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.
No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the new iMac comes out with retina display and doesn't cost more than the current models, I'll get it. Hurray more pixels for the same price.
If the new iMac comes out without retina display and doesn't cost more than the current models, I'll get it. No QQ cuz I won't even notice the difference.
If the new iMac comes out without retina display and doesn't cost more than the current models, I'll get it. No QQ cuz I won't even notice the difference.
Personally, I'd be quite interested in a 'retina' iMac, or one with a higher resolution display. However, I really don't think we'll see one this year to be quite honest. Maybe.
Considering the difference in price between the with/without MacBooks, I dread to think what it'd add to the cost of an iMac. The decent version of the 27" normally retails for about £1650, or thereabouts. Would you really be willing to pay, say, £2500 (or even a bit more) for the same spec with a retina/HiDPI display? Fair play to you if you would.
Thing is, even with this Unicorn-powered display, what are you actually going to run on it to take advantage of its magical DPI? There's only a few compatible apps available and a couple of games. It'll take the best part of the next year before we start seeing a decent amount of software that natively supports higher resolutions. And God only knows when Microsoft will update Office....
It's like being an early adopter on 3D TVs, it's awesome, but you've spent £5000 on a telly and there is (or was) only 3 compatible 3D films to watch on it!!
Higher resolution displays are obviously the future, and Apple are going to be at the forefront, but I'm not interested until the software's there to support the displays. So yeah, even if there's a 'retina' iMac tis year, I personally wouldn't be interested. I think I'd rather go for a full spec Mini until it's worth making the 'retina' upgrade in a couple of years.
Considering the difference in price between the with/without MacBooks, I dread to think what it'd add to the cost of an iMac. The decent version of the 27" normally retails for about £1650, or thereabouts. Would you really be willing to pay, say, £2500 (or even a bit more) for the same spec with a retina/HiDPI display? Fair play to you if you would.
Thing is, even with this Unicorn-powered display, what are you actually going to run on it to take advantage of its magical DPI? There's only a few compatible apps available and a couple of games. It'll take the best part of the next year before we start seeing a decent amount of software that natively supports higher resolutions. And God only knows when Microsoft will update Office....
It's like being an early adopter on 3D TVs, it's awesome, but you've spent £5000 on a telly and there is (or was) only 3 compatible 3D films to watch on it!!
Higher resolution displays are obviously the future, and Apple are going to be at the forefront, but I'm not interested until the software's there to support the displays. So yeah, even if there's a 'retina' iMac tis year, I personally wouldn't be interested. I think I'd rather go for a full spec Mini until it's worth making the 'retina' upgrade in a couple of years.
Just a new form factor (thinner iMac) from getting rid of the optical drive is good enough to drive sales. Retina display can come later. They're certainly not going to put all their eggs in one basket.
Sure, retina is great, but looking at the price hike of the Macbook Pro I don't dare to imagine what it would cost on a 27" version. Plus, what would the resolution be? I mean, it's 2560x1440 now, and would then probably be well above 6000x4000-ish which would be just insane.
Before you do that kind of speculation about the price of a Retina iMac, go to the Apple store, then compare the price of the Retina MBP and a 15" MBP with the same 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD: The Retina MBP isn't more expensive. It is actually cheaper: £1799 vs. £1979. £180 cheaper.
I'm not sure I follow your logic as to why a standalone Apple display should be retired. Maybe I misunderstood you?
Anecdote time: The company I work for is ordering developers two Apple Thunderbolt displays each, so that we can daisy-chain them connected to the rMBPs we will be ordering. I know plenty of "pros" who are using the same setup. Even people using 27" iMacs can benefit from having a second (or third) display. If I didn't already have a 30" monitor, I'd be considering an Apple display for home once I get a machine that has Thunderbolt.
The Apple Thunderbolt display fits right in with Apple's product line. It's perfect for people who have machines with Thunderbolt, especially MacBook owners who spend time at their desks.
That said, there better be a good reason for whatever is holding up a real Mac Pro update.
Tim cook saying we're " doubling down on decracy" tells the whole story. At this point any rumor is merely pure speculation and BS There's no way to differentiate as to a real rumor or just fiction. Believe what you want. But don't let a hope & a prayer guide you when it comes to Apple rumors.
Who cares if the iMac gets thinner?? It's a desktop. My desk is pretty big.
----------
Who cares if the iMac gets thinner? It's a desktop. Do you really want a hotter, thinner desktop with less room for components?
----------
Who cares if the iMac gets thinner? It's a desktop. Do you really want a hotter, thinner desktop with less room for components?
I can't imagine they could fit a graphics chip powerful enough for a retina display in an iMac while keeping it thin.
For the record, I RMAed my U2711 and bought the Apple LED Cinema Display 27". The DELL U2711 is a flaming POS.
History or rumours? Because they are two different things.
I don't believe it. Why wait this long after WWDC to announce those?
It makes no sense to announce a new line in two different times. I believe if there was in fact a 13" it would have been launched with the 15".
my 2 cents
Tan (a/2) = s/2d, where a is viewing angle, s is pixel spacing, and d is viewing distance. Would you like me to compute it for you too?
The cost of the larger retina screen would simply make the iMac way to expensive for it's target market. Maybe next year when prices some down.
Had my first chance to play with the new MBP Retina in my local Apple Store today. Honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. I didn't notice much of a difference from the previous MBP and despite what they said at the launch the glare is still very noticeable compared the old MBP with an anti-glare screen. It was also a lot heavier than I thought it would be. And it's seriously expensive at £1800 or £2300. They axed the 17" MBP coz it only represented 2% of sales - I can't see the MBP Retina doing much better at those prices.
