My Impressions of the MacBook Pro M4

(michael.stapelberg.ch)

240 points secure | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 10:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source

Show context

rottencupcakes ◴[31 Oct 25 19:00 UTC] No.45775475[source]▶

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.

replies(10): >>45775577 #>>45775641 #>>45775695 #>>45775731 #>>45775840 #>>45775889 #>>45776046 #>>45776153 #>>45777821 #>>45778629 #

shuckles ◴[31 Oct 25 19:20 UTC] No.45775695[source]▶

>>45775475 #

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.

replies(3): >>45775702 #>>45775778 #>>45777372 #

1. iAMkenough ◴[31 Oct 25 19:29 UTC] No.45775778[source]▶

>>45775695 #

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...

↑