Users Want Matte LCDs While Glossy Screens Dominate

Barence writes "A survey of PC Pro readers suggests PC makers are out of touch when it comes to glossy vs matte screens. Almost three quarters of those surveyed said they preferred matte screens despite laptop makers moving almost exclusively to glossy screens. ... Why is the industry hell-bent on not giving customers what they want?"

Comments

It's all about sales

[Sonny Yatsen]

The reason they don't give customer matte LCDs is because shiny screens look nicer on photographs and on showroom floors because they look perfect and pristine and oh-so-high-tech. The customer will go to the showroom (with their nice, bright, and diffuse lighting) or see the photos online and they'll think: "Wow, that's shiny, it must be new and sleek" and then whip out their credit cards.

When they take it home, they'll complain about the glare, but that doesn't matter to the manufacturers and retailers because they already had your money at that point and they know that you probably wouldn't go to the trouble of returning the laptop just because there's a bit of glare on the screen. Meanwhile, you're stuck with your crappy super-specular screen and you're going to go through any sort of mental gymnastics necessary to justify not returning it. And then, the next time you need a new computer, the same process will begin anew because we, as consumers, are idiots.

Re:It's all about sales

[blair1q]

And infant on a teat is getting an all-natural, perfectly balanced product, for free, that comes in a reusable and all but universally appealing container.

So maybe you should find another pejorative metaphor for "consumerism".

Maybe, but..

[StikyPad]

1) PC Pro readers probably don't represent the general population.

2) There's always a difference between what people say they want, and what they actually end up buying when given the choice. They may actually want matte screens, but purchase based on different criteria such as "oh, shiney!" once they're actually on the spot.

3) I'm pretty sure device manufacturers are doing more robust consumer research than PC Pro.

Same with 1080p

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the world anyone would choose a 1920x1080 monitor over 1920x1200 is beyond me. I can't wait until the day those bastard TV "monitors" die.

Re:Same with 1080p

[PitaBred]

I would prefer 1920x1200, but 1080 vertical pixels are enough. 768 however, are not. THAT is the resolution I have issues with... 1366x768 is completely useless.

Re:Same with 1080p

[Quiet_Desperation]

You can get pixel perfect TV playback on a monitor with 1200 pixels as well. There's unused bands at the top and bottom, but you are getting the EXACT SAME THING in the middle 1080 pixels. And then you get extra height when computing or gaming.

Honestly, this "NO BLACK BANDS!" is some sort of bizarre OCD thing at this point. I could see it back in the standard def days because letterboxing smooshed the image into less pixels, but 1080 mapped on to a 1200 screen is the same as 1080 on a 1080 screen.

Or are you using some crappy playback system that can only do stretching and not just place the video in the middle?

It's economy of scale.

[ZorinLynx]

Even IF your job is editing 1080p video, 1200 is superior because you get room at the top and bottom for a scrub bar, and additional controls, without intruding on the image.

Computer displays should have stayed 1920x1200, but it's a lot cheaper just to make tons of 1920x1080 panels and use the same panels in both TVs and computer displays. Economies of scale.

I love my old Dell 2407WFP. 1920x1200 all the way, damnit.