My current 17" MBP has just died so I've decided to the buy the new MBA now and the new iMac when it comes out - which will cost me about the same as getting the mid range MBP Retina (£2300). For that I get a powerful desktop machine and a very light laptop without the annoying glossy screen.
Had my first chance to play with the new MBP Retina in my local Apple Store today. Honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. I didn't notice much of a difference from the previous MBP and despite what they said at the launch the glare is still very noticeable compared the old MBP with an anti-glare screen. It was also a lot heavier than I thought it would be. And it's seriously expensive at £1800 or £2300. They axed the 17" MBP coz it only represented 2% of sales - I can't see the MBP Retina doing much better at those prices.
My current 17" MBP has just died so I've decided to the buy the new MBA now and the new iMac when it comes out - which will cost me about the same as getting the mid range MBP Retina (£2300). For that I get a powerful desktop machine and a very light laptop without the annoying glossy screen.
I'm sorry, but do we really need a retina iMac now? I hope nobody sits close enough to distinguish individual pixels. Maybe a 20-30% pixel boost would be perfect (although scaling would be an issue), with more attention to desktop performance internals, rather than borrowing from the mobile lineup. Make my iMac fatterbut make it faster!
You raise an interesting point. How are folks defining Retina. Apple defines it as that amount where one can't distinguish pixels at a reasonable distance. Not some 4x what it normally has or set dpi amount.
This issue here could be that those that are making these statements are using that kind of definition and therefore they are saying such a screen isn't happening. When all that is really needed is the 'minor' 20-30% dump that you speak of with the same screen controls as they put on the new Mac Book Pro. And we might get that type of display on an iMac or even a revamped Cinema Display line in the coming months.
I asked one of the guys at my local Apple Store what the specs on the new iMac were and he said he didn't know what I was talking about. I guess that's the end of all these rumours about a new model, after all, if anyone would know it would be an Apple person. For some reason when I asked if I could see the new Dell instead he seemed less willing to help and after looking all round the store for one I gave up and left. I really don't know why everyone rates Apple so highly. Anyway Im now the proud owner of the latest SpazM 27LX3000Turbo PC which I picked up at PC World for £349.99 including cash back. It makes a weird clattery sound when I look at my email but I've been assured that that is standard when using high end PCs. My only regret is that you can't see all the blue LEDs and stickers when I put the cushions around it. I don't know what it is but whenever I use it I'm sure I can smell curry or something hot.
Last edited:
The Retina display boosted the cost of a MacBook Pro by $400. It has a 15-inch display. Does this mean $800 more for the iMac, which is already too rich for my blood in the 27-inch varieties?
I'm also guessing the iMac isn't as much of a priority as MacBooks are. Those sell much better than iMacs. I just wonder what spec people are going to complain about once all the Macs have a Retina display. It's very useful for iOS devices, but was this really a problem for computers? I know my 21.5" iMac could have a bit better resolution, but it's no slouch. 1920x1080 is pretty darn resolute in a screen sitting three or four feet away.
I'm also guessing the iMac isn't as much of a priority as MacBooks are. Those sell much better than iMacs. I just wonder what spec people are going to complain about once all the Macs have a Retina display. It's very useful for iOS devices, but was this really a problem for computers? I know my 21.5" iMac could have a bit better resolution, but it's no slouch. 1920x1080 is pretty darn resolute in a screen sitting three or four feet away.
Have you priced both the MBPR and the standard MBP with the same specs ? You're in for a surprise...
Resolution
I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula that's been mentioned online as the method used to calculate if a display is "retina" or not.
The current 27" iMac already looks to be a retina display, at a viewing distance of only 2.6 feet at least, which seems pretty reasonable for a 27" display. It sports a PPI of 109. But maybe Apple will define the viewing distance as 2 feet or 2.5 feet. Or maybe they'll release a 32" iMac.
At WQHD resolutions - double the current 1080p standard - a 27" monitor would become a "retina" display at just 1.76 feet, with a PPI of 163 (higher than the first laser printers!).
Even at a 32" diagonal screen size, you'd be looking at a 138 PPI display and a "retina" distance of only 2.08 feet. So I could see Apple releasing just such a beast as their next iMac. I doubt anybody is gonna sit closer than 2' to a 32" display (unless they're trying to get a tan...).
Sharp, for what it's worth, was demonstrating WQHD (double current 1080p HD) earlier this year, so they're certainly in the pipeline. Apple may just be waiting for them to become available in quantity. Of course, that might mean no new "retina" iMacs until next year...
I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula that's been mentioned online as the method used to calculate if a display is "retina" or not.
The current 27" iMac already looks to be a retina display, at a viewing distance of only 2.6 feet at least, which seems pretty reasonable for a 27" display. It sports a PPI of 109. But maybe Apple will define the viewing distance as 2 feet or 2.5 feet. Or maybe they'll release a 32" iMac.
At WQHD resolutions - double the current 1080p standard - a 27" monitor would become a "retina" display at just 1.76 feet, with a PPI of 163 (higher than the first laser printers!).
Even at a 32" diagonal screen size, you'd be looking at a 138 PPI display and a "retina" distance of only 2.08 feet. So I could see Apple releasing just such a beast as their next iMac. I doubt anybody is gonna sit closer than 2' to a 32" display (unless they're trying to get a tan...).
Sharp, for what it's worth, was demonstrating WQHD (double current 1080p HD) earlier this year, so they're certainly in the pipeline. Apple may just be waiting for them to become available in quantity. Of course, that might mean no new "retina" iMacs until next year...
Given the move they made with the Retina MBP it is very possibly they will do the same with the iMac and Cinema Displays. So not matte but much less glaring glossy.