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
I can easily see pixelation on Macbook and iMac screens. Can't wait for the retina revolution!
We're talking about the company that charges $200 for 4GB extra RAM here
This really is all just speculation. The thing is that there's more than just costs that set the price. They try to guess how many they can sell at a given price point. Regarding your example of the macbook air, that's for both the ram and hard drive upgrade, and it's toward the end of the cycle. It was high last year. At this point it's starting to look ridiculous. With the possible exception of a netbook, I don't think any computer running a modern desktop OS (clarification for the trolls) should ship with 2GB of ram in 2012. It does slow things down. If you're not doing any heavy work, which you wouldn't be on that computer anyway, the SSD might make up for it. If your drive gets too full, that becomes even more of an issue, and it's a real possibility with a 64 GB drive (not sure of usable formatted capacity).
I'm not sure they'll move entirely to SSDs. My guess would be either a cheap SSD option or a base SSD with a cheap 1TB HDD option. They won't make SSDs standard unless they're using something that costs roughly what they were paying for an HDD when the last generation debuted. This means your You can't really compare costs at the end of a cycle to costs at the beginning when they amortize over the entire cycle at the same price point. They also have the advantage that if they stick with 4GB of ram (which they probably will), their ram cost will be next to nothing. Ram has gotten really cheap. If they are removing the optical and/or whatever ports, you save both costs on the parts and labor cutting out those areas and installing them. Before anyone mentions retooling the line, that's something that happens either way, and considering the volume of macbook pros/airs, it should be absorbed fairly quickly.
What would seem like a big problem is if so many people really are returning ipads looking for a perfect screen. Once returned they can't sell the item as new anymore. If anything, that is eating into margins, but their numbers keep growing so no one will remember that a year from now.
The stock shot way up, and people most likely started cashing in. Considering it's still on the macs (which make up a decreasing percentage of profits, although they help hold you in the Apple dungeon/ecosystem) , I don't think you're correct. They did raise the price when they transitioned to the unibody enclosures. There are different ways they could go with this assuming they actually hit macbooks this year (and the technology is still under baked, so that wouldn't really make me want one). It could be an upgrade like they do with the high res currently on the 15". The high res on the 15" should really be standard, and you could make that one the new high res. I really wish they'd stop calling it "retina" though. The math isn't as simple as people on here think. It just makes for pretty marketing materials.
This is one of those misunderstood things. What tends to be considered "accurate" is somewhat relative to an accepted standard regarding color temperature values and gamma encoding within a certain level of tolerance. None of them are really perfect in this regard, but displays are basically designed to look good. If you use your macbook every day for a year at the same settings. At the end the colors will have shifted, and the display will be dimmer. You're unlikely to notice because it's a gradual effect. If he's finding colors seem less accurate on glossy, it's most likely because the reflections are not completely monochrome, and your eyes can't really separate them entirely. You think they can, but there's still some bias in terms of perception.
None of mine (IBM, Sony, Viewsonic) were shiny. I recall them more as semi-mat. Also their screens were curved so they didn't reflect the same way as a huge flat panel of glass.
macbook
I think the new lineup will reflect Apple's naming the iPad, just the new iPad. I see Macbook Air and Macbook Pro names going away and name Macbook taking place of all sizes. 11", 13" and 15". No 17"
I think the new lineup will reflect Apple's naming the iPad, just the new iPad. I see Macbook Air and Macbook Pro names going away and name Macbook taking place of all sizes. 11", 13" and 15". No 17"
"Overpriced" is a subjective thing, and can't be based purely on component mark-up costs. Given Apple's enormous financial success over the past few years and their expanding user base, it would seem that most people find Apple products to be fairly priced. Even "coolness" is a value-add for many people. At the moment, I don't see much incentive for Apple to lower prices if it would adversely affect their overall profit margin. But I won't complain if they do.
I would not be surprised at all to see 15-20% price increases, normalized for part costs due mainly to currency destruction from Federal fiscal and monetary policy. Apple prices in US Dollars.
If the displays are $90 more, the SSD $200 more, the Intel chip $40 less, and memory $100 more we might see a 15" Good with 15% baseline currency debasement go from $1799 to $2399. But it would have stock SSD, 8gb memory, maybe an auxiliary HD, a retina display, and advanced graphics.
I remember paying well over $5k for Powerbooks and that was with dollars that were a whole bunch more valuable than now.
I wish they came with LTE and a second SSD slot.
Rocketman
If the displays are $90 more, the SSD $200 more, the Intel chip $40 less, and memory $100 more we might see a 15" Good with 15% baseline currency debasement go from $1799 to $2399. But it would have stock SSD, 8gb memory, maybe an auxiliary HD, a retina display, and advanced graphics.
