Emerging Tech investigate

Letter to the editor: The dark side of Apple's power of 'No'

While Apple's discipline for saying "No" has been a big part of its current success, there's a dark side to that phenomenon. Here's one example, explained in a letter to the editor.

I often brag about the quality of the comments here on TechRepublic, but there were a lot of boneheaded responses to my article White iPhone debacle shows why Apple is winning. Apple is one of those topics that triggers emotional responses where people lose all sense of perspective.

However, in addition to a smattering of intelligent responses in the discussion thread to that article, I also received an email from the folks at the MacMatte blog, who made an excellent point about how Apple's discipline for saying "No" can also lead the company to ignore overwhelming customer demands. In this case, we're talking about the debate over glossy vs. matte displays.

Here's the letter:

I refer to your article on Steve Jobs saying No.

There's two sides.

This approach can cause Apple to make great products - which it does - or it can also make Apple totally deaf to customer feedback. Take matte screens. Recent PCPro and Which magazine polls show 75-80% want matte.

Apple's insistance on glossy-only iMacs can be regarded as a focus thing, where Apple decided to focus on glossy, and to say NO to matte.

Alternatively, it can be regarded as a design flaw, where Apple said YES to the iMac, but designed it in such a way that it is great for some people, but has a design flaw for others.

Glossy screens are a design flaw for: people whose eyesight suffer from glare, and people whose work requires non-reflective screens, e.g. photographers, designers and people who stare at screens for 8+hours a day.

See: http://macmatte.wordpress.com

This article below had a 89% poll majority preferring matte.

http://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/matte-screens-glossy-shiny-laptops-computer-pc-mac/

This article had a 75% preference for matte.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367165/lack-of-matte-screens-driving-imac-fans-to-windows-pcs

These 89% and 75% polls also correlate with earlier surveys, which gave matte preference at 44%, 44%, 48%, 68%, 50%, 57%, 72%, 66%, 86%, 45%, 86%, 74%, 85%, 70%, 66%, 56%

http://macmatte.wordpress.com/review-of-glossy-matte-poll-results/

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

76 comments
speacock0
speacock0

I can remember my customers buying anti-glare screens for all their CRT monitors back in the day when shiny (and curved) was the only option. When manufacturers eventually came up with matt screens and then with flat matt screens it was a revelation - no more trying to see what was on the screen rather than a reflection of yourself. Shiny screens seem like a retrograde step to me. My other half is a professional artist, designer and die-hard Mac fan, but even she accepts that her MacBook with shiny screen is useless outdoors in bright light (it is literally useless, no amount of fiddling will make the screen usable if the sun is shining) and when it came to big pro-spec monitors costing ??1200 ($2000) she reluctantly foresook the lovely-looking but ultimately poor quality (by comparison) big shiny Mac screen for a bulky, ugly, black NEC SpectraView job. It may be ugly, but it does what it's supposed to do - display images in natural, well balanced, superbly calibrated colours with no glare or reflections. If only other manufacturers would get as good at designing nice looking stuff as Apple or if only Apple would sell a product that performed in line with its price we'd all be happy.

WLaddR
WLaddR

For several years Apple offered the choice of matte or glossy displays on their laptops. I've never seen the numbers from those years but you kinda' have to assume that the majority of screens sold were glossy. So glossy became the norm and the crying began; of course many of the nay-sayers don't own, have never owned and will never own an Apple computer of any kind anyway. You can, in fact, still pay a little extra for the Non-Glare screen on 15 an 17 inch Macbook Pros.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

We misordered and received glossy screened units from HP. I didn't look at screen specs closely enough; my mistake, and they exchanged them. It never occurred to me anyone would ship a glossy screen, any more than they would have sandpaper-textured keys or an exhaust fan that blew in the user's face. I will probably never buy an Apple computer personally; but I won't buy anyone's glossy screen, personally or professionally.

mariofreak
mariofreak

My macbook is matte, and higher resolution than the normal display, though i did end up paying 200$ for the 'upgrade' as I can't stand glossy displays, they are useless for graphic design, they glare in your eyes, have terrible viewing angles, and attract more dust and finger prints than a nice tidy matte display.

spin498
spin498

If you don't like iMac's glossy screen buy a fricking Samsung! Use a Microsoft box! Build yourself a Hackintosh! Would you people buy a high end Challenger and then complain it comes with a Hemi??

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

It's got a glossy screen. And quit whining about the whining.

clif
clif

I'm sure Apple did their research. While it may be true that customers prefer matte in the use of the screen, marketing represents a different thing and sales are the driving force of design. It seems that people like shiny things when they buy them. So, if anything, opinion is what is fickle here.

