rMBP, what's next?

[WhiteIphone5]

OK, so im pretty sure some of you guys thought about the rMBP when the iPhone 4 was introduced with Retina display. I thought about it, that some day we will have it and look now. Anyways, ok how do you improve this gorgeous display? more colours and a brighter display? lets say thats the "Next big macbook", has advanced flash storage? and what else? i cant think how apple can make it better, im sure in a year or two we will see spec bumps. But there will be that day that a totally new Macbook Pro comes. Im just wondering, What's next? obviously we dont know as we dont work for apple. But i just want to hear what y'all got to say.

 

[DesertEagle]

Matte-option for the 13-inch.

 

[johnnnw]

It's honestly a dream of mine to have a Retina non soldered laptop. I wish so bad they just put a nice screen on the normal MBP body. Easily upgradable.

It'll never happen but god dammit I wish sooooo bad. Would buy it instantly.

 

[Radiating]

Matte-option for the 13-inch.

The display is multicoated. This reduces glare far better than a matte coating as it absorbs reflections instead of blurring them. Matte coating costs 3 cents, multi coating costs $30.

 

[jbruce2112]

Good question.

Simple spec bumps will allow it to one day drive an external retina display if it can't already.

I'm thinking along the lines of convergence with ios devices, although that may be misguided thinking for a pro machine. Either way, things like true all day battery life, integrated cellular antennae, and a more voice-driven interface seem like computing goals Apple wants to being to all of their devices.

I see the airs and pros being combined into one line eventually too. That'll be pretty cool, actually. A simple "MacBook".

Maybe even a move to an Apple chip at some point?

 

[theuserjohnny]

Good question.

Simple spec bumps will allow it to one day drive an external retina display if it can't already.

I'm thinking along the lines of convergence with ios devices, although that may be misguided thinking for a pro machine. Either way, things like true all day battery life, integrated cellular antennae, and a more voice-driven interface seem like computing goals Apple wants to being to all of their devices.

I see the airs and pros being combined into one line eventually too. That'll be pretty cool, actually. A simple "MacBook".

Maybe even a move to an Apple chip at some point?

This is what I also see happening next for the Macbook lineup.

Right now I think they'll just give it a spec bump and as technology allows for the computers to get thinner they'll slowly become as thin as the Air and just be called the Macbook.

I can also see Apple developing and creating their own chip so that they can move away from Intel similar to how they've created their own chip for the iPhone. This would ensure that Apple can create what they need to work with their software specifically.

 

[Asuriyan]

From a technical standpoint, shrinking die sizes are going to be the most beneficial thing for a laptop of this configuration. With a tiny body, the only way to get more power without increasing the TDP is to keep those nanometers peeling away. I can't wait to see the kind of power the first rMBP packing 10nm silicon will carry- but that's still a few years away.

I agree that the lack of serviceability is going to be a stain on Apple's reputation and that it will drive a certain percentage of customers away, but I think that's an acceptable price for them to pay (from their perspective) to deliver such a refined product.

My next Retina MacBook will have a Skylake CPU, 32GB or more of DDR4, an nVidia Maxwell (or even Volta) GPU, WiFi AC, and by then I'll finally have replaced my 2005 Cinema Display with the second gen Thunderbolt Display. If all of that comes in the exact chassis I have sitting before me now (and odds are it will not be far from that) I'll be quite content. That's a computer worth waiting for- screw all this hubbub about Haswell.

 

[Abazigal]

I am hoping to see quad-core haswell processors in the 13" MBP this year. That should help alleviate the lack of a dedicated graphics card.

Otherwise, it is in essence a laptop with a high-res screen. Not sure what can be done to make a laptop any more "laptop-ish".

 

[splitpea]

The display is multicoated. This reduces glare far better than a matte coating as it absorbs reflections instead of blurring them. Matte coating costs 3 cents, multi coating costs $30.

Or you could just omit the front glass panel as with the 15" hi-res matte displays and most LCD panels made prior to about 2009.

