A high-resolution panel doesn't do much good without software to take advantage of it. Windows looks like garbage on a MacBook Pro -- fonts are way too thin, icons aren't designed to scale, all kinds of problems like that. And that's just the OS. Even though Windows has had support for display scaling for years, very few applications implement it. These panels are going to be a hard sell to consumers until the software catches up.
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.
Samsung and Sharp Introduce New Ultra-High-Resolution Notebook Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd appreciate quality production improve first. My 2 24" Apple LED LCD's I bought in 2010 to replace my ~8 year old 23" CCFL LCD's have been a nightmare. From power supply replacements, panels replaced (with fingerprints on the inside of the glass), even completely new displays, Apple finally approved 27" LED LCD replacements last week. Hoping those panels are an improvement. I miss the CCFL LCD's Apple produced, I even asked if they had any 23" models around. The rep said they don't downgrade customers, I wanted to reply "It would be an upgrade". 
For what its worth for those who believe people are somehow 'copying' Apple here.
The rMBP was announced on 11 June 2012 at WWDC.
The April before this, Intel claimed that high resolution laptops were about to become commonplace. The tech finally made sense at this point, but was still crazy expensive, and since very few companies can push laptops at the price Apple can, the wide adoption didn't take place. Now we're at a point where HiDPI displays aren't all that more expensive than standard ones, hence why you'll now see people adopting it.
So no. People are not copying Apple in this instance, they are simply taking advantage of technology they have been working with for 2 years, but have been unable to really use due to its cost.
In essence Apple were early adopters of the technology. That doesn't mean that when others start using it they must therefor be copying Apple
The rMBP was announced on 11 June 2012 at WWDC.
The April before this, Intel claimed that high resolution laptops were about to become commonplace. The tech finally made sense at this point, but was still crazy expensive, and since very few companies can push laptops at the price Apple can, the wide adoption didn't take place. Now we're at a point where HiDPI displays aren't all that more expensive than standard ones, hence why you'll now see people adopting it.
So no. People are not copying Apple in this instance, they are simply taking advantage of technology they have been working with for 2 years, but have been unable to really use due to its cost.
In essence Apple were early adopters of the technology. That doesn't mean that when others start using it they must therefor be copying Apple
Last edited:
Costs.
It's more efficient to manufacture 16:9 displays since that's the standard across TVs, laptops and external monitors now.
Notice how 16:9 external monitors are often a lot cheaper than their 16:10 counterparts. Apple is one of the rare companies that try to deliver the best tech possible regardless of costs, while other aim for the best value.
The iMac uses a standard 16:9 LG panel (LM270WQ1) rather than one designed by Apple for this very reason. You'll find this exact same panel in other manufacturers' products such as Dell's UltraSharp series. Perhaps the iMac isn't sold in volume large enough to benefit from designing their own displays like they do for popular products such as the MacBooks, iPhones and iPads.
"It's not even 1080p. Sure it doesn't matter, but the others are 1080p."
You're right about it not mattering on a 4" screen because the iPhone 5 resolution on that screen is already "retina" quality and shouldn't need any more pixels. The big Android phones have more pixels, duh. The same goes with the rMBP. The other ones have a slightly higher ppi, most likely so they can beat the rMBP on the spec sheet.
...And then there's TVs. >40" yet still 1080p at most. I'll bet it's just because if it was higher than 1080p, it wouldn't be 1080p, and the average consumer would assume it sucks!
Last edited:
That does not make any sense once you go beyond 1080p but below 4k.
But even at 1080p, almost nobody is making TVs at 1080p below 40 inches. They certainly are not making a lot at 24 inches or even 30.
I'd appreciate quality production improve first. My 2 24" Apple LED LCD's I bought in 2010 to replace my ~8 year old 23" CCFL LCD's have been a nightmare. From power supply replacements, panels replaced (with fingerprints on the inside of the glass), even completely new displays, Apple finally approved 27" LED LCD replacements last week. Hoping those panels are an improvement. I miss the CCFL LCD's Apple produced, I even asked if they had any 23" models around. The rep said they don't downgrade customers, I wanted to reply "It would be an upgrade".
I'll keep my 30" until it's dead..
there are many 1080p TV's below 40"..24" 1080p monitors are pretty standard stuff.
