Can you buy the monitor separately? It looks like a dream display to me, assuming that it's glossy which is usual for Apple. It's very difficult to find glossy monitors these days. I just can't go back to matter after getting spoiled with glossy.
Honest question: Why do you prefer a reflective surface over a matte on a screen? In my experience it only reflects the room and makes the content harder to see.
You get more saturation on glossy displays. Matte surfaces work by diffusing the light that is incident on the screen but that diffuser also attenuates the light coming out of the display. Less light, less contrast, and less saturation.
An artist friend of mine has what is essentially a white cotton muslin curtain that goes around their work area which keeps reflections down to near zero (without being in the dark) and only uses glossy displays. It would drive me nuts but I see the attraction.
Glossy requires you to exercise better control of room lighting, but the matte coating causes white backgrounds to sparkle and text to be hazy. Especially on a retina-level display where the text is otherwise so sharp. I used a 2414Q in a Microsoft store, and text looks nowhere near as sharp as it does on my Macbook Pro Retina, despite similar pixel density.
Microsoft uses different text rendering algorithms than apple. You should compare a picture with text generated on OS X, not text as seen in applications.
In my experience, colors just look better on glossy displays. Since glossy screens are ubiquitous on phones and tablets, I would figure most people are used to the reflection issue by now. Personally, I don't notice reflections unless the screen is off, but it is obviously going to depend on your room.
I have a different question: why hasn't Apple been using optical anti-reflective coatings on all their non-touch glossy displays -- especially the Thunderbolt display? And: is this 5K iMac AR coated?
AR coatings on touch screens are problematic because skin oils make visible marks, but on non-touch glossy screens they should be standard. Indeed, back in the CRT era, it was routine for high-end CRTs to be coated.
I have noticed that Apple is using a coated screen for at least one model of MacBook Air, but for some reason they don't seem to have fully embraced coated screens.
I've used a Mac with a glass screen since 2011 and it really hasnt given me any issues. Sometimes at the office I may have a issues with glare or if I sit with a window behind me. If I adjust the angle of my monitor the issue is immediately resolved.
I was really against buying the glossy screen but the matte looks washed out compared to the glossy. If your display is around 60% or above brightness then you really dont have a glare issue.
Of course, if you work in an open-plan office -- and let's face it, despite the evidence that it's an unforgivably stupid way to set things up, most of us do -- you can't control the light.
And if you're using a laptop outside of a home/personal office environment (which laptops are presumably built for), you don't have control over lighting either.
For tablets and mobile devices which generally aren't used for working at long stretches, I guess I can see the appeal. But it's really strange to me that glossy is popular on machines people do use for long-stretch work -- and often in high-glare overhead lighting open-plan offices.
(And not only popular, but increasingly the only available option.)
The color and contrast is way better than any matte screen I've seen. Reflections are not a big problem for me, but of course this depends on your computer setup and where your windows are located etc.
The annoying thing is that it's nearly impossible to find a glossy screen on the market.
Different strokes for different folks, but I find it funny that you think your preference is the one the market is ignoring lately. Every display Apple makes is glossy only, as is nearly every TV these days. I really wish I could get a matte rMBP and a matte 60" HDTV, but they just don't make them anymore...
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. I want to buy a glossy monitor, not a glossy television screen. The only well known option is a monitor manufactured by Apple, but they're really expensive compared to typical quality matte screens. It's really hard to find even a single alternative. I found a single HP monitor which maybe has a glossy screen, but they don't state that clearly.
I agree that it is harder to see, especially if you have a backlight. If you have a well-lit room, with light coming from the top in a non-reflective angle, the display is vastly better than the matte one.
(Source: I have both Apple Thunderbolt Display and old-school Apple Cinema Display with matte finish)
Not yet it seems. They haven't released an update to their Thunderbolt Display in years (since 2011), but it should be right around the corner with the release of this 5K iMac.
They would have announced it today if that was the case. Currently there isn't a display transport capable of pushing that many pixels. DispayPort 1.2 can't do it on a single port and that's what Apple has MacBooks and Mac Pro.
Yes, and that's already being used by the first batch of 4K monitors and is called MST. This models the monitor as 2 lower-resolution displays and drives them with two separate signals.
It has a lot of compatibility problems, and is hacky as hell. I doubt Apple would adopt this as an official/first-class solution to anything.
Solving "compatibility problems" is what Apple do best by requiring you have an Apple Mac Pro and an Apple Cinema Display and not supporting any other configuration
It depends on the application. For games, fotos, and videos glossy may be fine. But if you work a lot with text (as developer etc.) then matte displays are far better for the eyes.
When I made an exception and bought a notebook with glossy display I regretted that a short time later. Glossy display? Never again!
