Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will the next generation MacBook Air have a retina display?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 43.0%
  • No

    Votes: 85 57.0%

  • Total voters
    149
"retina" and create a marketing hype for something that is available in many other devices..

Really? Please tell us how many 15" laptops have a resolution of 2,880 x 1800 and how many 13" laptops have a resolution of 2560×1600. Let's make a list. I'll help you

A)
B)
C)

Let's stop at 3 for now.

Ok. Your turn.
 
Apple doesn't respond to market trends, other mfgs improvements. Or what the users want. They'd rather dictate, a practice most of their flock reveres.

Funny you say that in response to a Zenbook comment. A Zenbook is a copy of a MacBook Air. So, yes. Apple doesn't respond to market trends. They SET the market trend.

I bet you laughed with Balmer at the thought of a laptop without a DVD drive and a couple of USB ports when the Air came out. Now look.

----------

The technology is not just a gimmick. The issue is that Apple are just trying to coin the phrase "retina" and create a marketing hype

So. You say Retina isn't a gimmick and then you follow that by describing Retina as a gimmick. :D
 
Funny you say that in response to a Zenbook comment. A Zenbook is a copy of a MacBook Air. So, yes. Apple doesn't respond to market trends. They SET the market trend.

I bet you laughed with Balmer at the thought of a laptop without a DVD drive and a couple of USB ports when the Air came out. Now look.

----------



So. You say Retina isn't a gimmick and then you follow that by describing Retina as a gimmick. :D

I think you need to READ what people are actually writing before making such clever comments.
 
Funny you say that in response to a Zenbook comment. A Zenbook is a copy of a MacBook Air. So, yes. Apple doesn't respond to market trends. They SET the market trend.

I bet you laughed with Balmer at the thought of a laptop without a DVD drive and a couple of USB ports when the Air came out. Now look.

----------



So. You say Retina isn't a gimmick and then you follow that by describing Retina as a gimmick. :D

You obviously misinterpreted me. The technology (high pixel density displays) are no gimmick - they are very useful to give a clearer image at the same size. Apple is just coining the phrase "retina" so people relate this technology to them, while it (high density LCDs) exist elsewhere.
 
You obviously misinterpreted me. The technology (high pixel density displays) are no gimmick - they are very useful to give a clearer image at the same size. Apple is just coining the phrase "retina" so people relate this technology to them, while it (high density LCDs) exist elsewhere.

So the actual resolution doesn't matter. You can have a 1080p display and call it retina. It depends on the ppi
 
Does anybody else think that the retina display will be MBP only for awhile before it makes its way to the Air? There are a few reasons why I'm pretty confident on this:

1. Cost. The MacBook Air has become the "average user" laptop ever since the white Macbook was dropped from the line. So, cost is a main priority for the Air, and retina displays cost more.

2. Battery life. Since the Air is so thin and light Apple would most likely be unable to keep the same battery life as the current gen. if a retina display is added into the mix. We saw this with the new iPad, which became heavier, hotter and slightly thicker. If the MBP loses the optical drive, Apple will be able to utilize that space for more battery power, but the MacBook Air has no new space to utilize.

3. Power. Even though Ivy Bridge is a decent leap forward, it is unlikely that Apple would be able to power a retina display while maintaining the same amount of "snappiness" of the current Air using a ULV Ivy Bridge chip with integrated graphics. And unlike the MBP, the Air probably won't be seeing dedicated graphics anytime soon.

What do you think? Will Apple be able to overcome these obstacles, or will the retina display be absent from the next generation Air?
1) The cost increase shouldn't be much at all, I'd expect around $70 -- if Apple can't absorb that, then they can pass it on to the user.

2) The iPad 3 consumes much more power because of the power of the backlight, apparently Apple was trying to use an IGZO display which allows for higher resolutions with less powerful backlight, which would mean that wouldn't be much of a problem, if at all.

