Screen Protector or Naked?

[Blueface]

I think people can make up their own minds about whether they want a screen protector or not, but to merely dismiss it as "useless" or "a waste of money" is patently failing to understand the reasons why others choose to use one.

Um, despite your quotation marks I don't think anyone has dismissed screen protectors as "useless" or a "waste of money"?

The thread is about whether the OP should or shouldn't use a screen protector. Some are putting the case for one, some are putting the case against. Neither side should, or has, said that they are either indispensable or pointless.

And I don't see that saying 'it's never happened to me before' is so illogical. Of course it's pretty stupid when it comes to something like wearing a seatbelt. But life is about balancing and assessing risks. For someone to say that they believe the risk of damage is low, and that their assessment has thus been borne out by their experience thus far, isn't illogical - especially when some people have reported scratches occurring within days. In that context, it's far more logical to question what the different people are doing differently, as it if were truly that easy to scratch an iPad screen then all of us without screen protectors would have scratched ours.

My issue is mainly with the look and feel of a screen protector. If, as someone said above, there really is a screen protector that doesn't change the feel of the iPad and make it feel plasticy, then that might convince me to get one. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over not having one because Apple clearly went to a lot of effort to scratch-proof their screens and I generally trust their designers to be thorough.

Very well said.
Thank you.

Would like to just add to what you said in support of my post.
I wonder why it is that in an opinion thread, if one's opinion does not coincide with someone else's, labeling takes place?

Following what has been indicated to be more "logical" thinking than mine, I suppose since the thought is because it never happened does not mean it won't, I should then go out and immediately purchase my funeral and burial. After all, because I haven't died in 52 years does not mean I won't immediately die.

Man, I can't help but crack up with public forums.

I have been enlightened and following that line of thinking further that just because it hasn't happened does not mean it won't, I think I will not leave home anymore. After all, in 52 years I haven't been hit by a car but if I leave, I just may.

 

[David79]

I have an anti glare screen protector on and it is always in a case

 

[KJSmitty]

Man, I can't help but crack up with public forums.

For sure, but be aware, their not just laughing "with" you.

These type of "which do you think is better" threads always turn south.

 

[tzimisce]

Um, despite your quotation marks I don't think anyone has dismissed screen protectors as "useless" or a "waste of money"?

Actually, they have - if not specifically in this thread, then in any number of the numerous "screen vs naked" threads in this forum: a search will bring a bunch of them up.

The failure in the logic of the "it's never happened to me before" argument lies in the faulty inference: because whatever has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen in the future. Using the iPad flawlessly for the last 1 or 100 days doesn't mean that nothing untoward will happen tomorrow; or using Blueface's own example, having not been hit by a car in the last 52 years doesn't mean you won't be in an accident in the years to come. (But neither does it infer that you will be in an accident, either, so the conclusion that one should stay at home is also incorrect... But I digress.)

My point is you can't draw any conclusion, as nobody knows what will happen in the future. That's the reason why people buy insurance. Applying a risk-based assessment - e.g. "I am a careful user, and I don't lend my iPad to anyone, so the risk of damage is low" - doesn't change the fact that any future outcome has no correlation to the past. A careful user may have a far lower chance of incurring damage than a careless kid who throws his device around: but an accident, by definition, is unpredictable, and users have incurred damage to the screen without realising or knowing how it happened.

That's all I'm trying to say. If you disagree, that's perfectly okay, let's move on.

 

[Feanor]

Actually, they have - if not specifically in this thread, then in any number of the numerous "screen vs naked" threads in this forum: a search will bring a bunch of them up.

OK, well noone's said it in this thread so frankly if you take issue with those statements then you should say so to the people who made them. Your statement comes across as aimed at the people in this thread, who haven't been so foolish as to make such extreme statements.

As for the it's never happened to me before thing, it would be foolish if he meant that therefore it won't happen to him again. But as an indication of risk, it isn't such a silly statement when discussing damage to something that, let's face it, anyway has a limited lifetime. Indeed, when I ride my bicycle to work every day I don't wear any protective clothing other than my helmet, despite the fact that I normally ride at speeds of 20-25mph with traffic around me. I know that if I have an accident, especially with a car or motorbike, I could seriously hurt myself at those speeds but wearing motorcycle leathers, or even just jeans and a leather jacket, would be uncomfortable or just inconvenient. So I take a risk. I might have an accident, but I hope I won't.

Anyway, while I couldn't resist getting another post in let's move on as you say.

 

[Blueface]

Um, despite your quotation marks I don't think anyone has dismissed screen protectors as "useless" or a "waste of money"?

Actually, they have - if not specifically in this thread, then in any number of the numerous "screen vs naked" threads in this forum: a search will bring a bunch of them up.

The failure in the logic of the "it's never happened to me before" argument lies in the faulty inference: because whatever has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen in the future. Using the iPad flawlessly for the last 1 or 100 days doesn't mean that nothing untoward will happen tomorrow; or using Blueface's own example, having not been hit by a car in the last 52 years doesn't mean you won't be in an accident in the years to come. (But neither does it infer that you will be in an accident, either, so the conclusion that one should stay at home is also incorrect... But I digress.)

My point is you can't draw any conclusion, as nobody knows what will happen in the future. That's the reason why people buy insurance. Applying a risk-based assessment - e.g. "I am a careful user, and I don't lend my iPad to anyone, so the risk of damage is low" - doesn't change the fact that any future outcome has no correlation to the past. A careful user may have a far lower chance of incurring damage than a careless kid who throws his device around: but an accident, by definition, is unpredictable, and users have incurred damage to the screen without realising or knowing how it happened.

