MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jul 11, 09 - 09:08 am Comment from: R

This has been out for a bit, but it's good for newbies to read. This is why Apple will not become another M$, even if it grows to 1/2 the market. As long as the Pepsi salesmen are kept out of the lead positions, Apple will usher in the new age of computing very strong indeed.

The way I see it, if indeed Apple puts product quality ahead of profit, that is indeed awesome.
Way too may orgainzations and people in the USA put profits #1 and it results in bad products , and services. The USA currently seems to be mostly into practicing Ferengi values.

I was having this conversation just yesterday. Your goal is to build great products that people will love. The money is just a result of achieving that goal.

So long as the designers have a big role at Apple, the company will prosper. The moment the bean counters take over, the magic is lost.

Jul 11, 09 - 09:57 am Comment from: aka Christian

But, but... capitalism is all that matters! Make money any way you can, and everything will be great! C'mon guys, this is the U.S. of A. What's with all this namby-pamby talk of doing good work for the sake of the craft, not the almighty dollar?

</sarcasm>

Jul 11, 09 - 09:59 am Comment from: R

This is capitalism, but just like anything, this is a well done approach. Don't be fooled. They want to make a lot of money. They just realize that this is the best way for them to do it. It's the market, after all, that's deciding Apple's success.

The key to Apple's success?
Two words: Steve Jobs.
Well really, there are three words, with the third being silent. We don't talk about it.

Jul 11, 09 - 10:40 am Comment from: Jubei

Apple should have been in the 30pct market share or more by now. Unfortunately, when your up againts a Monopoly that is allowed to grow and extend its tentacle throughout the industry, its hard to gain on them. MS is hard at work tying WEB, Search, Auto Industry, Entertainment, DVD Format, Audio Format, Streaming Video Format, Productivity Formats, Medical Industry, Arts..... the list goes on and on.

Jul 11, 09 - 10:42 am Comment from: Anonymous©

Yes, but design for design's sake can't be the ultimate goal either. It has to genuinely be better for the end-user.

"Sir Christopher Frayling, rector of the Royal College of Art."

Oh, I didn't kiss her. I rector...

Jul 11, 09 - 11:00 am Comment from: alansky

Calling Jonathan Ive the key to Apple’s success is a bit of an overstatement. He's a great industrial designer, no doubt about it. But without someone like Steve Jobs to tell him what to create, he'd be designing beautiful toasters.

Either Steve is the one-of-a-kind, only-genius-in-a-generation, who has no equal and the future of Apple is in his hands alone, or...

There are others, like Ive?, in the queue ready to take up Steve's mission to change the world.

It's simply not possible to say, on one hand, that Apple's future does not depend on Steve and then say, on the other hand, that Apple will be relegated to a niche market (if, at all) without him.

@aka Christian
Capitalism is a framework that enables a company like Apple to do "good work for the sake of the craft" and still earn a profit for its investors. It is not inherently moral or immoral. It is path to great things or evil things depending on the human mind putting it to work; just as is with the world's other economic frameworks. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Capitalism is the worst form of economic framework to work within... except for all those others that have been tried.

Jul 11, 09 - 12:48 pm Comment from: NCIceman

This is good information, and an important read for ANY company. If you focus on making good products that people will want, the rest takes care of itself.

Microsoft could take a big lesson from this; quit trying to be the only player in every market, and just focus on making good products. Try to be the best, not the only.

This is the way business should be done. Put your product first make it great, put it with in reason price to make profit, and in return you make money. Apple takes it one market at a time and built a great family of products without over extending itself unlike microsoft.

@ Jubei

I'm not sure it's just about "throughout the industry". The entire U.S. government and military is run on MS Windows computers. If you're lucky, you'll see some non-Windows machines for service Web sites. You'll be hard pressed to find non-Windows machines for military applications, with the exception of some legacy real-time embedded systems. But the net effect on industry is enormous, as industry provides systems and software for the government & military.

