No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?

[doelcm82]

Hardmac comments:

"Indeed, the price for the 15" Retina Display is so high, that even after removing optical drive, etc. from the standard MBP, this model remains more expensive, due to its display. S, imagine that a 30" REtina Display would require a surface to be manufactured, four time larger than the 15" display. So, we can expect that the price would then be at least 4 times higher, making simply not affordable/compatible to be installed in an iMac. Based, on current rumors, Apple pays 150 USD per Retina Display, so for a 30" Retina Display, it would be around 600-700 USD, if you add all other components, it would simply become impossible to have iMAc for less than 1800 USD.

Last but not least, to manage and offer graphical performance level for such 30" Retina Display, you would need an amazing GPU to only provide 2D rendering, and if you still want to have enough GPU power for 3D, then you might need dual or even more GPU. So, the bill would keep increasing."

The part about the price being so high that even after removing the optical drive, it still cost more than the non-retina MBP is about as specious an argument as I have seen.

The fact that you can buy an external SuperDrive for $79 suggests that removing the drive wasn't done to save money (not that I thought it was, I'm just surprised at the lack of logic required to make this claim).

The primary reason the Retina MBP starting price (not to mention the price of a reasonably spec'd one) is so high is not the screen. It's the fact that the only option for storage is flash.

 

[MadLeinaD]

I'm new in the Mac world, I've a MBP 13" 2011 2.3/8 and I'm still learning a lot of stuff so sorry if my post is stupid (and sorry for my language, still learning english).
With the ML release I've read that would be sort of mandatory to have an SSD drive, seems like that with 320gb 5400rpm (or 1tb 7200rpm of one iMac) performances are better with SL than with ML. True?
This is not a pain for me, I've already upgraded RAM so is not a problem to buy 1 sata3 SSD and mount it on my MBP, but is this operation simple also on iMac? (hoping that SSD and RAM will not be soldered).

About retina my opinion is that it will be great especially on the paper but not so distinguable in "live" situations with a WQHD resolution like now, so maybe better with a little bump, unless iMac will not be sold as "pro" units, in that case I suppose that having 4k resolution in one 27" or (not probable) 30" will be a great point for "pro" users and a huge tease for "not-pro" user (like me).

 

[Swoosh2K]

I'm fine without the Retina display. The existing iMac resolution is already very nice and I don't want to pay 3k for an iMac.

I'd love an HDMI in and Blu-Ray for the disc drive but that likely is never going to happen.

Just want the usual upgrades -- USB 3.0, faster processors, more RAM, new Nvidia GPU so that the Mercury Engine can be supported for Abode software, etc.

 

[toke lahti]

30% would be about enough to bring it up to retina, but that would require a new scaling solution from Apple. Doubling the res in each direction is more likely as although it brings other problems, OS X is now set up for it.

Doubling problems are in iOS, because of battery and performance issues.
OsX has run just fine with my MBP in 24 different resolutions, so there's no need for doubling even if truly resolution independent (vectorized GUI) os would be pretty no-brainer after over 40 years since man walked on the moon.

One could even think that the whole idea of retina displays are to hide scaling problems.

Because asus haven't implemented retina in their computers, they also hold back.
Copy and paste for all OEMs in existence

Actually Asus have retina display: Transformer Infinity, 224 ppi.
Bigger displays will follow with whole lot less delay than tb accessories.

This is one of those "No Chit" articles. A 27" retina display would add over $2000 to the price just for the cost of the panel alone without Apple's profit markup. Would you pay $5000 for an iMac?

rMBP's screen cost $50-100 more than ordinary, so quadrupling that will tell you how much additional cost would be with 27" retina. 27"'s area isn't exactly 4x 15", but yield issues should bring it quite even 4x.

A 27" screen or greater, with a resolution of 5120x2880 or greater "would require a bandwidth of [at minimum] ~21.2 Gb/s. This is over 2x what a single Thunderbolt channel can support today."

Actually tb can support 2x10=20 Gb/s (two pipes that can share bandwidth).

