Would you pay EXTRA for Retina? (Both Money and Battery Life)

KittyKatta

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 24, 2011
538
209
SoCal
One thing I don't understand is that Higher Resolution displays have been an option on MacBook Pros for years but most people still opt for the Standard display. But with this whole "Retina" bandwagon then a majority of people now demand retina screens as a requirement for upgrading.

So what Im wondering is this:
For $200 more then would you pay EXTRA for Retina Display or would you stick with the current resolution and save money?

To me, I'm not sure because I've still to figure out if the whole Retina hype is simply a sign of Apple Marketing being successful. I bought 2 new iPads and love the Retina Display but in real world usage then if someone stuck with their old iPad 2 they wouldn't really miss out on anything. So the same may be true with the already great MBA screens.

Edit:
Would you pay for Retina at the cost of Battery Life?
It seems that the retina display on the ipad is the main reason they had to fit in a larger capacity battery. So if they are going to use the same battery magic on the MacBook then it would be possible we'd have a choice between something like a 8hr Standard Resolution MacBook vs a 3hr Retina MacBook. If so, many mobile users may prefer extra battery and view Retina to be more a novelty.
 
Last edited:

yanksrock100

macrumors 6502a
Oct 30, 2010
605
151
San Diego
I would CONSIDER paying extra for retina...BUT apple wouldnt do that, they would use retina as a selling point to get people to buy it.

I mean if the Airs get retina, thats where alot of their adverts would go, so they wouldnt have it as a configuration upgrade.
 

BreakGuy

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2009
818
0
NZ, South Pacific
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.
 

Nova Sensei

macrumors 6502
Feb 26, 2012
264
0
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.
Wow, what an original thought.... :rolleyes:

Retina is something everyone here understands to mean very high resolution/dpi. It's a convenient phrase to get an idea across.
 

LostSoul80

macrumors 68020
Jan 25, 2009
2,136
6
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.
Exactly. And seen the success of that term, I can't but think Apple will use it again.
 

Chaos123x

macrumors 68000
Jul 8, 2008
1,695
33
I don't think so, with a desktop or even a laptop, you don't really put your face right into it like you would with a phone or a tablet. Your usually a little less than arms length away.
 

Jobsian

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2009
828
13
Yes and to be honest, I'd pay extra for quite a few upgrades that I want to see.
 

Macman45

macrumors G5
Jul 29, 2011
13,199
133
Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
Having had my new iPad for a week now, yes I probably would, but I'd rather Apple stuck to the practice they used for the newbie....As posted, use it as a selling point and not an excuse to charge more.
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,023
1,590
Lincoln, UK
I would, but they didn't increase the cost of the iPhone or iPad when they introduced Retina displays, so probably won't again.
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,217
1,585
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4s)

They can't sell it as an upgrade. Without it it's an iPad 2
 

seasurfer

macrumors 6502a
Dec 12, 2007
648
130
One thing I don't understand is that Higher Resolution displays have been an option on MacBook Pros for years but most people still opt for the Standard display. But with this whole "Retina" bandwagon then a majority of people now demand retina screens as a requirement for upgrading.

So what Im wondering is this:
For $200 more then would you pay EXTRA for Retina Display or would you stick with the current resolution and save money?

To me, I'm not sure because I've still to figure out if the whole Retina hype is simply a sign of Apple Marketing being successful. I bought 2 new iPads and love the Retina Display but in real world usage then if someone stuck with their old iPad 2 they wouldn't really miss out on anything. So the same may be true with the already great MBA screens.
The high resolution offered by MBP is not equivalent to retina, the quality offered by those high res screen does not make a big different compare to what retina can.
 

KittyKatta

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 24, 2011
538
209
SoCal
Having had my new iPad for a week now, yes I probably would, but I'd rather Apple stuck to the practice they used for the newbie....As posted, use it as a selling point and not an excuse to charge more.
But is it unreasonable to assume a Retina MacBook would cause a hit in battery life? Despite all this "post-PC" talk then many people still rely on MacBooks as portable workstations. It just seems that with MacBooks then there is a distinct line between the types of users and so "retina displays" may be considered more of a novelty than necessity, especially if it affects a travelers battery life.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,568
3,148
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.
I have compared an iPad 2 with a new iPad. It doesn't matter what Apple calls it. The quality of the display on the iPad 2 wasn' bad at all, but the display on the new iPad is just incredible. So when you ask the leading question "clever marketing or false advertising?" the answer is: Neither. Just an incredibly good display.


But is it unreasonable to assume a Retina MacBook would cause a hit in battery life? Despite all this "post-PC" talk then many people still rely on MacBooks as portable workstations. It just seems that with MacBooks then there is a distinct line between the types of users and so "retina displays" may be considered more of a novelty than necessity, especially if it affects a travelers battery life.
There is some loss. The iPad battery was increased from 25Wh to 42Wh to give the same 10 hours battery life, so we can calculate that the display uses about 1.7 Watt more than before. Battery life of the MBA is less than the iPad, so Apple would have to increase the battery by about 10 Wh to get the same battery life.
 