KC4COP
KC4COP

Responses to this article giving reasons why Apple would choose to say "no" to almost anything has been put down to marketing techniques. If that is true, then in my opinion Apple has some of the most arcane ideas about marketing that have heard of. I cannot see how ever saying "no" to an idea could be good for company sales. My first frustrations with the Apple iPod came when I tried to use a USB port to move a file from the computer to the device using a USB cable. Somewhere along the line Apple said "no". I do not have any idea as to the particular stage in this process it was that Apple took objection to the way a file can be moved or copied. With an Aple iPod you can move the file in a single process via WiFi but not with a USB cable using Apple's top of the line file manager "app". There may be a program available in iTunes that can do what I was stopped from doing using a file manager program is supposed to work wonders. I am not going to be around long enough to find it. The point that I want to make is that somewhere Apple said "no" to using the whizbang file manager I purchased to move a file from a computer to my handheld device using USB ports. Why say "no" at all and require me to use two programs to move a file and then manipulate it? Suppose that I want to run a communication monitoring program in the background on an iPod and then at a future time take a look at the interchanges that took place between it and something else, or even look at an iPod's internal communication interchanges - I cannot do it. The reason why this task cannot be performed is that Apple does not permit an application to run in the background. It makes no difference to me whether Apple allows this procedure on one of their other products, they said "no" to me when I tried to do this on an Apple iPod. This is just one example of what cannot be done on an Apple system because the company says "no". The "no" does not come from wanting to do something that is technically difficult to program - the "no" comes from wanting to controll a person's behavior. An example of how saying "no" by Apple can ever be good for business comes from another recent experience. I wanted to download an article from the web and read it at a later time and perhaps read it on a desktop computer with a larger screen. That cannot be done with an Apple iPod. The explanation from the article's author suggests that if you have an iPod you have to read the article then and there or come back to the website to view the article later - you cannot download it because Apple had said "no" to that. Those having an android-based device do not have to put up with any such foolishness. No one's permission is needed to download an article or file, with an android device nor do you have to get all of your downloads from a single location (iTunes with an Apple iPod). Again I do not care if you can do this with some other Apple device the fact is that Apple said "no" to doing it with an Apple iPod. It has been my experience that most of the things that I have wanted to do with an Apple device I cannot do because Apple said "no" to some stage in the process. If I had an android-based system I may have been frustrated in some other way but my frustration with the device and its operating system would not come from the manufacturers blatantly saying "no" because they wanted that task to be done another way. I would not buy an Apple product knowing in advance that the company that branded the product would have to grant permission before the device can be used for the many tasks that I expect to be able to do when I turn on my PC at home I do not see how saying "no" and be an incentive for the public to buy Apple products.

walksoft
walksoft

Said with a wink and a nod...

SmartAceW0LF
SmartAceW0LF

Where else to go to find validation for ones preference of matte errr. Non-Gloss screens.

kschlotthauer
kschlotthauer

(DISCLAIMER): To start off, I am not a APPLE hater and a Windows lover, I am a technology lover. I have used MAC's and think they are cool and easy to use. I prefer Windows because of bang for the buck! ....but with that said................... I don't give a darn about glossy or no glossy coming from Apple. What has always shunned me away from Apple in general is there ability to be so closed minded. They control everything from design to manufacturing. I can buy a dell, IBM, Compaq, HP, Gateway etc. and they all run about 99.9% the same way. There is price competition when you have an open market. But with Apple, you don't get that, yes, they tried it with UMAX making the Mac's back in the late 90's and that failed. What also bothers me is that Apple says "yes" to this and "no" to that and people drink the Kool-Aid. They are dictating what the consumer wants or needs....and we just drink it down with a big ol' straw. When Steve not only owns the ball, but designs the ball and decides what games you can and cannot play with that ball, to me, that is a bigger question than the "power of NO". Don't get me wrong, I love my iTouch (3rd gen), but, I get more bang for the buck with a Windows product.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

I don't wonder about a 10% share, that 500% better than 10 years ago when it was only 2% share. If you follow the user base analysis over the years, you'll see that Apple is still filling the glass while the others seem to be letting theirs evaporate.

rmerchberger
rmerchberger

Umax didn't fail with their Mac clones! Steve #2 came back and put the kaibosh to it just as the more open licensing model was starting to work. If I were a conspiracy theorist type person, I'd say that Steve #2 didn't like other companies like Umax building a better Mac than Apple could -- my Umax was a dual-processor model with more memory for not much more $$$ than Apple's single-processor model. Ah well, if I had my druthers we'd all be running hopped-up Amigas, or Atari STs, or even CoCos... so I guess it doesn't really matter much any more, anyhow... Laterz! "Merch"

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

For some us, 'good enough' is good enough. Apple's products may be arguably superior technologically, but my needs can usually be met by something possibly inferior but with a lower price.