OWC was pushing 9*676*800 pixels out of rMBP, 15 680 000 pixels in total, which @60Hz means 22.6 Gb/s. This is of course sadly only 8-bit colors, which are "so 90s'!"

10-bit colors (needed for widened gamut and dynamic range, windows and many displays already supports) would need 4096x2560x60x30=18.9 Gb/s. Dp would need new version (today's v1.2 maxes out in 17.28*Gbit/s) to feed it to internal display or via tb to external display.

Nevertheless it was stupid idea to bundle dp with light peak. Sony tried to bundle LP with usb instead of dp. With today's version of tb, you can't have both; hi-res screens and fast storage. With sony's implementation you could.

One could of course argue that this would be possible with next gen tb, but that will double the price and adoption time might expand to infinity. All of a sudden all these overpriced tb gadgets would be obsolete again.

We discussed about this after tb was introduced here in MR last year.
The problem with tb is that it supports only dp v1.1a, which has max throughput of 8.64*Gbit/s. This is no surprise since these standards are developed at the same time, so tb will always be one generation late for dp.

Of course this is not a new thing to Apple, which has lagged several generations in GPU support and will be good for their profits, since they have to always pick something old & cheap in addition of something new (like retina).

And for this dual-link-tb idea, I just don't see any reason for this. They'd have to make new version of tb to support this, so why not just add latest dp specks and double the bandwidth of tb and call it tb2?
AFAIK, dual-link-dp is not even in the specs, so Eizo and other's are using proprietary tech.

Btw, how many dp pipes these new tb controllers have?
Can current 27" iMac drive 2 ATD's (one in each port)?

I'd think that Apple's "easy enough for dummies" philosophy needs, that if they introduce dual-port-tb display, you shouldn't be able to connect it to a mac that can't drive it.

They did release a TB display which can be only connected to devices with a TB port didn't they? Still Mac Pro's don't have a TB port. They released updated iMacs and Mini's alongside that display so not only MBP's would be the ones being able to connect to it.

All but one (MP) of their macs support current ATD's.
I'd guess it will take years for all macs to support 2 tb connectors or they never might get that. Airs and minis just don't have space for that.

The 27" display res is fine with me. I don't really care about retina, I do care about glare though. I'd take a matte finish over retina any day.

I won't buy any display which isn't matte.
Let alone $3-4k laptop without any upgradeability or repairability!
I've had enough with these products that are meant to be mobile (laptops, tablets & phones), but which I can't enjoy using because of reflections.

I remember paying over $2000 for my 12" base model PowerBook in 2003. Apples prices have gotten much more aggressive over the years. I wouldn't say they've lost perspective with their pricing at all. MacBook Pros are meant for PRO's, who typically have higher demands, and higher income to spend for said demands.

Somehow, I think Apple doesn't care at least "the classical" pro meaning professions where you produce high quality visual work.
Look what they did with Shake, FCS, MP & 30" (matte) ACD.
Btw, they still use low quality & cheap-o TN-panels in their macbookPRO.

Macs hold their value better - that is a completely different point altogether.

This used to be the story, but no certainly in the future.
Average lifespan of MBP might have been 3 years of work, upgrading ram and hdd and then another 3 years of work. For MP that might add another upgrade and still 3 years more.
Now you can't upgrade rMBP at all and MP's are having 3 year old GPU (and other specs) from the beginning.
Shortening lifespan of products that buyers think having a long lifespan is pretty good business. ("This LED will last 20 years, but the electronics around it will burn in one year…!")

Because it requires the new form-factor (the screen is built into the lid in a way that wouldn't fit the old casing) and they wanted to keep both models around ?

They could have had 2 new lines, if they wanted. But they have this mission to kill optical storage so the professionals using these professional machines would need to buy their movies from iTunes and can't burn discs for their clients, so the clients would also think that optical storage is obsolete, although other methods are not so easy and simple.
Maybe next iMac should be called not-all-in-one or all-but-one-or-two-or-three-in-one?

