Alleged New Part Numbers Suggest Over a Dozen New Mac Models Coming at WWDC [Updated]

[Mr Rogers]

Eizo monitors

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".)

Given the cost of a high end Eizo monitor - more than a 27in iMac for the LCD monitor alone, and pushing the same pixel count as present iMac, it would seem both ludicrous and extremely expensive for an iMac at 27in to push more pixels than at present at a price point we can afford.

Given most would agree that a 27in IPS Apple LCD Panel is already pretty close to the marketing term 'RETINA' displays, prey tell someone in their right minds how we are supposed to double the pixel count at a price point we can actually afford.

Obviously, if you have US$10,000 to spend on a set-up great - but people really need to engage their brains before demanding 'RETINA' displays for iMacs, given as most serious posters will inform you, no such actual definition actually exists - it is pure marketing buff.

A iMac is a jack of all trades and a useful one at that - given talk of 6-8 core chips in iMacs, desktop GPU's, DDR5 RAM and now super density LCD displays together with 1T SSD HDD's - your average iMac will cost more than a top-end Mac Pro.
Would it not be better to just keep the pixel count at where it presently is and maybe move to a 30 or even 32in iMac with new motion technology to bypass some obvious restrictions.

I'm all for having the best, but given the desires of many posters, you are either in the top 1% of society, or unaware that what you dream of actually costs a bundle and would put the iMac out of your price range - and this is before Apple adds it 30% mark-up on all costs.

 

[carestudio]

let me guess.. there will have no more mac pro.
but there is a chance mac pro got changed to a newer name... iMacPro?
or iPro? or iBIG? iTower? iApple? iPC?

 

[tech4all]

Could users stop talking up higher pixel density displays - "RETINA" is a marketing term Apple have utilised for iToys, i.e., their mobility range.

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!!!!!

Technology is wonderful, however at what price are we talking for all of you clamouring for RETINA - I wonder if Apple have actually TM'ed this - the price point for any screen above 15in would be large indeed - remember a 27in iMac is prosumer device, not a professionals device, for which read Mac Pro and a suitable very high quality screen - which if memory serves me correct, if Retina terminology is utilised, would cost in excess of US$ for the panel alone.

What is required by iMac users like myself is reasonably priced hardware that can be utilised for a full three years - hence a little future proofing is good - but Retina is not in the price ball park yet.

now, on many serious Apple blogs most have pointed out the absurdity of the term 'RETINA' in relation to large panel displays - by all means hand thousands over to Apple for hype - me I'm more interested in them finally sorting out the engineering issues associated with the present iMac's whereby they cannot get a LCD panel to behave properly within the current space constraint - think yellow screen or the grey patching issues.

I do not wish to spend US$3-5,000 on a iMac, US$2,500 is maximum I'd spend and I'd be surprised you'd get a "RETINA' - whatever that is - for that price point.

As for LEAP MOTION TECHNOLOGY, now you really are talking and the price point is good - why don't Apple do us all a favour and purchase the company and incorporate its technology in iMac.s forthcoming APPLE large screen LCD devices etc.etc this being far more exciting than the marketing nonsense that is "RETINA"

Given the cost of a high end Eizo monitor - more than a 27in iMac for the LCD monitor alone, and pushing the same pixel count as present iMac, it would seem both ludicrous and extremely expensive for an iMac at 27in to push more pixels than at present at a price point we can afford.

Given most would agree that a 27in IPS Apple LCD Panel is already pretty close to the marketing term 'RETINA' displays, prey tell someone in their right minds how we are supposed to double the pixel count at a price point we can actually afford.

Obviously, if you have US$10,000 to spend on a set-up great - but people really need to engage their brains before demanding 'RETINA' displays for iMacs, given as most serious posters will inform you, no such actual definition actually exists - it is pure marketing buff.

A iMac is a jack of all trades and a useful one at that - given talk of 6-8 core chips in iMacs, desktop GPU's, DDR5 RAM and now super density LCD displays together with 1T SSD HDD's - your average iMac will cost more than a top-end Mac Pro.
Would it not be better to just keep the pixel count at where it presently is and maybe move to a 30 or even 32in iMac with new motion technology to bypass some obvious restrictions.