h8usernames
h8usernames like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

What nobody seems to really understand is the purchasing decision is a PERSONAL choice of the individual, I used to have a minor sight problem so I understand the "matte community", I am also a web designer/programmer and also understand the "gloss community". But it is not always about the best quality product, but the best solution for the individual. What about the food? I have a friend that has been recommended by her doctor To eat more fish but she is allergic to fish, so even though it is the best product on the market with the properties she needs she cannot consume it, should we apply the views and philosophy of the gloss screen purists and say but because your doctor said it is the best and you should you must? No, we and Apple should just understand that some people have a requirement for another product. Personally I don't see the harm in Apple either supplying matte screens (even at an added cost if required) or for Apple to produce a matte screen film that can be provided. I guess I don't understand why the matte screen purists don't want or like the films available on the market, maybe someone can explain this? At the end of the day I do use both types of monitors and don't have any major issues with either. My personal preference? For monitors it's simple, what ever I prefer on the day with that device and application it is being purchased for. So let's stop the debate on what is better because as the MacMac blog says, "Hence, we???re not saying matte is always better than glossy. There are enough supporters of both such that neither can be said to be superior". Maybe we can focus on the fact that other people have different needs for a variety of reasons, some need gloss to ensure they can pick the right colors for print, others need matte to ensure the animation is consistent throughout. But don't forget about the fact that there are people that need matte for eye health issues who need matte to prevent migraines and continued eye deterioration. Well my 2 cents, but I would like to know what the problem with the films are, adhesive and attached.

Ignorant.Interrupt
Ignorant.Interrupt

With x1080 resolutions becoming mainstream, diversification in resolutions basically stopped and customer choice was reduced to various incarnations of "HD" and some inbetween oddballs (1366x768? What is that?)... it also killed x1200. The latter is an issue, just as is the glaring wrong turn of forcibly going all glossy. I like my makeup mirror separate from my computer, thanks. What this strange development has caused within my range of responsibility, and also my private computing life is this: I have abandoned any and all long-term brand contracts and relationships, and I have been rediscovering the world of those brave few that continue to deliver 1920x1200 panels in monitors or matte displays on their mobile devices without forcing me to go all posh Harley and customize my status symbol portable computer into basic working condition. Our artifically fringed demands can only be satisfied at a premium, it seems. The standard is "FullHD" and glossy, which both make sense for people watching HD movies in the dark, I hear, but I prefer to watch movies at the cinema or on a proper TV set. The vertically challenged displays are a pain to work with, for neither correspondence nor spreadsheets or logs come in cinemascope. You're doing it wrong. There you are, Eizo. Welcome back Asus, my how you've grown since we last met. Welcome back, HP, it's been a while. Love that brown metal. Takes some getting used to, but you haven't forgotten how to please a user. Sorry for giving up on you. I had fruit for brains for a while. Please forgive me.

lj011
lj011

I have them both. This is my 2c - I sneeze sometimes uncontrollably... what the heck that this have to do with screens? A lot! I hate my screen to be dirty so I clean them often. Thus I found that glossy screen is easier to maintain. I never managed to clean matte screen properly. Although I can notice glare sometimes depending on light conditions I never understood what is so big deal about it - adjusting lighting conditions in workplace can be done with some consent. Interestingly enough I never noticed that anyone ever complained about something else - a ghostly apple sign when you have strong back light behind apple laptops - it is not only about influencing view it is also mirrored!!! I understand apple's idea to brand their laptops but make it NON TRANSPARENT please!!!

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

that Jason was using as the example that started all this. :-)

ananthap
ananthap

Seems a case of sour grapes and only reinforces the view that Apple will not accept anything thwy dont want.

jbickel
jbickel

To the first point about the comments being boneheaded, it seemed clear enough to me that the "NO" account of taking forever to change a device case color was pure marketing spin, as commented. You've got to give it to Apple, though, no matter what they screw up as long as it amounts in a delay or missing a feature or service they've got one pre-sold explanation for it.

jean
jean like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

guys n gals, it's not about who is right or wrong about matte or glossy : it's about ignoring customer requirements and evangelizing your customers. there is obviously a huge demand in some areas (not just matte/glossy, think 3rd party eco systems, flash, you name it) while apple insist on being reluctant to satisfy.

