ~$80 upgrade option after they released the glossy. I definitely preferred the matte screens and still do. For coding reducing glare in uncontrolled environments is way more important to me than color fidelity, but to each their own.
mdasen 11mo ago
Apple was actually late to the glossy display party. HP and Dell moved to them a few years before Apple. I don't think Apple was "insisting" on them, but rather following an industry trend that they were late to.
a-dub 11mo ago
i recently worked with a macbook pro and it caused uncomfortable feelings of eyestrain. i had some app that was supposed to disable the temporal dithering but i'm not sure if it helped. i'm curious if there's anyone else on here like me who has experienced eyestrain with macbooks where the nano texture display has helped.
GeekyBear 11mo ago
It's certainly on brand for Apple to face widespread criticism in the past for having matte screens as the default (computer magazines of the day found that matte finishes made screens too dim) only to face renewed criticism for dropping the thing they were previously criticized for.
- bigyabai 11mo ago
  Brightness is a solved issue. It's more on-brand for an Apple apologist to grope around the annals of history looking for some circuitous justification that makes other people look silly when no such example exists.
tymscar 11mo ago
If anything, Apple was right back then. Glossy has so many benefits for the places where you’d use a computer, it’s not even close. Having the option to pay premium for those few that work in environments where matte helps them makes sense. I’d pay money for my display to not be matte.

m463 11mo ago

I wonder if they will (re)introduce premium keyboards with sculpted keys that self-center your fingers someday. magsafe coming back was nice, maybe more extra ports?

dylan604 11mo ago
MagSafe + SD card reader + headphone jack + USB-C/TB4 only ports is fine by me. In 2025, I'm well past needing USB-C to USB-A dongles. We've had since what 2015/16 to start the conversion to C only.
- fpoling 11mo ago
  My car from 2023 still came with USB-A port. No-so cheap USB camera that I recently bought came with USB-A port.
  - dylan604 11mo ago
    The camera came with a USB-A port, or simply provided a cable that had a USB-A end? I've never seen a camera with an A port
    - fpoling 11mo ago
      It was a cable with USB-A end. The cable cannot be detached from the camera.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

LeoPanthera 11mo ago

Historically, traditional matte screen finishes exhibited poor optical qualities by scattering ambient light, which tended to wash out colors. This scattering process also affected the light from individual pixels, causing it to refract into neighboring pixels. This reduced overall image quality and caused pixel-fine details, such as small text, to appear smeary on high-density LCDs. In contrast, well-designed glossy displays provide a superior visual experience by minimizing internal refraction and reflecting ambient light at high angles, which reduces display pollution. Consequently, glossy screens often appear much brighter, blacks appear blacker without being washed out, colors show a higher dynamic range, and small details remain crisper. High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight, and reflections are manageable because they are full optical reflections with correct depth, allowing the user to focus on the screen content. Apple's "nano texture" matte screens were engineered to solve the specific optical problems of traditional matte finishes, the washed-out colors and smeary details. But they cost more to make. The glossy option is still available, and still good.

2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- kergonath 11mo ago
  > What exactly are they "engineering" here? The coatings, which do matter quite a bit when you are optimising for some durability/optical quality tradeoff. Glass covers make screens more durable, but imply internal and external reflections. Laminated screens on glass panes solves the internal reflections and improve transmission, but do not help with glare and external reflections. Those can be improved by texturing the glass, but at the cost of diffraction and smearing, leading to a decrease in effective resolution. Unless the texture becomes small enough, but then you need it to be durable enough to avoid being wiped or damaged by things that might come into contact with the screen. It turns out that there is a lot more than the bottom layers that matter in a display. You can see all these problems being solved in succession when looking at the evolution of Apple’s displays over the years (and others’, but it is much easier to find information about the good and bad sides of any Apple product). It’s fascinating, actually. [edit] add the issue of oils on the human skin and you have do deal with oleophobic coatings for touch screens, which is another very important factor to consider. In addition to how the touch sensors are integrated.

shuckles 11mo ago

It’s classic Apple commenter not know about Apple. They offered matte display upgrades to the MacBook Pro almost 20 years ago. The current glossy black display only became a product line wide choice with the retina displays in 2012, likely because they didn’t prioritize getting an appropriate matte glass finish on the retina screens due to low demand.

