← Back to context

Comment by wooger

1 month ago

It’s always amusing how much Apple’s adoption of generic tech is hyped up and overanalysed online, and made into a must have feature making all alternatives unsuitable.

The nano texture screen coating is clearly better for my purposes vs a glossy screen. Reading text gives less eye strain and there’s a slight ePaper-esque quality to things that’s just relaxing. Maybe some argument to be had for pure media consumption or image editing.

I don’t think Apple’s screen coating tech is anything magical or different to what’s on tons of decent monitors, Benq for one.

For marketing reasons, Apple only make this screen available in the MacBook Pro. For my use, this is needless extra cost, weight and bulk. I’m already paying hundreds extra for a coated screen, there’s no reason it can’t be made available on the MacBook Air too.

I’d still buy a MacBook if nano coating didn’t exist, the screen ratio, SoC and trackpad quality are still not close to being matched. Not to mention the fact that basically no other laptop is even available to buy in the UK with a US keyboard layout.

7 comments

wooger

Reply
eloisant  1 month ago

To be fair they always come up with pretty marketing names :)

It's not high dpi, it's a retina display!

It's not a matte display, it's a nano texture!

xutopia  1 month ago

You clearly don’t know what Apple’s nano texture is nor have you read the article.

Nano texture is not a coating. It is different than the coatings offered by competitors because of this.

  • eloisant  1 month ago

    From what I read it's the same thing as the etched screen of the Steam Deck which is not a coating either. Again, Apple didn't invent anything.