Ignorant.Interrupt
Ignorant.Interrupt like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Serial killers are very reluctant not to kill people. A bit harsh, I know. But as a long time Mac/Apple user, Lion had me realize that my demands will just not be met any longer. Maybe I'm just too old. I don't respond to all that flashy and expensive marketing babble, the ads bore and annoy me, and while I enjoy looking at the devices for the pinnacle of artsy posh industrial design that pleases the eye and titillates the brain, I would meanwhile prefer to do so at a museum, and not having to put up with non-user-replaceable anything. Batteries? BUY A NEW COMPUTER, YOU CHEAPSKATE! RAM? DECIDE BEFORE YOU BUY! Bigger hard drive? USERS DO NOT DO THAT! DO NOT DO THAT! Oh. my. I still own iOS devices, and there are certain things I enjoy doing with them, because they just work. With other things, I am glad there are alternatives that come with all the missing functionality and a refreshing, less patronizing approach - but Apple keeps making things difficult. If this does not stop, Android is the answer. It would be a shame, but it currently seems inevitable.

jayands
jayands

Just so you know, you're neither too old nor alone in that feeling--I just left the "ideal marketing range" (I'm 25, now)--and the reason I got this Mac was because I'm a programmer and wanted a high-quality machine. I used to be anti-Apple all the way, back in 2004. Then I found out what Apple was actually DOING. However, fast-forward seven years, and now I'm a user that's more afraid of OSX's latest version than opening Terminal.app and running `sudo rm -fr / && sudo shutdown -r now`, assuming that would resolve the way I think it would. I don't like Lion, but I loved Leopard and Snow Leopard (my first Mac came with 10.5.6 on it). Until more convincing reasons are presented, I flat out _refuse_ to install Lion. I do, however, like my triple-booting option. I'm going to get a 1TB laptop drive really soon and quad-boot, adding fedora and replacing Ubuntu with Mint. As long as you keep the original HDD, I don't see how it'd be too much of an issue, as my MBP came with both an install disk for SL and instructions on how to replace the hard drive and upgrade RAM in one of the booklets that came with it. Add in AppleCare for if and when the system melts down on you (or you drop it ^_~), and I don't think it can be beat. NewEgg is one place I *know* MacBook RAM can be bought, and it really isn't that hard to install. As for the hard drive, I find it easier when someone has no access to their CD-ROM to swap their hard drive in and install whatever they need off of official CDs, install my BROADcom drivers, and then download DAEMON-Tools or SlySoft's free VirtualDrive. Now if only Apple could get this blasted TrackPad driver for Windows correct. . . Now, on the main topic: I do some *light* 3D modeling (game programmers need to know a little about all aspects that go into it, I think) and have never had any functional readability problems that I didn't have with my matte screen on my HP dv-something-or-other, which had a matte screen. As a bonus, though, I can crank up the brightness and that'll usually bring my glossy screen into readability range when I'm outside in a place where I'd actually sit for prolonged periods of time, which matters when you're in a city with summers as hot as Las Vegas.

plandok
plandok

Everyone seems to be missing the point which IgIn makes about the "posh industrial design" of Apple. This is what sells. The fact the machines do something is a bonus. You want what? Red, blue, install your own batteries? Then go struggle with a PC (notice a Mac is not a personal computer but a fashion statement) which will get viruses or colds. You want a machine which is milled out of a solid block of aluminum or is the thinnest or.....? You really want a Mac even if you don't yet know it. I maintained my mother's iMac for three years so I know a little about them. They need a new hard drive every year (I actually heard the fatal "click of death"), they had a recall on the power supply and new keyboards. Meanwhile she lost her photos and kept losing her e-mail somewhere. I couldn't find it. And I wasn't allowed to change the battery. Although self-taught, I've been with "personal computers' since MSDos 2.1. I've built several including my latest Monster and continue to use discarded computers for the folks in my house and for scanning. I've been able to upgrade or downgrade the innards as needed and can look for and select new tech as I think I need it. I also keep working stuff from the landfill. Ever wonder why Apple made their new machines work with Windows? My son, a graduate industrial engineer, who says he is OS bilingual and with no preferences, has had horrendous experiences with several Macbooks and has documented Mac Hell. I can't get any answer as to why he keeps on with them except that he likes the design. The only folks who can afford Macs seem to be the University students in Starbucks with their lattes and North Face/Columbia gear. People with life financial obligations seem to use much older portables. Stop with the matte/shiny arguments and just buy a machine which works for you. If you want matte, skip Apple. If you want Apple, take the shiny toys. Either way, Apple is the biggest earner . As Steve Jobs infamously wrote, its easy to take money from bozos.

BobHB
BobHB like.author.displayName 1 Like

Recently my wife and I walked into an Apple store prepared to by a 17" MacBook Pro. We were looking at one, turned around and saw a 15" with the non-glare screen. We bought that instead. Screen real estate is nice, but we love our non-glare Mac. Call it matte if you want, but it is available in 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pros, although unfortunately not across the product line.

