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

[Ryth]

I still don't fully understand the move to get rid of the optical drive.
I know plenty of people who still use them to burn samples etc to CD or DVD.
I for one make use of it regularly!
A laptop is supposed to be mobile, and allow you to have a mobile office if you like. You shouldn't have to carry around too many accessories to make that mobile office as complete as possible.

Not everyone needs to burn CD/DVDs on the go. In fact, I'd say that market is so small that it's not even worth bothering. Most people either email, dropbox or use a USB stick.

I mean seriously the amount of data that can fit on a CD/DVD now is just a joke compared to file sizes out there now for a lot of us high end users. I can carry around a few 32GB or 64GB sticks for video/graphics or a little passport drive, which we do for shoots/post/etc. Most of our elements for post/graphics are delivered now on portable drives or via drop box. I don't think I've received a CD/DVD in probably 2-3 years. I can't even back up most projects even on a DVD now.

I'm sorry but DVD/CD are dated tech...you're really living in the past and just have to get over it.

----------

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.

We had an interesting discussion on this the other day. If most tech is moving towards glossy displays (iPhone, iPad, etc), then it's going to start to make sense that you design for 'glossy' displays as the norm. Kinda crazy but color standards have pretty much gone out the window for graphics/video, etc.

 

[r-m]

Not everyone needs to burn CD/DVDs on the go. In fact, I'd say that market is so small that it's not even worth bothering. Most people either email, dropbox or use a USB stick.

I mean seriously the amount of data that can fit on a CD/DVD now is just a joke compared to file sizes out there now for a lot of us high end users. I can carry around a few 32GB or 64GB sticks for video/graphics or a little passport drive, which we do for shoots/post/etc. Most of our elements for post/graphics are delivered now on portable drives or via drop box. I don't think I've received a CD/DVD in probably 2-3 years. I can't even back up most projects even on a DVD now.

I'm sorry but DVD/CD are dated tech...you're really living in the past and just have to get over it.

In part, I agree. I'm a big fan of Dropbox and USB sticks.
But not every consumer is totally tech savvy.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Kinda crazy but color standards have pretty much gone out the window for graphics/video, etc.

Are you suggesting colors aren't as accurate on glossy screens? If so, have any data? That sounds suspicious to me.

 

[kustardking]

$100 in part cost != $100 markup.

Totally right. I think we're looking at $200 - $250, like when you bump from low i5 to high i7.

 

[rcappo]

I would love to be able to upgrade my 17" MacBook Pro with the Retina matte screen.

It will be 4 to 5 years before I am in the market for a new laptop though. Dealing with giant 21MP digital images would work better with these new displays.

 

[apolloa]

Are you suggesting colors aren't as accurate on glossy screens? If so, have any data? That sounds suspicious to me.

I'm no expert but I can say that the majority of professionals on here would state a matte screen is much better for colour matching etc. I personally prefer a glossy screen cause of the way the colours look but I don't use it in a way requiring colour matching etc.

 

[gwelmarten]

Hmm - so maybe they'll introduce it as a configurable option, like the display coating. I'd like that - professionals can get the upgrade, whilst there is still the option to keep the price low with a standard display.

 

[samac92]

I'm no expert but I can say that the majority of professionals on here would state a matte screen is much better for colour matching etc. I personally prefer a glossy screen cause of the way the colours look but I don't use it in a way requiring colour matching etc.

I'm pretty sure colours should be more accurate on glossy screens. I might be wrong of course.

Edit: a quick google and people seem to disagree both ways, and some say with proper calibration it doesn't matter. So who knows.

 

[cgk.emu]

Are you suggesting colors aren't as accurate on glossy screens? If so, have any data? That sounds suspicious to me.

I didn't read the comment as a direct assault on the color accuracy of glossy screens...rather a comment on how digital content in general isn't adhering to traditional color profiles that designers took very seriously.

 

[mobi]

This is sweet! Hints hints hints...

 

[Liddle]

It's funny that we discuss resolutions such as 2560x1600 for a 13" screen, where most PC's have 1366x768 in their 15" screen.

 

[Ryth]

Are you suggesting colors aren't as accurate on glossy screens? If so, have any data? That sounds suspicious to me.

What I'm saying is that you use to design on a color calibrated monitor that is matte. And I'm also talking about color bars /standards for video also...where color temperatures would not exceed a certain level. An example is the reds/yellows you see on say your computer/youtube for many things, etc would never be 'legal' for a television...those colors would have to be 'toned' down for NTSC viewing...but we don't design just for TV anymore and for a lot of things, television is becoming the minority viewing device...over mobile, tablets and so on. In fact, I'd reckon to say many new young video people don't even know about color bars if they've only been making web docs/web videos and so on.