Spec the old and new MBPs the same way (256 GB SSD, 8 GB of RAM) and you'll see that the Retina MacBook Pro comes out cheaper with twice the video RAM.

So retina display is used as an excuse to sell ram and ssd in very high price without possibility to upgrade later. What could be more profitable?
MBP users used to get upgrades in half price by waiting a year or two and buying them from 3rd party. Not anymore, leak is fixed. Good for Apple, bad for users.

Sonnet are already offering external Thunderbolt-driven boxes that can take one or two PCIe cards. Sit down and move away from any fragile objects before you look up the price, though. The only thing that will bring those devices down in price is demand and volume.

And the only thing that will make demand is lower prices, here we go around again...
Anyway, I think that tb is insanely overrated as replacing pcie slots. The whole tb is worth of 2 v2 lanes of pcie. MP has 40 lanes of v2 meaning 16 times more than tb. Pcie v3 will double that and real modern workstations like HP z820 (which just had RED Edition) has 60 lanes of v3 pcie meaning 60 times of tb.
Can anybody imagine how cool would workstation grade iMacPro look like with 60 tb sockets on the back?
That would be hilarious design for Ive to chew!
How well could 16x pcie graphic card work in a external box that only has bandwith of 2 lanes?
Or one (1!) v3 lane?

Thunderbolt has a theoretical output of 100 Gbit/s with optical cabling. Apple's current Thunderbolt chips support optical cables, so all we have to wait for is for optical cables to become affordable. The first production cables were introduced late April.

So your conclusion is that with optical cable you could exceed current specs and controller's bandwidth?
Come again?
Maybe in the future with new version of tb, but like I argued above, introducing new version of tb now, when even old version isn't adopted, would kill the whole tb ecosystem.

I think i am the only person in this forum holding out for a blu ray burner and native playback on the iMac. Its wonderful for apple to add all the horse power in their new line of computers to handle all the HD video editing but i need a way to publish the videos. these files are getting large and standard DVD doesnt cut it anymore. I would also like a video input so that i can hook up my 360 and use the nice monitor. Wouldnt hurt to add gigabit ethernet as well (the gigabit ethernet thunderbolt dongle is retarded).

I'd guess that odd will be taken away from next iMac.
I'm already using external bd-burner with my mbp, so it wouldn't be an issue to use it with iMac. It's pretty much the size of iMac's foot, so it can sit on top of it.

I'm surprised people still use anything DVD or BlueRay in this age of streaming and digital formats and flash drives etc.

I'm as much surprised that people still here shout how dead ODD is.
They are selling more bd-players than macs and more bd-movies than iTunes movies. How dead this will make Macs and iTunes? Undead? ;D

 

[KnightWRX]

They could have had 2 new lines, if they wanted. But they have this mission to kill optical storage so the professionals using these professional machines would need to buy their movies from iTunes and can't burn discs for their clients, so the clients would also think that optical storage is obsolete, although other methods are not so easy and simple.

Maybe I'm missing something here :

40$. Some cheaper options also exist. OS X still supports them fine.

 

[toke lahti]

Maybe I'm missing something here :

40$. Some cheaper options also exist. OS X still supports them fine.

You are missing my point; which is that many Mac users still need ODD and would prefer to have ODD, which is this millenium's generation inside their laptop, which also have current features like usb3.
There's no reason why Apple couldn't offer this. All other laptop manufacturers offer this, but of course not with OsX, which IMHO is the main reason professionals use Macs.

ps. What's that usb-stick in the picture?

 

[slicecom]

.

 

[ffakr]

Actually tb can support 2x10=20 Gb/s (two pipes that can share bandwidth.
OWC was pushing 9*676*800 pixels out of rMBP, 15 680 000 pixels in total, which @60Hz means 22.6 Gb/s. This is of course sadly only 8-bit colors, which are "so 90s'!"

I think this is all completely irrelevant. I find it hard to believe, but I can't confirm, that Apple would use a Tunderbolt interface for the internal monitor.
Why would they use up a TB channel for an internal monitor when they're using a PCI-e video chipset that's perfectly happy driving monitors without a TB chip in the signal path?
All the new GPUs provide extremely high resolution support too. Even the IvyBridge integrated video supports over 4000 horizontal pixels.

