"MacBook Pro (Retina, Late 2013) computers can use 4K Ultra HDTVs."
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6008
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.
New Display Panels from AUO Spark Speculation of 4K Apple Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"MacBook Pro (Retina, Late 2013) computers can use 4K Ultra HDTVs."
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6008
Well, the Cinema/Thunderbolt Display the past few years has always been marketed as a big screen companion to a MacBook Pro. It's product page even shows a MacBook Air connected to one, so obviously the display, while expensive, isn't only marketed to professional-class users. I wanted one as a dock and big screen for my 13" rMBP but so much time has passed now that I've fallen out of love with the idea relative to the cost. And, I'm obviously not paying $999 for 2011 hardware...2014 is in 35 days!
Sounds like a 4K display will solely be marketed to Mac Pro users and will have a cost to match. So yes, I probably won't be in the market for that either, nor do I have an interest in non-Apple displays. Just wanted a thin, 27" iMac-style Thunderbolt Display with USB 3.0 and an iSight HD camera. Too bad.
4K Retina
You all realize that you'd have to stick your nose less than 6 inches from a 30" 4K display to even start to see the pixels. Using multiple 4K displays on your desktop would be overkill and a total waste of money. The market for these will be very small, used only by the "look at how big and fine mine is" crowd.
You all realize that you'd have to stick your nose less than 6 inches from a 30" 4K display to even start to see the pixels. Using multiple 4K displays on your desktop would be overkill and a total waste of money. The market for these will be very small, used only by the "look at how big and fine mine is" crowd.
I'd guess $3,000 and up at best. Likely much higher due to high development costs and limited anticipated sales. But there is that group of people that will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a car that will go well over 200 MPH but they never take it above 100. They're willing to pay for the status of having one.
This is the second comment in that many days in which the basic premise is "if you can't picture this, then it's not for you." It doesn't seem like Apple is in the business these days of producing products for a small crowd - so why would they start now? The point is for mass market appeal, and you can't get there by designing products people can't understand why they would need them.
Not sure if you got your math wrong or simply didn't bother to do any before making your claim, but for anybody wondering, it would actually need to be 23" (58 cm) or less away from your screen.
Yes, because 100% perfection is a highly realistic expectation
Go ahead and compare Apples quality standards with the rest of the industry. Having occasional issues does not imply a lack of standards, it means that they're all HUMAN with a lot of things are beyond Apples control.
There are many more comments like this.
Take the iWatch, some will not wear a watch, but without even knowing what it will be they discredit the product.
As with all technical products , the first generation is expensive, Then the entire industry switches , capacities are built up and the economy of scale makes things cheaper.
So, eventually the masses will have 4K cinema sets in their homes at affordable prices.
In the meantime those who are not early adopters or do not have or do not want to spend the entry premium for new tec will just have to wait and complain.
U jelly?
Why do you assume anybody who buys anything higher-end than what you could afford automatically does it for the status?
There are measurable and easily observable differences between a 108 PPI and a 163 PPI 27" display used at average distance. I'm sure you'll want one too when you'll be able to afford one.
Since how expensive an object is for what it offers is relative, you do realize your logic could be applied to pretty much anything? The owner of a $400 laptop, for instance, could say you bought a Mac exclusively for the status. How would you react?
Please be able to accept you don't own the highest-end tech and it's perfectly fine. This isn't some sort of competition, and by showing you're affected by 'losing' the competition, you're not really any better than someone who'd spend crazy amount of cash on something just to 'win' it.
I'd agree with you if Apple had discontinued the Mac Pro.
Cook said the new Mac Pro would be released this year right? I make it exactly 5 weeks until the end of the year so they better get a move on. Hopefully the new Displays are all they're waiting for and we get to buy it soon. Don't fancy a 32" screen sitting on my desk, I hope they have several options.
