We're talking about the company that charges $200 for 4GB extra RAM hereI doubt they'll absorb the costs.
that is upgrade.
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.
Retina-Resolution Displays to Add Up to $100 to Apple's MacBook Pro Costs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
that is upgrade.
Unless I missed earlier parts of the discussion (and to be honest, I didn't go past page 9 or 10 [starting from the last page]), you must be a huge, huge, huge fanboy to believe that Apple was the first to exclude the ODD from a laptop and that they're so innovative as to "lay the road map for everyone else"
So unless you were born the day the MBA was launched and don't know any better, do yourself a favor and research the Sony 505 series, the Sony X505, various netbooks over the last 5-6 years, and other assorted laptops and ultraportables over the last decade and a half. Too cute.
Regarding the article:
They have a big profit margin to play with. MBPs are really, really expensive in my opinion (for what you get hardware-wise). Plus, costs can be saved in other areas to make up for it. I don't see the price increasing
I'm not so sure Apple would raise prices due to the more expensive screen. I mean, weren't some people saying the same thing about the iPad 3 before it was released?
I think Apple must be making a pretty nice profit per MacBook Pro and will absorb the extra cost. It would not be like them to raise prices (besides currency fluctuations for non U.S. customers).
In the long run the price for the retina displays will likely come down anyway.
I think Apple must be making a pretty nice profit per MacBook Pro and will absorb the extra cost. It would not be like them to raise prices (besides currency fluctuations for non U.S. customers).
In the long run the price for the retina displays will likely come down anyway.
I think he was trying to get at the fact that Apple pretty much defined the class of ultrabooks, not netbooks.
If I'm reading that post correctly.
----------
I'd imagine that in this case they would; they already make a pretty healthy profit off of each Macbook Pro they sell, decreasing that slightly in exchange for increased value (and therefore an increase in potential buyers) would more than pay off.
If rumors are true then we will see a thinner, lighter, Retina, USB3, with dual thunderbolt. Of course SSD drive all around I say 256GB will be minimum and some kind of glass that has some anti-glare property if I am not mistaken.
At least that is all the rumors that seem to have some plausibility. So I don't need one but considering all that your getting, and lets not forget people, OS X which considering I don't have to use windows at all, I will pay extra just for that.
----------
iOS on OS X is perfection in my book, now please put Siri in there and I will be one happy camper.
----------
Would that be the Windows consumer does not care or the OS X consumer does not care. Windows users sure they don't care, they don't care about a lot of things. Mac users care, my mother in law is hyped about seen her future iMac having a Retina like view so whom are you talking about, it sure is not Mac users.
----------
The problem with the matted is going to go away soon enough I am sure they are working to deal with that problem, I believe there was even rumors here to that effect. Personally I do not care about the glare issue I can hardly ever tell on my plasma tv or iMac.
At least that is all the rumors that seem to have some plausibility. So I don't need one but considering all that your getting, and lets not forget people, OS X which considering I don't have to use windows at all, I will pay extra just for that.
----------
First they try to ruin OS X with iOS features and now we have to deal with subpar i-device displays. What a load. Apple needs to step up to the plate on this one, or I'm done.
iOS on OS X is perfection in my book, now please put Siri in there and I will be one happy camper.
----------
Would that be the Windows consumer does not care or the OS X consumer does not care. Windows users sure they don't care, they don't care about a lot of things. Mac users care, my mother in law is hyped about seen her future iMac having a Retina like view so whom are you talking about, it sure is not Mac users.
----------
The problem with the matted is going to go away soon enough I am sure they are working to deal with that problem, I believe there was even rumors here to that effect. Personally I do not care about the glare issue I can hardly ever tell on my plasma tv or iMac.
Maybe they will just put a retina display in, and keep the SSD for the next generation when its price gets cheaper. Just maybe.
I was excited to see more Mac rumors these couple of days, but it has now become more of Retina rumors rather than Mac rumors
Regarding the gloss - there was a rumor ( I know ) that they might put some anti reflective coating on the glass.