A company I once worked for used to be primarily a Mac shop in the late '80s & early '90s. But when they started to lose important contract bids & asked why, they were told it was because they were using & bidding "non-competitive computer systems". They switched to Windows & have been richly rewarded by the powers that be ever since. The message was not missed by mgmt. They didn't care that IT costs went through the roof; only that they continue to win important contracts.

So, AKAIC, I doubt we'll ever see an end to the MS Monopoly until there is a change in US Government & military acquisition practices that is an absolute guaranteed lock-in for MS Windows & other applications.

Jul 11, 09 - 02:03 pm Comment from: Grigori

@alansky:

MDN screwed up the title, but if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that it is called "Jonathan Ive on The Key to Apple's Success."

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2009/07/jonathan_ive_th.html

Jul 11, 09 - 02:05 pm Comment from: Grigori

Good to hear something from the elusive Mr. Ive, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in the upcoming Objectified film: http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/

Jul 11, 09 - 02:34 pm Comment from: Bodie

"Apples goal isn't to make money".

This must be true.

Not having a matte screen option on the smaller MacBook Pros is loosing them sales.

Jul 11, 09 - 02:38 pm Comment from: Jubei

@Kevin J. Weise

Including health, law and even local Gov sites are forcing uses to use IE only for their websites. IE that only runs on Windows. Why the Gov continues to ignore their own support of a monopoly is beyond me.

@Bodie,

It must be true, also because they thave not hired Bodie as a business consultant.

@Jubei,

Because of lobyists.

Jul 11, 09 - 03:13 pm Comment from: montex

It's always such a pleasure to hear from the glossy-screen whiners. Let's see now, what are they complaining about? I always seem to forget... as if I haven't heard it a thousand times... something about a - what is it? Oh yes, big bad meaniepoo Apple forcing people to use glossy screens. Wah wah whaaaaaa!

Jul 11, 09 - 05:34 pm Comment from: Bodie

@Pete

No. Apple isn't that smart.

@montex

Unlike your answer, there are intelligent reasons for a matte screen. And profitable reasons too.

You must be the business consultant that Pete mentioned.

@montex

My wife and I love all our Macs (we have about 8) and iPhones (1 each) and our kids love their Touches (3 kids). Also, my dad and mom really like their iMacs (which we bought for them) as do my in-laws (mother and father & brother). And finally, my brother, my business partner and his 3 sons all have Macs (which again I bought) and they all find them extremely easy to use and really like them.

I say all that so that you will know we as a family are Mac centric. Some of my associates call me a fanatic, but I call it Mac confident. I know a great product and use it without any qualms.

Now, even great products sometimes have a weakness. And one weakness of the Macbook are the glossy screen. My wife and I were on vacation this week and while on the road we wanted to do some work on our Macbook (I originally bought it for me, but she stole it : ) so now it is "ours"). Sorry, but the glare and reflections were awful and to the extent we gave up. We even went to a Staples to buy a matte screen overlay but to no avail.

So, I read your post and think you must really be immature to respond in such a childish manner. I challenge you to re-answer the initial post thoughtfully and with civility.

Jul 11, 09 - 07:14 pm Comment from: Bodie

@pab

I'm a long time Mac user -- since 1987 I think. I've always had desktops and in December of last year I upgraded to a Mac Pro because my trusty G4 MDD was getting dated and wouldn't be Snow Leopard compatible. I'm using a Samsung 24" monitor because it has a matt screen. It's clear, bright and sharp -- and no reflections. The frame is A shiny piano black and has all kinds of reflections. The screen would be unusable if it was like that.

I don't need a notebook. But I'd like to have one. There are some great deals on refurbished MacBook Pros on Apples site. But the glossy screen kills it for me. So I'll save my money and just be content with what I have.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

Bodie

Some facts about Ives

1: He used to design toilets. That milky white MacBook, eMac and so on, that's the attractiveness of soft white, the soft curves brings a relaxed feeling.

2: He's Steve Job's best friend.

3: Both of them don't have design forums to discuss what is in the interest and needs of computer users.

