I don't think so. Manufacturers are starting to lean back towards matte screens in any event and I hope they keep leaning. Many of the review sites are getting over the novelty of glossy high contrast screens and praising matte screens for their accuracy and easy of use which is always a good sign.
Every *civilian* I have spoken to on this topic prefers glossy, or hadn’t thought about it at all; they can’t see what the kerfuffle is about, and they are in the majority, compared to users working with images for a living, or as a serious hobby.
My guess, and my guesses are occasionally wrong 
, is it's all about money. Glossy screens at one point were probably cheaper to produce than matte screens, so marketing drummed up their great points and convinced the public they needed them.. and maybe now they've found a way to manufacture lesser expensive matte screens so marketing is busy working up the sales pitch. It's always great for manufacturers to sell a cheaper product for more money.
I have no knowledge of cost vs surface treatment on panels; somebody out there must have heard if one is cheaper than the other. I believe gloss screens were first marketed as a product differentiator—
yay!
look at the contrast and blacker blacks! Reflections and reduced view angles were not mentioned.
Perhaps a factor is inventory and BTO control; Apple famously has a very tight supply chain, and the product line is kept very simple as an essential part of marketing (helps with stock control too). While MBP 15s and 17s can have BTO matte screens, the smaller, more portable laptops miss out (such as my MBP13); this is frustrating on location, but I have no problem in my home office.
An anecdote which inclines me to the view about viewing angles expressed above: I tested my ageing but still going strong
MBP15 1.83CD (early 2006) against my mid-2010 MBP13—viewing angles on the matte screen were
much much better than on the 13" gloss screen.