That's all I'm trying to say. If you disagree, that's perfectly okay, let's move on.

Wow.
I am speechless.

 

[KJSmitty]

The one last comment I wold make in the event someone is actually reading this thread for advise vise entertainment is:

Antiglare protectors do help for antiglare but IMHO definitely take away from the iPad enjoyment. The good clear protectors really take away nothing from the visual or touch.

As for using a screen protector to mitigate fingerprints - I don't see the point. Either naked or protected, it "will" get fingerprints, some worse than other given sweaty hands or greasy skin, we are all different - fact of life.

Besides near guaranteeing no screen scratches/damage, what I really enjoy about the protector is I "can" clean it off with anything and not worry about damage. Given my experience with my first iPad and the two minor scratches despite being anal, and now how I treat my current protected iPads, I feel the protectors are more scratch resistant than the naked screen. But then again, now I never worry about scratching/damage regardless..

 

[David79]

My anti glare doesnt take anything away from using the ipad, there is no difference with it off or on, screen looks the same. Personally if I am going to spend this much money on something, I want to keep it protected, that means screen and body. It will be with me for awhile because it was a big investment for me. So for me at least, it is just like having a nice car with no insurance. I can't afford to replace it any time soon, so I will keep mine safe anyway =)

 

[tzimisce]

Antiglare protectors do help for antiglare but IMHO definitely take away from the iPad enjoyment. The good clear protectors really take away nothing from the visual or touch.

As for using a screen protector to mitigate fingerprints - I don't see the point. Either naked or protected, it "will" get fingerprints, some worse than other given sweaty hands or greasy skin, we are all different - fact of life.

I have to disagree. The difference between a matte and a clear protector in showing up fingerprints could not be more different: I've used both types of protectors on both iPhone and iPad, and a good matte protector virtually eliminates smudges and 'squeaky' finger oils and greases. The quality of the material repels oils and greases in a way that clear protectors and bare glass does not.

Also, it depends on what you mean exactly by 'enjoyment'. As I'm sitting outdoors in my garden right now typing this with blue skies and bright sun overhead, I know that if I didn't have a matte screen, I'd be totally dazzled and going half-blind from all the ambient reflection and glare on a bare glass surface. With the matte on, the screen display is perfectly comfortable in its brightness and legibility, with no eye-strain.

 

[OneMarcil]

Mine lives is a leather case without a screen protector. No scratches on the screen but there are these other things on the screen that are visible when the ZIPAD is off these are called fingerprints.

Sent from my IPAD 1st generation. WIFI only. 32 GB

 

[RecRedit]

Zagg is great, my thought is since the screen is such an important part of the Ipad I always have a screen protector on. Since it doesn't fold closed like a laptop the screen is always exposed. If you plan on taking it outside your house I would recommend a screen protector, they're pretty cheap.

 

[tiger]

Brookstone also has one that is more like a leather folio, with bluetooth keyboard. Looks really nice. Just saw it this week while at the airport.

Interesting how tastes/preferences vary.
I bought the iPad and iPad 2 because there is no keyboard and instead, a touch screen.
For keyboard, would have gone with a netbook instead for a lot less.
What is great in the end is that in fact there are so many options for all to choose.

Yes I thought the same thing 1st too if I need I keyboard I can buy a notebook for less.
Butmy goal was a ultra light device which is Online in 2 sec when checking my RSS / twitter / forums and so on. So I was a bit surprised that the Onscreen keyboard is missing keys from a full keyboard and the Navigation or copy paste sometimes does't work very fast or you cant set the mark quicky where it need to be. I figured that only out afterwards but all current keyboard options are too bulky for me.
So I use Onscreen and use my Laptop if I get stucked lol.

 

[teheuti]

all current keyboard options are too bulky for me.

Agreed. I used Typing Tutor (app) to get my typing-on-glass skills up to speed. Really helps!

 

[j joy j]

I use the Power Support Crystal Film (HD Anti Glare) protector on my iPad and iPhone. I've had touch screen phones for years and have always protected them with some sort of cover such as Zagg, GhostArmor, BestSkinEver. I took a suggestion from another thread on here for the Power Support Crystal Film and so far LOVE them!

True, naked is nice but protection is nice also.

JJ

 

[manitou]

Antiglare protectors do help for antiglare but IMHO definitely take away from the iPad enjoyment. The good clear protectors really take away nothing from the visual or touch.

As for using a screen protector to mitigate fingerprints - I don't see the point. Either naked or protected, it "will" get fingerprints, some worse than other given sweaty hands or greasy skin, we are all different - fact of life.

I have to disagree. The difference between a matte and a clear protector in showing up fingerprints could not be more different: I've used both types of protectors on both iPhone and iPad, and a good matte protector virtually eliminates smudges and 'squeaky' finger oils and greases. The quality of the material repels oils and greases in a way that clear protectors and bare glass does not.

Also, it depends on what you mean exactly by 'enjoyment'. As I'm sitting outdoors in my garden right now typing this with blue skies and bright sun overhead, I know that if I didn't have a matte screen, I'd be totally dazzled and going half-blind from all the ambient reflection and glare on a bare glass surface. With the matte on, the screen display is perfectly comfortable in its brightness and legibility, with no eye-strain.

Nice post tzimisce. After having my iPad 2 for a few months, I opted for the Power Support Anti-glare protector. My sole reason for doing so was because of the finger print issue. I carry a bottle of iKlear in my case along with a cleaning cloth, but had to clean the screen endlessly. Now that I have the protector on, I can use my iPad outside, but more importantly to me, don't have to deal with the fingerprint issue all the time. I have no regrets for spending the 30 bucks for that little piece of plastic.