They design the hardware first according to what they want, and then everything else is the job of the engineers.

"Yes, but design for design's sake can't be the ultimate goal either. It has to genuinely be better for the end-user."

Which is why I think it's silly for people to criticize Apple for letting designs exist for so long (like the G5/MacPro enclosure). If it's a good design don't change it for change sake.

I agree with you. I think the lack of a matte screen option is bad, especially for those in the design world. Once my Cinema Display dies (knock on wood) I'll likely look at other manufacturers monitors because the last thing I want while I'm doing heavy Photoshop work is the reflection of what's behind me while I'm working.

Some people just don't seem to understand this.

Jul 11, 09 - 08:15 pm Comment from: lurker

Apple will do well as long as they keep MBAs, lawyers and excessutives out of the corporate decision loop.

Jul 11, 09 - 08:44 pm Comment from: MacMatte

For this article, so far, there have been 28 comments - with 5 being overtly in favor of matte screens. That's 17%.

According to a review of matte vs glossy polls at http://macmatte.wordpress.com - about 40 % prefer matte screens. Of those, half will buy glossy under protest, while around 19% will outright refuse to buy glossy, even forced to move back to Windows.

I used to be a Jonathan Ive fan, but this whole glossy-only move has soured his image in my view.

I argue that, in spite of soaring MacBook sales, it could be better if Apple offered matte screens.

At http://macmatte.wordpress.com where the raw poll data is found, most online polls show that 40% prefer matte, but 20% would still buy glossy if forced to do so. This means that 20% of past Apple users refuse to buy glossy Macs.

Skeptics have tried to dismiss the poll results by asserting that, if that many Mac purchasers really did prefer matte, then Apple’s sales figures would be falling, so the argument goes. That is not true.

Those people – who point to Apple’s upward growth as vindication of the glossy-only policy – are not taking into account that most of the impetus to switch to Apple comes from other factors, namely: the window of opportunity created by Microsoft Vista’s inadequacies, the halo effect of the iPod/iPhone, and from OSX’s perceived advantages over Windows Vista/XP. All these factors combined mean that, even if a substantial number of people detest glossy screens, Apple’s sales figures would still show an upward trend – not because everyone loves glossy screens … but in spite of it.

Read the user comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com Many users said they’ll be forced to keep using their existing matte hardware rather than upgrading now. Therefore, a deleterious effect on sales may only become noticeable until around 3-5 years later when these holdouts are forced to replace hardware, and then have to make the choice of whether to stick with Apple.

Others dismiss the matte-trend in the polls by rationalizing that the type of people who post comments on websites tend to be professional computer users and computer geeks, i.e. by inference, not representative of the total, overall market that Apple is trying to reach. In other words, what they’re arguing is that even if the polls indicate 40-75% like matte, that’s a minority because the majority of Apple users don’t read Mac website or post comments on Mac websites.

I would argue differently. In sales & marketing, the Pareto principle – 80/20 Rule — applies, namely that most sales come from a core of users. Equal sales are not generated equally across the population. The 80/20 Rule says that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients. Therefore, I would argue that people who post comments on Mac websites are more representative of this minority that generates the most sales. Why do we read Mac websites? So we can buy the stuff that interests us. Mac website readers would tend to be more representative of this core of high-volume purchasers who get multiple Mac’s not just one, and who upgrade more frequently than the peripheral buyers. Any marketing-savvy person will laugh if you think you can ignore the core minority who are fanatical about your products – because they’re the minority that bring the bulk of your sales. For this reason, the online polls are telling Apple that their core, fanatical minority are crying out loudly for a matte screen option on all Macs.

In other words, Apple’s figures could have been better, if the matte option had been there. Example: if Apple’s profits increased to $6 billion, when it might have increased to $7.2 million – the glossy people argue the increase to $6 billion proves everyone loves glossy – whereas, the matte crowd argue it could have instead been $7.2 billion in higher sales, if not for the people turned away because of all-glossy screens.