I'd like to see Instapaper's evidence that Apple would need to, or even prefer to use TB to drive an internal monitor.

I won't buy any display which isn't matte.
Let alone $3-4k laptop without any upgradeability or repairability!
I've had enough with these products that are meant to be mobile (laptops, tablets & phones), but which I can't enjoy using because of reflections.

I get this from many of the people I support who use iMacs in offices as well as the laptop users. Our newest building has a wall of windows in every office and unless you face out the window at your desk.. not even the desk's default config, you have to deal with glare. My latest complaint was from a user who's machine screen faced the Window.. even all the way across the office.
I went to matte on my last Macbook Pro and I'm perfectly happy. Photos and video do look better, more vibrant, with the glossy but the reflection outweighs the benefits of the glossy with me and nearly every user I've run across.

Average lifespan of MBP might have been 3 years of work, upgrading ram and hdd and then another 3 years of work. For MP that might add another upgrade and still 3 years more.
Now you can't upgrade rMBP at all and MP's are having 3 year old GPU (and other specs) from the beginning.
Shortening lifespan of products that buyers think having a long lifespan is pretty good business. ("This LED will last 20 years, but the electronics around it will burn in one year…!")

What I see is an expanding functional lifetime, particularly for mobile products. It seems to me we crossed the threshold a couple years back where Software's requirements have been much slower to overtake hardware's capabilities. That's not true of my guys that chew through a million credits on TeraGrid.. but we're talking about laptops.. even consumer desktops.
I'm less and less worried about functional life of devices except that their functional lifespan will continue to outstrip the warranty support by increasing degrees.

They could have had 2 new lines, if they wanted. But they have this mission to kill optical storage so the professionals using these professional machines would need to buy their movies from iTunes and can't burn discs for their clients, so the clients would also think that optical storage is obsolete, although other methods are not so easy and simple.
Maybe next iMac should be called not-all-in-one or all-but-one-or-two-or-three-in-one?

Well, this is part of Apple's larger strategy, something they've been pursuing for a long time. If Apple's been great at anything it's been at seeing trends before anyone else in the industry, or at least pursuing them well before anyone is willing to.
They see the future as being all about completely pervasive connectivity. I'm old-school but even I now embrace the idea that local storage is becoming increasingly obsolete. I think the App Store actually was a major turning point for me.
Nothing's perfect. The App Store, as it stands, is awful for institutional purchases but it's awesome for personal purchases.

re: DVDs
I support thousands of systems, probably half Mac. optical media is, already, obsolete. I can't remember the last time I had to install software from physical media. Oh yea.. Microsoft Windows 7 for Parallels, and Microsoft Visual Studio 2010. Scratch that, I also installed Windows 7 from an ISO on the network.

Granted, it's inconvenient for a consumer to not have a DVD reader/writer but Apple does have an external model and if not including it in the actual computer reduces price, it's net zero as far as cost to have one, but a win if you don't need it.
It sort of defeats the idea of having a real all-in-one when you start adding external peripherals but at least it's small and unobtrusive. It's actually a better option for corporate/edu infrastructure. It's easy for us to deploy software over the wire and an external can be shared from computer to computer as needed.. or you can just share the DVD over the network.

So retina display is used as an excuse to sell ram and ssd in very high price without possibility to upgrade later. What could be more profitable?
MBP users used to get upgrades in half price by waiting a year or two and buying them from 3rd party. Not anymore, leak is fixed. Good for Apple, bad for users.

