Apple Releases 'Every Dimension' TV Commercial for Retina MacBook Pro

[Digital Skunk]

While I agree the product line is in transition, it creates a problem for the knowledgable Mac consumer. What will the final Macbook Pro options be? Will we see a 17" Retina MacBook Pro? A 13"? Something else entirely?

I'm not buying until I know what all my options are. I'm willing to wait, especially if I have to shell out that kind of dough to get one of these.

You hit the nail on the head when it comes to what a lot of user may be feeling. Excited for the new machine but, as Apple has done in the past, will they give us back the features that we actually loved and appreciated?

The Macbook Air's backlit keyboard
FW800 on the initial Macbook Pro
The almost 5 month+ wait for the unibody 17" MBP

I am by no means saying that the RMBP isn't a step in the right direction, again, I am very excited and eager to get my hands on one, but before I put my cash on the table I do want to see if Apple has plans on giving us user upgradeable RAM at the very least . . . . with a 17" RMBP with upgradeable RAM at the most.

 

[Ping Guo]

Gorgeous screen, but I wouldn't call the form factor revolutionary. It's just a thinner unibody.

 

[The Mercurian]

This ad needs to be watched on an ipad3 to be properly appreciated. I've watched it on both a 2011 "hi"-"res" screen and a retina ipad screen and its simply not comparable.

 

[smiddlehurst]

Does anyone have any idea as to why Apple only released one of these models instead up just updating the whole MacBook Pro lineup to this new form factor and retina display? Does it have anything to do with price discrimination in order to get the most money out of it or did they actually have a reason for only releasing it in one 15" model?

I think I can give you several reasons:

1) Cost. No, not to maximise profit as you're suggesting but this is likely to be a VERY expensive machine to build with pretty much everything right down to the case being new. They probably couldn't bring in a cheaper model without killing their margins.

2) Availability. Presumably Apple are still limited to the number of retina-screens (and for that matter all the other bespoke components) they can churn out. No good making this available at other price points if you can't meet demand.

3) Support. I really think this is the big one. Most applications will need to be redesigned to take advantage of the retina display. By introducing it at the high end you get the display itself out there and start developers moving in the right direction. By the time retina-support is widespread Apple should be in a position to introduce additional retina-equipped models (both laptop and desktop) targeted more at the mass market.

 

[eliamx]

Voice actor?

I think it's Peter Coyote. Sounds like him.

 

[Ping Guo]

LOL. That's funny. Here in Europe the apple stores are empty. It's summer vacations, nobody cares about a new laptop, people are more interested in ....life.

So why are you here?

 

[JHankwitz]

Does anyone have any idea as to why Apple only released one of these models instead up just updating the whole MacBook Pro lineup to this new form factor and retina display?

Cost would be the key factor. Why sock consumers for a retina display when it's not needed. It looks nice, but is expensive to make, needs a larger battery, adds unnecessary weight, etc. Consumers are already complaining about cost, size and weight.

It's certainly not needed in most cases because the existing displays are already more than adequate to make the computers very useable.

 

[notabadname]

I love it, I want one. Great reviews on it thus far, including USAToday. Of course, many comments on screen, including it's low glare glass. Can't wait to see in person to compare.

 

[iPastor]

Not Really that Much More $$$

$2199 price point seems to be a deal-killer for most. However, I didn't hear complaints of $1799 for entry-level 15" MacBook Pro, which has same 2.3GHz processor as Retina MBP, 4GB vs. 8GB, and a platter HD.

Both stock, there is a price difference of $400. If you did a custom order through Apple, upgrading the base 15" MBP to 8GB ($100) and a 256GB SSD ($500), you would be at $2399 for the low-end 15" MBP. If you went third-party for the RAM and SSD, you'd add about $300 to the $1799 price, giving a gap of only $100 between the two for comparable specs.

What do you get for $100?

1. A machine totally redesigned internally.

2. Lighter and slimmer.

3. Incredible Retina Display.

When you step back and analyze briefly how Apple has priced it, and compare to other MacBook Pros in the line-up, it doesn't seem as expensive and unreasonable as many suggest. It comes down to what you need, and if you are willing to pay for that need.

All said and done, I believe the Retina Display MBP to be an incredible first step into a new future for the professional line of notebooks.