I'm all for having the best, but given the desires of many posters, you are either in the top 1% of society, or unaware that what you dream of actually costs a bundle and would put the iMac out of your price range - and this is before Apple adds it 30% mark-up on all costs.

Chill dude. I guess it's not such a wonderful day in the neighborhood?

Say what and think what you want, but I know on an iPad the Retina display isn't just a "marketing ploy." There IS a difference like it or not.

 

[talmy]

I'm all for having the best, but given the desires of many posters, you are either in the top 1% of society, or unaware that what you dream of actually costs a bundle and would put the iMac out of your price range - and this is before Apple adds it 30% mark-up on all costs.

One can dream, or merely wait. My first color monitor had 640x480 resolution and cost $500. The display size was 12". The current 27" iMac has about 4x the pixels with about 2x the size (talking in one dimension here). No reason not to believe that at some point in the future a additional 2x pixels with no increase in screen size will be available and affordable.

 

[Mr Rogers]

Ipad 10in/ iMac 27in

Chill dude. I guess it's not such a wonderful day in the neighborhood?

Say what and think what you want, but I know on an iPad the Retina display isn't just a "marketing ploy." There IS a difference like it or not.

I hate to break the news to you but the price factor of putting a 'RETINA' display in a iPad was steep indeed for Apple and the end user - performance-wise the new iPad is the same as a iPad 2 but clearly with a better higher pixel density display - same applles to iPhone 4.

However, whilst I'm being denigrated for voicing the obvious, will you concur with me that a higher pixel density 27in LCD monitor will cost an arm and a leg - basing this price factor on the increased costs and sacrifices Apple made to get a new iPad out.

Higher density displays with Intel Haswell technology could be a maybe - actually, this is when the Macbook Airs will come into their own.

However, we are talking today and the price of a higher density pixel count on a LCD display that really most do not require will put the cost of a high end iMac out of most peoples price range - this is what I'm getting at, actual economic and technological facts and not misplaced wish lists that people one day may regret.

 

[Mr Rogers]

I concur

One can dream, or merely wait. My first color monitor had 640x480 resolution and cost $500. The display size was 12". The current 27" iMac has about 4x the pixels with about 2x the size (talking in one dimension here). No reason not to believe that at some point in the future a additional 2x pixels with no increase in screen size will be available and affordable.

So, we're agreed, based on technology in use today that is applicable for a prosumer high-end 27in iMac that an increase of x2 in pixels, whilst possible, would put the price range of said iMac to that of a high end Mac Pro, i.e., the panel alone would be about US$1000 as opposed to US$300 presently - by the way Apple just replaced my LCD monitor on a 10 month old iMac - the repair cost was US$600, so I hope you will understand my concerns.

In a nut shell, for the present DTP work and research I undertake present iMac design and LCD monitor is great, I'm not into SSD but would appreciate more RAM on high end option (8G), a bigger HDD (2T standard), much better GPU - AMD 7000 series with 2G standard VRAM and the decrease in thermal heat offered by the Ivy Bridge i7 CPU - I'd much prefer to have a top end end of the line final incarnation that finally addresses heat and LCD monitor issues, than start again with a new design and technical issues that appear weeks after launch - effectively I want a iMac that will last three years without me having to get LCD monitors changed every 10 months - is this really too much to ask for the money we are paying!!!!

I'd go loopy for a 30in iMac though - so there's me dreaming.

 

[duncanvdlinden]

My speculation is that the entry 11" does have 4GB RAM. If you looking to the RAM prices, DDR3 memory is very cheap at the moment. It would not make that much sense to make an 2GB model. And probably Mountain Lion has benefit of more RAM.

That could also be an explanation for the speculated price drop of the second 11" model. Probably the 2nd model only has an bigger SSD. And probably an slightly faster CPU?

1 thing is an fact: The price from the entry level model should be 999 USD and lower, because if it doesn't it is not an Intel Ultrabook, that's an Intel Policy.

 

[comatory]

My speculation is that the entry 11" does have 4GB RAM. If you looking to the RAM prices, DDR3 memory is very cheap at the moment. It would not make that much sense to make an 2GB model. And probably Mountain Lion has benefit of more RAM.

That could also be an explanation for the speculated price drop of the second 11" model. Probably the 2nd model only has an bigger SSD. And probably an slightly faster CPU?

1 thing is an fact: The price from the entry level model should be 999 USD and lower, because if it doesn't it is not an Intel Ultrabook, that's an Intel Policy.