I don't have sufficient knowledge in display manufacturing to answer that with confidence, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe display panels are first made into large sheets that they then cut to their desired size/resolution.
That's why John Gruber (correctly) predicted the iPad mini's exact size by guessing it would have the same PPI as the iPhone 3GS since Apple would re-use the same sheets.
Said sheets are only produced with a fixed PPI, the rest really depends on how you cut them. The most efficient (and cheap) way to produce displays is the reuse the same sheets for various products, which is why some PPIs are really common in the industry regardless of the displays' sizes/resolutions.
For example, you'll see 15.6" as a common resolution for 16:9 laptops since at its most common resolution (1366x768), it has the same pixel density as a 22" 1080p monitor (also very common and cheap).
It's also more efficient to use those sheets exclusively for the 16:9 ratio since mixing up different ratios such as 16:9 and 16:10 would create waste since you couldn't divide the sheets perfectly.
Last edited:
Why is the Chromebook 3:2? I thought we were done with nonsense like this.
It seems to me that web developers figured out long ago that their users are all on 16:9 and 16:10 displays and tailored their UIs to suit that.
It seems to me that web developers figured out long ago that their users are all on 16:9 and 16:10 displays and tailored their UIs to suit that.
I won't buy one until it's 456789x285493....
Sarcasm aside at what point does this becomes useless (hint it already is if you're using your laptop on your lap)?
Follow up question, aren't non "standard" aspect ratios a PAIN for devs?
Sarcasm aside at what point does this becomes useless (hint it already is if you're using your laptop on your lap)?
Follow up question, aren't non "standard" aspect ratios a PAIN for devs?
At first glance it looks like a POS but I suspect that google wants to lure the Apple users that only use their rMBP for facebook and websurfing.
PS: "/s"
Even though resolutions are now getting higher then the retina Macbook I wonder why it took Apple bring some better resolutions screens before everyone else FINALLY does. That finally can go to every company as for awhile now laptops would have some power yet some of the most outdated screens available, someone would have done this awhile back.
Unless someone did yet it got no press. (Before Apple did it)
Unless someone did yet it got no press. (Before Apple did it)
This article on Geek.com speculates that it was a requirement for Google's laptop to beat the rMBP's pixel density in order to tout is as "The highest resolution laptop" in marketing, even though it's a bit misleading since resolution and pixel density are two different things.
Since Google had a very low order of those displays, they couldn't have a large choice of available sizes and ratios from ODMs that met their desired specs, so they had to go with the best size/ratio combo that let them beat the rMBP's PPI. As to why the size and ratio influence production efficiency, see my last post.
Hi Res displays are awesome. Everyone should have one. I love my retina MBP, except it's not quite as bright, and it takes quite a bit more processing power. But these kinks will get worked out. Still an awesome display. It would be tough to go back to a regular display.
Huh? That doesn't really make any sense here.
This article is about LCD manufacturers introducing more high resolution displays. These are some of the same LCD manufacturers that Apple buys its displays from.
The screens being announced here (or variants thereof) could very well end up in the next generation of Macbooks.
Samsung can't be copying Apple by making new display panels when Apple is already buying retina display panels from Samsung
----------
People...
Will next refresh of macbook pro start using 16:9???
I am worried.
Just because the screens they are announcing for mass production are 16:9 doesn't mean that Apple can't just order 16:10 versions of them.
Apple buys large quantities of single size/resolution displays because they have so few models of computer, so they don't usually need to go with off-the-shelf components.
This means that Apple's retina screens were a gimmick too, right? lol.
IMHO this isn't just great news, this is great news that should've happened years ago. You can still buy brand new 15" 1366x768 laptops! That's friggin disgusting ><
The gimmicky thing about the Chromebook is this stupid cloud and super restricted OS business.
Gimmick meaning other tech companies get on board after Apple implements it in their products.
Not sure what's going on with Sharp. Every year we hear about their IGZO displays possibly coming to Apple products and every year we end up with crap displays from LG instead. Now it looks like it might finally happen, I hear that Apple's arch enemy Samsung has invested millions in Sharp to keep them going.
I still think Apple should be using some of its cash to buy up important component suppliers and do their own R&D.
I still think Apple should be using some of its cash to buy up important component suppliers and do their own R&D.