Why do people want to dump the optical drive on an all in one to achieve thinness on a non portable desktop? Are you going to hang it on the wall. It already has a small footprint. To me, it's a step backwards. I'll need at least one optical drive and it may as well be in the desktop computer instead of eating space on the desktop.
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
Why do people want to dump the optical drive on an all in one to achieve thinness on a non portable desktop? Are you going to hang it on the wall. It already has a small footprint. To me, it's a step backwards. I'll need at least one optical drive and it may as well be in the desktop computer instead of eating space on the desktop.
Substract ? The base 15" MBP comes with 4 GB, the base MBPR comes with 8. I was making them equivalent with 8 each.
The retina display isn't costing extra, that's the point really.
Is this a joke? If not why do you think the retina MacBook pro cost 2,200? Why do you think 1080p tvs cost more than 720p? A retina 27 inch at 3000 would be cheap for that size IMO, it would be more like 3500.
You missed both my posts. Price it yourself and be surprised.
----------
Price them out to the same specs. Retina vs non Retina.
Wow, why do we need to repeat this again and again ?
The price of the iPad 3 screen cost more than the iPad 2. The screen cost more here. Apple just isn't taking as much as a profit margin just like the iPad 3. And you need hardware to surport that screen. Enjoy the screen on hardware that can't even run it.
Retina....i dont think so
I saw a MacBook pro with retina on display at the mac store and watched a short photo show on it. I was kinda neat. But thats about it, kinda neat. As a multimedia Artist and filmmaker I dont think I have any use for it, especially on a 27" IMac (the colors and detail are amazing already). I think apple created the Retina displays for there MacBook pro line because of the limited screen real estate on the new MacBook Pro "15". Retina displays are virtually worthless for "27" IMacs.
I saw a MacBook pro with retina on display at the mac store and watched a short photo show on it. I was kinda neat. But thats about it, kinda neat. As a multimedia Artist and filmmaker I dont think I have any use for it, especially on a 27" IMac (the colors and detail are amazing already). I think apple created the Retina displays for there MacBook pro line because of the limited screen real estate on the new MacBook Pro "15". Retina displays are virtually worthless for "27" IMacs.
Add the equivalent SSD to the classic Macbook Pro. What price do you get?
----------
The ipad 3 sold for the same prices as did the ipad 2, the same held true for iphone 4.
Not at all. They aren't told in advance because they aren't supposed to tell but the bosses know that someone would for attention if not money. So the staff won't know until the public knows. but it means nothing in regards to whether something will or won't happen and when
Uh ? My late 2008 MacBook could push 2880x1800 pixels just fine between it's mDP and internal display, on a now outdated 9400m nVidia GPU.
And again, Apple isn't charging more for the Retina display, what makes you think this trend would change with the iMac ? I bet it wouldn't. A Retina iMac would not be more expensive than a non-Retina one.
A little information...
Why are we speculating about a display resolution which is not even possible? All the current NVIDIA and AMD graphics processors only support a maximum resolution of 4096x2160 at 60Hz. I would like a retina display iMac as much as the next person, but it would take a significant amount of graphics power to run applications at that resolution. Possibly more than what would fit in an iMac chassis.
Why are we speculating about a display resolution which is not even possible? All the current NVIDIA and AMD graphics processors only support a maximum resolution of 4096x2160 at 60Hz. I would like a retina display iMac as much as the next person, but it would take a significant amount of graphics power to run applications at that resolution. Possibly more than what would fit in an iMac chassis.
You are right, Apple's displays aren't any better than alternatives and they definitely don't update them often enough. But, at least right now, the Apple Thunderbolt Display is a decent value proposition, because the non-Apple Thunderbolt hubs that are coming out right now are so expensive that buying a similar non-Apple display + a Thunderbolt hub cost in the same ball park as an Apple Thunderbolt display. I don't know if you can run 2 monitors off of any of the hubs, but if not, then Apple's monitor is the only way to do this over Thunderbolt.
But this may be only temporary that the Apple display is worth it. If their track record is the same as the 30" (no updates for a long time, and very little price drops), then yeah, it won't be a very good option.
FWIW, I really don't think we will see a large "retina" display from Apple for a long time. Even if the technology is there, I imagine it's prohibitively expensive to sell them and will be for several years. But maybe I don't know what is going on with LCD panel manufacturing, maybe there has been some breakthroughs.
No surprise.
iMacs and/or Apple Thunderbolt Displays can all ready be considered "Retina" because the "normal viewing distance" where individual pixels are indistinguishable from the next for these devices is about 2.5' away.
What iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays suffer from is that content (UI elements, web pages, videos, etc.) is not resolution independent. Content makers, even Apple themselves, need to be taking advantage of the 2560x1440 resolution.
While I type this comment, I am sad that a web page like MacRumors is still coded for 1024x768 and I either have to lean closer to the display or view pixelated content via "command + (zoom in)".
iMacs and/or Apple Thunderbolt Displays can all ready be considered "Retina" because the "normal viewing distance" where individual pixels are indistinguishable from the next for these devices is about 2.5' away.
What iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays suffer from is that content (UI elements, web pages, videos, etc.) is not resolution independent. Content makers, even Apple themselves, need to be taking advantage of the 2560x1440 resolution.
While I type this comment, I am sad that a web page like MacRumors is still coded for 1024x768 and I either have to lean closer to the display or view pixelated content via "command + (zoom in)".
Judging by past history
Apple went from 153,600 pixels (320*480) to 614,400 pixels (640*480) in three years 2007 iPhone to 2010 iPhone 4 but all 3.5" displays.
The iPad only took 2 years to get from 786,432 pixels to 3,145,728 pixels between 2010 and 2012 iPad's with their 9.7" screens. (An 512% increase in pixels count!)
Granted the MacBook Pro has been in existence for much longer but it's recent move to a retina display was a much lower percentage increase. Raising the bar to 5,184,000 pixels just a few months with the 2880*1440 2012 MacBook Pro has (only) 165% more pixels than the iPad although it has a 15.4" screen.
Knowing this just based in pixel count alone
2560*1440 pixels would yield 14745600 Pixels in an almost 300% increase. For a display with almost 4x time amount of pixels that the MBP in an iMac would cost an insane amount of money at this point in time.
It's too soon to have display tech to caught up to make a mainstream display with that many pixels. It will come but just needs some time to mature.
Apple went from 153,600 pixels (320*480) to 614,400 pixels (640*480) in three years 2007 iPhone to 2010 iPhone 4 but all 3.5" displays.
The iPad only took 2 years to get from 786,432 pixels to 3,145,728 pixels between 2010 and 2012 iPad's with their 9.7" screens. (An 512% increase in pixels count!)
Granted the MacBook Pro has been in existence for much longer but it's recent move to a retina display was a much lower percentage increase. Raising the bar to 5,184,000 pixels just a few months with the 2880*1440 2012 MacBook Pro has (only) 165% more pixels than the iPad although it has a 15.4" screen.
Knowing this just based in pixel count alone
2560*1440 pixels would yield 14745600 Pixels in an almost 300% increase. For a display with almost 4x time amount of pixels that the MBP in an iMac would cost an insane amount of money at this point in time.
It's too soon to have display tech to caught up to make a mainstream display with that many pixels. It will come but just needs some time to mature.
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
I don't have a problem with their strategy, but they're bundling a certain amount of upgrades to force a certain minimum sale. This makes a lot of sense. They always cost more if added via custom configuration. Anytime you buy a computer with cto options, you are not just paying for the upgraded part. You are also paying for a non standard configuration. The $2200 mark and above probably carried a relatively high margin, so they were able to bundle many things into a base configuration and ship a lot of identical units.
Note the prior post. This isn't uncommon with computing devices or other things. It makes perfect sense. They can bury the additional cost on something like this in a high margin item early on. Overall the cost of the other panels probably fell quite a bit since their initial implementation a few years ago or whenever they made a major update the last time. When these fall a bit they'll eat the older designs.
Not necessarily. The math that Apple uses to create their definition likely comes out to a lot less than 4k. And even if the math does come out to close than that the only reason anyone is saying it is impossible is because it hasn't happened. But Apple is known to tie up resources from companies that could make such things they want with NDAs to keep anyone from talking and suddenly Apple does the 'impossible'. Especially since if we accept the math going around the blogs the 27 inch would only have to go from 109ppi to 122ppi to be Retina. Not some 2x or 4x measurement
And as it is very possible that they will limit such a screen to the high end 27 inch model they wouldn't need millions of displays as that is already not the most popular consumer model. So 'limited supplies' wouldn't be as serious an issue
----------
1. If Apple is willing to make a bit less how is that anyone's business
2. if they include the screen they will include the hardware to run it. That's how Apple works.
Last edited:
That is a very unreasonable position for a Mac-Mini!
BTW any educated guestimates on Mac-Mini specs and PORTS?
I know there is a 1% chance of a Mini format Pro, but what do the PC guys call them? Nettop.
http://releaselaptop.com/asus-eee-box-eb1503/
Rocketman
Last edited:
All of that doesn't change the fact : right now, getting the Retina display is essentially a cost free option at the spec levels of the machine. There is no reason to believe an iMac would use a different strategy.
Again : Just providing evidence to support the fact that a Retina iMac would not be more expensive than a comparably configured normal iMac following Apple's strategy for it in its other devices (iPhone/iPad/MBP).
You did notice all the posts in this thread saying an iMac would be ludicrously expensive with a Retina display right ?
(and they keep posting this stuff, even after we keep refuting it. I think some people just post without reading the comments first).Oh, for sure. At least if we are comparing standard configs. Of course a 12 core Pro would be more powerful, but how many of us NEED that? (Yes I'm aware some do, but a very VERY small percentage).