Retina-Resolution Displays to Add Up to $100 to Apple's MacBook Pro Costs

[dtemp]

Retina +100
No DVD -100

And we are good to go

I edit to clarify mi post. When Apple removed the DVD from the Mac Mini, they dropped the price 100 bucks, so why not this time too?

I know somewhat factually that the laptop-sized "superdrive" DVD/CD writer/reader they've been using in most/all MacBooks/Mac Minis/iMacs is a component that costs only between $15-25. So in this hypothetical simple trade between display cost and optical drive cost, it would still come out $75 more expensive in the bill of materials.

Can you cite a link for the Mac Mini getting a $100 price drop with no other major component losses besides the optical drive? I'm having trouble finding evidence of this although I didn't look that hard.

 

[jpmack]

With the macbook pro getting a thinner design, does anybody know if the internals will still be user serviceable? HD, Ram upgrade?

Somebody knows. Clearly nobody here knows.

 

[santaliqueur]

Have any hard facts or evidence to backup your claim? Just because you can't see pixels doesn't mean others can't. Whereas with Retina, the numbers are scientifically based. If you can't see pixels with your iMac at normal viewing distances, my conjecture is that it's not because iMacs are Retina, but because your eye glasses' prescription isn't giving you 20/20 vision.

Lots of assumptions are being made about me here. Assuming I've never seen a retina iPad (I own one). Assuming I have poor eyesight that requires a prescription (I have nearly 20/15 vision). What other assumptions about me do are there?

What is this "scientifically based" material you speak of? Apple, the creator of this retina terminology, defined it as I have said above. If you are referring to the equation that was displayed whilst Phil Schiller was on stage, which is the height of a pixel at a given viewing distance, that was probably a year (guessing) after Jobs "defined" retina on stage. You may cite this equation, but Apple sold tens of millions of retina devices before displaying it.

I think we're all on the same side here, but since Apple chose to blur the lines between marketing and science, so many people are fooled. If you can see an individual pixel at 24" away from my 27" iMac, I'd love to see your eye exam results. Just as a few of you have said to me "you are used to ignoring them", I say the opposite for you. I have vision that is well above average (documented), and I can't see a pixel until I get near a foot. Of course, I don't have an agenda, I'm just stating facts here. I want screens as amazing as my iPhone 4 or 3rd gen iPad, but to me, my iMac is already at retina level. Whatever that is.

 

[briansolomon]

OK, Now these are the kinds of upgrades that made me upgrade from iBook to Macbook. I think I'm ready to upgrade again. Very excited.

 

[usptact]

Again. Yet another 100$. I remember when MBP cost ~1500, then it passed to 1700. Now it will 1800-1900$

 

[derickdub]

I just hope retina will be available in an anti-glare option, or that there will at least be a hi-res anti-glare option available still.

There's no way I'm buying another MBP with a glossy display.

 

[thekev]

Retina +100
No DVD -100

And we are good to go

I edit to clarify mi post. When Apple removed the DVD from the Mac Mini, they dropped the price 100 bucks, so why not this time too?

Apple can set the price any way they want. In the case of the mini, dropping that from the design could have meant simplification of the case as well. Combined with other fluctuating cost factors, they may have determined the overall margin to be within what they were willing to accept. Keep in mind that the price drop was intentional though. If they didn't think it would sell more units $100 cheaper, it would have remained the same. It's much more of a balancing act than snippets from Apple PR and people who comment on macrumors wish to make it.

 

[neilpryde23]

Several rumours have pointed toward Sharp supplying screens to Apple, and they have recently started mass producing high resolution IGZO displays. IGZO appears to have the advantages of IPS, plus lower power use due to it blocking less light when showing bright areas, hence the backlight does not have to be so strong.

And regarding matte. Recent rumours have pointed to anti-reflective, not matte. Absorbing rather than refracting light means you get the sharpness of glossy, but without the reflections. I'm really hoping for anti-reflective as I hate the reflections.

Oh interesting! I knew that IGZO display had a much lower power consumption but I always thought IGZO and IPS weren't mutually exclusive, that IGZO was the material and IPS was the the technology to orient the crystals in a certain position. But if IGZO has a great viewing angle too, I'm very excited to see this display.

And I agree, I would love to see the anti-reflective display, even though it's rumored to be for the iMac and no word on the MBP

The next few weeks leading up to WWDC are going to be exciting as I imagine we're going to be getting a lot more rumors and maybe even leaked parts.