 

[skaertus]

OK, so im pretty sure some of you guys thought about the rMBP when the iPhone 4 was introduced with Retina display. I thought about it, that some day we will have it and look now. Anyways, ok how do you improve this gorgeous display? more colours and a brighter display? lets say thats the "Next big macbook", has advanced flash storage? and what else? i cant think how apple can make it better, im sure in a year or two we will see spec bumps. But there will be that day that a totally new Macbook Pro comes. Im just wondering, What's next? obviously we dont know as we dont work for apple. But i just want to hear what y'all got to say.

Next? Next refresh, next year, next redesign? What do you mean by "next"?

Here's how I see it. Apple will refresh the rMBP line this year with Haswell processors, and next year with Broadwell, and then will come Skylane and Skymount and so on. The MBA will be refreshed with Haswell processors and someday, maybe in 2013 or 2014, it will also get a retina display, together with a redesign. The iMac may eventually get a retina display in the next redesign, which may occur in 2015, 2016 or 2017, who knows, when the technology is cheap and mature enough to allow such big displays and very high resolutions at a reasonable price.

Someday, Apple may choose to merge OS X and iOS so there is only one operating system to run on all its machines. Apple may also choose one architecture to drive all its devices - Intel or ARM. At this pace, it seems that Apple would shift Macs to ARM architecture in the future, abandoning Intel which has been with the company since 2006. It's not going to happen in 2013 or 2014, and it may never happen. But depending on how ARM architecture evolves - and they do have big plans - then it may well take over the world. At least the Apple world.

Apple may release an iTV or an iWatch, and - just my guess - I think an iTV sounds much more Apple-like. An iWatch could be something of very bad taste, unless it is executed in a really brilliant manner.

Said that, I guess that the next redesigns of the MBP and MBA lines (after both get a retina display) will see something very different from what we have now. We'll see thinner screens that consume far less power (perhaps IGZO), thinner bezels, and probably different materials. While aluminium gives a premium look, it's also heavier than a lot of other materials which are also more resistant. Carbon fiber or magnesium allow are lighter and may be more suitable for laptops than aluminium.

Of course this is all speculation. At this point, Apple should have an idea of what will come next, but it should be far from finished...

 

[Zeov]

Faster graphics
Better CPU
More storage
Less heat
More battery life
Better sound quality
Faster ports (usb 4.0 thunderbolt 2.0 etc)
eGPU
Sim Card for internet on your laptop
bigger screen space while not increasing the laptop size.

 

[fskywalker]

At some point imagine they will add a touch sensitive Retina display, just like the one on the Ipad's

 

[printz]

Smooth graphics, for Christ's sake. You know something is wrong when your new rMBP is choppier than the entry-level white MacBook. I wonder if cMBPs are also smooth as butter, in comparison with rMBP. If Windows didn't suck as much on laptops, I'd use it more, at least it's smooth.

 

[UBS28]

The display is multicoated. This reduces glare far better than a matte coating as it absorbs reflections instead of blurring them. Matte coating costs 3 cents, multi coating costs $30.

No it's not. I can see myself on the rMBP in light enviroments but on my 2010 15" Samsung Matte display MBP I don't have that problem.

There is still noticeable glare.

 

[Stetrain]

Or you could just omit the front glass panel as with the 15" hi-res matte displays and most LCD panels made prior to about 2009.

The Retina MBPs do not have an extra piece of glass on the front like the previous glossy MBPs.

Instead, the thin layer of glass that is present in all LCD panels (including the 15" hi-res anti-glare panel) is extended to the bezel.

There's no extra glass to omit.

 

[Radiating]

Or you could just omit the front glass panel as with the 15" hi-res matte displays and most LCD panels made prior to about 2009.

No it's not. I can see myself on the rMBP in light enviroments but on my 2010 15" Samsung Matte display MBP I don't have that problem.

There is still noticeable glare.

I don't think either of you understand how multicoating and matte displays work.