Yeah the RAM thing with Apple is embarassing, especially on Pro computers. But what's worse - on Air you can't upgrade, the size of the machine does not allow it so it'd be great if they went with 4GB for basic model and introduce 8GB on other models and Pro Machines (maybe 12-16GB on 15" - but I can dream oh well.)

However on Ultrabook branding - I don't think Apple cares about Intel's branding. Or did I miss some news where they were devoting to that label? Seems to me like Apple always did their own thing with pricing to keep their own profit margins high.

 

[rainbowdementia]

Sadly, Apple's pricing schemes get silly outside of the US.

They're pretty silly here, too.

 

[Braniff747SP]

WWDC can't come soon enough.... I'm interested to see the new MacBook Pro.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

$3000 for a Mac Pro is cheap.

It's amazing we think that now.

 

[HatterZero]

I just got off work few hours ago in our Inventory system (I will not tell you who I work for) There are not any 11" or 13" airs on the way to any store near by or any 13" pros. We were down to 1 we usually have 25 to 30 at any given time.

I really hope there is a 13 refresh and its not discontinued.

----------

My speculation is that the entry 11" does have 4GB RAM. If you looking to the RAM prices, DDR3 memory is very cheap at the moment. It would not make that much sense to make an 2GB model. And probably Mountain Lion has benefit of more RAM.

That could also be an explanation for the speculated price drop of the second 11" model. Probably the 2nd model only has an bigger SSD. And probably an slightly faster CPU?

1 thing is an fact: The price from the entry level model should be 999 USD and lower, because if it doesn't it is not an Intel Ultrabook, that's an Intel Policy.

Macbook airs are not Ultrabooks. Secondly they already threw that out the window with http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+15%26%2334%3B+Series+9+Ultrabook+Laptop+-+8GB+Memory+-+128GB+Solid+State+Drive+-+Titan+Silver/5071905.p?id=1218609329910&skuId=5071905

 

[sushant08]

We never have part leaks for macs,like we do for iphones/ipads,Surely
"sources" that are able to procure cases for iphones that is months away can leak a screen part or case design a week before launch.or do macs not generate enough interest??

 

[twoodcc]

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.

let's hope the rumor is true!

 

[Drinahn]

I'm extremely exited to see what GPUs are on offer.

The 6870 in my Mac Pro doesn't cut the mustard at 2560x1440 so I want the ability to flash a 7870 or better which requires either the iMac or Mac Pro to come with such GPUs.

Ooh imagine that - surely they could pull Retina cinema displays out of the bag and have the new Mac Pro able to support it. Then I could put the new graphics card in my trusty old 2009 MacPro and buy a new display.. mmmm Alternatively it could just be a new graphics card I can upgrade to and be happy with that for a few years. Ahem.

----------

However, whilst I'm being denigrated for voicing the obvious, will you concur with me that a higher pixel density 27in LCD monitor will cost an arm and a leg - basing this price factor on the increased costs and sacrifices Apple made to get a new iPad out.

Possibly an arm and three legs actually. But hey, the 30" cinema display was an expensive beast when it first emerged. Apple does seem a bit more cautious these days about running two product streams together though, so I guess they may not go straight into Retina Cinema Displays until they can do it at the same time as they discontinue their current models.

Alas.

 

[Mr Rogers]

Ooh imagine that - surely they could pull Retina cinema displays out of the bag and have the new Mac Pro able to support it. Then I could put the new graphics card in my trusty old 2009 MacPro and buy a new display.. mmmm Alternatively it could just be a new graphics card I can upgrade to and be happy with that for a few years. Ahem.

----------



Possibly an arm and three legs actually. But hey, the 30" cinema display was an expensive beast when it first emerged. Apple does seem a bit more cautious these days about running two product streams together though, so I guess they may not go straight into Retina Cinema Displays until they can do it at the same time as they discontinue their current models.

Alas.

Words of wisdom - actually, I'd just like a 30in iMac with the same present resolution, however, a larger Apple Display with all bells and whistles would be great - Dell are selling 30in presently but they are about twice the cost of the 27in version - I can get a used one at three months old for US$1000, will probably wait though.

 

[milo]

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.