marcosscriven 11mo ago
Are you an Apple commenter?
- shuckles 11mo ago
  No since I’m not making claims about the company and its marketing directly.
iAMkenough 11mo ago
I can make the same argument about you. Matte display was the standard prior to Unibody MacBook Pros in 2008. Glossy was an available option, but not the product line wide choice. The top of the line Late 2008 MacBook Pro (not Unibody) included: > An antiglare CCFL-backlit 17" widescreen 1680x1050 active-matrix display (a glossy display was offered via build-to-order at no extra cost, and a higher resolution LED-backlit 1920x1200 display also was offered for an extra US$100). https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.6-17-early-2008-penryn-specs.html https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook...
- shuckles 11mo ago
  I wasn’t making claims that Apple was marketing one as better or implying some contradiction between glossy and matte upgrades, so this information isn’t relevant to my point. Matte has been sold as an upgrade in the lineup for a long time which is contradictory to the point I was replying to. Your citation is doubly irrelevant because the primary benefit of the glossy upgrade in the year or so it was an upgrade (glossy has been standard for 18 years) was a wider color gamut and higher resolution, not the glossiness of the screen itself.

inference-god 11mo ago

As someone who buys and likes Apple stuff, I agree, it's a signature move from them.

bee_rider 11mo ago

They are really good at selling a small quantitative improvement that causes them to start using something, as a new type of thing going from impossible to possible. As if the tech didn’t just didn’t exist before Apple started using it. It is probably a pretty good screen, though. I don’t really like Apple overall. But, to some extent, it’s like… well, maybe that’s a good way of selling incremental engineering improvements.

lapcat 11mo ago

> It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option I don't recall Apple ever "insisting" anything about glossy vs. matte. They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later. If you have a reference to a public statement from Apple defending the elimination of the matte option, I'd like to see it. To be clear, I've been complaining about glossy Macs ever since matte was eliminated, and I too purchased an M4 MacBook Pro soon after it was available.

dbbk 11mo ago
The "matte" options also are totally different approaches, different quality levels. They're not the same product.
kergonath 11mo ago
> They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later. Wasn’t the matte option that disappeared just then removing the glass in front of the screen? I seem to remember that (my MBP from that time was glossy). The nano textured coating they are using now is quite complex and I am not quite sure it was applicable at such scales cheaply enough back in 2015.
- lapcat 11mo ago
  The PowerBook and the first MacBook Pro were only matte. A glossy option was introduced in 2006, but the MacBook Pro was still matte by default. In 2008, the MacBook Pro case was redesigned, and then the display situation changed significantly.
  - bickfordb 11mo ago
    I don't think this is exactly accurate. The matte was a ~$80 upgrade option after they released the glossy. I definitely preferred the matte screens and still do. For coding reducing glare in uncontrolled environments is way more important to me than color fidelity, but to each their own.

mdasen 11mo ago

Apple was actually late to the glossy display party. HP and Dell moved to them a few years before Apple. I don't think Apple was "insisting" on them, but rather following an industry trend that they were late to.

a-dub 11mo ago

i recently worked with a macbook pro and it caused uncomfortable feelings of eyestrain. i had some app that was supposed to disable the temporal dithering but i'm not sure if it helped. i'm curious if there's anyone else on here like me who has experienced eyestrain with macbooks where the nano texture display has helped.

GeekyBear 11mo ago

It's certainly on brand for Apple to face widespread criticism in the past for having matte screens as the default (computer magazines of the day found that matte finishes made screens too dim) only to face renewed criticism for dropping the thing they were previously criticized for.

bigyabai 11mo ago
Brightness is a solved issue. It's more on-brand for an Apple apologist to grope around the annals of history looking for some circuitous justification that makes other people look silly when no such example exists.

tymscar 11mo ago

If anything, Apple was right back then. Glossy has so many benefits for the places where you’d use a computer, it’s not even close. Having the option to pay premium for those few that work in environments where matte helps them makes sense. I’d pay money for my display to not be matte.