Alternatively, the list may be incomplete as I said earlier and/or the 15" machine could actually be a 15" MacBook Air and the entire MacBook Pro range will either update later (which I don't believe) or there's a second page of that list somewhere
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.
Alleged New Part Numbers Suggest Over a Dozen New Mac Models Coming at WWDC [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Alternatively, the list may be incomplete as I said earlier and/or the 15" machine could actually be a 15" MacBook Air and the entire MacBook Pro range will either update later (which I don't believe) or there's a second page of that list somewhere
Rumor has it the Mac Pro will take on a rackable 3U form factor. So there will be at least a change from the current dimensions.
From the look of things, seems apple corrected retail prices based on growing production cost in China and then some. Perhaps the 15 inch has a reduced screen frame and the O.D. is so close to the current 13 MBP, that it became one of the reasons to scrap it, but I somehow doubt it...I see buying one, or perhaps two current 13 MBPs next week...at about $1100 for the faster model it will be an OK deal, at less than 50% of a new 15...
Personally, I dont use up a lot of space. After using several laptops, I find that hard drives are unreliable, given that ssd does not have any moving parts, i hope that it will be more durable. but of course, it is quite expensive
I'm guessing that new BT 4.0 equipped versions of the wireless keyboard and magic mouse will be among the accessories released. Now that every new Mac will support it.
What the hell is a Retina Display!!!!
Higher pixel counts on bigger screens equates to seriously higher costs - could posters please instruct me where all the content is going to come from to take advantage of the so called big "RETINA" displays, when most video games and movies are in HD, this also includes most terrestrial TV broadcasts.
Unless you have a serious eye condition, i.e., you are very short sighted, its virtually impossible sitting 2.5ft away from a iMac monitor to discern any pixels.
Unless you are referring to 4K, a technology at least a decade way based on the fact most TV stations have only recently migrated to HD, do you think they'll spend billions migrating to 4K.
RETINA's a stupid marketing ploy - perhaps if you focused on RAM, GPU and actual bottlenecks in the engineering you'd be better advised - but Retina is nonsense - next you'll all be demanding 10K screen technology - GET REAL!!!!!
Could users stop talking up higher pixel density displays - "RETINA" is a marketing term Apple have utilised for iToys, i.e., their mobility range.Sadly, No New Display = No Retina for iMac
I am dying to buy New 27' iMac with Retina Display. It is not going to happen, I guess.
Higher pixel counts on bigger screens equates to seriously higher costs - could posters please instruct me where all the content is going to come from to take advantage of the so called big "RETINA" displays, when most video games and movies are in HD, this also includes most terrestrial TV broadcasts.
Unless you have a serious eye condition, i.e., you are very short sighted, its virtually impossible sitting 2.5ft away from a iMac monitor to discern any pixels.
Unless you are referring to 4K, a technology at least a decade way based on the fact most TV stations have only recently migrated to HD, do you think they'll spend billions migrating to 4K.
RETINA's a stupid marketing ploy - perhaps if you focused on RAM, GPU and actual bottlenecks in the engineering you'd be better advised - but Retina is nonsense - next you'll all be demanding 10K screen technology - GET REAL!!!!!
13", 13", 13", 13"
It sells the most because it's the most affordable laptop they offer.
The end.
It sells the most because it's the most affordable laptop they offer.
The end.
How terribly short sighted of you .
take for example somebody working on photography, do you not think that a higher resolution display would give more usable working area?
or even for printing, which I do, do, and do quite regularly, do you not think it would be nice to see a sharpened image without having to zoom in and out so much . to be able to view things at 100% without being constrained by screen size.
now just because I would make use of it does not mean that you would, and I completely respect your decision to go for a refurb if you are so drastically adversely effected by any new retina display.
secondly I do actually agree that people lusting after a 27 inch retina display are a bit "woohoo". But up until a screen size of the smaller 21.5 inches is possible but will be rather expensive.
thirdly in general, I remember seeing a mockup of a curved imac .
this would change my decision for a 15 inch MBP totally, and taking into consideration, LEAP MOTION technology, I could have alot of fun (and think of some work applications) on one of these.
correct me if im not wrong, but would a curved screen no also do away with any reflection issues people have?