Smart policy, and along those lines for the Mac Pro at least I wish they'd offer the option of getting the machine with NO ram and NO hard drive, even if that's BTO and saves just a little bit of money. The drive isn't such a big deal in the MP since there are four bays but slots are limited. I can't imagine how many people yank the 3x1 gig sticks right away and never do anything with them, particularly in the quad/4 slot model.

 

[talmy]

Smart policy, and along those lines for the Mac Pro at least I wish they'd offer the option of getting the machine with NO ram and NO hard drive, even if that's BTO and saves just a little bit of money. The drive isn't such a big deal in the MP since there are four bays but slots are limited. I can't imagine how many people yank the 3x1 gig sticks right away and never do anything with them, particularly in the quad/4 slot model.

Which reminds me of someone I knew about 10 years ago. He would buy Dell servers, and return the hard drives (but for some reason not the RAM) to Dell and get credit at their list price. You couldn't order one without RAM and drive. Dell's stated reason was that the systems as sold must be able to run their diagnostic programs for their warranty.

 

[milo]

I'm surprised he was able to get that money back, but that's pretty cool.

We won't see it with macs for that reason, they don't want to sell a machine you can't boot and with downloadable OSX they don't even include install disks.

 

[ogh]

let me guess.. there will have no more mac pro.
but there is a chance mac pro got changed to a newer name... iMacPro?
or iPro? or iBIG? iTower? iApple? iPC?

Maybe the iLemon will come with the new iLion?

 

[anthony11]

Which reminds me of someone I knew about 10 years ago. He would buy Dell servers, and return the hard drives (but for some reason not the RAM) to Dell and get credit at their list price.

I'd love to know how he swung that. I don't know that I've ever been in a situation where a random customer could return integrated components for a refund. When I worked ${computer company that made $1-3million systems} we'd get systems for internal use that manufacturing insisted had to be wheeled down the hall with a full complement of shrinkwrapped manuals, stupid 10Mb/s vampire tap that nobody used, etc. I learned how to rebook some of that stuff into inventory, but even that was an ordeal.

You couldn't order one without RAM and drive. Dell's stated reason was that the systems as sold must be able to run their diagnostic programs for their warranty.

That's fairly typical, I think, going back at least to the VAX days. Lots of sites used eg. Fujitsu Eagles OEM'd by SI for their real storage, but had an RK07 or something so that DEC could load their diags. Apple wants their products to appeal to a wide selection of non-technical users. No way they're going to sell systems that can't pass diags without subsequent factory dissassembly (which would render the diags moot), especially to soccer moms et al. RAM is indeed cheap. Worst case one takes out Apple-supplied modules to replace with denser ones, then sells the Apple modules on Craigslist or donates them to a local nonprofit for a tax deduction. Me, I'll keep the factory modules if I upgrade them, in case the aftermarket modules freak (like the Kingston units in my 2007 MBP are doing right now), or in case I need to put them back so that Apple can't blame aftermarket mem for any other problem that I'd engage them to get fixed.

----------

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.

Are video games and movies the only things that *ever* get displayed on your screen?

I'd like to be able to set a smaller font in Terminal.app and have the characters still be readable.

I'd like to be able to work on photos without having them scaled down to just 6% of the pixel count.

 

[APlotdevice]

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.

Well the thing is a BLE keyboard and mouse already exist, at least as a reference design. And they do suggest significant energy savings for these peripherals. And besides which, improved battery life isn't the only potential benefit with Bluetooth 4.0; It also has less latency and faster setup time.

 

[milo]

That's fairly typical, I think, going back at least to the VAX days. Lots of sites used eg. Fujitsu Eagles OEM'd by SI for their real storage, but had an RK07 or something so that DEC could load their diags. Apple wants their products to appeal to a wide selection of non-technical users. No way they're going to sell systems that can't pass diags without subsequent factory dissassembly (which would render the diags moot), especially to soccer moms et al.

In the case of the Mac Pro, they're not selling those to non technical users or soccer moms.

 

[mdgm]

and you will be fined if you leak out any confidential info lol.... it's serious...

Not to mention being sacked and potentially finding it difficult to get future work. A lot of tech companies value secrecy highly and don't want to have staff who are known leakers.

 

[thekeyring]

Looks like I'll be getting a 15" MacBook Pro in order to get a better display/SSD rather than a 13" which won't have much of an upgrade.

Excited