I don't agree at all. It's just another evolution in computer hardware. It does make software that has adopted the scalable graphic frameworks look great. Text is really a joy to read on it.
Your argument isn't particularly different from what I've heard for nearly two decades in one form or another. One similar argument used to be (I guess still is).. CPUs are more than fast enough.. they don't need to get faster for the foreseeable future. Yea P3.. Yea P4.. 64bit Athlons!! G5s.. Core.. Core2..

sort of a side note...
I think we're getting closer to that, the CPUs requirement for more CPU power stretching out longer and longer. Particularly since we've just begun to take advantage of threading in most software. I've got high hopes for that in the near future though.. with AMD's push to APUs with OpenCL support, and Intel's support for OCL1.2 in Ivy Bridge. When we really open up access to the other cores, especially the GP-GPU cores, we're looking at another major jump in real effective horsepower.
BTW.. the APUs are just coming into their own and we've already deployed some AMD APUs in a commodity cluster. They're not the greatest CPUs.. they're not the greatest GPUs.. but man are they dirt cheap and man do they have potential. They're still die-area limited so they don't support doubles in the GPU but OCL integer and single performance is simply amazing for the price. They're marginally faster than a Nvidia card that costs 30-40% more.. that is.. versus a Quad-core core2 with a $170 500-series Nvidia card.. and the entire APU ran $130. Now if I could just get our users to update their research code. :-/

 

[toke lahti]

I think this is all completely irrelevant. I find it hard to believe, but I can't confirm, that Apple would use a Tunderbolt interface for the internal monitor.

This was about the external hi-res monitor, which has bad technical limitations because of tb connection instead of using dp v1.2.

What I see is an expanding functional lifetime, particularly for mobile products. It seems to me we crossed the threshold a couple years back where Software's requirements have been much slower to overtake hardware's capabilities. That's not true of my guys that chew through a million credits on TeraGrid.. but we're talking about laptops.. even consumer desktops.
I'm less and less worried about functional life of devices except that their functional lifespan will continue to outstrip the warranty support by increasing degrees.

CPU isn't the limitation anymore, but RAM and storage will be, when all upgradeability is taken away.
For example less than 4 years ago standard MBP shipped with 2GB of RAM and 250GB hdd.
This is still quite ok for casual use, but think about more extensive professional use today, if you wouldn't be able to upgrade these.

Well, this is part of Apple's larger strategy, something they've been pursuing for a long time. If Apple's been great at anything it's been at seeing trends before anyone else in the industry, or at least pursuing them well before anyone is willing to.
They see the future as being all about completely pervasive connectivity. I'm old-school but even I now embrace the idea that local storage is becoming increasingly obsolete. I think the App Store actually was a major turning point for me.
Nothing's perfect. The App Store, as it stands, is awful for institutional purchases but it's awesome for personal purchases.

Funny how scared Apple has always been that new things wouldn't get adopted, just by being better than the old ones. They just have to take old ones away, because they know better.
Original iMac is now remembered as "Great legacy breaker", but in real life it was a pain in the ass to do work with, because it had no external storage. Things got better when it got cd-r, but before that "floppy free" meant "buy an external floppy drive".
Once again Apple is pushing things too far ahead too early.
Think how much would it cost me to have 100 bd-movies stored in a cloud. Cloud is ok in corporate use, but way too expensive and slow for consumer for years for certain things.
Same thing with Apple's dumbed down "simplified" gui & os development. I have 24 photos in my mac's folder that is synced with my ipad, but only 22 photos show up in ipad. How much easier would it be if iOS had file management for those, who are able to use it?
Why I can't send or receive files with ipad through bluetooth?
Every old machine with bt can do this.
Why Apple supports iCloud in Vista, but not in Snow Leopard?

Granted, it's inconvenient for a consumer to not have a DVD reader/writer but Apple does have an external model and if not including it in the actual computer reduces price, it's net zero as far as cost to have one, but a win if you don't need it.

Maybe Apple still offers external dvd still in 2020 when all the others are offering multi-terabyte-bd-xl-4...

I don't agree at all. It's just another evolution in computer hardware. It does make software that has adopted the scalable graphic frameworks look great. Text is really a joy to read on it.
Your argument isn't particularly different from what I've heard for nearly two decades in one form or another. One similar argument used to be (I guess still is).. CPUs are more than fast enough.. they don't need to get faster for the foreseeable future. Yea P3.. Yea P4.. 64bit Athlons!! G5s.. Core.. Core2..

