PDA

View Full Version : Would you pay EXTRA for Retina? (Both Money and Battery Life)




KittyKatta
Mar 23, 2012, 10:06 PM
One thing I don't understand is that Higher Resolution displays have been an option on MacBook Pros for years but most people still opt for the Standard display. But with this whole "Retina" bandwagon then a majority of people now demand retina screens as a requirement for upgrading.

So what Im wondering is this:
For $200 more then would you pay EXTRA for Retina Display or would you stick with the current resolution and save money?

To me, I'm not sure because I've still to figure out if the whole Retina hype is simply a sign of Apple Marketing being successful. I bought 2 new iPads and love the Retina Display but in real world usage then if someone stuck with their old iPad 2 they wouldn't really miss out on anything. So the same may be true with the already great MBA screens.

Edit:
Would you pay for Retina at the cost of Battery Life?
It seems that the retina display on the ipad is the main reason they had to fit in a larger capacity battery. So if they are going to use the same battery magic on the MacBook then it would be possible we'd have a choice between something like a 8hr Standard Resolution MacBook vs a 3hr Retina MacBook. If so, many mobile users may prefer extra battery and view Retina to be more a novelty.



yanksrock100
Mar 23, 2012, 11:09 PM
I would CONSIDER paying extra for retina...BUT apple wouldnt do that, they would use retina as a selling point to get people to buy it.

I mean if the Airs get retina, thats where alot of their adverts would go, so they wouldnt have it as a configuration upgrade.

Cheffy Dave
Mar 24, 2012, 01:42 AM
After 4 days with my new iPad, I would in a heartbeat, just give me a 15" MBA with a retina display!

BreakGuy
Mar 24, 2012, 02:00 AM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

Nova Sensei
Mar 24, 2012, 05:47 AM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

Wow, what an original thought.... :rolleyes:

Retina is something everyone here understands to mean very high resolution/dpi. It's a convenient phrase to get an idea across.

LostSoul80
Mar 24, 2012, 05:50 AM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

Exactly. And seen the success of that term, I can't but think Apple will use it again.

Chaos123x
Mar 24, 2012, 05:53 AM
I don't think so, with a desktop or even a laptop, you don't really put your face right into it like you would with a phone or a tablet. Your usually a little less than arms length away.

Jobsian
Mar 24, 2012, 06:06 AM
Yes and to be honest, I'd pay extra for quite a few upgrades that I want to see.

Macman45
Mar 24, 2012, 06:08 AM
Having had my new iPad for a week now, yes I probably would, but I'd rather Apple stuck to the practice they used for the newbie....As posted, use it as a selling point and not an excuse to charge more.

Moonjumper
Mar 24, 2012, 07:20 AM
I would, but they didn't increase the cost of the iPhone or iPad when they introduced Retina displays, so probably won't again.

Chaos123x
Mar 24, 2012, 07:22 AM
I would, but they didn't increase the cost of the iPhone or iPad when they introduced Retina displays, so probably won't again.

it could be a BTO option at first add $300 for Hi-dpi display. ;)

Gav2k
Mar 24, 2012, 07:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4s)

They can't sell it as an upgrade. Without it it's an iPad 2

seasurfer
Mar 24, 2012, 07:51 AM
One thing I don't understand is that Higher Resolution displays have been an option on MacBook Pros for years but most people still opt for the Standard display. But with this whole "Retina" bandwagon then a majority of people now demand retina screens as a requirement for upgrading.

So what Im wondering is this:
For $200 more then would you pay EXTRA for Retina Display or would you stick with the current resolution and save money?

To me, I'm not sure because I've still to figure out if the whole Retina hype is simply a sign of Apple Marketing being successful. I bought 2 new iPads and love the Retina Display but in real world usage then if someone stuck with their old iPad 2 they wouldn't really miss out on anything. So the same may be true with the already great MBA screens.

The high resolution offered by MBP is not equivalent to retina, the quality offered by those high res screen does not make a big different compare to what retina can.