 

[Anthony0224]

Anyone that says the retina screens aren't a big deal or aren't noticable or anything like that haven't spent any time at all on the new iPad. If you have an iPad 2 and use an iPad 3 for 5 minutes you may not see much of a difference. But once you use and iPad 3 for a while and try to go back to an iPad 2 it looks like you're watching a YouTube video in full screen on 240p.

This screen, combined with the flash storage, cooling system, usb 3, 8gb ram, and Ivy Bridge processors are well worth the 2k-3k range.

 

[Codyak]

Anyone that says the retina screens aren't a big deal or aren't noticable or anything like that haven't spent any time at all on the new iPad. If you have an iPad 2 and use an iPad 3 for 5 minutes you may not see much of a difference. But once you use and iPad 3 for a while and try to go back to an iPad 2 it looks like you're watching a YouTube video in full screen on 240p.

This screen, combined with the flash storage, cooling system, usb 3, 8gb ram, and Ivy Bridge processors are well worth the 2k-3k range.

I had the exact same feeling with the 3GS/4S. At first I was like, "Oh, that's kinda cool", but now whenever I look at the 3GS, its unbelievable how much the difference is.

 

[zoetmb]

Widespread attention for a $2200 Retina laptop...yeah...Apple will get widespread attention alright.

I paid around $2200 for my 15" Mac Pro several years ago (including a HDD upgrade and memory upgrade). So one can argue that $2200 with the retina display is actually an okay deal. If you want a really cheap laptop, go buy a Dell. You'll probably be replacing it every year.

Also, it had looked like Apple was going to give up on the high-end market in pursuit of the masses. The rumors (and apparent reality) of no more 17" laptop as well as the lack of an MacPro update and the disasterous first release of the new Final Cut all led in that direction. So I'm actually glad to see that Apple is releasing something for the high end, which by definition is not going to sell in vast quantities.

Having said that, this business of pursuing "thinness" with disregard to everything else by removing the HDD in favor of SSDs, when SSDs are still priced about four times higher for the same capacity, as well as the removal of the optical drive, which I happen to still want and need, is a mistake, IMO. Sure, I can buy an external SuperDrive, but the point of a laptop is to have everything in the laptop. Last year I upgraded my MacPro 15" with a new 768MB HDD (which also has a small embedded flash drive which I believe it uses as a cache). I think I paid $200 for it. A 768MB SSD is what - a $1000? I think Apple should have provided a choice: they could have offered the traditional MacBook Pro form factor, but with a Retina display.

I'm also not happy with the removal of the Ethernet port because I really don't want to go back to the days when I had to carry dongles everywhere. Many of my clients and potential clients don't let you use their WiFi, but do let you use their Ethernet, although usually with decreased capability. If I had this machine and lost or broke the Thunderbolt to Ethernet dongle, I'd be screwed.

Since my 15" MBP actually still works quite well, I have no reason to upgrade, even though I'm very excited about the Retina display. I think the only reason to upgrade at this point would be only if I got heavy into video editing. But I still think Apple did the right thing but releasing a supposedly state of the art, high-end laptop.

 

[foodog]

LOL. That's funny. Here in Europe the apple stores are empty. It's summer vacations, nobody cares about a new laptop, people are more interested in ....life.

or it could be the economic climate in Europe.... not that it is much better here.

----------

I paid around $2200 for my 15" Mac Pro several years ago (including a HDD upgrade and memory upgrade). So one can argue that $2200 with the retina display is actually an okay deal. If you want a really cheap laptop, go buy a Dell. You'll probably be replacing it every year.

Also, it had looked like Apple was going to give up on the high-end market in pursuit of the masses. The rumors (and apparent reality) of no more 17" laptop as well as the lack of an MacPro update and the disasterous first release of the new Final Cut all led in that direction. So I'm actually glad to see that Apple is releasing something for the high end, which by definition is not going to sell in vast quantities.

Having said that, this business of pursuing "thinness" with disregard to everything else by removing the HDD in favor of SSDs, when SSDs are still priced about four times higher for the same capacity, as well as the removal of the optical drive, which I happen to still want and need, is a mistake, IMO. Sure, I can buy an external SuperDrive, but the point of a laptop is to have everything in the laptop. Last year I upgraded my MacPro 15" with a new 768MB HDD (which also has a small embedded flash drive which I believe it uses as a cache). I think I paid $200 for it. A 768MB SSD is what - a $1000? I think Apple should have provided a choice: they could have offered the traditional MacBook Pro form factor, but with a Retina display.