Ignorant.Interrupt
Ignorant.Interrupt like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

See, that's another issue I have: Some people like glossy. I don't. Now, we are to call that "glare". OK. I myself prefer to call it "sucky" or "useless" or "quasi-mirrored". The alternative, the wonderful "matte" is called "matte" because, well, it is "matte". Makes sense, no? Why, then, do I have to call it "non-glare" or "non-glossy"? To me, that looks just plain silly. If something is good, I call it "good", not "non-bad". This reverse engineering of language should be considered an act of terrorism. I know, it's marketing. Still, it should be punishable, preferrably by public ridicule.

SHCA
SHCA like.author.displayName 1 Like

The only relevant statistic is how many potential customers refuse to buy the Apple product because the screen is glossy-only. Ultimately we all vote with our $$, and most of us are voting Apple.

JCitizen
JCitizen

are ready to jump ship too; after the SP1 and .NET update debacle of Win7! These are folks that can ill afford it too!

jquartic
jquartic

So I'm guessing from your post that you believe your clients would rather use and could better afford OSX? An operating system that with every incremental iteration presents those clients with compatibility problems with their current hardware and software. Or an operating system that they'll no longer be able to get updates for on their proprietary laptops and desktops... rendering them obsolete. Or an operating system... the most current version of which promotes 'full screen apps' as some kind of technological breakthrough. I have both Apple and PC clients and am familiar with both platforms. I don't like the way either company does business. But when it comes to who provides a more supportive, flexible and long lived OS for their consumers, Microsoft wins hands down.

rahbm
rahbm

So I'm guessing from your post that you believe your clients would rather use and could better afford Win7? An operating system that with every incremental iteration presents those clients with compatibility problems with their current hardware and software. Or an operating system that they'll no longer be able to get updates for on their older laptops and desktops... rendering them obsolete. Or an operating system... the most current version of which promotes the 'Aero' interface as some kind of technological breakthrough. The above, being equally applicable, shows that your fanboi blinders need to come off!

cashdj
cashdj

I've worked in the IT support/sys admin world for more than 13+ years, and throughout that time, I've worked with both Microsoft and Apple OS's (as well as quite a few Unix/Linux distro's). I'd say that 80% of my work has involved working with Microsoft OS's (from 3.1 to Server 08), 19% involved working with Unix/Linux, and about 1% working with Apple OS's. As far as I'm concerned, neither Microsoft nor Apple have impressed me - Microsoft have started dumbing down their OS's to a degree that they may as well come with colouring in books and pencils. Apple have delivered a great OS, but I don't like the restrictions they enforce upon their end users. I strongly disagree with your claim that Microsoft provide a "more supportive, flexible and long lived OS for their consumers". They don't. They never have and they never will. I'd have to say that the only folks who create a "more supportive, flexible and long lived OS for their consumers" are those folks who build Linux distro's. What Microsoft have delivered in their last two desktop OS's are dumbed down OS's that are designed for even dumber end users. When I recently went looking for a new laptop, I was faced with the choice of buying a laptop with Windows 7, or buying the laptop and replacing a crap OS with either Debian or Ubuntu, or instead going for a MacBook Pro with OSX. The MacBook Pro was a clear winner. Sure, I still run Windows XP on it under Parallels because there are some apps that I still use and need (at least for the time being due to work), but OSX 10.6.7 kicks Windows 7 out of the grounds every time.

Ignorant.Interrupt
Ignorant.Interrupt like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

jump which ship, where to? Where from? I was forcibly enjoying Windows ever since its 3.11 incarnation, and I have been enjoying MacOS since its 7.x days. Neither of them exactly worked out of the box, and they all bombed and bluescreened on a rather regular basis for the most obscure of reasons. OS X certainly blew my mind when I first saw it, but I must admit that I have meanwhile replaced OS X with Windows as main OS on all my private Apple gear. More accessible, more transparent, better workflow and I can still boot into OSX should I have forgotten something in that purple death zone. Ever since I first tried Lion, I realized that I have to say goodbye, because it just does not work for me. For 7, Microsoft overhauled the task bar into something that just works out of the box, no tweaking required. There was proper communication in the forums and the devs seemed to be eager to please and create something streamlined and functional, yet quite beautiful. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft also dumped Vista on our machines just for giggles and cash, and I hate them for it. But Windows 7 is a keeper. If you have issues with debacles, don't use any OS. They're all riddled with debacles. Most mistakes can teach us valuable lessons. If we were to make it a habit of just jumping ship whenever problems arise, we'd be very busy and, in the end, we would probably degenerate into cave-dwelling furries. With solar-powered pocket calculators.

wompai
wompai like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Give me matte.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I re-read your previous post. Sorry, I still don't get it. Your 'power of no' is my 'resources wasted'. All that effort expended to offer an existing device in just another color.

