| ▲ | iAMkenough 6 days ago | |
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... | ||
| ▲ | shuckles 3 days ago | parent [-] | |
I wasn’t making claims that Apple was marketing one as better or implying some contradiction between glossy and matte upgrades, so this information isn’t relevant to my point. Matte has been sold as an upgrade in the lineup for a long time which is contradictory to the point I was replying to. Your citation is doubly irrelevant because the primary benefit of the glossy upgrade in the year or so it was an upgrade (glossy has been standard for 18 years) was a wider color gamut and higher resolution, not the glossiness of the screen itself. | ||