Everybody is, justifiably, complaining about the iPad's glossy screen. One way of reducing is is faintly matting it, but that reduces contrast. What I don't get is: why don't they use real, actual anti-glare coating? If they can do it on eye-glasses (and it makes a big difference), surely they can also do it on a screen the size of the pad?
It's too bad that it always seems like Apple has this need to reinvent the wheel when that needn't be the case. I had a non-glare screen on my Acer TravelMate C300 that I bought back in '04! And...I could write on the screen, too!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the anti-glare coating would work very well on that surface 'cuz this coating - after ALL these years - STILL isn't good enough for me to have it, again...on glasses, even! It wears off and shows scratches really easily. I think the coating would even affect how pics' colors would be displayed. And...with all that surface touching, that stuff would wear off in no time.
My suggestion would be for Apple to talk to someone like Acer re: whatever vendor and process was used for their screen. Until then, perhaps a privacy screen could be used?
I never had a pair of glasses where the coating has worn off in any way.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the constant touching of the screen may be an issue, didn't think of that.
But some coating is actually used to *protect* lenses against scratching!
Eolake said...
ReplyDelete"I never had a pair of glasses where the coating has worn off in any way."
I have; hence, why I REFUSE to have another pair w/it on...until they come up w/a better solution!
"Of course, the constant touching of the screen may be an issue, didn't think of that."
Yes...the body oils and just general dirt on that non-glare stuff would leave constant "smears" on the surface and make it quite unpleasant to try to view through. :-(
"But some coating is actually used to *protect* lenses against scratching!"
Very true. Hoping that Apple's R&D can come up w/something.