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

I was talking about the ones who started conjuring all of the old arguments against Apple from the Windows-Mac wars of the 80s and 90s and talking like this is a religious war. It's not about Microsoft. It's not about open source. It's not even really about Apple. To your point... I'd argue that it wastes a lot more resources to release an incomplete or flawed product (in manufacturing, marketing, sales, etc.) than to sit on that product and never release it, or wait until it's correct and ready to be received by the public. That's my point. It's about discipline in product management, and know when to release a product and when not to release a product. Again, it has NOTHING to do with white. I have no interest in the White iPhone itself.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I'd argue that 'flawed' is in the eye of the consumer. I won't purchase a device that I can't replace the battery myself, a hallmark of Apple's portable devices. I won't purchase a computing device that lacks an on-board USB port while that type of connection remains a standard for peripherals, a feature noticeably lacking in iPads. And yet Apple continues to release devices with these 'attributes'. Their power of 'No' is convincing consumers that potential buyers must not need a feature because Apple decided to not included it.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

They're just not as widespread yet as USB or gasoline. I know how those iPad users get by. Either they have sufficient WiFi-enabled devices or they buy a USB adapter. I suspect the majority of them buy the adapter, but I don't have sales numbers. What you don't get is that I'm not speaking to the needs and wants of others. I'm addressing only the features (or lack of) that keep some Apple products from meeting MY criteria. As I said originally, 'flawed' is in the eye of the customer; in this case, THIS (non-) customer.

rahbm
rahbm

1) "Stupid is as stupid does" was referring to all those people who (according to you) apparently decide that they don't need a "feature" just because Apple decides not to provide it. That epithet was NOT aimed at you, but you apparently failed to notice that in your rush to refute my post. 2) You insist on a USB connection because you cannot see outside that paradigm; just try asking some iPad users how they get by! Your assertion that more devices have USB than wi-fi implies that wi-fi is inadequate, would suggest that more cars running on gas than diesel means that diesel is inadequate - but I found out otherwise. 3) Fascinating how all the MS fanatics and Apple-haters (much the same bunch) rant about how essential USB is, now that Apple has a device without a USB port. I recall how USB was decried as useless until *after* Microsoft started to support it with Win98.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

The device fits their needs or wants. It doesn't fit mine. There are more devices with USB connections than WiFi; desktops, cameras, flash drivers, media players, and printers leap immediately to mind. Obviously WiFi can't meet all connectivity needs; otherwise why offer a USB adapter at all? Since that would indicate there is a need for USB connectivity, I'd prefer to have that capability built into the device instead of keeping up with a separate adapter; they're too easy to lose. Many companies besides Apple have used replacement peripheral sales as a minor revenue stream for years: external floppy, then CD, then DVD drives; external Ethernet and wireless connectors; etc. Incidentally, you can make your point more convincingly when you drop the name calling.

rahbm
rahbm

YOU wouldn't buy a device without a USB port (BTW, there *is* a USB adaptor available for the iPad!) but evidently many millions have done, in the full knowledge that it does NOT have a native USB port, and yet these people are somehow able to still use the device! I believe that it works on some new-fangled technology called wi-fi. I stubbornly refused to consider that anything with less than five doors, and running on diesel no less, could possibly be considered a "real" car. However, my wife bought one and has found that it is ideal for shopping and commuting to work, and even costs less to run than my magnificent el-huge-oh-mobile. Who would have thought?

ricardoc
ricardoc

Palmetto, Yes I used another app for the post, my bad. You see, English is my third language and I like to make my posts readable to the general public, so I need to rely a little on spelling and grammar checks. I already found a work around; thanks for letting me know. Regarding the battery on the iWhatever I'm with you on not liking the fact they can't be replaced easily. I have an iPhone (corporate) and I need to keep plugging it on a daily basis to avoid getting out of juice. I don't know how research and development of new battery technology is going these days but we need better ones for sure (or maybe more efficient use of power).

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I suspect these were sacrificed in the name of extended battery life. Obviously they should have said 'No' until they could include those features and not affect the battery life. That would have delayed the release for several years, but it's more important to say 'No' than release a flawed product. ricardoc, did you create your post in another app and then copy / paste it? You may want to use a plain text editor or turn off 'Smart Quotes'; I think that's what's resulting in the question marks being substituted when you paste.