KittyKatta
Mar 24, 2012, 08:27 AM
Having had my new iPad for a week now, yes I probably would, but I'd rather Apple stuck to the practice they used for the newbie....As posted, use it as a selling point and not an excuse to charge more.
But is it unreasonable to assume a Retina MacBook would cause a hit in battery life? Despite all this "post-PC" talk then many people still rely on MacBooks as portable workstations. It just seems that with MacBooks then there is a distinct line between the types of users and so "retina displays" may be considered more of a novelty than necessity, especially if it affects a travelers battery life.

gnasher729
Mar 24, 2012, 10:16 AM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

I have compared an iPad 2 with a new iPad. It doesn't matter what Apple calls it. The quality of the display on the iPad 2 wasn' bad at all, but the display on the new iPad is just incredible. So when you ask the leading question "clever marketing or false advertising?" the answer is: Neither. Just an incredibly good display.


But is it unreasonable to assume a Retina MacBook would cause a hit in battery life? Despite all this "post-PC" talk then many people still rely on MacBooks as portable workstations. It just seems that with MacBooks then there is a distinct line between the types of users and so "retina displays" may be considered more of a novelty than necessity, especially if it affects a travelers battery life.

There is some loss. The iPad battery was increased from 25Wh to 42Wh to give the same 10 hours battery life, so we can calculate that the display uses about 1.7 Watt more than before. Battery life of the MBA is less than the iPad, so Apple would have to increase the battery by about 10 Wh to get the same battery life.

KittyKatta
Mar 24, 2012, 10:26 AM
I have compared an iPad 2 with a new iPad. It doesn't matter what Apple calls it. The quality of the display on the iPad 2 wasn' bad at all, but the display on the new iPad is just incredible. So when you ask the leading question "clever marketing or false advertising?" the answer is: Neither. Just an incredibly good display.
It is an incredibly good display. but making the general public believe they "need" it and life without it is somehow crippling is marketing in action. And as someone who's pretty good at justifying purchases I don't actually "need", then if given a choice I'm just not sure if Retina would beat out Battery for me. :D

Moonjumper
Mar 24, 2012, 11:31 AM
It is an incredibly good display. but making the general public believe they "need" it and life without it is somehow crippling is marketing in action. And as someone who's pretty good at justifying purchases I don't actually "need", then if given a choice I'm just not sure if Retina would beat out Battery for me. :D

The display is the major interaction with a computer. The quality of the screen makes a big difference to the quality of that interaction.

I have always spent more that most on monitors as a proportion of computer costs. A retina display would be a major upgrade for me. For others, less so.

alphaod
Mar 26, 2012, 03:16 AM
Yes I would pay extra for a higher resolution display. I'd probably run it at native resolution, rather than at "retina" mode. As with battery life, I don't really think it'll be affected much; the computer would certainly require more video memory.

linuxcooldude
Mar 26, 2012, 03:56 AM
It is an incredibly good display. but making the general public believe they "need" it and life without it is somehow crippling is marketing in action. And as someone who's pretty good at justifying purchases I don't actually "need", then if given a choice I'm just not sure if Retina would beat out Battery for me. :D

The iPad aside, there is a lot of things people don't "need" but they buy them anyway. I'm not going to blame a commercial for peoples lack of will power for impulse buying. If the majority of people are really that gullible, psychiatry would be at an all time high.

Originally Posted by BreakGuy
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

If it were just a term, they could of used it for the first iPad. You are getting an improved display getting 4X the pixel density then the previous version. Thats not false advertising to me. Don't like the Retina concept? iPad 2 is still for sale.

KittyKatta
Mar 26, 2012, 09:48 AM
The display is the major interaction with a computer. The quality of the screen makes a big difference to the quality of that interaction.
Maybe with Touchscreen, but is the display really considered "the major interaction" when it is a one-way output device? A high quality monitor improves the experience but for most people a retina display is more a luxury than a necessity. Just look at the comments on the iPad board (and im guilty too) where everyone brags about the amazing screen but very few people are actually doing something they couldn't do before.

bogatyr
Mar 26, 2012, 10:02 AM
Maybe with Touchscreen, but is the display really considered "the major interaction" when it is a one-way output device? A high quality monitor improves the experience but for most people a retina display is more a luxury than a necessity. Just look at the comments on the iPad board (and im guilty too) where everyone brags about the amazing screen but very few people are actually doing something they couldn't do before.
If you use a computer for 8+ hours a day (i.e. full time job), the display is very important.