Having upgradeability does not take away anything. I'm not saying that there should not be better displays, I'm saying that there should be both: great display and upgradeability.
How many grams and cubic centimeters were saved with non-upgradeable laptop? Who even notices it? I'd like to have lighter ipad, since it's pretty heavy for holding in the air, but who holds laptop in the air?
Will next iMac be same in that they save in places that don't need it?
HP showed with Z1 how modular all-in-one can be.
Will Apple keep dumbing down or get competitive?
IMac with big screen could be great in modular design. There could be universal slots in all 3 sides where you could pop in what you want: odd, hdd, ssd, fw hubs, tb hubs, etc.
Nobody cares how thick the imac is, as long it is thinner than its base.

 

[69650]

For the second paragraph how does seeing it in person alter your expectations of it?

Are you serious? I'm sorry if this seems a bit mad to you but I never listen to the marketing hype from Apple or anyone, I go see a product and make my own mind up about it. I know many of the Apple sheep on here will be offended but hey that's just me.

Having tested the MBP Retina at the Apple Store my initial reactions were:

1. I didn't notice much of a difference with the Retina screen.
2. It was still very glossy and reflective
3. It was heavier than I thought it would be
4. It's way too expensive
5. I would probably rather buy the new non Retina MBP and save myself £500 or upgrade it to the anti-glare option.

That's my honest opinion having tested it. If you think different, by all means go ahead and buy it. Think for yourself my friend.

----------

Then you missed all the posts who said "a Retina iMac would be way too expensive!". That is what spawned the whole sub-thread you are now participating in and derailing completely.

I was discussing with other posters who claim a Retina iMac would be more expensive than a normal iMac that Apple's pricing on the MBP doesn't reflect that.

Like I said, you're completely besides the point and moving goalposts/derailing the conversation by interjecting in this sub-thread and replying to me. Now do you want to discuss the actual sub thread topic with me ? I presented an argument that the MBP have essentially a cost free Retina display, Apple would probably do the same for the iMac. Do you have something to add in this context ?

If not, let's move on, since obviously you have no interest in discussing the pricing of Retina vs non-Retina solutions.

I did post my own views about the subthread you interjected in : I do not feel Apple will charge more for a Retina iMac vs a non-Retina iMac. I'm not criticizing you for your opinion, but rather your derailement and goal post moving in the sub thread.

I don't feel this is a thread where discussing the general "overpriced" nature of Apple products is on topic or even desirable, nor do I feel the need to do so (having had to do it in the past, and knowing full well how those goalposts move as soon as you show Apple is on target for pricing).

Seriously bored with this now. I didn't read every post and then decide to "derail" the thread. I read a few posts, found a post I wanted to comment on and did so. For all I know the OP I commented on could have been nothing to do with the thread at all. I have better things to do than sit and wade through hundreds of posts to follow the thread.

Personally I don't think it matters. Every single thread I have ever read on here goes off message at some point. That's the nature of forums. If it bothers you that much why not start you're own thread about the topic at hand - whatever that was I have no idea now.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't think retina is necessary in either the mbp or iMac. Degraded performance for extra pixels I don't even notice. Higher quality panels with a bit higher pixel count should be sufficient.

 

[NeXT MacRumors]

Retina Display

Retina display could be useful for photographers, but for the average family, it is not really necessary.

 

[RBR2]

Retina display could be useful for photographers, but for the average family, it is not really necessary.

That's why it should be an option.

[Edit]P.S. Given the choice between a non-glare screen and a glossy Retina display, I would opt for the non-glare screen though.

 

[toke lahti]

That's why it should be an option.

[Edit]P.S. Given the choice between a non-glare screen and a glossy Retina display, I would opt for the non-glare screen though.

I went to see the miracle and I'm also disappointed to retina display.
The reflection might be a bit darker than before, but it is as sharp as ever and therefore as annoying as glossy displays have always been...