3) That's not so, I believe Intel's HD 4000 graphics are capable of powering 2560x1600 (or slightly higher) resolutions smoothly.

I'm not sure Apple will release the Pro and the Air at the same time though, I think the Air will be released a few months after the Pro.
 
ASUS just announced that their Zenbook Prime will have an optional 1920x1080 screen, even in the 11.6" version. I could completely see Apple doing the same.

Windows is a little more scalable on things like font sizes. I don't think Apple would do this without high dpi (as in double resolution in each direction).

So in an optimized version of Photoshop or Pixelmator, the GUI will stay the same size but the photo will be shown at native pixel per pixel resolution.

This means less scrolling, the opposite of the quote above. The question is, will this cause more zooming in order to accurately use the editing tools on the tiny pixels?

Zooming in isn't always necessary. I can paint images from scratch and only go past 100% to check for mistakes at times.

So. You say Retina isn't a gimmick and then you follow that by describing Retina as a gimmick. :D

It's a marketing term. Their math was terrible as it's not quite like that. Your eyes aren't hit and miss on resolving details. The perceived contrast decreases as you trend toward tighter spacial frequencies. This has been shown with line pairs and test charts many times. Eye conditions like astigmatism modify your perception further. Basically their marketing assumes an uneducated public, and it worked. Displays have trended toward higher resolutions for years. Look at available laptops today compared to a few years ago. Resolution has increased significantly. Apple just gave it a name and a faux standard for people to parrot off.

1) The cost increase shouldn't be much at all, I'd expect around $70 -- if Apple can't absorb that, then they can pass it on to the user.

It's more of an issue on the 11" where they're trying to have a computer at the $1k price point.
 
I really don't see it happening. I know I'm not the first to say this, but the MBA already has a close to "retina" display. Instead of a higher resolution display, the next gen MBA really needs 3G/LTE.
 
Do you not understand that high PPI IS high pixel density. It's like you're trying to use a rewording of my argument against me.

Let me see

PPI = Pixels Per Inch

Pixel Density - how many pixels

High PPI = High pixel density.

You must be some kind of genius.

----------

the MBA already has a close to "retina" display.

Really? Let's see:

  • iPhone/iPod 4 (Retina Display)= 326ppi
  • Macbook Air 13" = 128ppi
  • Macbook Air 11.6" = 135ppi

In what world is this close to "Retina Display"? The Macbook Air 11" has the same ppi as an ASUS Eee Pad.

You will only get close to retina, whatever that means, when you get resolutions of 2560×1440 for the 11" Air.

The iPad has a 9.7 inch screen and has a resolution of 2048x1536. Just a matter of rewriting the OS and the Apps. I don't think everything will look great if they do this on the Macbook. Like with the iPhone 4, we will have to wait for all the apps to support this resolution. So, some things may look great and some things may look like crap.

and the answer to the question is YES, of course the Macbook Air will have a retina display. The iphone has, the ipod has, the ipad has... "back to the mac" remember? The Air is, follows in that family of portable devices and the marriage of iOS and Mac OS. ALL Apple devices WILL have a "retina" display. ALL of them, including the iMac.
 
Last edited:
I really don't see it happening. I know I'm not the first to say this, but the MBA already has a close to "retina" display.

The MBA is no-where near retina, but it doesnt need. It just needs a slight STANDARD resolution bump (1400x900 in the 11" and 1680x1050 in the 13"), that's all.
 
It's more of an issue on the 11" where they're trying to have a computer at the $1k price point.
If I remember correctly, the iPad's 9.7 inch display only resulted in an increase of about $50. I don't think that's too much for Apple to absorb, and I'd gladly pay the extra $50 if need be.
The iPad has a 9.7 inch screen and has a resolution of 2048x1536. Just a matter of rewriting the OS and the Apps. I don't think everything will look great if they do this on the Macbook. Like with the iPhone 4, we will have to wait for all the apps to support this resolution. So, some things may look great and some things may look like crap.
Actually developers didn't have to rewrite their apps to support the higher resolution on the iPhone 4 or iPad 3, they only needed to provide higher resolution assets -- and the same will be true on OS X. The only exception is for OpenGL games/apps which will need updating to target the higher resolution.

