Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple cares, as evidenced by their obsession with slimming down everything they're able to. Besides, they want to get rid of the optical drive anyway so that'll allow it to be thinner.
Where did you get this formula specifically? How are these numbers even related to what we are talking abut, and from where are there values derived?
Have you priced both the MBPR and the standard MBP with the same specs ? You're in for a surprise...
I checked the specs/prices for the new MBP 2.6 GHz model.
The new MBP seems to have gone up by about £100 from the previous model.
You pay £500 more for SSD instead of HDD/ODD + the Retina display.
Price them with the exact same specs. That includes SSD.
Taking a base 2.3 ghz here (1829$), adding 4 GB of RAM to match the 8 in the base MBPR, making the HD a 256 GB SSD, I get a price of 2429$. The base MBPR is 2229$.
200$ cheaper to get a Retina display, at the cost of a 35$ optical disc drive.
Oh, and the MBPR has 512 MB of extra VRAM on that 650M
By their own math the 27 inch iMac is already 89% to Retina status. Getting up to that other 11% might not be that expensive or impossible.
Something like a revamped 40 inch Cinema Display would be a different issue but for the 27 inch it might be very possible.
Except for the Macintosh you mean?
Ok ok, I should have said the longest-running Apple *model*. It sold as "ImageWriter II" for eleven years with very little physical changes, whereas there have been many Macintoshes...
Right, the real problem would be in the scaling needed to keep the same real estate as current models. Apple's current system is a breeze but it requires quadrupling the resolution, and that is difficult and perhaps even impossible right now.
The cost of the 512GB SSD has come down but who in their right mind would pay £700 for the SSD upgrade anyway.
I think both the new MBP & new MBP Retina are over-priced. I can remember not that long ago when the 15" MBP started at around £1200 now it's £1500.
I'd rather see more competitive pricing on hardware than the addition of retina displays for more money, but then my 50 year old eyes are fine with my brand new 13" MBA.
The problem is Apple has not been increasing the prices for the Retina displays. The iphone, ipad, and rmbp all had the same price. What bumped the price on the RMBPs is the SSD amd RAM increase more than anything else.
I suppose that's true. Apple is obsessed with making everything thinner. I don't care if they shave 1/2" off on a desktop. I'm afraid it will run hotter and I like having an optical drive. Other than maybe getting a 2011 for less $ when 2012 comes out, there's nothing overwhelmingly appealing for me to wait for the refresh. Hey I got my free $29.99 Mountain Lion update. Wuhoo!
Are you missing my point on purpose ? The whole point is that the Retina display does not seem to add any "extra costs" to the MBP. If you read the post I was replying to, it was implying a "Retina iMac would be costly". I simply provided evidence that it wouldn't be much pricier than the current iMac.
Gah, I guess you can't ever be subtle around here.
Well, perhaps 'retired' was strong language, but they certainly don't upgrade them often enough to stay competitive in the market. There's no justification for their price; they aren't objectively better than any other display. Mostly right now I'm just upset at the plausible suggestion that they're holding up the Mac Pro update.
They should offer choice
Aple should offer one new model of iMac with retina display for the people who need/want one, while also upgrading the current models with faster processors, USB 3 etc. Just like they have for the MacBook Pro.
Aple should offer one new model of iMac with retina display for the people who need/want one, while also upgrading the current models with faster processors, USB 3 etc. Just like they have for the MacBook Pro.
Think of the economics here. People are bemoaning the cost of the retinal mbp, with a 15in screen and 256 ssd. Now make that a retinal 27 inch with a terabyte SSD in an iMac and you'll be into used SUV territory on cost. Desktop users will want more storage and memory and better graphics than a laptop. There's every reason to think costs will come down on ssd and displays and that's why the iMac of the future won't be coming this year. Next year when haswell processors come out, you may see a 3 or 4 grand monster of an iMac with all those goodies. But they'll need to make an affordable old school version as with the MBP for people who want something under $2 grand or so. I'll be happy to see the spec bump iMac with ivy bridge and better graphics in the near future. I've compared the current iMac screen with the retinal mbp at the apple store. I dont see a $1500 or more difference there. It's just not worth it to me. Maybe four or five years when prices have dropped back into the troposphere.
I disagree. An iMac with a secondary 27" Cinena Display running extended desktop is powering 2x the number of pixels is it not?
And did you see the post earlier today showing a rMBP with 3 external monitors totalling ~15million pixels?
Price them with the exact same specs. That includes SSD.
Taking a base 2.3 ghz here (1829$), adding 4 GB of RAM to match the 8 in the base MBPR, making the HD a 256 GB SSD, I get a price of 2429$. The base MBPR is 2229$.
200$ cheaper to get a Retina display, at the cost of a 35$ optical disc drive.
Oh, and the MBPR has 512 MB of extra VRAM on that 650M
Right, and Apple charges 200$ to upgrade the ram from 8gb to 16gb on the rmbp, so we can actually substract that variable, leaving the price diff on the ssd alone. Looks like Apple threw in the extra vram for free. Also worth noting the 256gb SSd upgrade on cMBPs is 400$, the exact difference between retina and non retina models.
speak for yourself, I personally have zero issue with 'the chin'. I wouldn't mind if it was more useful like say having stereo speakers in it but whatever.
What I would like to see is them go for an all SSD, ODD free unit that would sit flush on the wall with the various ports along the sides instead of the back.
And/or an even larger model in a Cinema Display that also have HDMI so I could use it as a tv. Say in a 40-46 inch model with a frame rate comparable to the larger TVs and perhaps even capable of viewing 3D. Which of course would mean then they need to put 3D 1080p files in the iTunes store cause folks could hook their Apple TV up to such a screen. Add in 5.1 sound, language and subtitle tracks and features identical to the disk releases that actually work on the freaking Apple TV and they would have files that are actually worth paying at much as a physical disk (the whole 'iTunes in the cloud' being mandatory as well)
Oh, whatever will the 90% of Mac users do without a $3000 Retina Facebook machine ??
Again with this nonsense. Why do you assume Retina is more expensive?