Where do I get the hypothetical increase from $6 billion to $7.2 billion potential? At comment No. 88 at the http://macmatte.wordpress.com website, the polls indicate that close to 20% will not buy Macs with glossy screens – this includes people like myself who outright refuse, and also those who did buy glossy but later regretted it. Therefore, $6 billion x 1.2 = $7.2 billion. (Of course this is just a rough calculation for the sake of argument, and I haven’t factored in what percentage of Apple’s sales are made up of Macs.)

And since when does it require sales figures to slope downwards before a company listens to the needs of its customers? Let’s be reasonable: any company that would require its sales chart to head downwards before it heeds the calls of its customers will not be in business for long. The converse is true: any company that refuses to listen to its customers’ needs, simply because its sales figures are climbing, is …..

Jul 11, 09 - 09:26 pm Comment from: Predrag

MacMatte:

You have already pasted this same argument before. I thought there were some rules that prohibited copying/pasting postings form previous discussions; if you don't have anything new to add, pasting a text that you previously posted is, if nothing more, than at least poor form.

I will not re-paste my response to you, but I will paraphrase. Your entire argument is based on a completely false data set. As a starting point for all of your math, you use online polls that seem to indicate incredibly high percentage of users who prefer matte.

Let's get this straight once again: online polls are self-selected, and therefore self-serving, and as such, have NO VALIDITY.

I have two matte Macs and I have no issues them. I like glossy screens. However, I am not passionate about them and I never voted in any of the online polls about matte/glossy debate. Most anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that vast silent majority has no objections, and most even prefer glossy. Those that prefer matte seem to be very passionate and vocal about it. Much like the abortion issue in the US: more than 80% of population supports it (around 87%, according to most recent research), but when you look at media, it seems as if 50% of America is dead against it.

Until somebody does a proper scientific research with respect to matte/glossy, there simply won't be any valid reason to indicate that matte is preferred by more than a minuscule percentage of population.

Apple is a huge company (one of the top 20 by market cap, and top 50 by profits). It would be completely misguided to actually think that Apple didn't do thorough research into this issue before completely discontinuing matte option from all but one Mac (MBP 17"). Remember, for quite some time, there was an option to get MBP 15" in one or the other. No price difference, no other difference, just the screen. Apple got perfect metrics on public perception; no online poll could be nearly as accurate as that.

I am absolutely convinced everyone who so passionately argues against glossy has a genuine and valid reason for that. I don't see the problem, since I have both two glossy Macs (as I mentioned above), AND a matte MBP. No difference in glare noticed yet (after almost 3 years). YMMV, as they say, so yes, I have no intention to argue the matter. However, to believe that Apple is deliberately (or obliviously) losing some major money by not offering matte is really, really misguided and naïve.

And please, avoid copy/pasting previous articles. It's not fair to all others who put genuine effort in stating their opinions.

Jul 11, 09 - 09:32 pm Comment from: Predrag

In my haste to type at the speed of thought, I got an important point wrong; I have two GLOSSY Macs, and one MATTE mac. Hopefully, this makes my response a bit clearer.

Jul 11, 09 - 09:35 pm Comment from: Bodie

I'd love to know how many buyers RETURN their purchases because of blinding glossiness. Is that included in the figures?

Hey Apple, those of us who have been with you for the duration know your history because we are part of it. So once again, please stop shooting yourself in the foot, and us in the a**.

Jul 11, 09 - 09:50 pm Comment from: Predrag

Bodle,

I'll say this again. Apple had offered 15" MBP in matte and glossy for quite some time. They had obtained most perfect metrics on what customers prefer that no online (or other kind of) poll could every possibly match.

The logical conclusion is that the reason the matte option is offered (at premium) only on one Mac model (17" MBP) is because hardly anyone would choose the matte option if both were offered. To think otherwise is, as I said before, naïve.

Jul 11, 09 - 10:36 pm Comment from: Bodie

The glossy on the pre-unibody notebooks is somewhat different than the glassy on the unibody notebooks.

Don't like either.

Solution?

Hackintosh / Windows 7 / Linux

Naive?