 

[xcfmx]

I too use a glossy iMac for design and some Matte LED displays. both show reflections...the glossy is harsher and you see it and adjust as needed. The Matte screens show reflections but are diffused and, as such, you don' notice it as easily and won't adjust/compensate and are then you have problems later on.

I've adjust each and work fine within the parameters of the office/room.

However, a laptop is used in many locations and I can see a matte option benefiting that customer more.

Remember when the glossy screen was an upgrade? I miss those days.

 

[InuNacho]

With the macbook pro getting a thinner design, does anybody know if the internals will still be user serviceable? HD, Ram upgrade?

Thats a pretty big concern that seems to get completely ignored. If the MBPs are moving towards an Air style housing, what happens to user serviceability? Would we be stuck with the 4GB of ram Apple solders onto the board and charge us $400 to get 8GB or will we be able to do that ourselves?

How about hard drives? Is there only going to be a blade SSD built into it that we can't upgrade or will there be a blade SSD and a regular 2.5 drive along with it?
These are pretty big issues that people seem to be ignoring.

 

[nelsonammo]

Don't they already make a crazy high profit margin on these MBPs already? I'm sure they can take a temporary cut in the margin until the price of these components comes down. The cheapest 15" MBP is $1800 which is pretty ridiculous as it is. The other 15" model is $2200, so you're paying $400 for a slightly better hard drive, video card and processor which probably only costs them no more than $100.

 

[ixodes]

This ought to be interesting. If it's anti-glare, I'm a buyer. If not, I'll pass. If Apple used glossy screens like other laptop manufacturers they wouldn't be so bad.

But the mirror like glass that Apple insists on using, only works under certain conditions. In a well lit office or by a window generates too much reflection for my usage. Tried one and returned it.

 

[MrXiro]

Thats a pretty big concern that seems to get completely ignored. If the MBPs are moving towards an Air style housing, what happens to user serviceability? Would we be stuck with the 4GB of ram Apple solders onto the board and charge us $400 to get 8GB or will we be able to do that ourselves?

How about hard drives? Is there only going to be a blade SSD built into it that we can't upgrade or will there be a blade SSD and a regular 2.5 drive along with it?
These are pretty big issues that people seem to be ignoring.

fingers crossed that it's pretty much similar internals as the current MBPs but in a thinner unibody frame due to the removal of the superdrive. Would love if it allowed for a 2nd hard drive slot to do a dual SSD or an SSD + HDD internal drive.

 

[blackhand1001]

Retina +100
No DVD -100

And we are good to go

I edit to clarify mi post. When Apple removed the DVD from the Mac Mini, they dropped the price 100 bucks, so why not this time too?

they didn't drop the price 100$ when they removed it. They actually raised it $100 one generation before they removed the drive. Before the new thinner but wider body style (who freaking cares how thin their desktop is, footprint matter more) it started at 499.99. They raised it to 599.99 when they made it thinner. Then the next refresh they took out the optical drive and left the price the same.

 

[Fredericks]

Is retina display for a laptop that important? My eyes always stay about 1.5 feet away from the screen when I use my laptop, and I don't see a single pixel at that range. But a phone is different, I could see the pixels when I look at tiny fonts when the display is not retina. Therefore, retina display for a phone is more useful then a laptop.
Having retina on a laptop would be a plus, but for $100? I don't think it's worth it unless you're constantly looking at the screen at an extremely close range.

 

[Rennir]

It's also the company who put out an iPad with a retina display at the same price as the old model.

Fair enough. But my guess is the elasticity of demand of an iPad is higher than that of a MacBook since its more of a luxury item as people do less "work" on it.

Also, an increase in price would be a larger percentage increase in price than in this situations.

I just don't see it happening. Apple is all about high profit margins. Why would they absorb the $100 cost if they don't need to?

 

[djrod]

they didn't drop the price 100$ when they removed it. They actually raised it $100 one generation before they removed the drive. Before the new thinner but wider body style (who freaking cares how thin their desktop is, footprint matter more) it started at 499.99. They raised it to 599.99 when they made it thinner. Then the next refresh they took out the optical drive and left the price the same.

I know.. It was 100 more for the aluminum unibody.

 

[OceanView]

Yes, please bring matt screens back.

 

[blackhand1001]

I know.. It was 100 more for the aluminum unibody.

Its so stupid. I just want a freaking desktop for the same price. Give it slightly faster parts since you don't need mobile parts and mobile cooling. I don't wanna hear any crap about how it wouldn't be a good experience. The mini is slower than what I am suggesting and they have no problem selling that to people. I don't need to compromise performance for form Factor in a desktop. My desktop has sat on the floor in the same spot for years.

