Never have it be said that Apple will miss the opportunity to gouge its users – especially when it comes to functionality.

First of all. I went from a 867MHz 12″ G4 (antiglare) and went to Windows machine that had a glossy display. I noticed the glare but I noticed the beautiful picture. When I bought my Macbook Pro (October 2006) I had a choice to make. To get the default matte or the not so widely available glossy. I set the two machines down next to each other and it was a total no brainer. Glossy had soooo much better picture. I hate matte finish. And I would pay extra $50 (and up to say $200) to get the better picture glossy screens could offer. (That is, I would pay $200 for the difference between the October 2006 matte and glossy.)

This being said I have not compared the new 17″ antiglare to the default displays. I do not know how they compare today. Maybe I would change my mind. If the antiglare offers the same picture that the glassy but without the glare, maybe I would be willing to pay extra for that. I don’t know. If I were making a purchase today I would be comparing th two screens side by side like I did in October.

Is the extra cost justified? That is a wonderful question. And I am going to try to put a different perspective on the question.

What is Apple’s anti-glare? Back in the day (October 2006) one model came with one TFT model, the other came with another TFT model. It probably had the same cost to apple so it cost the same for the consumer. But I cannot help to notice the changes in the Macbook Pro line since. Last I checked Apple slapped a big hunking glass in front of the part that used to be the uncovered TFT display. Also, last I checked glasses were glossy?

So to discuss this question, the first thing we need to examine is what makes the antiglare display antiglare? Is it the same TFT but a different piece of glass? Does the glass get a treatment? For all of you who call for a $0 option, maybe you should consider the possibility that whatever makes the display antiglare might cost Apple extra. (OK, OK, it is already expensive, I am sure they have a nice profit margin without the extra $50 but trust me, if it costs them $40 extra they will charge you $50 for it. Especially since they know that most of the anti-glossy whining fanboys will in fact pay up over hackintoshing or using Windows/Linux/etc.

I agree that apple is quite cunning. I am convinced that they introduced the 17″ first so all them whiners will have to buy their most expensive machine. (And we know how the anti-glossy crowd is. That is the #1 feature they look for so they will buy based on that one feat. I am certain Apple’s market research team can back me up on this, but you really do not need surveys to figure this out. Reading the comments here and on similar sites is more then enough.) Now that all the people who were willing to drop the extra cash for the 17″ antiglare did so, they move to 15″. I wonder if the series will continue in 4-8 months. Until it does, this question does not pertain to me. My selling feature is weight so I will never buy a 15+” again.

Seriously, what’s with all the fanboyism for the glossy “night blind” screens? They’re horrrible.

do other makers like HP offer this option on their laptops, just curious?

i know i would have got it for my DV6700t i got last year if they offered it. i really am not a fan of glossy. it looks purty but man do you get glare in any lighting situation (except a dark room).

just my .02