If you use a computer rarely, here and there, then no, it might not be important. Though that is for the end user to decide and not you.

I feel the same way about my office chair that I sit in for 8+ hours. Comfort is worth a lot in that situation. But my desk chair at home which I rarely use... cheap and not worth buying anything higher end.

KohPhiPhi
Mar 26, 2012, 10:25 AM
I would certainly pay in extra money, but I would not give up on battery life. At the end of the day, the MBA is a mobility-focused deviced, and battery life is crucial in this regard.

Jaro65
Mar 26, 2012, 10:34 AM
I would, but they didn't increase the cost of the iPhone or iPad when they introduced Retina displays, so probably won't again.

As reported, Apple took the margin hit with the new iPad. The retina display did increase the cost, but not the price.

Moonjumper
Mar 26, 2012, 01:10 PM
Maybe with Touchscreen, but is the display really considered "the major interaction" when it is a one-way output device? A high quality monitor improves the experience but for most people a retina display is more a luxury than a necessity. Just look at the comments on the iPad board (and im guilty too) where everyone brags about the amazing screen but very few people are actually doing something they couldn't do before.

Looking at the screen is something you are doing most of the time when using a computer.

When I got my iPhone 4, the retina screen helped reduce eyestrain a lot over my iPhone 3G because the text was so much clearer. I haven't got an new iPad yet, but from having a go on one, I expect the same results, meaning I will likely use iBooks a lot more than I currently do on my iPad 1. The text on my iMac is noticeably worse than my iPhone 4, so I would benefit.

As an app developer I see many benefits beyond being able to display an iPad screen at the full resolution. It will make a big difference in Illustrator and Photoshop.

austinguy23
Mar 27, 2012, 01:14 AM
Wirelessly posted

A Retina MBA is my holy grail and it is my hope that one will be released this summer at the latest.

dawiyo
Mar 27, 2012, 08:19 AM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

+1 Agreed.

danny_w
Mar 27, 2012, 08:33 AM
If you use a computer for 8+ hours a day (i.e. full time job), the display is very important.

If you use a computer rarely, here and there, then no, it might not be important. Though that is for the end user to decide and not you.

I feel the same way about my office chair that I sit in for 8+ hours. Comfort is worth a lot in that situation. But my desk chair at home which I rarely use... cheap and not worth buying anything higher end.
I am undecided about the retina display but I get your point about something that you use a lot. I don't have the new iPad, but going from an iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4 was a tremendous difference and the display makes reading so much easier with less eyestrain.

Totally off topic, but how do people on this forum get their employers to buy them expensive office chairs, or do they buy the chairs themselves? My company won't pay over s certain (relatively small) amount for a chair.

bogatyr
Mar 27, 2012, 11:38 AM
I am undecided about the retina display but I get your point about something that you use a lot. I don't have the new iPad, but going from an iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4 was a tremendous difference and the display makes reading so much easier with less eyestrain.
I haven't picked up the new iPad yet either. I probably won't unless I need to order one for someone at work, then I'll give them my work iPad2 and order an iPad3 for myself (work owned of course).

Totally off topic, but how do people on this forum get their employers to buy them expensive office chairs, or do they buy the chairs themselves? My company won't pay over s certain (relatively small) amount for a chair.
I work for the cheapest company on the planet. We buy $50 chairs, we'd buy $10 chairs if we could find them. Even our conference rooms where we bring in customers have cheap chairs.

When I started here 9 years ago though, there were 4 Aeron chairs at the corporate office. Where they came from, I have no idea. But when someone with one left the company about 7 years ago, I grabbed that chair after hours and swapped it with mine.