Since I'm all for WYSIWYG, enthusiast for all high quality visualizations, this makes me feel like candy taken from child's mouth...

 

[raytheguy]

I hope they loose the optical drive and solder ram and hd to the mainboard to make it incredibly thin. Throwing computers away if something breaks is just so hip and trendy. You think it will be thin enough to slice bread and cheese?

I don't think 'desktops' need to be thin since you won't carry it around and a extra 1-2cm wouldn't hurt unless you live somewhere where you can't fit an extra cm.

 

[toke lahti]

I don't think 'desktops' need to be thin since you won't carry it around and a extra 1-2cm wouldn't hurt unless you live somewhere where you can't fit an extra cm.

I wrote 9 days ago:

Will next iMac be same in that they save in places that don't need it?
HP showed with Z1 how modular all-in-one can be.
Will Apple keep dumbing down or get competitive?
IMac with big screen could be great in modular design. There could be universal slots in all 3 sides where you could pop in what you want: odd, hdd, ssd, fw hubs, tb hubs, etc.
Nobody cares how thick the imac is, as long it is thinner than its base.

 

[Jacob2]

Does it have to be retina display? I think a 27" 3840×2160 iMac would be beautiful. 5760x3240 for the future! Just as long as my 1080p movies fit nicely. Retina display is too iffy a term anyways. If the iPad display had the same ppi as the ipod touch does, it would only take 24 extra pixels width wise to watch two 1080p movies on it! Of course it would also need the processing and graphics power to handle that kind of thing.. My point is, that whole distance from your face bit is a big steaming pile of marketing. I don't sit with an iPod any closer to my face than i do an iPad. How close can you bring your thumb to your eye before it goes out of focus? Thats the distance retina display should be determined from, and that's what the original iPod/iPhone retina display (326 ppi) was. If you can still see the pixels from a different distance there's no real illusion. I vote that until the 27" iMac has a resolution of 7656x4306 we should let go of the term retina display. No offense to the thumbless.

 

[SpyderBite]

I'm as much surprised that people still here shout how dead ODD is.
They are selling more bd-players than macs and more bd-movies than iTunes movies. How dead this will make Macs and iTunes? Undead? ;D

Poor examples.

Digital Delivery in general (on demand via Cable/Satellite/DSL, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, etc.) have outsold Bluray & DVD disk sales by 300% last year. Even Redbox has removed hundreds of their kiosks as a result of slow rentals. So, while there may have been more physical media sold than digital media on iTunes.. overall, people are no longer buying disks in the market overall.

Physical media is dying. In only a few short years we'll need very little HDD as much of our content and apps will be hosted online.

 

[Randomoneh]

Does it have to be retina display? I think a 27" 3840×2160 iMac would be beautiful. 5760x3240 for the future! Just as long as my 1080p movies fit nicely. Retina display is too iffy a term anyways. If the iPad display had the same ppi as the ipod touch does, it would only take 24 extra pixels width wise to watch two 1080p movies on it! Of course it would also need the processing and graphics power to handle that kind of thing.. My point is, that whole distance from your face bit is a big steaming pile of marketing. I don't sit with an iPod any closer to my face than i do an iPad. How close can you bring your thumb to your eye before it goes out of focus? Thats the distance retina display should be determined from, and that's what the original iPod/iPhone retina display (326 ppi) was.

I've agreed until this point.

Yes, in the future, "Retina" will probably be determined by closest distance you can focus on. Minimum focus distance for kids is 7 cm.

If we're talking about Apple's "Retina" then we're talking about angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree. At 7 cm distance, one inch occupies 20.56 degrees of field of view. 60 pixels per degree and you end up with 1234 PPI.

However, if we're talking about more realistic "Retina" then we're talking about angular resolution of about 200 pixels per degree. 20.56 degrees, 200 pixels per degree and you end up with 4113 PPI.

It's science fiction in terms of current displays, but you've asked for it.

 

[xgman]

P

Physical media is dying. In only a few short years we'll need very little HDD as much of our content and apps will be hosted online.