The trick is will they only run at 30 hz? I haven't seen any indication of a 4K display thats able to run an 60-120 hz like current 2560x1600 monitors. Your eyes will not enjoy staring at 30 hz, unless apple has shares in lense crafters
Also, 163 pixels per inch, even at 27", hardly qualifies as retina (FYI, the original iPhone to iPhone 3Gs had 165 pixels per inch). Coupled with the fact that such display will default at ultra low 1920x1080 resolution, I simply don't think this panel is destined for Apple's 27" display.
Last edited:
The trick is will they only run at 30 hz? I haven't seen any indication of a 4K display thats able to run an 60-120 hz like current 2560x1600 monitors. Your eyes will not enjoy staring at 30 hz, unless apple has shares in lense crafters
The panel itself would likely be 60Hz, not 120Hz.
With Thunderbolt 2, you'd be able to transmit the signal at a full 60Hz since 3840 × 2160 × 24 bit × 60 Hz = 11.94 Gbps and Thunderbolt 2 can offer up to 20 Gbps bandwidth per channel.
I believe the 30 Hz limitation of most current 4K TVs is due to the fact they don't use HDMI 2.0 yet, which will support 4K@60Hz. HDMI 1.4a seems to have insufficient bandwidth.
Apple, please reintroduce the 17" MBP line - this time, with a 4K screen! I want a portable power plant - the 27" isn't portable!
PPI isn't a good measure for visual acuity since it doesn't consider a very important factor: viewing distance.
What really matters is the angular proportion of your FOV the pixel occupies. For that you need to take distance in account.
For example, a 720p 32" TV could be considered "Retina" if you watch it 7+ feet away, despite having a mere 46 PPI.
I'm very much annoyed by the pixelization of my 27" iMac. Anyone calling the current 27" iMac's non-pixelizated should visit an eye specialist. I'd very much welcome a 4K successor.
Also to my MBP 17". Too bad the latter surely won't ever be released...
True, but that does't change the fact that 163 PPI at 27" still requires 21 inches (Is This Retina?) of viewing distance. My office has a ton of 27" displays (mostly Apple's) and no one sits that far from the monitor.
I myself sit about 18 inches away.
Well that's the point. If you're further away than the Retina treshold, then you can't see the pixels. Maybe they could have chosen another (lower) resolution that still qualifies for Retina (at average distance for most people), but then maybe it wouldn't have played nice with HiDPI unless you do a crazy amount of scaling.
Also, unlike with iOS devices and MacBooks, Apple doesn't design iMac/TBD display themselves, so they depend on external manufacturers who have chosen to jump straight to 4K instead of doing 16:9 displays in-between 1440p and 4K. So that's the only option for now if we want anything better than the current 1440p display.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are in your mid 20s. As a 50+ year-old I would welcome 1080 without the jaggies as even the 1440 on my iMac can occasionally be a strain to make out.
That's not really sarcasm. By the time Apple's supposed 4K displays hit the market, 8K will have taken over as the standard. RED already has a cinema camera that shoots 8K, and most everyone in Hollywood will be jumping on that bandwagon. That's one of the problems developing this kind of technology: by the time the R&D is finished and the product is brought to market, the product is already nearing obsolescence for its intended purpose.
This x1000. I have a retina macbook pro and call me mad, but I use it mainly in the 1920 x 1200 mode when I'm trying to get real work done. I use it in "native" mode when I'm just browsing etc.
------------------------------------------------------
Blade Dash 2.0 - Challenge -
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/blade-dash/id482035482?mt=8
Ahh the usual suspects "AU Optronics" and "LG". Companies infamous for their yellow screens, uneven lighting and image retention are Apple's top suppliers!
I have a iMac 2011 and had a MBA and rMBP that has/had issues with these displays!
Apple should bury the hatchet and stick with Samsung!
I have a iMac 2011 and had a MBA and rMBP that has/had issues with these displays!
Apple should bury the hatchet and stick with Samsung!
Right there with you on that one except that if they release something new in matte before I get to purchase one of the new Mac Pro's I would still be interested in having all my gear made by the same company.
I guess we will find out once the Mac Pro's start shipping.