I'm also not happy with the removal of the Ethernet port because I really don't want to go back to the days when I had to carry dongles everywhere. Many of my clients and potential clients don't let you use their WiFi, but do let you use their Ethernet, although usually with decreased capability. If I had this machine and lost or broke the Thunderbolt to Ethernet dongle, I'd be screwed.

Since my 15" MBP actually still works quite well, I have no reason to upgrade, even though I'm very excited about the Retina display. I think the only reason to upgrade at this point would be only if I got heavy into video editing. But I still think Apple did the right thing but releasing a supposedly state of the art, high-end laptop.

My guess is the traditional MPB is gone next release cycle.

 

[Alchemis]

Completley agree with the above poster. Paid well over 2400 for my current MBP two years ago in November and it was on sale. That included an upgrade to the screen and HDD for 7200 RPM. So I'd argue 2200 is fair in the US. Is 2500 in Australia, but I'd get a discount on that for education so that would make it a tad more bearable.

Apple is one of the cleverest companies in the world in terms of marketing, and unfortunately, even the most educated of us are normally suckers for it. I can see to that this new "Retina" model will likely see the 13" and 15" standard thickness models phased out over a 2 year period as Apple try to move away from any disc based media and to more portable higher-markup machines.

The reality in simple terms is that something that I've heard on numerous occasions. Apple use the same basic ideas in terms of hardware as their competitors, but the styling and software are the difference behind their technologies, as well as the discrete marketing making us all want to own an Apple product.

I look forward to seeing what they come out with next.

 

[waterman]

Not many people who are watching that commercial are going to want to blow $2199 on a 15" laptop

Realize that the RMBP is not a computer for the rest of us. It is a high end user MacBook. It is a replacement for the 17-inch MacBook and for high end users who would use a decked-out 15-inch MacBook.

If my son was just starting his Architecture program (instead of in his last year), I would buy this for him instead of the 17-inch macbook that he got as a freshman and that I replaced at the 2 1/2 year mark of the five year program. It is an appropriate and a great macbook for this type of high end graphics usage.

This is not expensive for this level macbook. It is very expensive if you compare it to a entry level macbook air or the old white plastic macbook

 

[ryckmonster]

Wow, that song is amazing...

Here's the stand alone version of the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPP9nMdE_Ks&feature=youtube_gdata

 

[waterman]

Gorgeous screen, but I wouldn't call the form factor revolutionary. It's just a thinner unibody.

Watch the keynote or the movie (http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/#macbookpro) about the Retina macbook pro and get an appreciation for the whole package it is NOT just about the display or a thin unibody. What is packed into the RMP is amazing and perhaps revolutionary (we will see).

 

[surma884]

Now we'll see the PC market follow. ASUS will come out with a retina screen, they will price it less than Apple. Why can't the PC market lead? Apple added the Retina display on their iPhone and then everyone else follows.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Now we'll see the PC market follow. ASUS will come out with a retina screen, they will price it less than Apple. Why can't the PC market lead? Apple added the Retina display on their iPhone and then everyone else follows.

Actually the new RMBP scores just under a few other PC panels. While they are spread across different models, the RMBP isn't the first to offer that kind of quality. Resolution, yes, quality no.

Same thing for the quality and resolution in phones. Retina was the answer to the high resolution screens that were coming out in many Android and Windows Mobile devices. Retina beat them out, but then they came back with Super AMOLED and other technologies. The leapfrogging continues.

 

[Konrad]

Or they have run out of money from what I have been reading?

I know what you mean. Sort like in CA.

----------

So why are you here?

Because its more fun here in Europe.

----------

or it could be the economic climate in Europe.... not that it is much better here.

Economic climate is global now. But the social climate!

 

[mosx]

My 2009 Macbook Pro with a Geforce 9400M pushes my 1.2 million pixels just fine. The 650M has 24x the number of shading units, or about 6x as many per pixel. I think it'll handle 5 million pixels just fine. And games can always run below the full resolution of the display anyway. Though frankly I doubt you'll need to.

Not to sound like a jerk, but people need to stop using Apple's means of measuring "power" in hardware. To go above 1080p and get playable frame-rates with high detail settings, you need a VERY powerful GPU. The GT 650m is supposedly around the same level as a GTX 460m, which makes it half as fast as a desktop GTX 460. So a game that runs at 60 frames per second at highest settings at 1080p on a desktop GTX 460 will run at about 30 frames per second on the GT 650M. 1080p is a little over 2 million pixels. If you more than double that, your frame-rate is going to drop from around 30 frames per second at those same settings down to under 15, probably closer to 10 frames per second.