And apps which haven't been updated (and still have the lower resolution assets) technically look the same as they did on the previous standard display, but you may end up noticing it more as everything else is much sharper and crisp.

>>>>>

This site is useful for calculating the minimum distance one needs to view a display at with a given resolution and visual acuity. It's 25 inches for the 11.6 inch MacBook Air, and at 2732x1536 it'll only be 12.5 inches.
 
It's 25 inches for the 11.6 inch MacBook Air, and at 2732x1536 it'll only be 12.5 inches.

This was exactly my point earlier and i'm glad somebody else has brought it up.

Nobody has their nose that close to the screen of the MBA unless they are blind, instead the usable distance is probably about 25 inches, hence the 11" MBA is already at the optimal resolution and anything higher the average user will not notice any benefit.
 
This was exactly my point earlier and i'm glad somebody else has brought it up.

Nobody has their nose that close to the screen of the MBA unless they are blind, instead the usable distance is probably about 25 inches, hence the 11" MBA is already at the optimal resolution and anything higher the average user will not notice any benefit.
To be honest, I have to disagree there. Whilst I don't expect anyone to sit as close as one foot I definitely think they'll be sitting closer than two -- that's quite a distance for an 11.6 inch display.

The minimum viewing distance for my 21.5 inch iMac is 33 inches, but I sit regularly at about 20, or two thirds of that -- a "retina" iMac would have a minimum viewing distance of 16.5 inches which is enough for me by a few inches.
 
Can't tell if you're a troll or just some silly 15 year old kid (or both). Don't care anymore anyway.

Oh boy. Here we go... :eek:

----------

To be honest, I have to disagree there. Whilst I don't expect anyone to sit as close as one foot I definitely think they'll be sitting closer than two -- that's quite a distance for an 11.6 inch display.

The minimum viewing distance for my 21.5 inch iMac is 33 inches, but I sit regularly at about 20, or two thirds of that -- a "retina" iMac would have a minimum viewing distance of 16.5 inches which is enough for me by a few inches.

You guys are making this way too complicated.

Look at the New iPad. Can you notice a difference?
 
If I remember correctly, the iPad's 9.7 inch display only resulted in an increase of about $50. I don't think that's too much for Apple to absorb, and I'd gladly pay the extra $50 if need be.

It depends how they're looking on margins at the moment. They will likely decide what things to upgrade. Maybe they upgrade the displays, but drive capacity remains the same even though costs have fallen. It's really a collection of factors when it comes to an update.
 
Does anybody else think that the retina display will be MBP only for awhile before it makes its way to the Air? There are a few reasons why I'm pretty confident on this:

1. Cost. The MacBook Air has become the "average user" laptop ever since the white Macbook was dropped from the line. So, cost is a main priority for the Air, and retina displays cost more.

2. Battery life. Since the Air is so thin and light Apple would most likely be unable to keep the same battery life as the current gen. if a retina display is added into the mix. We saw this with the new iPad, which became heavier, hotter and slightly thicker. If the MBP loses the optical drive, Apple will be able to utilize that space for more battery power, but the MacBook Air has no new space to utilize.

3. Power. Even though Ivy Bridge is a decent leap forward, it is unlikely that Apple would be able to power a retina display while maintaining the same amount of "snappiness" of the current Air using a ULV Ivy Bridge chip with integrated graphics. And unlike the MBP, the Air probably won't be seeing dedicated graphics anytime soon.

What do you think? Will Apple be able to overcome these obstacles, or will the retina display be absent from the next generation Air?

I think Apple will introduce retina display for MacBook Pro first. They will not update the MacBook Airs at the same time. Simply to create a window of product differentiation; people who want retina will go ahead and buy MacBook Pro, even if an Air would suit them better.

