... It's easier to copy a file to an SD card than to burn a DVD to begin with...
----------
Matte screens have WORSE color repurduction... That's why Designers use Glossy duh.
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 $100 to Apple's MacBook Pro Costs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
... It's easier to copy a file to an SD card than to burn a DVD to begin with...
----------
Matte screens have WORSE color repurduction... That's why Designers use Glossy duh.
I know i've said this many times but I really really hope these displays incorporate In-Plane Switching (IPS)!! It would be a real shame to give the MBP's a 'Retina' display with a limited viewing angle because of a TN monitor. So far, the iPhone, iPad, iMac, and Thunderbolt screens all have IPS and look so great. Now let's add it to the Macbook Pro!!
Several rumours have pointed toward Sharp supplying screens to Apple, and they have recently started mass producing high resolution IGZO displays. IGZO appears to have the advantages of IPS, plus lower power use due to it blocking less light when showing bright areas, hence the backlight does not have to be so strong.
And regarding matte. Recent rumours have pointed to anti-reflective, not matte. Absorbing rather than refracting light means you get the sharpness of glossy, but without the reflections. I'm really hoping for anti-reflective as I hate the reflections.
It's funny too that most PC's buyers pay 3-400$ for a laptop when we pay at least 1199$! It's funny for them, obviously
In reality, probably so, but what djrod is alluding to is the Reality Distortion Field(TM) and how Apple retailed the SuperDrive as being a $100 option for far too long.
...in fact, if you go to the Apple Store:
On the Mac Pro, where a second SuperDrive is an option, you'll find that it is listed at a price of $100 ... today.
Similarly, the MacBook Air SuperDrive is ... "Add $79.00".
-hh
Exactly. There is basically a lack of adhering to those anymore...especially color temperatures, etc since a lot of video now is produced for view on the web as it's first viewing option. We get projects in from freelancers that their colors are so blown out in terms of being NTSC safe that we have to run them through a filter to bring them into 'legal' ranges. Remember even pure white is a no no for NTSC video. Most whites are actually supposed to be in the RGB of 235-240 range and nothing higher where pure white is 255.
That is correct but if you look at 0,0,0 on a matte screen and 0,0,0 on a glossy screen, that black is going to look different due to the reflections, light and so on.
It's basically a no-win situation. You can't 'design' for every device, profile and so on.
Which is why when we were talking about it the other day at work, we basically said, heck, glossy is probably going to become the norm now.
Discussions were the same when Apple dropped the 3.5" floppy and assorted interface ports - "I don't understand...some of us still use them...can't do XYZ without..." vs. "I haven't used one for years...solutions are cheap/easy/available...it's obsolete just not dead yet..."
Fact is most users don't use optical media much at all any more, and many (well, me) are doing so just to get remaining data off that media format and into massive storage. Likewise wired Ethernet ports: at this point they're just taking up space, even _requiring_ space which would not be available if the port weren't there (Ethernet port size is becoming a limiting factor on notebook thickness, demanding depth for something few people use and which a tiny USB dongle can replicate). The optical disc drive is taking up a whole lot of volume for a capability rarely used nowdays.
Given the practical obsolescence of a feature for most users, Apple doesn't keep it around long. Those still depending thereon can either find an alternate solution or catch up with the rest of us already who do without.
I completely discard the color profile when I work with images for my web design work. It makes it easier to match the hex codes when switching from photoshop to dreamweaver.
For people that ask for more screen real estate, I think with these retina screens you can set a resolution of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 (in normal dpi mode) with a very near native quality, because interpolation at these so high resolutions should work much better.
Does Apple announce their profit margins on individual product lines? I thought the ~30% numbers that tend to float around are just estimates people make based on the cost of parts vs. the price Apple charges, and it tends to leave out costs like warranty repairs and R&D.
My point is, if Apple took a hit on one product line's profit margin, they wouldn't announce it. Analysts would mention it, but... IDK, do comments from the shops that do the cost estimates do much to AAPL?
Not to mention the fact that Apple brings in much more money from their iOS product lines, do they not?
As far as I understand it, whether the monitor is glossy or not has nothing to do with the panel or its colour reproduction abilities. It's all about the panel and the electronics driving it. The glossy / non-glossy is just the coating on the cover over the panel. An aggressive anti-glare coating may impact the user's ability to see all of those colours, but not the monitor's ability to produce them.
Let's take a look at the Apple Thunderbolt Display and the Dell U2711. They are both using an LG panel and I believe it's actually the same panel, but obviously different electronics and also one is glossy and the other isn't.
LCD Colour Quality (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) higher is better
Dell U2711 - 95.69
Apple Thunderbolt Display - 76.1
Colour Tracking - XR Pro and Xrite i1D2 - Uncalibrated Average Delta E (200 nits - lower is better)
Dell U2711 - 2.24
ATD - 7.62
The ATD is pretty bad in comparison to its competitors out of the factory.
Colour Tracking - XR Pro and Xrite i1D2 - Calibrated Average Delta E (200 nits - lower is better)
Dell U2711 - 1.06
ATD - 1.63
The calibrated results are a lot closer, but the Dell is still better
By the way, the 30" ACD was even better when calibrated
ACD 30" Calibrated - 0.91
But it could only display 72.96% of AdobeRGB 1998
Now, I am no expert, but it seems to me that the non-glossy Dell is better at colour accuracy when measured using scientific and objective means.
Haha, I would love to correct you but I have no idea about it, I don't use my Mac in a professional way, all I know is what the professionals on here say about the screens and the majority prefer Matte screens. I would also think professionals need to consider the glass screen on the glossy models cause of the reflections.
Apple doesn't have it yet either though, so we could just as well be discussing this about PCs. Anyone that pays enough will be able to buy these screens from the OEMs.
