Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What prevented a retina Air?
- Thread starter rovex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Based upon my reading of the numerous comments on this forum, it seems most of us would have been satisfied with just a better display; it did not necessarily have to be a Retina. How about an IPS panel? Anything that would be an improvement over the current display which, while it is OK, is nothing to write home about.
I just absolutely love my 2012 MBA and I just cannot see going to anything else but the display definitely can stand some improvement.
OSX scaling is so bad that that would make everything look tiny. Scaling it to half that means so little real estate, which means OSX would use a fraction scaling system making everything look fuzzy and negating the full HD screen.
It didn't necessarily need a redesign, but ultra portables of its type are shipping with at least 1080p displays if not retina.... Even if slightly more expensive.
----------
I doubt battery life would of have been impacted much at all.
----------
I doubt battery life would of have been impacted much at all.
Really? A retina (or 1080p) screen desn't have a large power draw that decreases battery life? It does. And Windows is a resolution independant OS unlike OSx.
But then i'd dispute that... The pro with retina actually improved on battery life with the last model.... And both the air and and pro have gained larger batteries.
and factor in haswell plus mavericks.... battery really shouldn't be an issue.
Last edited:
I think you're both right.... except a retina air is inevitable, so why would cannibalising sales be an issue?
I think they're trying to max out sales in its current form with a proper update next year...
Marketing.
The cost difference between a MacBook Air and a Retina MacBook Pro is only a few hundred dollars. If they added the retina display to the Air, then why would you buy an rMBP? And if the cost of the retina display drove up the price of the Air by even $50, that makes the problem even worse.
I suspect that by making such a big deal about "all day battery life" in the Air, they are both differentiating it from the rMBP as well as giving themselves an "out" for not putting a retina display in it. Ever. "Well, we could do that, but then you won't have your all-day battery life..."
I'm pretty sure Apple's marketing will look like this:
If you want stellar battery life, get the Air.
If you want a stellar display, get the rMBP.
The cost difference between a MacBook Air and a Retina MacBook Pro is only a few hundred dollars. If they added the retina display to the Air, then why would you buy an rMBP? And if the cost of the retina display drove up the price of the Air by even $50, that makes the problem even worse.
I suspect that by making such a big deal about "all day battery life" in the Air, they are both differentiating it from the rMBP as well as giving themselves an "out" for not putting a retina display in it. Ever. "Well, we could do that, but then you won't have your all-day battery life..."
I'm pretty sure Apple's marketing will look like this:
If you want stellar battery life, get the Air.
If you want a stellar display, get the rMBP.
with improved performance and another price change they will sell like hot cakes. Not sure if retina is needed. The educational sale at the end of the summer will be interesting. I plan to buy one for the wife she in no way needs retina.
macrumors community = real world majority?
in the REAL WORLD, most of us want maximum mobility and battery life. the screen is fine as is.
When I bought my first Mac, it was a 12" PowerBook G4 with an XGA display resolution -- 1024x768.
The laptop I had before that was a Dell Latitude D800 with a full 1920x1200 resolution. An incredible display -- it was the "retina' display of its time.
You would think that dropping down so drastically would have been really annoying, but it really wasn't that bad. Especially since I drove a nice big LCD display at home anyway.
I think it'll be the same with the new Air.
The laptop I had before that was a Dell Latitude D800 with a full 1920x1200 resolution. An incredible display -- it was the "retina' display of its time.
You would think that dropping down so drastically would have been really annoying, but it really wasn't that bad. Especially since I drove a nice big LCD display at home anyway.
I think it'll be the same with the new Air.
That. And the fact that at least one of their other two laptop lines would have become instantly obsolete in 13" size.
I agree that there are at least 2 factors: Battery life and price. It's going to be a tradeoff no matter what. I'm happy with the decision Apple made. I'd rather have a cheaper entry price and a longer battery than a high(er) resolution display.
I'm pretty irritated by all the reviews that mention the screen/ resolution on the Air like it's a bad thing. Granted, it's not the highest resolution and it's not retina, but overall, I think it's a really good display compared to some of the crap that's shipping.
The 11" Air has the same resolution as many 14-15" notebooks, and the 13" has the same resolution as many 17" notebooks (although it's a different aspect ratio). My monitor at home is a 19" 1440x900, so I'd be pretty happy with the bump. Not to mention the fact that we have higher resolution displays than ever before. I think we've all just been spoiled.
I'm pretty irritated by all the reviews that mention the screen/ resolution on the Air like it's a bad thing. Granted, it's not the highest resolution and it's not retina, but overall, I think it's a really good display compared to some of the crap that's shipping.
The 11" Air has the same resolution as many 14-15" notebooks, and the 13" has the same resolution as many 17" notebooks (although it's a different aspect ratio). My monitor at home is a 19" 1440x900, so I'd be pretty happy with the bump. Not to mention the fact that we have higher resolution displays than ever before. I think we've all just been spoiled.
Where did you get these "REAL WORLD" numbers from? Same place I got mine from?
The screen is barely adequate. Apple can, and probably will, do better in the next iterations of the MBA.
the proof in the pudding will be the sales numbers of these units especially those persons who currently possess the 2011/2012 models; will they upgrade?
I'm ready to throw down $1,500 to get another MBA even though I've only owned this one for about 3 months; but not with this screen
The whole battery life argument is total bunk. They've gone through 3 iterations of these devices in the newer form factors with no 'advertised' change in battery life, although the Sandy Bridges seemed to take a minor hit only to be propped up a bit w/ Ivy. Now they've nearly doubled battery life and have an OS release on the horizon that will further the increase. Finding ways to increase battery life has not been part of Apple's MO w/ this line, not until now that Haswell has been able to afford such a dramatic increase.
There is for certain enough extra capacity to keep battery life at parity w/ the 2k12s and probably exceed it by a fair amount (ie. instead of a 9 hour 11", we'd have a 6-7 hour 11", and an 8-9 hour 13"). I still think it comes down to cost/yield issues for the panels at the amount they'd need to supply. I'd prefer they handle this like they did w/ the MBPs and offer a retina variant at a higher price point, but I guess we take what we get.
There is for certain enough extra capacity to keep battery life at parity w/ the 2k12s and probably exceed it by a fair amount (ie. instead of a 9 hour 11", we'd have a 6-7 hour 11", and an 8-9 hour 13"). I still think it comes down to cost/yield issues for the panels at the amount they'd need to supply. I'd prefer they handle this like they did w/ the MBPs and offer a retina variant at a higher price point, but I guess we take what we get.