If for whatever reason I didn't have one (company takes it for a C-level or whatever), I would go out and buy one using personal money. I've sat in some of the other chairs and none of the compare. I just couldn't see myself using anything else for 8+ hour days.

Now if my I.T. vendor would sell these chairs, I could just sneak one in an order if mine was revoked. ;)

eggersj
Mar 27, 2012, 12:12 PM
Although the current MBA display leaves little to be desired, I personally would pony up an additional $200 or so for a retina unit. They really are stunning and worth it IMHO.

thejadedmonkey
Mar 27, 2012, 12:21 PM
No. If Apple can increase the battery to handle a retna display, I'd rather just take the battery life and run.

kazmac
Mar 27, 2012, 12:25 PM
MBAs are very expensive now. I wouldn't pay more for a retina display and not at the cost battery life.

The high battery drain for writing alone was the reason why I returned mine (after I got over the wrist issues). So while I'd like to see my work as clearly as possible, there's no way I'd get an MBA with less battery life.

If the iPad 3 and iPhone 4s have retina displays and the same battery life, I think Apple's engineers can pull of the same feat for the MBAs.

AlanFord
Mar 27, 2012, 12:57 PM
I wouldn't

hipsheik
Mar 27, 2012, 02:43 PM
I would definitely pick one up if the improvement is anywhere near iPad 2 --> iPad 3.

If for whatever reason I didn't have one (company takes it for a C-level or whatever), I would go out and buy one using personal money. I've sat in some of the other chairs and none of the compare. I just couldn't see myself using anything else for 8+ hour days.

Yeah, I don't why companies are so shorted sighted. A comfortable office chair makes a huge difference, and I'm sure in productivity. I had a Steelcase, and I would definitely buy one with my own money or use my bonus check.

SR45
Mar 27, 2012, 04:17 PM
Clever marketing term or not, I'll bite when its released on the Air. Have the iPad 3rd generation and it looks far better than my desktop monitor and expect it to be better than a notebook as well. ;)

Heck, I would even like to have the iPad dictation button as well on the air

danny_w
Mar 27, 2012, 04:23 PM
Since at least 99.9% of my time is spent with the laptop hooked to a large monitor then no, I would not pay extra for a retina display.

kipj77
Mar 27, 2012, 04:32 PM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

Since when has there been a 2048 x 1536 display at 264 dpi ??? I think something is state of the art if nobody else has anything like it on the market.

:):):apple::apple:

Saturn1217
Mar 27, 2012, 08:36 PM
No. If Apple can increase the battery to handle a retna display, I'd rather just take the battery life and run.

+1

People forget (IMHO) that the reason the retina display on the iphone and the ipad were such a big deal is that both predecessors had relatively low res displays. Like low compared to the competition at the time and so low that text really was more difficult to read.

The macbook airs do not have this problem. Going retina will provide absolutely no functional benefit to 99.9% of users (I think it might be functionally relevant for those that edit photos/video).

I have the lower res Macbook Pro (13inch). Sometimes I wish I could fit more stuff onto my screen but I certainly never feel like I can't read text because it isn't clear enough...

I would MUCH MUCH rather have a reasonable non-retina display resolution bump and more battery life.

Think about it. If apple provided the ipad3 battery with the ipad2 display we would probably have an ipad that lasts 20hrs...Don't get me wrong I think Apple made the right choice with the ipad, but imagine a Macbook air that had double the battery life. I would vastly prefer that over bragging rights to an unnecessarily super sharp screen.

KittyKatta
Mar 28, 2012, 08:20 AM
People forget (IMHO) that the reason the retina display on the iphone and the ipad were such a big deal is that both predecessors had relatively low res displays. Like low compared to the competition at the time and so low that text really was more difficult to read.

The macbook airs do not have this problem. Going retina will provide absolutely no functional benefit to 99.9% of users (I think it might be functionally relevant for those that edit photos/video).