That is a very scary thought. I will avoid like the plague. I'll host my own network in my basement.

----------

I don't think 'desktops' need to be thin since you won't carry it around and a extra 1-2cm wouldn't hurt unless you live somewhere where you can't fit an extra cm.

Flat TV's didn't really need to be "that thin" either, but people love them nonetheless.

----------

Does it have to be retina display?

I don't really care, but I would like less glare, sharper text and picture in general and no ghosting issues as with some early Retinas.

 

[motorazr]

Being that I own a 27" iMac already... unless 4K video becomes the standard for downloads, I really don't see where the retina display will come in handy. The screen already has a significantly greater pixel-count than 1080p, and it's already tact-sharp if you look at it from any real distance... Heck, I'm up pretty close to it all the time and pixels aren't too noticeable until I'm TRYING to see them for a photo adjustment in PS.

I dunno. I think it'd be cool, but I'd rather see a standalone, 40" or larger screen with insane resolution... something that blew the 30" cinema out of the water. But that's probably just a dream at this point

EDIT: Agreed on the glare comments though... I wish I had a less glossy screen. That part does get annoying, sometimes.

 

[toke lahti]

Digital Delivery in general (on demand via Cable/Satellite/DSL, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, etc.) have outsold Bluray & DVD disk sales by 300% last year. Even Redbox has removed hundreds of their kiosks as a result of slow rentals. So, while there may have been more physical media sold than digital media on iTunes.. overall, people are no longer buying disks in the market overall.

Physical media is dying. In only a few short years we'll need very little HDD as much of our content and apps will be hosted online.

Poor examples.

VoD is growing faster (especially in rentals, not so much in owning) than blu-ray, but bd is still outselling globally VoD and bd is still the most successful format ever. And when bd will economically be second to VoD, it will be far from dead; just second in popularity in endless list of different ways to consume the same content.

Those who want quality, choose bd. So far no VoD is even close.

 

[xgman]

EDIT: Agreed on the glare comments though... I wish I had a less glossy screen. That part does get annoying, sometimes.

To me, Apple is using the glossy screens the way best Buy displays TV's. Blown out to give the wow effect at the expense of true color and calibration.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Poor examples.

Digital Delivery in general (on demand via Cable/Satellite/DSL, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, etc.) have outsold Bluray & DVD disk sales by 300% last year. Even Redbox has removed hundreds of their kiosks as a result of slow rentals. So, while there may have been more physical media sold than digital media on iTunes.. overall, people are no longer buying disks in the market overall.

Physical media is dying. In only a few short years we'll need very little HDD as much of our content and apps will be hosted online.

It doesn't have to be either or. Why do some people hate letting people have choice.
Don't want OD or BD, don't check the $50 option for an OD.
But for heavens sake treat people like adults and give them a choice.

For example, not iMac specific, but addressing your death of discs claim...
I do a lot of camping. Slow or no internet.
Pop a disc in, watch a program.

What about all the special feature on the disc
that you can flip back and forth on?
How do you do that with VOD.

How do you get maximum video and audio quality with VOD?
You don't.

If some people want to give up all that to be super thin, stylish and hip, fine.
Many others don't and aren't so gullible as to swallow the party line
that OD is dead therefore you have to use VOD. BS from megacorps
that want to eliminate choice, value, maximize profits by eliminating
content ownership and raping customers with rental models and obscene data plans.

Think different, not what people tell you to think.
Choice is better.

 

[motorazr]

To me, Apple is using the glossy screens the way best Buy displays TV's. Blown out to give the wow effect at the expense of true color and calibration.

Sounds about right. I know a guy who bought a macbook pro at the same time as myself, and I'd ordered the anti-glare screen, while he kept the glossy one.

I'd always wonder what was up with his images looking consistently flat or desaturated, and he had no idea what I was talking about.... because on his display (which "enhances" contrast and color) they looked fine... where as any screen that *wasn't* a glossy display would show a more accurate rendition.

Just one more frustration to deal with... not a deal-breaker, but something to consider with all the work on carries out on their new display.