 

[heisetax]

- Dvd drive
- express card slot
- ethernet port

+ retina display

ram are also cheaper now as compared to last year (unless they put more)

If Apple keeps the space & connections for a second internal hdd or ssd then I will not complain too much if Apple elects the DVD drive.

The express card slot is what keeps the MacBook Pro ahead of the iMac. Some of these Thunderbolt options for expansion cost $1,000 to much more than a $1,000. This is only on the 17" currently. But we still need it on the 17" model.

Ethernet Port is needed by many other people than just me. Wireless is not always best. Actually I love the dual Ethernet ports on my Mac Pro. I would be very unhappy if Apple got rid of the Ethernet Port on my new MacBook Pro. I know that by the rumors about new Macs they are trying to drive me away to the other side, but generally they have come through with many new good things.

A Hi DPI screen is always nicer. I'd like to see something in a larger screen like 37" or 42". The bigger the better. I've used my 30", both Apple & HP, displays for so long now that they are beginning to look small. I want more area to view. I'd take a larger screen first over a HiDPI screeen, but a combination of both would be the best.

 

[Ryth]

Its so stupid. I just want a freaking desktop for the same price. Give it slightly faster parts since you don't need mobile parts and mobile cooling. I don't wanna hear any crap about how it wouldn't be a good experience. The mini is slower than what I am suggesting and they have no problem selling that to people. I don't need to compromise performance for form Factor in a desktop. My desktop has sat on the floor in the same spot for years.

There are lots of us that want the mystical mid sized Mac Pro tower...unfortunately I don't think it's ever coming.

 

[Piggie]

But what res would a retina display have to be, when viewed at the "recommended" distance for a laptop?

A lot lower than the ppi for a phone and probably a fair bit lower than an iPad also.

 

[adder7712]

I don't want a thinner laptop (like the current MBPs aren't thin enough)...I just want a faster laptop.

 

[thekev]

Thats a pretty big concern that seems to get completely ignored. If the MBPs are moving towards an Air style housing, what happens to user serviceability? Would we be stuck with the 4GB of ram Apple solders onto the board and charge us $400 to get 8GB or will we be able to do that ourselves?

How about hard drives? Is there only going to be a blade SSD built into it that we can't upgrade or will there be a blade SSD and a regular 2.5 drive along with it?
These are pretty big issues that people seem to be ignoring.

You know.... if they become disposable computers, I just won't upgrade my laptop (as I mostly use a desktop anyway), and I'll decide what to do later. Personally I'd rather have an ipad with more/faster storage and an external drive connection as a mobile device along with a desktop and an array of displays. Not everyone is like that.

Don't they already make a crazy high profit margin on these MBPs already? I'm sure they can take a temporary cut in the margin until the price of these components comes down. The cheapest 15" MBP is $1800 which is pretty ridiculous as it is. The other 15" model is $2200, so you're paying $400 for a slightly better hard drive, video card and processor which probably only costs them no more than $100.

"Crazy high" is 100% irrelevant. If they could make it for $1 and sell every one of them at $1000, do you think they would charge less just to be nice? Apple like any other company is going to set the price based on their expectations. It will depend on their projected long term costs, sales forecasts, and other things. If they think a price increase would stifle volume too much, they can either adjust the components used (including the option to not use higher resolution panels) or eat a lower margin. Too many of you believe you have insight.


Your assessment on the 15" is also incorrect. Different hard drive, different gpu, and a different cpu. The cost varies considerably between some of those components. Google is your friend there as long as you know the appropriate cpu SKUs.

Fair enough. But my guess is the elasticity of demand of an iPad is higher than that of a MacBook since its more of a luxury item as people do less "work" on it.

Also, an increase in price would be a larger percentage increase in price than in this situations.

I just don't see it happening. Apple is all about high profit margins. Why would they absorb the $100 cost if they don't need to?

This is again way too simplified. They have some kind of price range they wish to maintain. They have some elasticity with acceptable margins. They aren't 100% static. Here are some possibilities. They don't implement these newer displays. They're available as an upgrade option. They hold back things like ram and drop other parts to make up for increased costs. They choose cheaper cpu models in their respective configurations assuming available skus. They upgrade resolution but stick to TN panels from LG to limit their costs. They put it off until Haswell.

There are so many possibilities of how this is handled, and you guys just want to make it into a single variable equation. Apple likes high margins, but they are going to balance this around how many they believe will sell. This includes both new purchasers and those who are upgrading.

 

[Jaro65]

2011. The year of iPad 2.

2012. The year of Retina Displays.

2013. The year of iPanel?