Something people need to learn is that pixel fill-rate is the absolute final word on how well a GPU can run games. It doesn't matter how powerful everything else in the chain of power is if the pixel fill-rate just isn't there. The PS3 is a perfect example of this. Under certain circumstances, it is only capable of pushing half the amount of pixels on screen that the Xbox 360 can. Thats why you see certain games that run at the same resolution and quality dropping to half the frame-rate on the PS3 (like Call of Duty) or other games, like Red Dead Redemption, that run at a significantly higher resolution and with actual MSAA on the Xbox 360.

So, again, that GT 650M just doesn't have the pixel pushing power. A game that runs at 60 frames per second at 1080p on a desktop GTX 460 is only going to run at 10-15 frames per second at native resolution on the new MacBook "Pro". Running at lower than native resolution is just an absolute fail. The only way to get modern games to run at that high of a resolution with high detail settings is to have a desktop GTX 580 or similar.

considering they mentioned that it will play diablo 3 at native res, I'm sure it does a fine job..

Diablo 3? Heh. Let me know when it can run Crysis at highest settings at native resolution running at least 30 frames per second

A gt 650m is a much more powerful card than most people seem to realize. I mean gaming wise it will definitely be able to run games smoother at higher graphics settings than an xbox 360 and if you are looking for more than that you shouldn't be looking at a mac. Heck you probably shouldn't even me looking at a laptop.

Like I said earlier in my post, the GT 650M is around the GTX 460M, which makes it half as fast as a two year old GTX 460 desktop GPU. Which means a game that runs at 60 frames per second at 1080p on that desktop part is only going to run at around 30 frames per second on the GT 650M. Which means running games or anything other than basic UI functions at that resolution will run in the low 10s or even single digit frame-rates. The GT 650M and even the desktop GTX 460 just don't have the pixel fill rate to go above 1080p.

In a real world situation, a GT 650M is about the same as running the Xbox 360 at native 1080p. heh.

Also, HDMI sucks anyway. Its HDCP always gets messed up.

You realize Apple has been using HDCP in their versions of DisplayPort for about 4 years, right? HDCP is a non issue.

 

[840quadra]

<snip> Retina was the answer to the high resolution screens that were coming out in many Android and Windows Mobile devices. Retina beat them out, but then they came back with Super AMOLED and other technologies. The leapfrogging continues.

Has color accuracy improved for Super AMOLED displays over the years? I remember having a hard Red hue on many early AMOLED displays I looked at, made me happy the iPad was iPS.

But curious if things have changed overall. I show off a lot of my photography trackside on my iPad, so having something that looks similar to what I will print is important to me.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Has color accuracy improved for Super AMOLED displays over the years? I remember having a hard Red hue on many early AMOLED displays I looked at, made me happy the iPad was iPS.

But curious if things have changed overall. I show off a lot of my photography trackside on my iPad, so having something that looks similar to what I will print is important to me.

Much of the debates center around personal preference, with the Retina winning out in PPI.

 

[Rocketman]

Sure the ipad may have had a larger margin to play with, but between the larger SSD and the retna display, i suspect apple have a fair bit of margin buffer added into this product.

The difficulty of making a high res display goes up non-linearly with size. The fact they can now do it at all is interesting and special, but to do it in mass volume is the problem they are managing with a limited initial release. I suspect when it gets near supply-demand balance, they will then consider the retina iMac.

Apple has been releasing products for the past 5 years or more based on when the components become available not firm annual product launch dates. So when Intel is slow to ramp Core v3 Apple is slow to ramp Macs with them in it.

On the other hand as display production rates ramp and the development and manufacturing capital is recouped, the price will be able to drop. The same is true with the flash memory and new higher speed system memory. So if anything this product has more capacity than most to drop in price over time. Almost the entire cost basis is some form of solid state.

Rocketman

 

[12dylan34]

it can not house 32 gig of ram and can only house 1 drive.....

yet it is marketed towards editors, composers, creatives


hmmmmmmm
not smart

Real creative work is done on desktops like the Mac Pro (which I believe takes up to 64 GB RAM). It's still nice to be able to bring along a powerful laptop to show a client edits or whatever though. This is as good as a portable pro machine gets is the point.