Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Apple Brings Back Matte LCD to 15'' MBP

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 23 comments

MacBook Pro is back in matte.

When Apple launched its unibody MacBook like in October 2008, we were fairly impressed with the design of the hardware.

What we didn't like was the glass cover over the LCD, making it ultra glossy and reflective. While the glass looked exceptional when the screen is off or under controlled lighting conditions, it was simply a headache to deal with in bright conditions.

Perhaps in response to professionals wanting a more versatile display, Apple has finally reintroduced the matte option to the MacBook Pro 15-inch model.

The option, termed "antiglare" by Apple itself, was already available on the 17-inch model since its launch in early 2009 as a $50 option. The same option for the 15-inch also costs $50. Mind you, the antiglare option was previously a no cost thing, but at least it's back for you thinking about picking up a MacBook Pro 15-inch.

Display 23 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    Pei-chen , August 11, 2009 5:41 PM
    Apple is going to release a UV spectrum screen next time and charge people to "convert" the screen back to visible light.
Other Comments
  • 4 Hide
    dman3k , August 11, 2009 5:40 PM
    Only Apple and Sony would charge more for a cheaper product...

    But only Apple could brand a cheaper and older product like "antiglare" as innovation. At least Sony's PSP2, although cheaper, is in fact newer.
  • 14 Hide
    Pei-chen , August 11, 2009 5:41 PM
    Apple is going to release a UV spectrum screen next time and charge people to "convert" the screen back to visible light.
  • 4 Hide
    mindless728 , August 11, 2009 5:51 PM
    Pei-chenApple is going to release a UV spectrum screen next time and charge people to "convert" the screen back to visible light.


    nope they are going to ship the laptops without the lcd panel and charge extra for it
  • -1 Hide
    bk420 , August 11, 2009 5:58 PM
    Apple might as well put a plasma screen. Doesn't glass make this heavy and dangerous?
  • -1 Hide
    jdamon113 , August 11, 2009 6:17 PM
    Good, a shinny screen on a laptop is stupid anyway.
    Now its worth buying.
  • 9 Hide
    zubai , August 11, 2009 6:18 PM
    I want real tech news.
  • 0 Hide
    10tacle , August 11, 2009 6:18 PM
    I've always preferred the glossy screens. I've got one on a Dell 17" Inspiron laptop (1920x1200). The display just looks clearer than a friend's non-glossy Inspiron 17" with the same resolution. Same goes for my Sammy 40" 1080p LCD with a glossy screen compared to his 40" Sony XBR7 with a matte screen. Games and movies just seem to "pop out" at you better.

    That said, if you absolutely *must* use a laptop in broad daylight or where ever else you could possibly be in overlit conditions, you can always buy a glare reducing insert. But, to each his own as with just about everything else in life.
  • -1 Hide
    jerther , August 11, 2009 6:40 PM
    50$? Wow, that's crazy...
  • 1 Hide
    hillarymakesmecry , August 11, 2009 6:44 PM
    If this wasn't from Apple I'd be amazed at the $50 markup. That's ridiculous.
  • 1 Hide
    hellwig , August 11, 2009 6:55 PM
    10tacleThat said, if you absolutely *must* use a laptop in broad daylight or where ever else you could possibly be in overlit conditions, you can always buy a glare reducing insert. But, to each his own as with just about everything else in life.

    I would debate the logic in purchasing a Laptop you never intended to take into uncontrolled lighting situations. If you plan to just set it up in a design studio with muted lighting, get a desktop, it'll be more powerful for the same money. For everyone else, I've found even sitting in the living room or kitchen can cause unsightly glare on a glossy screen (not my laptop). When there is no price difference between glossy and matte, go matte. If Apple wants to charge you $50, however, that anti-glare insert might be a better purchase (along with avoiding Apple altogether).
  • 3 Hide
    tayb , August 11, 2009 8:10 PM
    I like to use my laptop under fluorescent lighting, outdoors, etc. If I want to look at myself I'll get a mirror.
  • -1 Hide
    Greg_77 , August 11, 2009 8:53 PM
    It seems it is Apple's goal to incorporate "mirrors" in their products. The Ipod Touches back is another "mirror" product from Apple that comes to mind...
  • -1 Hide
    nukemaster , August 11, 2009 9:25 PM
    In the controlled place where I keep my desktop, a glossy screen would look GREAT(but the only one they had at the time sucked at color reproduction so i got a matte screen). my laptop has one. it looks great too, just not outside...

    I do not find you see too much glare once the screen is on under normal light.
  • -1 Hide
    The_Blood_Raven , August 11, 2009 9:31 PM
    Well if they are going to charge insane amounts of money for their products, I guess the screen might as well be good enough to contend with my girlfriends $199 netbook. I will never by a laptop with a glossy screen, never.
  • -1 Hide
    pocketdrummer , August 12, 2009 1:37 AM
    $50 is bullshit.
  • -1 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 12, 2009 11:09 AM
    Apple are charging $50 extra for the privilige of having a screen that is minus the shiny coating. Pay more for getting less. Does that mean if I don't have the carry case I pay $40 more, if I don't get a USB mouse it is another $20 extra? I should be very careful when buying one, if I remove all of the options and have just the laptop on its own it could cost a fortune.
  • -1 Hide
    shabaa , August 12, 2009 1:19 PM
    Many folks don't remember when gasoline was that .... gasoline. Then they found out that by adding lead to the gas it would cause less engine wear, and we paid more for the additive. Then we found out that the lead was causing us harm and the oil companies took the lead out, and we paid more for not having the additive put in. It is the same thing. Just "spin" the change as a benefit and people will flock to spend more on a product that costs less to manufacture. It is all "spin" .... new.... improved....BETTER!
  • -1 Hide
    scryer_360 , August 12, 2009 5:24 PM
    YAY!!!! I can buy a MBP again! Now to just get it on the 13.3 model...
    (a coworker walking by said he thought I was being sarcastic: no, I really am going to get a new MBP now, I just couldn't live with the size of the 17" model)

    Still, $50? I guess its better than nothing, but at least Apple is responding to the (well leveled) criticism.
  • -1 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 12, 2009 5:54 PM
    scryer_360Still, $50? I guess its better than nothing, but at least Apple is responding to the (well leveled) criticism.


    Actually, it's not better than nothing. Nothing would have cost $0, this costs you $50. You see there's a fundamental level of economics that needs to be addressed here regarding monies being paid to a third party. $50 is WORSE than nothing and nothing is BETTER than $50. If however you are the third party and monies are being paid to you, ONLY THEN is $50 in fact better than nothing.

    [/sarcasm]
  • -1 Hide
    geoffs , August 17, 2009 3:41 PM
    back_by_demandApple are charging $50 extra for the privilige of having a screen that is minus the shiny coating.
    The glossy screen is not due to a shiny coating, glass is naturally shiny. Anti-glare is in because of an added anti-reflective coating applied to the glass. You're paying extra for getting a screen that has an extra coating applied. $50 does seem high, but it's in the same price range as an aftermarket anti-glare filter, and it's a whole lot more convenient, lighter, and better looking than adding a filter. For those who detest glare on their screens, $50 for usability and sanity is a cheap price.
Display more comments