I remember paying well over $5k for Powerbooks and that was with dollars that were a whole bunch more valuable than now.
I wish they came with LTE and a second SSD slot.
Rocketman
Last edited:
Graphics ?
My biggest fear is graphics performance. Mac has never been cutting edge on GPUs (IMO), and now you will be pushing as many pixels as a 27 inch monitor with a mobile GPU. Hmmmmm?
I'm still longing for an upgrade option for my very dated 5870 in my Pro, and that was the top offering - two years ago, and still is. Similar fears for Retina desktop monitors being pushed by Apple laptop or desktop GPU offerings.
My biggest fear is graphics performance. Mac has never been cutting edge on GPUs (IMO), and now you will be pushing as many pixels as a 27 inch monitor with a mobile GPU. Hmmmmm?
I'm still longing for an upgrade option for my very dated 5870 in my Pro, and that was the top offering - two years ago, and still is.
Similar fears for Retina desktop monitors being pushed by Apple laptop or desktop GPU offerings.I tried a friend's the other day. The screen looked nice. What I really remember is all of the smudges and finger prints on the screen after it was passed around awhile. Ugh, no thanks touch screens. That goes for you too, Metro!
It's funny how you're spreading misinformation.
Actually, the first CRTs were curved because of technical limitations. They had to be outwards-curved in order to withstand the pressure of air from the outside, since there is vacuum inside. As CRTs progressed, the glass was made stronger and they were able to start making flat CRTs, which were primarily an advantage PRECISELY because they generated less glare/reflections, since a flat surface reflects less area than a curved one.
If the cost of the display to Apple is $90 more, what do you think will it add to the retail price?
My biggest fear is graphics performance. Mac has never been cutting edge on GPUs (IMO), and now you will be pushing as many pixels as a 27 inch monitor with a mobile GPU. Hmmmmm?
I'm still longing for an upgrade option for my very dated 5870 in my Pro, and that was the top offering - two years ago, and still is.
Which is why I hope they offer something more then the GT650M and instead offer the GTX660-675M
I've seen many people express concern that the retina screen may overtax any video card. I'm no hardware expert, but this would only be true if you were running at "retina" resolutions, correct? If you set the resolution to, say, 1440x900 the fact that the screen is "retina", and capable of much more, wouldn't hamper performance at that lower resolution, correct?
Correct. If you were trying to run a game at like 2880x1800, that would tax the card hard...but if you went into 1920x1080 or ran it in windowed mode at that resolution, I believe it would be ok.
But I still think they need to offer the highest end GPU in there...the GTX series.
Last edited:
That may well be the problem here. I hope they still offer a 15" non-Retina hi res option, like a 1900 x something 1 to 1 display and not just a shiny new 2x retina display. That would be a step backwards from the current hi res option (which I'm passing on because it's no real improvement over my current PC laptop at about 125 ppi).
We're talking about the company that charges $200 for 4GB extra RAM here
It's also the company who put out an iPad with a retina display at the same price as the old model.
Actually it is innovating.
Have you noticed that whatever Apple does, others follow. That is being the innovative leader in your field.
You don't have to 'create' something...you have to be the one to really first do it to be innovative. Apple does exactly this.
Just deal with the fact that most people are not using ODD, certain ports anymore and move into the future. Or are you still complaining that the horse and buggy got replaced by the automobile.
We're talking about laptops here where the screen is going to be under various light sources.
Even if it were a stationary LCD, I still prefer matte as there is always less glare. Look into the Dell U2410.
Please don't spread misinformation.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I have both a matte screen and glossy screen. When looking at both with the same image, the glossy screen's color is a bit more saturated (although not as much as I thought it would be). But not too bad. Plus the glossy screen wasn't calibrated.
But to say "Matte screens have WORSE color reproduction and that's why designers use glossy duh" is just plain ignorant. A properly calibrated matte screen will give you accurate colors matching CMYK printing. And I'm sure the same is true with a glossy screen.
Besides, and this is subjective, matte screens are preferable since they don't act like a mirror. I hope Apple ditches the gloss screen for the MacBook Pro. I don't need to be looking in a mirror.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I have both a matte screen and glossy screen. When looking at both with the same image, the glossy screen's color is a bit more saturated (although not as much as I thought it would be). But not too bad. Plus the glossy screen wasn't calibrated.
But to say "Matte screens have WORSE color reproduction and that's why designers use glossy duh" is just plain ignorant. A properly calibrated matte screen will give you accurate colors matching CMYK printing. And I'm sure the same is true with a glossy screen.
Besides, and this is subjective, matte screens are preferable since they don't act like a mirror. I hope Apple ditches the gloss screen for the MacBook Pro. I don't need to be looking in a mirror.