Part of the problem with articles like this is that while these analysts can guess what the cost of the component is, or base it on cold enquiries with the manufacturer, they actually have no idea what Apple actually pays for the component.
When you have the buying power and cash that a company like Apple has, they have the negotiating power to dictate price to quite an extent. Apple has used this tactic very well over the years for everything from components to shipping to real estate.
In the case of a retina display over the current panels used, I would guess that the cost difference to Apple is significantly lower than this article suggests.
When you have the buying power and cash that a company like Apple has, they have the negotiating power to dictate price to quite an extent. Apple has used this tactic very well over the years for everything from components to shipping to real estate.
In the case of a retina display over the current panels used, I would guess that the cost difference to Apple is significantly lower than this article suggests.
I used to rough up my CRT screens with fine-grit sandpaper, thereby creating matte CRTs. The approach works with glossy LCD monitors, too. I admit, though, that it takes a lot of practice to master the technique, and you'll ruin a few monitors in the process.
But that's a different problem. If I turn off the screen I can't complain about it's lack of colors. What's my point? Lightning conditions may well make it such that we prefer one screen over another, but that doesn't mean the screen's colors are being inaccurately displayed. It just means we are using the screen is a suboptimal lighting environment.
I think it would be benificial for Apple to keep or even reduce the current cost of the Macbook, it'll help promote iOS application development (promoting a developer account and application submission to the app store) and will help to entice users into buying extra storage from iCloud.
If more users are creating applications for iOS, it'll help to promote the further sales of iOS devices which themselves sell for very high profit margins.
If more users are creating applications for iOS, it'll help to promote the further sales of iOS devices which themselves sell for very high profit margins.
But that's because the iPhone 4 is a huge leap from the 3GS. I'm not saying that a new MBP won't sell, just whether or not the Retina Display would be standard or a BYO add on.
If I was given the choice (being that I mainly us a laptop to write and surf) a MBP without Retina Display would have better battery life, faster graphics (for video rendering) and ALSO be cheaper over a similarly spec'd MBP with Retina. That appeals to me much more than having a laptop that just pushes more pixels.
I have the iPad 3rd gen and I love it. But if they would have given me the option of having Retina or over twice the battery life (due to battery size) and faster graphics (due to the A5X's quad-core gpu) I might stick with the lower resolution model. Imagine how fast the iPad would be if it didn't need to push 4X the pixels? To add "cheaper" onto that is an even bigger bonus.
And as a BYO option for those who are pixel-mongers they have the option to add it on for 100-200 bucks.
Just food for thought and my opinion.
Exactly, I seriously doubt Apple will change the pricing anyway, it puts such a big mark up on the computers at present they can swallow the cost anyway, but as you said the buying power they have will get a good deal.
Plus we have to remember that the cost for a component always drops year on year too.
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
These retina displays hopefully don't mean Apple will scrimp on the "physical" screen resolution. 2560x1600 retina is still only 1280x800 of physical space, which is still way too small.
The resolution on the 13" Pro is its biggest downfall, for me. The processor can handle what I need it for. The RAM can handle it. A crappy 5200 RPM hard drive can handle it. I don't even need a video card. But the 1280x800 just makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
I've said it before but hopefully these new displays will also mean more physical screen resolution. 1280x800 in retina is still 1280x800 for its purpose.
(**IF** I buy one of these updated Pros, it would probably be a 15" anyway purely for the bigger screen/res. At the minute, I have to make a decision on whether the lack of DVD drive is enough to stop me buying. I can buy an external, please don't bother telling me - they've been around for ages and ages, I am well aware. The debate is whether I'd have to carry that external drive around with me enough to get annoyed at the lack of an internal one.)
Of course, Apple would actually manage to charge us £100 extra, double America, as per usual
These retina displays hopefully don't mean Apple will scrimp on the "physical" screen resolution. 2560x1600 retina is still only 1280x800 of physical space, which is still way too small.
The resolution on the 13" Pro is its biggest downfall, for me. The processor can handle what I need it for. The RAM can handle it. A crappy 5200 RPM hard drive can handle it. I don't even need a video card. But the 1280x800 just makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
I've said it before but hopefully these new displays will also mean more physical screen resolution. 1280x800 in retina is still 1280x800 for its purpose.
(**IF** I buy one of these updated Pros, it would probably be a 15" anyway purely for the bigger screen/res. At the minute, I have to make a decision on whether the lack of DVD drive is enough to stop me buying. I can buy an external, please don't bother telling me - they've been around for ages and ages, I am well aware. The debate is whether I'd have to carry that external drive around with me enough to get annoyed at the lack of an internal one.)
The way most businesses work is that they decide on an overall target margin they want to achieve, knowing that they'll have to decrease their margin in some areas and increase it in others. I'm not saying that Apple won't charge a premium for Retina displays, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they will.
People are missing a key point: "retina" means taking resolution to a level where pixels don't matter to the user. "Size" becomes a matter of ruler on a screen, or percentage of that screen, because pixel count is so high & fine nobody notices nor cares. It will matter to those concerned with writing software actually putting pixels on that screen, but that becomes such a narrow field vs. everyone else not even thinking "pixels" any more.
Yes, indeed, it's up to the application to decide. The user won't care so long as it's big enough to see clearly.
I used to rough up my CRT screens with fine-grit sandpaper, thereby creating matte CRTs. The approach works with glossy LCD monitors, too. I admit, though, that it takes a lot of practice to master the technique, and you'll ruin a few monitors in the process.
That sounds like the worse advice I've ever heard!
I'm not doubting that it worked for you... but damn... it's like you're telling people that diving out of a helicopter into the ocean is a great idea... you've got a good chance of living.