Don't think so.

Jul 11, 09 - 10:53 pm Comment from: BC Kelly

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan


Do you really expect the average Joe Six Pack Middle American/Brit/whatever ?

As well as the Corporation$, Institution$ and other Entitie$ out there ?

To have even thought about, much less define, their 'rea$on for being' ?


How posh






BC

Jul 11, 09 - 10:54 pm Comment from: Predrag

..."Naive? Don't think so."

Only if you think the number of those who prefer matte is anything other than minuscule percentage of Mac buying public.

I wasn't aware of the difference between pre-unibody and unibody MBs. I'm curious now; I guess I'll have to go to an Apple store and compare the white MB with the new unibody MBPs. Mine are white MB and an alu iMac; the third Mac is the matte MBP of two years ago. I have yet to get into a glossy problem with the iMac and white MB (two years now). And I'm in my late forties (still no glasses, though)...

Predrag

Sorry, but even my beloved Apple is not perfect.

Many loved the Cube.......

Yep, the Newton was ahead of its time.... (and I owned one for 10 days)

Apple TV is also ahead of its time.....or not yet configured right

And I personally have 3 glossy iMacs, which in the environment they are used in is perfectly fine. And most of the time "our" Macbook has no issues with the glossy screen, but it would certainly be nice to have the option of matte screens. I think Bodie is close in that a certain percentage of people would have bought Apple if given that option.

This article is about design, sometimes it works fabulously and sometimes not. For the most part, Apple has it figured out but not always.

PS

Could you quote me the "most recent research" which says that 87% of the US population is in favor of abortion.

And, who supported, paid for and designed the research?

I am in the medical field, and I know that you can make almost any poll or research study say what you want it to say.

For instance, would you pay 20% more for a medicine that would lower your LDL cholesterol (C) 50% more than the latest drug? Many patients (and doctors) fall for that line. But, if drug A lowers C by 20 points from 200 (very high) to 180 (high) and costs $100 per month would you pay $120 per month to have your C lowered to 170 (still high) when you really need to get to 129 (near or above optimal).

It is all a numbers game.....by design.

When it comes to glossy, you haven't been paying attention. It was Steve, not someone else, who declared: "Everybody wants glossy now." End of matte, end of discussion.

Surprisingly, we still are able to burn and play DVDs on our Macs even though Steve also declared that no one needed DVDs any more.

And, also surprisingly that you can still buy movies on DVD - Steve also concluded that people don't watch movies more than once and therefore they don't need to buy them.

Jul 12, 09 - 12:05 am Comment from: Predrag

Pab,

I really don't remember now where I saw it, but it was recent. If I remember correctly, it was some university, and their sample was rather high. Occasionally, some of the popular polling companies (Gallup) do it as well, although their results tend to be a bit less overwhelming (around 70-75%).

In the end, your statement makes a lot of sense; numbers game, by design. Except, in Apple's case, they had sales numbers. For a number of months, they were selling two identical laptops, side by side, everything the same except glossy and matte screens. There is nothing that could have skewed those numbers one way or the other, other than perhaps occasional sales person steering customers one way or the other, on their own initiative. Overall, the numbers were exceptionally valid, compared to all other data on the subject (including the self-selecting online polls).

Yes, Apple ain't perfect (but I was one of those Cube lovers... what an amazing little computer! A friend is still using it for web, MS office, iPhoto, iMovie and such!), but you can't blame them for a completely business decision (in the case of mate/glossy).

Jul 12, 09 - 02:56 am Comment from: hardmanb

Good statement about Apple's mission. That is their secret sauce.

Maybe someday people will realize that this is the reason that Apple has no desire to be the biggest; sell the most; fill every marketing slot; and completely dominate markets.

The degree of success in every product line is determined by "better" and user satisfaction. Doesn't anyone notice their profit margins compared to the makers of commodity boxes with their zillions of choices?