) that they might put some anti reflective coating on the glass.
True. Quite the contrary of what people feel about Retina Display hype. It's certainly no use for being an early adopter of Retina MBP or even iPad.
It needs quite a long time before icons, UI, and overall apps to follow high DPI standard on both iOS and Mac. The only thing that looks good on retina will be native apps by Apple It takes maybe around 1 year for 3rd party devs to catch up. That's a long time, and when the time comes you might wanna sell your "old" retina MBP or iPad
You need to give it more time to be matured. iPhone 4 was the first Apple product to have Retina Display, and it needed a couple of months before apps catch up and freed from non Retina resolution/
Apple is already raping people for a hi-res option aren't they? nearly £100!
Also even more for a matt option...
Apple has raped its customers for long enough on the MBP
How much is 8gb ram again? ROFL.
a 256gb SSD???? LOL
Tell you what apple.... Forget raping your loyal customer base with stupid upgrades for stupid money
AND GIVE ME A GPU UPGRADE WORTH BUYING.
Also even more for a matt option...
Apple has raped its customers for long enough on the MBP
How much is 8gb ram again? ROFL.
a 256gb SSD???? LOL
Tell you what apple.... Forget raping your loyal customer base with stupid upgrades for stupid money
AND GIVE ME A GPU UPGRADE WORTH BUYING.
Apple will keep their prices even if the components get cheaper over the years. Just look at their current business model. Do they ever lower their prices during the life cycle of a product? No. You pay the same price for the product when they launch it, and when they retire it.
There is a reason Apple has the highest profit margins in the industry. The one above is an example. They can easily increase the price of the new retina laptops with $100 and get away with it.
I didn't make many assumptions. I made one. I never said anything about the iPad. If others did, reply to their posts. Here you are replying to my post. My conjecture was that your prescription wasn't 20/20, and here you confirm that by saying your vision is nearly 20/15. I'll come back to this point in a minute.
Well you can do your own research concerning visual acuity and the limits of what the human eye can discern, but this is a good first look:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/visual-acuity/
Yes, I am referring to that equation, since it was extracted from the research on optics. It doesn't matter if Apple sold millions of Retina devices before displaying that equation, what matters is whether or not the equation is accurate and true. It is. It is also the basis for Apple defining Retina as they did.
How did they blur it? Is your claim that the equation isn't true? You have any research showing something wrong with the scientific studies upon which the claim is based? Or are you claiming Apple's devices don't meet the very standards they claimed it does? I don't see one iota of evidence coming from you to substantiate either of these, and so far as I can tell, they are blatantly false.
What I can see is immaterial to the issue at hand. I'm telling you what no human can see, and I am basing my claim on the most recent research in optics.
First off, something may be, or may not be retina to you, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about a standard that Apple introduced and which is scientifically based, a standard with a very precise mathematical formula. You can change the meaning of the term if you like, you can contest the standard, but no one will listen to your point of view unless you base it on facts and evidence rather than turn this into a subjective idiosyncrasy. I can refine the definition of a meter or light if I want, but that is uninteresting to anyone who wants to walk about those things.
Second, concerning your vision, you claim it is "above average". Truth be told, I don't know what that means. What I do know is that 20/20 vision is considered "normal" and "optimal" visual acuity, it is the standard by which all other vision is compared. If your vision is 20/25, 20/30, 20/35 etc., then an optometrist will diagnose your vision as myopic. That means you cannot see clearly objects at a distance. The more you deviate from 20/20, the worse it gets. If your vision is 20/15, 20/10, etc., then your vision is diagnosed as hyperopic. That means you cannot discern fine details at close distances as well as a 20/20 person can, but you do better at larger distances. Just like a myopic person has above average close range vision, he has below average long range vision; by contrast a hyperopic person has above average long range vision but below average close range vision. So, it is no wonder you cannot see the pixels at close range on your iMac. Thanks for confirming my conjecture. Whether or not you choose to use corrective lenses to bring your vision to the standard is irrelevant. Also, I don't care if you prefer to have 20/15 vision, or if you can accommodate the refractive error in your visual system using your muscles. That is all immaterial to the point at issue.
iMacs do not meet the standard introduced. Punch in the numbers into that mathematical formula and the result is iMacs are not Retina. End of story.