ricardoc
ricardoc

I totally agree with you on ???that 'flawed' is in the eye of the consumer???. Let???s just complete the list of flaws or at least add some more of the evident stuff. The lack of Bluetooth support for file transferring and synchronization; this one irks me like no other. Come on, I have four year old flip phones that can send files to my laptop and do a full sync with Outlook same way. The dependency on the stupid cable for everything in this time and era and Apple???s stubbornness of not providing BT capability is beyond comprehension. No screen ???sharing??? for other things that are not pictures and videos. In my company users are begging me for a ???lunch and learn??? on some apps and iPhone use, but how can I demonstrate this to a group of 20 and more without putting my iPhone???s screen on a projector or big TV? The only way is Jailbreaking. Can???t use what I call ???the drag n??? drop and later browse content??? capability. With an android phone I can drag a pile of ???whatever files and folders??? and go on a trip or a meeting; later as I browse those files and folders I can open any type of file with the right application without going to the application first and opening the files after. Try that with an iPhone! That???s the power of no.

aflynnhpg
aflynnhpg

I had to go re-read the initial story too. The power of "no" is good, the power of "no" is bad too. Great insight there and thanks for clearing that up. Thanks for complaining that people post responses to your articles too. Like you didn't want that to happen, bonehead or not.

jasonhiner
jasonhiner like.author.displayName 1 Like

I was merely complaining about the quality of those responses, which weren't up to the normally high quality of the responses here on TechRepublic. I'm simply encouraging people to think through their arguments and not just post knee-jerk reactions based on the old battle lines in the tech industry.

MikeChablis
MikeChablis

Unfortunately, when you write a biased fluff column, that's the kind of feedback you get. It's on you Jason. Bonehead column invites Bonehead responses....every time.

JJFitz
JJFitz like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

I would call it the power of marketing

NKX
NKX like.author.displayName 1 Like

I honestly never thought I was in the vast minority here. I love gloss screens. I work with photos, graphics, design. I Do that as a hobby while working 8+ hours a day in an office... and I use gloss screens for all those tasks, happily. I've never really understood the "glare" issue and how a matte screen is meant to fix your issues. If you've got direct light bouncing off your screen, them the matte finish screens are only going to diffuse some light at the expense of image quality, contrast and colour saturation. Things I would prefer NOT to have to compromise on. I've had matte displays before and thought them to be dull, poorly lit, and hard-to-read. These usually end up running 100% contrast and brightness and STILL not being wonderful to look at. I've never, ever, ever had an issue with gloss screens. And a calibrated IPS gloss screen can churn out much closer-to-print representations of your graphics and photos. I mean, come on. Matte screens don't get made matte. They are essentially normal gloss screens with a diffuser on the front. How can putting a fuzzy sheet in front of your image be a good thing for design? To be perfectly honest, I go out of my way to buy the best gloss LCDs I can, and love using them. The only people I find wanting matte appear to the casual computer users or vocal gamer types. But, maybe I am in the minority here and actually agree with Apple (even though I primarily use Microsoft's flavour of OS). On the other hand, maybe the overly passionate minority that hate glare from their incorrectly-positioned monitors are the only ones completing the survey, and thus unfairly weighting the results. I don't know. I just know that, except where you have too much direct light, gloss screens are almost twice as good to look at and design on.

jacobus57
jacobus57 like.author.displayName 1 Like

...but not surprising, that the majority would be flat out wrong. Matte screens do not provide a true color experience, are"fuzzy," and are generally objectively inferior to gloss Indeed, I believe that the lag in widely available high quality gloss screens was the main reason graphics professionals clung so long to their big Trinitron CRTs. I know it's why I hung on to mine. Heck, even my little Asus netbook screen is sharp as a tack, and I was disappointed to see that the new models reverted to the inferior matte. I am no fangrrrl, but in this instance Apple got it right. One can always buy a non-glare filter if one wishes to ruin a great gloss screen (and Apple's are terrific), but one cannot make a silk monitor out of a sow's ear matte screen.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer like.author.displayName 1 Like

Just because you like glossy doesn't mean matte are 'objectively inferior'. Screen preference is purely a subjective one. Your 'great gloss screen' is my 'I can see reflections of everything in the room.'

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

and do it in lighting conditions from almost dark to bright daylight. The glossy screen on the netbook drives me up a wall; if I angle it so I can see the text, I'm looking at myself all the time I'm typing or reading.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

at least, not to the extent where it makes any difference. We don't employ any designers so I don't have any user input. I'll be happy to accept your position; it's far more accepting of differing user opinions than jacobus57's 'I'm right, you're wrong' stance. Maybe the technology has improved since I saw my first glossy screen two years ago. Maybe Apple's glossies are superior to those of other makers. The first several makes and models of glossies (desktop monitors, laptop monitors, smart phone displays) I saw left a lasting horrible taste in my mouth. I don't remember exactly what brands those were, but they were enough to run me off the technology.