KittyKatta

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 24, 2011
538
209
SoCal
I have compared an iPad 2 with a new iPad. It doesn't matter what Apple calls it. The quality of the display on the iPad 2 wasn' bad at all, but the display on the new iPad is just incredible. So when you ask the leading question "clever marketing or false advertising?" the answer is: Neither. Just an incredibly good display.
It is an incredibly good display. but making the general public believe they "need" it and life without it is somehow crippling is marketing in action. And as someone who's pretty good at justifying purchases I don't actually "need", then if given a choice I'm just not sure if Retina would beat out Battery for me. :D
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,023
1,590
Lincoln, UK
It is an incredibly good display. but making the general public believe they "need" it and life without it is somehow crippling is marketing in action. And as someone who's pretty good at justifying purchases I don't actually "need", then if given a choice I'm just not sure if Retina would beat out Battery for me. :D
The display is the major interaction with a computer. The quality of the screen makes a big difference to the quality of that interaction.

I have always spent more that most on monitors as a proportion of computer costs. A retina display would be a major upgrade for me. For others, less so.
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,135
1,178
NYC
Yes I would pay extra for a higher resolution display. I'd probably run it at native resolution, rather than at "retina" mode. As with battery life, I don't really think it'll be affected much; the computer would certainly require more video memory.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,471
4,676
It is an incredibly good display. but making the general public believe they "need" it and life without it is somehow crippling is marketing in action. And as someone who's pretty good at justifying purchases I don't actually "need", then if given a choice I'm just not sure if Retina would beat out Battery for me. :D
The iPad aside, there is a lot of things people don't "need" but they buy them anyway. I'm not going to blame a commercial for peoples lack of will power for impulse buying. If the majority of people are really that gullible, psychiatry would be at an all time high.

Originally Posted by BreakGuy
'Retina' is just a marketing term used by Apple to dupe people into buying what they think is some state of the art new technology, when it's not. Clever marketing or false advertising? Either way, Apple made their millions from it.
If it were just a term, they could of used it for the first iPad. You are getting an improved display getting 4X the pixel density then the previous version. Thats not false advertising to me. Don't like the Retina concept? iPad 2 is still for sale.
 
Last edited:

KittyKatta

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 24, 2011
538
209
SoCal
The display is the major interaction with a computer. The quality of the screen makes a big difference to the quality of that interaction.
Maybe with Touchscreen, but is the display really considered "the major interaction" when it is a one-way output device? A high quality monitor improves the experience but for most people a retina display is more a luxury than a necessity. Just look at the comments on the iPad board (and im guilty too) where everyone brags about the amazing screen but very few people are actually doing something they couldn't do before.
 

bogatyr

macrumors 65816
Mar 13, 2012
1,127
1
Maybe with Touchscreen, but is the display really considered "the major interaction" when it is a one-way output device? A high quality monitor improves the experience but for most people a retina display is more a luxury than a necessity. Just look at the comments on the iPad board (and im guilty too) where everyone brags about the amazing screen but very few people are actually doing something they couldn't do before.
If you use a computer for 8+ hours a day (i.e. full time job), the display is very important.

If you use a computer rarely, here and there, then no, it might not be important. Though that is for the end user to decide and not you.

I feel the same way about my office chair that I sit in for 8+ hours. Comfort is worth a lot in that situation. But my desk chair at home which I rarely use... cheap and not worth buying anything higher end.
 

KohPhiPhi

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2011
763
194
I would certainly pay in extra money, but I would not give up on battery life. At the end of the day, the MBA is a mobility-focused deviced, and battery life is crucial in this regard.
 

Jaro65

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2009
3,707
573
Seattle, WA
I would, but they didn't increase the cost of the iPhone or iPad when they introduced Retina displays, so probably won't again.
As reported, Apple took the margin hit with the new iPad. The retina display did increase the cost, but not the price.
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,023
1,590
Lincoln, UK
Maybe with Touchscreen, but is the display really considered "the major interaction" when it is a one-way output device? A high quality monitor improves the experience but for most people a retina display is more a luxury than a necessity. Just look at the comments on the iPad board (and im guilty too) where everyone brags about the amazing screen but very few people are actually doing something they couldn't do before.
Looking at the screen is something you are doing most of the time when using a computer.

When I got my iPhone 4, the retina screen helped reduce eyestrain a lot over my iPhone 3G because the text was so much clearer. I haven't got an new iPad yet, but from having a go on one, I expect the same results, meaning I will likely use iBooks a lot more than I currently do on my iPad 1. The text on my iMac is noticeably worse than my iPhone 4, so I would benefit.

As an app developer I see many benefits beyond being able to display an iPad screen at the full resolution. It will make a big difference in Illustrator and Photoshop.
 

austinguy23

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2008
613
8
Wirelessly posted

A Retina MBA is my holy grail and it is my hope that one will be released this summer at the latest.