Last edited:
Some would be more excited or interested in a new display where a laptop provides mostly just a confidence monitor. A display with a back pluggable cable assembly of your choice, so one could easily pick one with i.e. a DVI plug, mini DVI or thunderbolt, etc. Matte or glossy - your choice.
Forget extra cost, the upcoming MBPs should hit the market with a lower price than the outgoing models. This is 2012. Raping people can only go a limited distance.
Forget extra cost, the upcoming MBPs should hit the market with a lower price than the outgoing models. This is 2012. Raping people can only go a limited distance.
MacBook Pro
Remind me again why they can't use carbon fibre - to reduce thickness. Just the aesthetics?
Remind me again why they can't use carbon fibre - to reduce thickness. Just the aesthetics?
Watched a program about a great chef. The way to make money is to create a meal worth $100 from food that costs $10. You can do that if you are a really good chef. Even though the parts cost only $10, the finished result is worth the $100 price tag.
Apple's "secret" to success is to build a laptop that is _worth_ $1800 or $2200 with parts that only cost let's say a lot less. It's really simple: If you think it isn't worth $1800, then you don't buy it. If it is worth $1800, you buy it. What the parts cost doesn't matter.
The situation would be different if there was a monopoly involved, but there are dozens of competitors who are quite willing to sell you laptops at different prices. There's someone who sells a laptop for $400. If you end up paying $1800 for a MBP instead of buying the $400 laptop, then that _proves_ that the price is Ok.
I'd probably pay an extra £50, which is roughly what $100 is in GBP.
Of course, Apple would actually manage to charge us £100 extra, double America, as per usual
$100 is about £63. With VAT added it is £75. Then you add the additional cost of UK consumer protection laws (you didn't think that getting problems fixed for two years or more is coming for free), you are at about £80 which is about the exchange rate that Apple uses. So your "$100 is £50" is nonsense, and the "Apple would charge us £100" is nonsense.
However, if anyone thinks that paying $100 more for parts only results in a $100 price change, they should stay away from ever starting any business.
Last edited:
I would pay 100 for a retina display.
But as the second poster said, no ODD needed.
Instead a second HDD space would be a lot better.
But as the second poster said, no ODD needed.
Instead a second HDD space would be a lot better.
Wait. What? The 13 inch pro is being discontinued?! I haven't heard this anywhere. If anything, i would've assumed they'd let go of the 17 inch, but the 13? That appeals to a wide demographic of people on the go needing a more portable laptop
I don't understand what you're saying. Does that mean you can use it as a real 2560x1600 display? But then that'd be too high res and everything would be too small.
13" needs something like 1650x1050 as an option, or at least 1440x900 to get more space to use.
also, the 27" imac is already pretty close to retina - http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/ - as is the high res option for the 15" MBP
Last edited:
The point is the resolution you will run is not being materially affected by the inclusion of Retina displays. You can turn off HiDPI mode if you want. Hopefully when it is turned off Apple will allow people who want greater screen real estate to select higher resolutions for their work environment, but whether they give that additional option to consumers is a distinct point than the one pertaining to the introduction of Retina. In other words, Retina doesn't preclude 13" laptops from using 1650x1050 or 1440x900. Apple may still not give you that option, though hopefully they will. At least, that's how it seems to me. As always, please correct me if I'm wrong.
There's no reason for Apple to not support resolutions lower than the optimal max of the display, as they presently do. If you purchase a 17" MBP, you can use all standardised resolutions without hassle from 1920x1200 all the way down to 640x480. Hence, if you purchase a 2560x1600 13" MBP, there's no reason 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 won't be supported as an easily selectable option in the OS.