So a matte display will have the exact same intensity of glare as a gloss display with no difference whatsoever at all. The ONLY difference between a matte and a gloss display are that the matte display BLURS the reflections, making them less DISTRACTING. This is accomplished with literally a sticker that the manufacturer puts on top of the screen, costs a few cents to do.


A multicoated display is a peice of glass that has been treated with exotic and very expensive chemicals, Magnesium Floride tetragonal birefringent crystals and Silcon Monoxide, that's deposited on the glass using high temperature plasma they slightly alter the wavelengths of light hitting the screen, to actually absorb the incoming light but have no effect on the outgoing light.

So actually you can see yourself in a matte display, it's just a very blurry version of yourself. Try going outdoors in the sun with a matte display and a multicoated display and you won't even be able to see what's underneath the matte display, it will be completely obscured by just a big white blob that overpowers the screen with reflections. Go outside in the sun with a multicoated display and it will actually absorb the reflected light and stand a much better chance of being readable.

Matte just gives the illusion of improving reflections when in reality they just blur them. Multicoating actually eliminates reflections as if they never existed in the first place. The reamaining reflections are an order of magnitude weaker.

 

[splitpea]

I don't think either of you understand how multicoating and matte displays work.

So a matte display will have the exact same intensity of glare as a gloss display with no difference whatsoever at all. The ONLY difference between a matte and a gloss display are that the matte display BLURS the reflections, making them less DISTRACTING. This is accomplished with literally a sticker that the manufacturer puts on top of the screen, costs a few cents to do.


A multicoated display is a peice of glass that has been treated with exotic and very expensive chemicals, Magnesium Floride tetragonal birefringent crystals and Silcon Monoxide, that's deposited on the glass using high temperature plasma they slightly alter the wavelengths of light hitting the screen, to actually absorb the incoming light but have no effect on the outgoing light.

So actually you can see yourself in a matte display, it's just a very blurry version of yourself. Try going outdoors in the sun with a matte display and a multicoated display and you won't even be able to see what's underneath the matte display, it will be completely obscured by just a big white blob that overpowers the screen with reflections. Go outside in the sun with a multicoated display and it will actually absorb the reflected light and stand a much better chance of being readable.

Matte just gives the illusion of improving reflections when in reality they just blur them. Multicoating actually eliminates reflections as if they never existed in the first place. The reamaining reflections are an order of magnitude weaker.

Image

And in that image, which is more readable under those lighting conditions? That's right, the matte display. It's also lighter. Yes, it's slightly more vulnerable to puncture - but then, it doesn't collect fingerprints, and I don't know about you, but I don't generally stab at my screen anyway.

Thing is, the matte display doesn't have to blur anything because there's nothing reflective behind it in the first place (unlike with, say, a matte screen protector, which most definitely blurs.) I've never found my matte hi-res display anything less than perfectly sharp - certainly no less sharp than the glossy display of the colleague who sits right next to me and is constantly fidgeting to try to see through the reflections from the windows behind us, while I just have to turn up the brightness to max in order to power through it.

 

[alphaod]

Or you could just omit the front glass panel as with the 15" hi-res matte displays and most LCD panels made prior to about 2009.

All LCDs have glossy panels. Then the matte ones have a coating applied to the surface. So most LCD panels make before 2009 were either coated and uncoated with refractive antiglare coatings. And matte gives a display a "sanded" looked, and therefore with a "retina" display you'll see those funny colors.

And in that image, which is more readable under those lighting conditions? That's right, the matte display. It's also lighter. Yes, it's slightly more vulnerable to puncture - but then, it doesn't collect fingerprints, and I don't know about you, but I don't generally stab at my screen anyway.

Thing is, the matte display doesn't have to blur anything because there's nothing reflective behind it in the first place (unlike with, say, a matte screen protector, which most definitely blurs.) I've never found my matte hi-res display anything less than perfectly sharp - certainly no less sharp than the glossy display of the colleague who sits right next to me and is constantly fidgeting to try to see through the reflections from the windows behind us, while I just have to turn up the brightness to max in order to power through it.