AFAIK the technology to do this is out there now ..
please correct me if any of my information is wrong
peace and love always baby.
----------
11" macbook air.
Jobs is leaking from the dead?
You never saw the Exorcist? Ha.
Seriously, Jobs is always going to be part of Apple. Yes, he's physically gone but Apple is still as secretive as ever. Every believable leak has come from news orgs or bloggers friendly to Apple to pique interest. They are planted leaks and they really only give us a sketch, not the fine details. We have an idea what we'll see next Mon, but really we have no clue. That's a pretty solid security bottleneck if you ask me.
Really?
Try doing a AUS to USD conversion of the iMac prices.
----------
You might want to re-check your exchange rate.
I doubt it. There is absolutely no reason to produce a Bluetooth 4 keyboard. The BLE stack doesn't currently have a profile that would support an input device in a way you'd want to use it. There aren't really any benefits to a Bluetooth 4 input device over the ones that are on the market now.
Bluetooth 4 isn't a magic seasoning that gets sprinkled on a product and makes it use less power.
My 27" iMac has a 2560x1440 display, which works out to 3.6 megapixels. The digital cameras I use are 10-16 megapixels. I'd sure like to see images be viewable at full resolution without having to crop the view for editing!
(Even with Apples definition of "retina" I don't think I'd get the resolution I want with even a "Retina Display".)
I don't get this argument. Even if you could fit all the pixels onto your display, you still are not looking at the image at full size (if printed for example). In essence, its a zoomed out view to fit your display. The representation of the image on a "retina" display *should be indistinguishable from an image scaled to fit good display of the same size. This is of course if the image viewing program did scaling properly.
Super high pixel density move us from resolution to display size concerns IMO.
Maybe I'm off -- would appreciate an explanation.
I don't think those prices reflect the actual MSRP in the North American market.
You can't simply punch the numbers into XE.org and get the USD equivalent.
The MSRP in certain countries can be much higher, depending on various factors, such as duties and otherwise.
Like how the iPhone sells for over $1000 in Brazil.
You can't simply punch the numbers into XE.org and get the USD equivalent.
The MSRP in certain countries can be much higher, depending on various factors, such as duties and otherwise.
Like how the iPhone sells for over $1000 in Brazil.
Forget about printing -- that's a whole other issue and has nothing to do with display resolution. When I say "full size" that means that each camera image sensor pixel gets mapped to a single display pixel. Ignoring any differences in aspect ratio, that means I want at least as many pixels on the display as on my camera's sensor. Currently, viewing an image on my iMac (which has the highest resolution of any Mac) if I view full size, 100% resolution, the image will not fit on the display, and has to be panned. I have to zoom out to see the entire image, but then each display pixel represents more than one camera pixel so I'm not viewing the image at full resolution.
Apple defines "retina display" as one where the eye cannot see the individual pixels at normal viewing distance. The iMac comes pretty close to that already. To put 10-16 megapixels on the display would put it well beyond "retina display" resolution. However I'd still want that because I can move my head closer than normal viewing distance to see the details. This is far nicer than using pan and zoom. It's would be about the same difference as it is now editing on the 27" iMac versus the 11" MacBook Air (which we also have).
EDIT -- "display size concerns"? Are you referring to text getting too small? This is where Apple sorely needs to implement resolution independence in controls (menus, title bars,...). Something they are avoiding "fixing" that Windows has had for at least 10 years now. What everyone expects is resolution doubling, which is easier to accomplish but will result blocky, non-retina GUI elements.
I have a time honored tradition that has served me well over the last twenty plus years: whatever RAM and Hard Drive Apple sells me, I immediately remove and replace with "More and Better" Options I purchase at FAIR prices from reputable vendors. Apple gouges me enough at purchase time, and over the years several of my coworkers have suffered equipment failures related to Apple's hardware choices, which I have avoided thanks to this policy.
Apple must be an amazing place to work to get all that loyalty, the government can't hold a candle...
and you will be fined if you leak out any confidential info lol.... it's serious...