I have the lower res Macbook Pro (13inch). Sometimes I wish I could fit more stuff onto my screen but I certainly never feel like I can't read text because it isn't clear enough...
I completely agree with this. While a retina screen on iPad and MacBook may be the most visually appealing upgrade, the device where a higher pixel density increases functionality the most is the iPhone because the Retina addressed an actual problem. 3.5" screens were okay in 2007 but as iPhone apps made the product more diverse then the screen started feeling cramped or more difficult to read for prolonged sessions. So the Retina Display made the iPhone more usable without having to increase the screen size.

IMO, the iPad and MacBook are different and with my new iPad then I'm impressed but the new screen isn't necessarily changing my life. No offense to anyone but based on the boards then the most obvious difference between the iPad users and MB users is that iPad users seem to spend more time showing off than actually working. So while picking Retina over non-retina is easy for new iPad purchases, it may not be such a simple choice with our next MacBook where a retina screen may cost us several hours of battery life.

onthecouchagain
Mar 28, 2012, 09:08 AM
Definitely not at the expense of battery life.

heisenberg123
Mar 28, 2012, 09:17 AM
wouldnt the high resolution to make it "retina" make all icons and font really tiny?

slnko-v-sieti
Mar 28, 2012, 11:48 AM
Cost isn't an issue. Apple likes to hold prices of notebooks (and ipads) steady upon each refresh.

Retina would be nice for MBA, but I place a much higher priority on battery life, slimness of chassis, and minimal heat generation. As we see with the new iPad, all of these could be adversely affected by adoption of a higher PPI screen. (Larger battery yet no significant time gain, thicker, hotter.)

As it stands, 11/13" MBAs aren't performing too poorly when it comes to PPI: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5689/the-new-ipad-retina-display-analysis#

Beanoir
Mar 28, 2012, 01:40 PM
no point in 300dpi on a laptop (as proven on a previous thread), so no, I wouldn't see any benefit in it, i'd take extra battery any day.

tbrinkma
Mar 28, 2012, 02:12 PM
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.

No, it's really not "just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into" anything. Yes, it's a marketing term, but it's an incredibly well-defined marketing term, and the definition has been consistent throughout its use. According to the definition, *any* display with a high-enough DPI that, at normal viewing distance for that display, a person with 20/20 vision cannot resolve individual pixels.

For the iPhone, that limit was around 300ppi, For the iPad, that limit is lower due to the longer typical viewing distance. In comparison, a good number of HDTVs are *already* 'retina displays' because of their incredibly long typical viewing distances of 6-8'.

bogatyr
Mar 28, 2012, 02:57 PM
wouldnt the high resolution to make it "retina" make all icons and font really tiny?

If run in native mode, yes. However, like the iPad they would double the size of everything. In the end, you'd have a smoother looking picture of the same size if they simply doubled the pixels in both dimensions like they did with the iPad.

heisenberg123
Mar 28, 2012, 03:12 PM
If run in native mode, yes. However, like the iPad they would double the size of everything. In the end, you'd have a smoother looking picture of the same size if they simply doubled the pixels in both dimensions like they did with the iPad.

would doubling the size of everything make it look pixelated on a screen bigger than the iPad?

mikeray
Mar 28, 2012, 04:28 PM
wouldnt the high resolution to make it "retina" make all icons and font really tiny?

Retina Display simply means "2-pixels-per-point" so no, everything would look the same size just clearer

You can enable 1280x720 HiDPI mode if you have the 27" display and Xxcode installed to see what it looks like now, it's rather interesting to see what gets scaled up and what remains pixelated.

see:
http://cl.ly/1e2M2Y130F3o3X0E1x3X

Boyd01
Mar 29, 2012, 12:15 PM
No. If Apple can increase the battery to handle a retna display, I'd rather just take the battery life and run.

I agree completely. The iPad has never really interested me so I don't have one. But as others have said, the retina display was a great improvement on the iPhone 4 since little text that was just blobs on the old phone suddenly became readable.

However, I don't mind holding my phone right up to my face if I need to see a small detail. With a laptop at a normal viewing distance, I don't think the retina display would make much difference. And for any serious graphics work, I use an external Cinema Display with my MBA anyway.