For one more datapoint, I’ve installed MXT from Photodon – application was easy and result is very good.
I didn’t use shower trick and applied it in my living room; had to continuously brush away dust until I started to apply film though. Success from the first try. The film covers all active area and leaves small margins on all sides, 1-2 mm.
PLEASE A MATTE SCREEN.
Just received my FW 12th gen.
This is a real mirror. Very tireing for the eye.
Especially I need to put the brightness up in order to see whats on display…in the monring that s a pain for my eyes.
See my review here : Intel 12th Gen Frame Work laptop Consumer Reviews
Ho and if it is 1980x1080 that s even better, no need to apply fixes to lower the resolution HIDPI and stuf (under linux). After tweaking the scale I still have some apps that have tiny little icones I cannot use.
The reflections are so bad I never use the display. I use an external monitor with a matte screen.
Yeah…the screen reflection…best in the business. LoL…
Off topic though, how on earth did rtings get 11.4 hours of web browsing with the 11th gen framework laptop?
Ever since the Framework laptop was conceived, people have been asking for a matte display. How many months has it been now? Of all the most popular feature requests, this one seems to sit at the top of the list. And yet, after all these many months, there’s been no announcement about it. But there has been an announcement of a Chromebook option, which as far as I can tell no one asked for.
I am beginning to wonder if Framework is just an echo of Apple. You can ask Apple for a feature, or the removal of a feature, but unless they are repeatedly shamed in the tech press, they won’t budge or admit they are wrong, and even with repeated shaming they still won’t budge most of the time. Other tech companies have this pig-headedness problem, but Apple is most notorious. Does Framework have the same mentality? Is a matte display from Framework merely a wish, to be forever unfulfilled because they think they know better than consumers?
Uhm…
To me it seems like you’re misunderstanding a lot? So many people have gotten third party matte screen protectors and have been completely satisfied with them, Framework has also promoted and worked with these companies to put out these products…
It’s a bit unfair to compare them to apple because their R&D is so much smaller…
On top of that I would guess that expansion is one of the company’s priorites. For now the most number of the request is “please I am from (…), and I want to buy framework laptop”. And I would gess that this would be the first priority.
And matte display is not the most critical funtionality missing. Mabye AMD processors? Touch display?
I agree that a matte display would be a huge improvement to the product, and its fitness for the productivity use case.
I disagree that “not yet” = “never”.
Comparison with Apple is also, I think, quite inaccurate.
Instead, I think, it would be better to focus on a path to a solution than just reiterate problems. To that end, what number of “guaranteed” sales would it take to ensure the R&D costs of developing, verifying, and stocking a matte will be justified? Would Framework entertain the idea of a preorder system to accomplish this “funding” of the matte display work, @nrp ?
For me a glossy screen is a non-starter. Maybe I’m just not narcissistic enough to want to see my reflection all day. Maybe I don’t want to wear black shirts to avoid the shrit reflection. It seems a terrible waste to make a product that aspires to an ideal of repairability, which a lot of people can get behind, but then discourage a large percentage of those users by leaving out the option for a matte screen…
Is that add-on mentioned on the website anywhere? I didn’t see it. How about during the checkout process? Nope.
If applying such a protector is so easy as you suggest, why don’t they just apply that protector at the factory? Or include a free one in the box.
Again it gets back to the presumption that they know what is right and give no attention to what they apparently feel is not right.
It’s like selling a car with 3 wheels and saying, Oh, you need a fourth wheel? Just buy it yourself, because we don’t see why you’d need it.
As I mentioned, there are endorsed matte screen protectors that cost less then $50.
Numerous users have reported positive experiences.
Here is the thread:
I do agree that it would be better if they included it on the website.
That being said, you’re making it out to be a lot worse then it really is. Matte screen protectors are pretty common knowledge, and people will be redirected to them if they ask in the forums.
Many people will see the screen is glossy and consequently never proceed to make an order, let alone go to the forums.
Also I see the protodon product is a privacy filter. I once used a 3M privacy filter and my experience was it degraded image quality.
@Abe_Linkn Did you look at the photos I posted? They show a pretty night and day difference and the quality is pretty good. The Photodon AGB protector is an anti glare blue light screen protector, not a privacy filter.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The framework laptop is still within the first two generations of the company’s creation, and having a computer already at this level where you can have modularity and repairability is unheard of in modern times (unfortunately).
Not all the photodon products are privacy filters. Having said that, I’m using the privacy filter this very moment. Can I tell it is on the screen? Yeah, I can. Slight screen door effect but nothing crazy and certainly doesn’t detract from my experience using the laptop.
I recall the bad old days of arduously putting screen protectors on 4-inch phone screens, never quite getting it perfect, and I dread the idea of dealing with a 13.5-incher, if it is the same experience with dust, bubbles, and adhesive. That is why I’d greatly prefer it be done at the factory.
One benefit of the 3M red-tinted privacy filter that I once used with a Macbook was that it was applied without adhesive, just static electricity.
I have some questions:
Just curious, when Photodon refers their product being a blue-light-cut protector, does that mean the protector blocks only UV from the screen? Has anyone verified this marketing claim using a UV camera? UV-only cameras are kind of rare, I know, but non-UV digital cameras can detect UV if you add a $20 black UV-pass filter. The fact that digital cameras can detect UV is why a “UV filter” (i.e. UV-blocking) is recommended for normal non-UV photography.
Is it the case that Photodon’s non-adhesive privacy filter doesn’t degrade image quality i.e. make pixels look fuzzy? What is known about that one, as opposed to the adhesive privacy filter?
Does the non-adhesive privacy filter require increasing screen brightness? The red-tinted 3M filter that I used with a Macbook did.
Does the non-adhesive privacy filter block UV?
Since my use case for a laptop is 80% use at home connected to a big display, and 20% in public using the 13.5" display, a privacy filter actually makes more sense for me. But not if it uses adhesive.
Is yours the adhesive kind or the non-adhesive? Can you provide a photo of the screen?
@Abe_Linkn Take a look at my blog post. That should provide enough info (and pictures =D) to give you a general feeling if you want to give this a shot.
