←back to thread

My Impressions of the MacBook Pro M4

(michael.stapelberg.ch)
241 points secure | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
rottencupcakes ◴[] 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 #
LeoPanthera ◴[] No.45775641[source]
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.

replies(12): >>45775726 #>>45775837 #>>45775923 #>>45776075 #>>45776148 #>>45776766 #>>45777532 #>>45777723 #>>45778296 #>>45778580 #>>45779048 #>>45779708 #
1. seemaze ◴[] No.45775923{3}[source]
Do you prefer glossy paper work? glossy book pages? glossy construction documents? The preference for a non-reflective surface for the relaying of dense information has been established for decades.

You know what's glossy? Movie posters and postcards.

replies(3): >>45776021 #>>45776045 #>>45778196 #
2. dmitrygr ◴[] No.45776021[source]
non-reflective surfaces you cite have pigments on TOP. screens have depth causing parallax and light spreading. Your point would be valid if screens were paper-thin and image pixels came out the very surface
replies(1): >>45776206 #
3. elliottkember ◴[] No.45776045[source]
Paper, books, and construction documents all use reflected and not refracted light.
4. asdff ◴[] No.45776206[source]
You'd need a jewelers loupe to appreciate parallax and spreading. Not a real problem in general use.
replies(1): >>45776227 #
5. dmitrygr ◴[] No.45776227{3}[source]
i use a matte screen protector on my iphone. without it, i can see pixels. with it, i cannot. no loupe, just my nearsighted eyes
replies(1): >>45777373 #
6. asdff ◴[] No.45777373{4}[source]
You can see actual pixels on a retina iphone? That is remarkable eyesight. I could do it on old non retina iphones but not on retina models.
replies(1): >>45778127 #
7. dmitrygr ◴[] No.45778127{5}[source]
Kind of a cool thing about being nearsighted. Without glasses, I can get very close to things and still focus on them, i get to see very small details.
8. seemaze ◴[] No.45778196[source]
ooh, my feathers were a bit ruffled (for reasons unrelated) when I wrote the above.

I still say for comfortable all day viewing and productivity, there is no comparison. Glossy does have more pop on a phone or watching movies in the dark, but I'd go blind doing that all day every day..