Jul 12, 09 - 07:17 am Comment from: MacMatte

Those of you, such as Predrag, who ASSUME that Apple went all-gloss -- because of perfect data that suggested a gloss-preference -- are guessing. Predrag, your comments would make sense if Apple were a reasonable company. But, in Apple, we are dealing with a company that has taken on the persona of Steve Jobs -- i.e. irrespective of accurate poll data, they/he can just say, stuff it, I am going to do what I think I like, and everyone can follow along or jump. Even though what I've written sounds like a rant, it is actually quite accurate of the way Steve does things.

I am emphasise that you are guessing, and assuming that Apple had perfect metrics.

If Apple's metrics were accurate, surely -- and you need to address this point -- surely some of the polls would bear on a glossy majority. But please actually go to the http://macmatte.wordpress.com site and look at the polls. NOT ONE OF THE 16 POLLS show a clear glossy majority. In fact, the majority of the 16 polls show a matte preference.

This indicates that Apple did not switch to all-gloss because of perfect metrics but because of a Steve Jobs penchant for doing what they like.

Predrag, for your logical argument to hold, you would have to go on record as saying that Apple always goes along with what their customers want.

The reality is that Apple has the confidence/cockiness to go against the flow, when they think they know better. SOMETIMES they are right, e.g. removing floppy disks. Sometimes they are wrong e.g. removal of Firewire.

I am saying that this time, they again went against perfect metrics by removing matte screens, and this time they are wrong.

Care to reply?

Also, go and read the data at poll reviews at http://macmatte.wordpress.com

Macmatte

Sometimes companies just want to change because they WANT to. There has to be no solid reason. Remember when Apple changed the original Nano. Everyone took a collective "What are they smoking?" breath.

As I said before, I am in the medical field and I personally love to help people. My first goal is to help people (and then the money comes along). That was not always the case, right out of school my primary focus was on money and people were a distant second. Now that I am fairly comfortable my focus has changed.

That being said, I once had a customer who always came in my business complaining. She complained loudly and constantly while in my business and in front of other patients. No matter what I did it was never good enough. So one day I told her to leave for my sake and for her sake. If I could never do the right job for her, go to someone who could. Great. Now I am more relaxed and she hopefully is too.

She is an extreme example to be sure (BTW she came in a year later to do some business, but I still refused). I have other patients who are difficult to deal with but I manage-with a smile. With 25+ billion in the bank, Apple can afford to make some business decisions just because they want to-right or wrong.

Remember that Apple wants to make insanely great products, not insanely great products for ALL people nor insanely great amounts of money (although they have).

PS
Matte vs glossy has never been an issue to me and still is not. Reflections are a minus, easy to clean and sharp a big plus.

and he's a total hottie. he can design me anytime.

Jul 12, 09 - 07:14 pm Comment from: Predrag

..."Care to reply?

Gladly. I'm enjoying these weekend debates with intelligent people very much. (did anyone else notice how discussions at MDN tend to get much more intelligent and well-written on the weekends? I guess those who contribute on weekends don't have much time for elaborate thought while at work...).

I will continue to disagree on the validity of any and ALL self-selecting online polls. They simply don't mean anything at all. The usual psychology that drives people to vote is when they are passionate about the subject. Hardly anyone who prefers glossy sees it as a problem. They prefer it, Apple is offering it, so the problem does not exist, therefore, no need to vote.

Clearly, neither of the two arguing sides (your or mine) has solid, valid data. Until Apple releases hard sales data regarding glossy and mate 15" MBP, we won't know.

The argument about Apple not being like any other company does hold water, but to a point. Apple is not a private company; it is a publicly traded company, and is the property of its shareholders. It answers to its board of directors. No business decision that is meaningfully detrimental to its bottom line can be sustained simply because Steve Jobs said so. G4 Cube survived less than one year. Unibody MB without firewire even less than that (around 8 months). None of the unpopular decisions that were tipically Jobsesque (Jobsian?) lived for too long. They were reversed within a year, even if Jobs was still adamant about it.

