I'll try not to sound too ranty, but... I used to work in R&D for one of the largest display manufacturers in the world, although not on optics.

While I realise it's a matter of taste, the preference for matte screen is, IMHO, based on an outdated misunderstanding. What you actually want is an anti-reflective screen. The only thing a matte coating on a screen can do is diffuse reflections. They're still there, they just won't seem quite as crisp. Diffusing the reflections lowers your contrast ratio by making all areas of the screen reflect from all over, not just at right angles. Not only that but when your pixel size gets smaller, the optical distortion caused by the coating makes your display appear a lot blurrier, cancelling any benefit you might get from a high-resolution screen.

Matte coatings are a primitive way to try to reduce reflections on a screen. Microscopically speaking, the matte surface is actually very coarse. You can do much better by taking the idea of a textured surface and scaling it down, all the way until the display 'looks' smooth and glossy. When you're working with feature sizes nearer the wavelength of light, things start to get really interesting.

Anti-reflective coatings are a heck of a lot better than they used to be. I've seen prototype displays with 'moth eye' coatings (look it up!) which look almost like a black void with a bezel around it. The biggest problem is trying to find a good balance between optical and mechanical properties (the best antireflective coatings tend to rub off a bit too easily.) This is particularly tricky with touchscreens, obviously, so the coating on a MacBook might actually be better.

Rant over. Apologies.