If I was focused on watching movies, or grading photos in a dark room then glossy would be the way to go.
A glossy Apple Studio Display or iMac (both of which have a decent antiglare treatment despite being glossy) in an office setting for example isn’t too bad.
On the other hand, your average touchscreen laptop (which are always almost-mirrors with no hint of treatment, for some reason) with screen angled up slightly and overhead fluorescent tube lighting or a skylight on the other hand? Borderline useless if the screen isn’t bright enough to outshine the strong glare covering 40-60%+ of the screen.
It's admittedly a very obvious tradeoff, but part of me was hoping some new magic existed with the nano texture since everyone was ranting and raving about it on its release. Figured maybe just maybe it could've given me the best of both worlds. Nope. As it turns out people who make "review videos" often times don't know what the hell they're talking about. I've learned to tune those out and just source my purchasing info from people who do things im also interested in doing. In practical application it was an easy decision to make. For my use case glossy display just made more sense, I dork with photos/videos many times a year whereas I sit outside in the sun with my laptop maybe once a year if I'm traveling. And even in those scenarios the glossy display is fine.