The most readable isn't always the best. Notice the matte display has this hazy look to it?

And your matte display looks fine because it's a standard panel. Try putting a matte screen protector on your iPhone (or any late 1080p Android device) and you'll see what I'm taking about.

 

[splitpea]

The most readable isn't always the best. Notice the matte display has this hazy look to it?

I don't care how sharp my screen looks if it's completely unreadable due to reflections. The purpose of a screen is to be read, so, yes, the most readable is the best.

And your matte display looks fine because it's a standard panel. Try putting a matte screen protector on your iPhone (or any late 1080p Android device) and you'll see what I'm taking about.

Yes, and I'm not suggesting that apple add matte coating to a glossy display. I'm suggesting they use matte standard, omitting the extra weight of the front glass panel. How difficult is that to comprehend?

Of course

 

[UBS28]

All LCDs have glossy panels. Then the matte ones have a coating applied to the surface. So most LCD panels make before 2009 were either coated and uncoated with refractive antiglare coatings. And matte gives a display a "sanded" looked, and therefore with a "retina" display you'll see those funny colors.



The most readable isn't always the best. Notice the matte display has this hazy look to it?

And your matte display looks fine because it's a standard panel. Try putting a matte screen protector on your iPhone (or any late 1080p Android device) and you'll see what I'm taking about.

What hazy look? I'm currently typing this while I'm sitting in the sun and it's still very sharp. And the best part, I don't see myself or my surroundings while i'm using my MBP.

And also the fact that the Matte screens made by Samsung are much brighter than the rMBP, it's non sense to suggest that a rMBP is better in light enviroments.

 

[Stetrain]

Yes, and I'm not suggesting that apple add matte coating to a glossy display. I'm suggesting they use matte standard, omitting the extra weight of the front glass panel. How difficult is that to comprehend?

Of course

The retina MBPs do not have an extra front glass panel when compared to the antiglare displays. They just don't have the same antiglare coating.

 

[splitpea]

The retina MBPs do not have an extra front glass panel when compared to the antiglare displays. They just don't have the same antiglare coating.

Then why do the antiglare displays have a soft surface and the rMBPs a hard one?

 

[Stetrain]

Then why do the antiglare displays have a soft surface and the rMBPs a hard one?

Because antiglare LCD panels have a coating over the glass layer.

Here's a post where someone shows the process of removing a similar coating from a Dell Ultrasharp antiglare LCD panel:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1674033

The non-retina glossy MBPs do have an extra glass layer on top, but the retina ones just have the glass which is integral to the LCD panel.

 

[splitpea]

Because antiglare LCD panels have a coating over the glass layer.

Here's a post where someone shows the process of removing a similar coating from a Dell Ultrasharp antiglare LCD panel:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1674033

The non-retina glossy MBPs do have an extra glass layer on top, but the retina ones just have the glass which is integral to the LCD panel.

No, by soft, I don't mean matte. I mean, if you push the antiglare display with your finger or the back of a pen, it has some give. The glossy ones are solid. The antiglare displays are made by *removing* the glass panel from the usual cMBP panels.

 

[Stetrain]

No, by soft, I don't mean matte. I mean, if you push the antiglare display with your finger or the back of a pen, it has some give. The glossy ones are solid. The antiglare displays are made by *removing* the glass panel from the usual cMBP panels.

That's true for the cMBP. The rMBP does not have the extra glass layer like the cMBPs do:


Edit:

We need to clarify this before continuing with the teardown; Apple did not design and build a 1.5 mm thin LCD panel. They did, however, do something exceptional with the design of this display: rather than sandwich an LCD panel between a back case and a front glass, they used the aluminum case itself as the frame for the LCD panel and used the LCD as the front glass.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+Retina+Display+Teardown/9493/2

By building the layers of the display into the unibody, we actually eliminated the need for a separate cover glass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neff9scaCCI#t=2m42s