Codedigital
Codedigital

I have 2 glossy Apple 24inch Cinema Displays sitting in front of me right now at the office...with 2 very large fluorescent lights behind me...and absolutely cannot see ANYTHING reflecting. When you diffuse the light coming from the monitor, you'll flatten the colors...this is science. Whether or not someone prefers that is definitely personal preference. But I prefer seeing the true colors myself. I quickly sold the only matte laptop I've owned when I was sitting side-by-side with someone who had the exact same laptop but glossy. The color was far and away better. But I agree that it can be personal preference. I just don't know how anyone could choose matte. Especially if you work with colors all day. All the designers that I know personally ALL use glossy.

bobpeg
bobpeg like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

You are obvious a totalitarian at heart. Just because glossy is your preference doesn't make it "right!" (or wrong). Your opinion is not an absolute standard. I suggest you read jcitizen's post above.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac like.author.displayName 1 Like

I've been using a glossy-screen iMac for almost 4 years now and find the display much brighter, clearer and more usable than the matte-screen second display I have attached. Even after using a color-balancing display calibrator the matte screen simply does not work for me in any kind of graphical activity--including gaming. I do use the external monitor for text simply because my iMac's display is usually filled with video and photo editing apps. I also have to state that even out in the open air, my glossy-screen iPhone and iPad are eminently useable--more so I believe than a matte screen is especially in bright sunlight or when I have a too-bright background behind me. With just a minor shift, I move the reflection out from the screen without any loss of clarity or brightness from my display where a matte screen has a habit of collecting and scattering the light to the point I can barely see the data. I don't argue that for some matte may be the better choice; but if you ask me it's far easier to add a matte overlay than it is to polish a matte screen. There are quite a few companies out there that will sell you what you want to soften and matte your display.

Slayer_
Slayer_ like.author.displayName 1 Like

Buy a matte cover if you need it.

Slayer_
Slayer_

But as a gamer, I really notice the difference between the two.

Slayer_
Slayer_

And I just attribute that to the sun being very very bright... AS a programmer, I spend most of my time in the dark, and for my drawing and animation and gaming, the brighter screen with the higher contrast looks way better. I have matte screens at work, and they are dull and boring, they don't show off colour at all.

JCitizen
JCitizen

visual cortex - mine is disorganized looking at any glossy screen. It is such a distraction, I might as well not see any colors or resolution! When I use a well designed matte screen that has finer granulation than the screen resolution, the clarity jumps out at me, and colors are more vibrant. Looking at a glossy is like trying to fish the bottom of a watery barrel to me.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac like.author.displayName 1 Like

I'm actually happy to see I was wrong about you.

Scott McCoy
Scott McCoy

Have to agree, I am also a fan of glossy for my personal use. It seems clearer for my casual use as I do not work with graphics and only use my MBP for writing music, email, web browsing and media consumption. I understand the matte needs and how reflections can make glossy screens difficult but I just chalk it up to personal use and preference.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

I have a netbook (corporate) with a glossy screen. I have no control over where I will be, the lighting, where I can put the netbook (only rarely on a desk), or many other factors of its use. I'm tired of having to adjust the display angle to minimize reflections from lights, my shirt, the surroundings, etc., etc., etc., just so I can see the display. Give me matte, any day.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Contact plastic!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Some artistic license must be allowed :p

mark
mark

LMAO now you have shown you superior intelligence NOT! There is no degauss on LCD monitors. Degauss is a demagnetizing process on old CRT monitors. Try again!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas like.author.displayName 1 Like

What was I thinking... :/ But if you take care to scuff it frequently, it'll eventually degloss... preferably before its terminal degauss :D

NickNielsen
NickNielsen like.author.displayName 1 Like

to support a corporate asset. :|

HAL 9000
HAL 9000 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Sorry but in many cases the positioning of Monitors in Business isn't to where there use is best suited but where they actually fit. While you may love Gloss Screens the people that I do work for who are all Graphic Design Artists, CG Animators and so on refuse to use them. End of story. They may look better in your eyes but the professionals that I support who do Graphics all their working days will not use them. I've actually seen major Dummy Spits when a Glossy Screen has been put in without the persons Knowledge by a Support Person who doesn't understand the current situation. Or the fact that hours of work had to be redone to come up with a constant result in a recent Major Movie because some idiot placed the wrong screen into the Special Effects Production area after hours after a cleaner dropped the existing monitor may be a small part of this. :) Col

spin498
spin498

I'm going to suggest to you, that the 'idiot' is the graphics person who a) had difficulty using a glossy screen and b) should have known using said screen would result in a different effect, rather than 'wasting' hours doing something they should have known would be defective, spent the time getting the correct screen placed. You may be able to blame the clumsy cleaner but not the tech.

JCitizen
JCitizen

buy a plasma screen TV. I can't stand glossy screens. Maybe the are a requirement for plasma tech, but I can do with out if just fine!