Then later, Air will be updated with retina.

So I don't believe in technical reasons. It's all business pattern to maximize profit. Look at previous product upgrades.
 
It depends how they're looking on margins at the moment. They will likely decide what things to upgrade. Maybe they upgrade the displays, but drive capacity remains the same even though costs have fallen. It's really a collection of factors when it comes to an update.
Yup. Either way, a retina display will be a feature to tout for sure -- no other company will have them for sale yet.
 
I think Apple will introduce retina display for MacBook Pro first. They will not update the MacBook Airs at the same time. Simply to create a window of product differentiation; people who want retina will go ahead and buy MacBook Pro, even if an Air would suit them better.

Then later, Air will be updated with retina.

So I don't believe in technical reasons. It's all business pattern to maximize profit. Look at previous product upgrades.

Finally. Someone that makes sense. My feelings exactly. Actually, I hope they don't touch the Air except for the ivy bridge and maybe more GB for less? some sort of price change? Maybe bounce the 64GB to $799 and start the $999 at 128GB. Something like that. Other than that, don't touch it. Because I am planning to buy one and rule #1 of Apple is never buy the first of anything they make. Everything windows starts at 128GB SSD. The 64GB SSD is a bit ridiculous now.

I hope the Air goes through a silent upgrade and that's it. Maybe mention it in passing at WWDC.
 
Really? Let's see:

  • iPhone/iPod 4 (Retina Display)= 326ppi
  • Macbook Air 13" = 128ppi
  • Macbook Air 11.6" = 135ppi

In what world is this close to "Retina Display"? The Macbook Air 11" has the same ppi as an ASUS Eee Pad.

You will only get close to retina, whatever that means, when you get resolutions of 2560×1440 for the 11" Air.

READ!
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Whether it is "Retina" or not is not just decided by PPI alone, but with consideration of the VIEWING DISTANCE!!

This is why the New iPad, which has 264 PPI, is still called "Retina." People see iPad screen from farther distance than from iPhone's so we can call the New iPad "Retina", even if its PPI is below 300.

Same thing goes for Macs. People see Mac screen from even farther than from iPads. In this case, Apple does not need to double the pixel density of MacBook Airs, they just need to add 15~20% more pixels to make Airs "Retina."

for example)
current MBA 11.6-inch = 1366*768
new MBA 11.6-inch = 1600*900 = "RETINA" !!!!

screen-shot-2012-03-04-at-09.06.39.png


again...

READ!
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Reading doesn't harm you!! Your grandfather already told you that, didn't he?
 
READ!
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Whether it is "Retina" or not is not just decided by PPI alone, but with consideration of the VIEWING DISTANCE!!

This is why the New iPad, which has 264 PPI, is still called "Retina." People see iPad screen from farther distance than from iPhone's so we can call the New iPad "Retina", even if its PPI is below 300.

Same thing goes for Macs. People see Mac screen from even farther than from iPads. In this case, Apple does not need to double the pixel density of MacBook Airs, they just need to add 15~20% more pixels to make Airs "Retina."

for example)
current MBA 11.6-inch = 1366*768
new MBA 11.6-inch = 1600*900 = "RETINA" !!!!

Image

again...

READ!
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

Reading doesn't harm you!! Your grandfather already told you that, didn't he?

You mean all that boloney Steve talked about when he introduced it? :D

We heard this back in 2010

Retina-Display-Faked-1.jpg


----------

as I said, the answer is YES

mba_retina.png


----------

The retina term is very gay, Stop using it. Just say "better screen".
 
I frankly think most of you complaining on the "retina" tag need to realize something about marketing. I see what looks like intel ads everywhere around me, touting this and that number, when in reality I'm looking at say a Toshiba laptop ad.