With everything now going to mobile devices, youtube and so on, and with viewing being mainly done on glossy screens for the majority of these devices, the argument for AGAINST designing on a glossy monitor really doesn't hold much weight anymore...and some could argue that you should be moving TO a glossy display so you can have the same display as your target audience.

Are you suggesting colors aren't as accurate on glossy screens? If so, have any data? That sounds suspicious to me.

I believe colors on a glossy display are considered more saturated, richer and brighter. (well sorta obvious there =P )

 

[neilpryde23]

IPS too??

I know i've said this many times but I really really hope these displays incorporate In-Plane Switching (IPS)!! It would be a real shame to give the MBP's a 'Retina' display with a limited viewing angle because of a TN monitor. So far, the iPhone, iPad, iMac, and Thunderbolt screens all have IPS and look so great. Now let's add it to the Macbook Pro!!

 

[WakeUpDrunk]

retina made me blind

 

[ctdonath]

There's never any news about a retina display Mac mini!

Oh wait...

...that's what the 4K iTelevision is for.

 

[Ryth]

In part, I agree. I'm a big fan of Dropbox and USB sticks.
But not every consumer is totally tech savvy.

I'd say a consumer would have an easier time copying to a USB stick then actually backing up to DVD/CD.

In terms of dropbox...yah...not saying that for an every day user, Im saying more for the argument of needing to back up/deliver assets.

 

[JohnDoe98]

I'm no expert but I can say that the majority of professionals on here would state a matte screen is much better for colour matching etc. I personally prefer a glossy screen cause of the way the colours look but I don't use it in a way requiring colour matching etc.

Sure but that isn't a problem inherent to glossy or matte screens. It has to do with the color profile that is being configured by Apple. Do correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[dustinsc]

"Retina", according to Apple, just means that the eye is unable to see individual pixels at a normal viewing distance. Every MacBook, iMac, and Apple display is already "retina".

Nope. From where I'm sitting looking at my 13" MBP, I can easily tell that the I on my Safari tabs is exactly 2 pixels wide. I can see the pixels on the triangular back and forward buttons. Your brain has just gotten used to ignoring the pixels.

 

[JohnDoe98]

I didn't read the comment as a direct assault on the color accuracy of glossy screens...rather a comment on how digital content in general isn't adhering to traditional color profiles that designers took very seriously.

Ah, that's a good charitable interpretation, and then he/she has a good point.

 

[khovland92]

Apple could take the hit and absorb the costs and make all monitors retina for the same price and people would scream for joy and buy them up.

However, they could charge $100 premium and people will scream for joy and buy them up.

Therefore, they will not absorb the costs.


WAIT, what is the price increase for the iPad retina display?

Exactly. Macs already are somewut overpriced anyway. They are cool. I have a macbook pro. But its more of a nifty thing then anything else. Plus doing games on it is a hassle (which I recognize that gaming isn't why most people buy computers, but it does cancel out macs). Adding a super high rez screen would give the macbook's a certain quality thats hard to find on PC.

THERFOR this should come at no price increase. If apple wanted to make their platform even more appealing, they would cut the prices by 100 and throw in the retina screens. Make the ecosystem more popular.

 

[ralphthemagi]

This.

I don't want retina, i want 1680x1050 for the 13'', 1920x1200 for the 15'' and 2560x1600 for the 17'' models. That would be a real improvement, high DPI is just not as important as screen realestate.

High DPI increases screen real estate for non-UI elements. Only the UI elements get pixel doubled. Photos and videos don't. An application like a browser might, but you can always zoom out (giving you more real estate).

In essence, it's up to the application to determine whether or not it's going to show you a 100x100 image in 100x100 pixel space or 200x200 pixel space.

 

[5aga]

Sure but that isn't a problem inherent to glossy or matte screens. It has to do with the color profile that is being configured by Apple. Do correct me if I'm wrong though.

mostly true. The first thing I do with a new Mac is calibrate the color. Apple's tends to be blown out, but I think its due to the artificial "darkness" glossy screens add.

 

[JohnDoe98]

...that's what the 4K iTelevision is for.

Enough with this nonsense. 1080P TVs are already Retina. What's the point of a 4K TV if you can't even discern detail beyond the 2K TVs? You think if they make 4K TVs people will suddenly sit 3 feet away instead of 6-10?

 

[Shanpdx]

with $100 billion, you can do a lot.

do not pass it to us!

 

[NewbieCanada]

In part, I agree. I'm a big fan of Dropbox and USB sticks.
But not every consumer is totally tech savvy.

True, but that in itself doesn't oblige Apple to design its products for the people who cater to them, especially if it's more profitable for them to not do it.