[cesare]

Glossy displays are cheaper to make (since they lack the anti-glare coating).

Most consumers even prefer glossy vs matte (especially when they see them side to side at the shop) because the matte coating (obviously) reduces brightness and colors are perceived as less vibrant. Of course, as soon as you have to work with them (apart from viewing a movie in a dark room) you'll regret it.

Cheaper + clueless consumer = market trend.

The previous generation of MBP had both options. I bought the matte, and the price (IIRC) was the same.

I believe that Apple didn't offer this option for these models from the beginning because the screen of unibody machines has glass in front of it and so the process to add the coating wasn't ready yet or it was much more costly.

[GHFigs]

When you order the matte option, the whole glass panel and bezel are removed and replaced with an aluminum frame like the earlier models. It is not merely a coating applied to the glass, it's a different part entirely.

[cesare]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know it.

So the matte doesn't have the glass?

One thing I like of the glass screen is that it is probably easier to clean and in general more durable (except if you drop it on the floor, of course).

[aasarava]

It's interesting that a lot of people feel that glossy screens look better in the showroom. When I'm in an Apple Store or a Best Buy or wherever, the overhead lighting is often so bright that all you can see on glossy laptop screens is glare and reflection. It's exactly because of this showroom experience that I've always avoided glossy laptop screens.

[michaelneale]

Yes there is probably a name for the affect of things like gloss, or brightness in a shop causing increated sales (yet its actually an inferior feature). Its the same reason LCDs have brightness and colour cranked up in shops, stereos are played loud etc...

Having said that, the glass on the unibody does look easy to keep clean.

[pmjordan]

It's odd, though - in some European countries, the glossy screens are considered ergonomically harmful and are therefore banned from the workplace. So you can't give your employees iMacs, smaller Macbooks, etc. to work on. You'd think Apple would be a bit keener to sell to businesses.

[electromagnetic]

Apple traditionally hasn't sold to businesses due to Big Corporations apparent desire to quash anything capable of spurring original thought in its workers.

Business is packed full of contradictions from rules they've created for themselves, like using uniforms and team building exercises to help the workers feel part of a group, but positively crap themselves at the idea of their workers unionising due to feeling like part of a group.

Consumers on the other hand are relatively simple, give them something bright and shiny and they love it. Essentially we shop like Magpies, people frequently buy the wrong product for themselves because it's the better advertised and branded product.

[pmjordan]

Sure, maybe not large corporations, but a lot of small businesses use macs, and on the desktop, you currently only have the choice between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, which is definitely suboptimal.

[robin_reala]

Got a reference for that? I hadn’t heard it before.

[pmjordan]

It's based on the European council's guideline 90/270/EWG. As far as I can tell, it's up to the countries to implement corresponding laws, and at least Germany and Austria have such laws.

[robin_reala]

Ah, OK. Interestingly, I just checked the UK regulations for this and they define the positioning of the light sources, not the qualities of the screen:

Possible disturbing glare and reflections on the screen or other equipment shall be prevented by co-ordinating workplace and workstation layout with the positioning and technical characteristics of the artificial light sources.