The problem with such a marketing strategy is that the ads I'm talking about aren't targeted at tech savvy people - these are relatively low cost products for the masses. The gist of many recent non-Apple computer ads I've seen (especially when cooperating with a store chain) is to convey that you can get a number 'this high' for 'this cheap'.

If you complain at retina, as obnoxious as that notion can be at times, why don't you complain on ads throwing what is more or less arbitrary numbers at potential cumstomers? That's crap if anything is. The digital camera megapixel debacle a few years ago was absolutely horrible, considering the noise those tiny ccd panels introduce at that resolution.

'Retina' sticks (as this thread alone shows) and in the end conveys to the customer 'you can't even see individual pixels'! As much as a simple 'high-res screens yo' tag on ads would've been sufficient it lacks punch and doesn't speak to the masses. And what would have been next? 'High(er)-res ++'? Retina doesn't need a long explanation (that it is a resolution relative to and dependent on viewing distance for example) and it can be used for future products since it isn't an absolute number, like giving a specific screen resolution a name.

It's simply a way of conveying recent technological progress to everyone. Of course there are other companies out there with products with similar specs. Then again I guess you missed the "super mega ++ extra" craptastic tags on a number of those. I.e. they too realize the problem of conveying new features to potential customers in the limited space of a print ad. LG had some brat-sounding dude spit out "dual core, dual memory - 'nough said" in their phone commercials not too long ago here in Sweden. Cringeworthy. "Dual memory"...? What the hell does that even mean (to the average customer)?

And playing the number game is unfortunately open to everyone and doesn't make your product look unique, hence the buzz words.

I take it some of you are either young or have a short memory. Take a look at the world of marketing. There are/have been far worse notions than retina out there.

Maybe you feel that your vast technological knowledge is threatened by a marketing term?

---

Anyway, to get back on topic, while Sharp are producing IGZO screens in large numbers will that be enough for *both* a new retina MBP and MBA this year...?
 
Last edited:
You guys are making this way too complicated.

Look at the New iPad. Can you notice a difference?
Hardly, the link I posted (I think I posted it?) gives you the minimum viewing distance given a screen size, resolution and visual acuity. It's quite simple, and it's necessary as vision varies greatly from person to person.

From 13 inches I can't see any aliasing on my iPad 3, but if I move closer I definitely can. Then again someone with better vision than I will probably see aliasing at 13 inches and maybe even 15.
 
Retina in a Macbook?...seriously, are people still buying this junk?

The pixel density of Apple's "retina" is 326dpi, and if you're holding your iPhone/iPad greater than a distance of about 1 foot from your face (or your eyes to be exact) then you won't even realise the difference, and this assumes the user also has perfect 20/20 vision...so you can just about argue the case to install it in a handheld device....just

But given I assume most MacBook users won't be sitting so close to their screen (unless of course vision is an issue, in which case none of this argument applies anyway) then it's a pointless task for Apple to install such a high res screen in a notebook...

...unless of course Apple believes that a high percentage of it's client base buy into the marketing hype and will happily part with they hard earned beer tokens to be the first to get "retina" on their notebook...which is more likely the case and why Apple just might offer a "retina" display in a notebook.

When I see comments like this I start to suspect variations in people's eyesight being the issue. The retina display iPad (like the iPhone before it), makes a massive difference to me, but it would for a Mac also: I have seen pixellation on every desktop and laptop computer screen I've ever used, and have been longing for hi-DPI displays for years. I thought I was the only one worrying about it until I heard Steve Jobs' views on the matter.

Even Jobs said Retina-standard resolution would only see us through the next (15-20?) years or so. Not sure of the exact quote, but he wasn't proffering Retina as the be-all-and-end-all, and that makes sense to me. I can see pixellation on the new iPad occasionally, and professional print dpi is higher. I can certainly see it on my HDTV, depending on the material. 1080p is much lower res. than 35mm film, hence restorations being done in 4K+.

So when people post things like "Macbooks are already Retina" or "HDTVs are already Retina," I have to question either their eyesight or their understanding of the concept.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.