When will other Macs get Retina displays?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jent, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. jent macrumors 6502a


    Mar 31, 2010
    When do you think other Macs will get Retina displays? The Retina display on iOS devices has been great since 2010, and I'm very happy that Apple released the 15" Retina MacBook Pro at WWDC 2012. When do you think the non-Retina MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, and Apple Cinema Display will get the Retina treatment, and why?
  2. Rizzm macrumors 6502a

    Feb 5, 2012
    All by next summer because I'm guessing.
  3. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    I think that a 13" Retina MBP is next. Will be interesting to see if Apple keeps the 'Classic' Macbook Pro around for a while or discontinues it in a year or two.

    Not sure if the Airs will get it for a while because Apple wants to keep the prices down.

    iMacs are a possibility but I think we're a year or so away from those panels being affordable. Same goes for Cinema/Thunderbolt Display.
  4. Nielsenius macrumors 6502a

    Apr 16, 2011
    The notebooks will be the first, followed by the desktops. I'd like to know how Apple is going to handle the 27" iMac. As of right now 4K displays are thousands upon thousands of dollars. I'd also like to know if Apple will ever bring back the 17" MacBook Pro or if it's gone for good.
  5. jent thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Mar 31, 2010
    The evolution of Retina started with small devices (iPhone and iPod touch), then went to the iPad, and now is on the 15" MacBook Pro.

    I think there are two factors pushing and pulling here, and that is that bigger displays are more costly to upgrade to higher-density PPI screens, but the smaller computers tend to be cheaper and Apple won't want to sacrifice affordability but rather wait until prices naturally come down.

    I'm not positive but I personally think the notebooks (the Air and non-Retina MBP) will all get Retina displays before the iMac or ACD.


    Doesn't the 15" Retina MBP have a higher resolution than the just-discontinued 17" MBP? If so, that in and of itself may be reason that Apple won't revive the 17" MBP.
  6. mohsy90 macrumors 65816


    Feb 4, 2011
    New York
    13" retina MBP will be next probably in October as that analyst suggested who was spot on regarding this last release. iMacs probably next year. I think we can expect that they will keep around the non-retina lines for 1-2 years alongside the new retinas until prices decrease and they can mark the retinas at the same price. I doubt they will be coming to the MBA anytime soon. They are going to end up being the new student laptops and will definitely want to keep them marked as low as possible.
  7. MacBird macrumors 6502a

    Apr 1, 2010
  8. gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Jun 20, 2011
    Many news outlets are saying October for 13". 4k televesions are the next frontier for TVs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar on the cinema displays (and possibly see those transform in to the full fledged Apple TV that rumors keep popping up for). iMacs too. Apple will market them as being retina, but essentially they ought to be in that 4k resolution ballpark assuming they maintain their current dimensions.
  9. Rmafive macrumors 6502

    Jul 25, 2008
    Richmond, Virginia
    I thought the viewing distance on the 27" iMac was far enough away that Apple could use a 3840 by 2400 screen and still call it retina. That probably wouldn't be far off (1-2 yrs) with display tech the way it is.
  10. Randomoneh macrumors regular


    Nov 28, 2011
    You mean 3840 x 2160.

    If we're talking about 1 arcminute per pixel "Retina", Apple would be able to call it Retina if viewing distance is 18.7'' or farther.

    And "real Retina" is something else, but we'll talk about it when time comes.
  11. KohPhiPhi macrumors 6502a

    Feb 9, 2011
    I think that Retina for the MBA and MBP 13" might be quite a stretch in terms of...

    1) GPU, since they only have integrated graphic cards.
    2) Heat managements, since MBA has only one vent, and the footprint is smaller which doesnt help.
    3) Battery life. In the new 15" RMBP, they increased the size of the batteries to reach the same battery life, but since there's hardly any room in the 13" (specially MBA), they won't be able to fit bigger batteries. If they introduced retina, the battery life would be reduced.
  12. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    I'd expect "retina" displays in the entire apple laptop range within 6-12 months. The 13 should be next. As for their desktop displays, thats going to be a while away, right now such displays would cost far too much for apple to make them affordable. If want a 11" or 13" retina, its coming, if you want an imac, don't hold your breath, you will be waiting a while.
  13. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    On the 13" MBP the optical drive and the 2.5" SATA drive take relatively even more space. Take them out and you can put 30-40Wh extra of battery in there.
    The 13" RMBP will be as thin as the 15" or nearly and probably still have 70-80Wh battery. Soldered SSD only unfortunately.

    With the Air it is true there isn't much space. A RMBA will not be seen any time soon.

    The HD 4000 should be able to drive a retina screen. After all it officially supports 4k x 4k as max res. That means it can potential drive 2 displays running at 3840x2160.
    2560x1600 = 4M pixels which is only a 1/4 of the max. It should handle that kind of res.
  14. hi-there macrumors member

    Mar 8, 2007
    I guess the cost is the biggest factor. I read somewhere that most common LCD 15" panels cost about $50 wholesale. More decent IPS panels are $100. And the high res retina IPS is $150 each. I don't know which panel Apple use on MBA but it will be a jump of $50 to $100 per unit. Can Apple wear that? Who knows. Maybe, they might be offered as 'cost' option in BTO.
  15. Cory Bauer macrumors 6502a

    Jun 26, 2003
    If Apple is to maintain the same usable workspace that the 27" display currently offers, don't they have to exactly double the screen resolution just as they did with the 15" MacBook Pro? Because if the MacBook Pro operated at any less than 2880x1800, the usable screen space would have actually decreased since your workspace equivalent with a retina display is half it's native resolution. Yes? So if the 27" Display had a retina resolution of 3840x2160, the usable screen space would actually decrease from the current 2560x1440 to "Looks like 1920x1080".
  16. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    It wouldn't surprise me to see the "Best for Retina" option on a retina 27" iMac provide less real estate than the current models, since the current model already has about the most real estate you would want on that size display. The highest "More Space" option could be equivalent to the current iMac real estate.

    I don't think that a 27" 5120x2880 panel is going to be feasible for an iMac for many years.
  17. hashholly macrumors 6502

    Oct 13, 2008
    I have a feeling until cost comes down we are probably looking at only the "pro" models having the retina screens.
  18. Cory Bauer macrumors 6502a

    Jun 26, 2003
    So you believe the 27" iMac and Thunderbolt display will function natively at a "looks like 1920x1080" resolution, but will offer the ability to scale the screen to "looks like 2560x1440"? You could be right, given how impossible a 5120x2880 screen seems, but at the same time I'm not sure how that would fit in with the rest of the product line. Would the 21.5" iMac then also operate natively at "looks like 1920x1080", or would it too see a downgrade in usable screen space? And If the 21.5" and 27" both operated at "looks like 1920x1080" natively, who would fork over the cash for the 27" model?

    I certainly wouldn't pay for a 27" screen that sits 18" from my face but displays the OS and Apps like a 1920x1080 screen.
  19. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    I think that the pseudo-resolution-independence modes that Apple is now using on the Retina 15" give them a lot more options. I think that if the 27" model got a 4k screen (1920x1080 effective real estate on the default mode) that the 21.5" model might just keep the 1920x1080 screen.

    If Apple were to use a 5120x2880 panel, making the middle scaling option equal in real estate to 2560x1440, that means that two of the scaling options would make things even smaller on screen than they are on the current 27" iMac. I've actually seen people mention that the small sizes of text and UI elements on the 27" model put them off from buying it.

Share This Page