Glossy MBPs first appeared over two years ago (June 07). Matte MBPs were eliminated last year. Matte MBs were withdrawn over 3 years ago (actually, there never WERE matte MBs; before MBs, the consumer line was iBook, and those were the last models with matte). So, we had three years of glossy consumer laptop and two years of pro glossy laptop. If past is any indication, the return of matte offering on all MBPs (13, 15 AND 17 inch) should happen before the end of this year, if Apple is seriously hurting because of the lack of matte (financially, or image-wise).

I genuinely doubt that would happen. At best, if they DO come back, it will be at premium (like the 17").

Jul 12, 09 - 09:11 pm Comment from: BC Kelly

Predrag you ask ...

"did anyone else notice how discussions at MDN tend to get much more intelligent and well-written on the weekends?"


Of course - but that's only cause you and I are here



You continue ...

"I guess those who contribute on weekends don't have much time for elaborate thought while at work"


Well, if they work at Microsoft, who gives a rat's ass

(plus, doubt they have any thoughts, much less elaborate - or original)


But, if they work for Government - City, County, State, Fed, whatever

Better damn sure be on a break

Is our Tax Dollar they're wasting

Elaborate or not





BC

Jul 13, 09 - 05:20 am Comment from: Macaday

Predrag and MatteMatt,

It's now Monday and I will bring the debate down to normal working day prattle rather than good debate...

Shut the F*** up about this inane subject. Do you really think Apple are going to listen to a few whiners?

Have you even noticed how well glossy Macs are selling? the one thousand of you with this major bee in your bonnets need to get on with life. It is NOT such a big issue.

nobody seems to have noticed that pab "even went to a Staples to buy a matte screen overlay" but still had trouble with glare. wtf? a matte screen didn't save the day. so what was the point of the other 53 petabytes of commentary here disclaiming the glossy screen? do the matte lovers believe that there is some magical difference between a matte screen vs a glossy screen with a matte overlay? was the point simply lost?

Jul 13, 09 - 12:12 pm Comment from: ldrhawke

The secret of Apple success is simple....make products so intuitive and easy to use that they bring a smile to your face and you can't wait to show them to your friends.

How many companies make products that they don't even need to supply operations manuals with to use them?

Could you guys stop with the matte/glossy debate here... this isn't really a forum, and it will just disappear anyway.

However, as someone who works in the print/creative media business, where Macs are a big part of the scene, I can tell you I've never been surveyed by Apple, nor has anyone in our company been surveyed, either by phone or mail or email by Apple on the matter of display preference. I'd like to see numbers on how many professionals in the field were surveyed by Apple, and what the actual numbers were. If it's a matter of factual evidence, let's have it. I have no doubt Apple has done tons of consumer studies, and that they are in fact almost completely done giving up on the creative professional market. Their products, with the exception of the 17" MBP and the MacPro, are targeted at the home entertainment/convergence/HDTV/iPod/iPhone market, where they've been extremely successful in leading the way. Glossy has been 'dictated' from the top down, as have most innovative features Apple has forced upon consumers over the years. Most of their ideas work really well, and do lead the way (remember all those colored computers everyone else started copying and peripheral makers matched... oh the Bondi Blue days..) but some of them are just about style. In this case of glossy-only, Apple has actually taken a cue from other consumer laptop makers instead of the other way around. Good for them, but it isn't because the majority of buyers were screaming for it ahead of time. Why should they have been, they already had the choice anyway. Problem with Apple is they won't listen to consumers anyway. Anyone who thinks the increase in sales is due to "glossy" displays is really stupid, but it can easily be used as justification in an arguement. The reasons for Apple's huge success has to do with the iPod, iTunes, overall design and....Ta Da... OS X. Also, they have a great advertising campaign. But, I never hear 'glossy' used as a sales pitch.

Sorry for the late followup. I wasn't able to purchase a matte screen overlay at Staples because they didn't carry them in the store (and, BTW neither does Apple). So yes we still had trouble with glare.

Sunday, I had some really severe trouble with glare. We were getting ready to go to church and I asked my wife what all the stuff in the back of the van was for. You should have seen the glare....