Was it a cost saving measure that they got rid of it? or for a design reason, like a thinner display lid?
Hell, if Chromebooks offered this feature, I'd consider doing the same!I hate that I would actually upgrade for this"feature".
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. So I retract that part of my comment. I still find that even in dark rooms, it was too bright, and not so evenly distributed, but it seems I'm of the only ones thinking that.It doesn't use any extra energy because it uses the backlight of the LCD and makes the lighting very even. It lights up or dims depending on how bright your display was, so in a dark room where the display auto-dims the logo light would be very faint as well. That was the genius of the old design.
I just checked both our daily used 2014 MBPs and there is no sign of burn in. Maybe it happens on the older, non-retina screen of that Air.Hot take: I don't want the glowing logo back. Aside from how bright it was in the dark, the logo overtime caused screen burn-in.
![]()
Ok mr. Money bags with multiple TVsNo. I watch TV on my television in bed.![]()
Many owners of these MacBooks reported that the display brightness was dimmer in the zone of the Apple logo. This would make sense given that the original 'glow' was achieved through the LCD backlight itself, which passively shone onto the transparent plastic logo.Was it a cost saving measure that they got rid of it? or for a design reason, like a thinner display lid?
To be fair, it was also created under JI.Oh wow, they’re really commited to fix everything that Mr. Thin broke...