Conspiracy Theory: Resolution Independence
As has been noted in many threads, there are missing products and oddities in Apple's lineup:
1) No new monitors for something like 3 years. At a minimum, one would have expected built in isight ages ago.
2) The stagnation of the Mini. It's been rumored dead since early 2007, but it lingers on with only minimal processor updates.
3) No mid-range headless Mac. The high-end Mini goes for $799. The current price for the intro level Mac Pro is $2799. I know that arguments about a mid-range headless have raged for a couple of years, but the need for one has never seemed more obvious. Not everyone wants an iMac, and I don't buy the claim that Steve wants to force everyone to purchase all-in-ones.
4) No significant external update of the Mac Pro since before the intel switch!
Perhaps any one of these things could be explained by neglect, or weird ideology at Apple, but taken together I think they suggest something more significant. My suspicion is that there have been plans to introduce a complete new lineup of Macs and monitors for sometime, but that these plans have been repeatedly thwarted by some difficulty. My best guess is that resolution independence is to blame.
As we all know, at WWDC 2006 Steve introduced Leopard and promised to reveal secret features in the future. Most people would agree that the secret features never showed. Add this to the fact that resolution independence was definitely planned for Leopard (and may still be planned for a point release) but didn't make the cut.
It's not implausible that the lack of resolution independence is the explanation of Leopard's missing secret features. And it seems almost reasonable that resolution independence is what's holding back the monitors. It's already been suggested in at least one other thread. But what if the new line of Macs is designed to complement the new monitors? Then maybe they too are on hold for the same reason.
This is wild speculation on my part, but I have been expecting new Macs and monitors for a long time, and I'm thoroughly perplexed that they haven't shown up. I can't believe that Apple is willingly complacent, and so I'm forced to imagine that something else is going on.
What do other's think? Is resolution independence a plausible candidate for blame? How significant a feature could it be? Is there some better explanation for these oddiities?
1) No new monitors for something like 3 years. At a minimum, one would have expected built in isight ages ago.
2) The stagnation of the Mini. It's been rumored dead since early 2007, but it lingers on with only minimal processor updates.
3) No mid-range headless Mac. The high-end Mini goes for $799. The current price for the intro level Mac Pro is $2799. I know that arguments about a mid-range headless have raged for a couple of years, but the need for one has never seemed more obvious. Not everyone wants an iMac, and I don't buy the claim that Steve wants to force everyone to purchase all-in-ones.
4) No significant external update of the Mac Pro since before the intel switch!
Perhaps any one of these things could be explained by neglect, or weird ideology at Apple, but taken together I think they suggest something more significant. My suspicion is that there have been plans to introduce a complete new lineup of Macs and monitors for sometime, but that these plans have been repeatedly thwarted by some difficulty. My best guess is that resolution independence is to blame.
As we all know, at WWDC 2006 Steve introduced Leopard and promised to reveal secret features in the future. Most people would agree that the secret features never showed. Add this to the fact that resolution independence was definitely planned for Leopard (and may still be planned for a point release) but didn't make the cut.
It's not implausible that the lack of resolution independence is the explanation of Leopard's missing secret features. And it seems almost reasonable that resolution independence is what's holding back the monitors. It's already been suggested in at least one other thread. But what if the new line of Macs is designed to complement the new monitors? Then maybe they too are on hold for the same reason.
This is wild speculation on my part, but I have been expecting new Macs and monitors for a long time, and I'm thoroughly perplexed that they haven't shown up. I can't believe that Apple is willingly complacent, and so I'm forced to imagine that something else is going on.
What do other's think? Is resolution independence a plausible candidate for blame? How significant a feature could it be? Is there some better explanation for these oddiities?
Comments
On top of this there are bandwidth issues with dual-link DVI and DisplayPort that limit the resolution to 2560x1600. Higher resolution screens will have to wait for the next-gen DisplayPort, next-gen HDMI, or next-gen DVI. The 30" monitor already is at the limit of 2560x1600. So for higher resolution screen, they're stuck for a bit, waiting for the cables and ports to catchup.
For the looks, I think the main reason that monitors haven't been changed is because the Mac Pros (and the Mac G5 machines before that) haven't changed design language in like 3 years. Internally, the case has had a considerable change when it transitioned from PPC to x86, but externally, they pretty much look the same. Since the monitors are designed for the Mac Pros, not the Mac mini, there's been no need to change the looks of the monitors.
1. No new monitors since Aug 2006. The 30" had a specification change in Mar 2007.
2. I think Apple wants to keep the Mac mini as a low ball product to upsell iMacs and MacBooks. There's really nothing driving them to upgrade the mini.
3. The xMac hurts the high margin iMacs and Mac Pros. It's bad business. It'll only be good business when Apple goes corporate or tries to rapidly grow marketshare. They'll take a profit margin, and companies shouldn't trade profits for marketshare (within reason).
4. Apple has said the reason for no design language changes in the Mac Pros (and MacBook Pros) is because they wanted to maintain some consistency during the x86 change, and on top of that, these are prosumer machines where looks are not big saleable factors. This is a perfectly fine reason.
As for monitors, there are places that they can go: super thin and super wide. If they can shrink the monitors to say 0.5 inches thick at 20, 23 and 30 inches, it would be interesting. But I'm sure they'll want to have a matching design language with the Mac Pros. It won't happend until Summer at least. Super wide is possible. Say, a 30" 2560x1024 for $1200 or so, with the current design language would be very interesting.
I think it's correct that resolution independence is not incompatible with the current monitors, but it's also not very interesting with respect to them. It's value would be on a new generation of high resolution monitors.
I'm not savvy enough about the technology to know if the bandwidth limitations you mention are necessarily relevant. But even if they are, it's surely not impossible that Apple has been working on proprietary solutions. High quality graphics have always been a hallmark of Apple products, and I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Steve would go all out for this purpose.
As for your replies to the four points, perhaps you're right, but I just don't find these reasons persuasive. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro is incomprehensible. There are many pros and prosumers who neither need nor want an 8 core $2700 machine, but who won't even consider a Mini. And the iMac is not an acceptable solution. I refuse to believe that Apple is not aware of this. I'm hoping that the current gap in the product line is a sign that a new product is just around the corner.
By the way, here is a comment from Apple's own Developer Connection site:
Resolution Independence
The old assumption that displays are 72dpi has been rendered obsolete by advances in display technology. Macs now ship with displays that sport native resolutions of 100dpi or better. Furthermore, the number of pixels per inch will continue to increase dramatically over the next few years. This will make displays crisper and smoother, but it also means that interfaces that are pixel-based will shrink to the point of being unusable. The solution is to remove the 72dpi assumption that has been the norm. In Leopard, the system will be able to draw user interface elements using a scale factor. This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays.
Apple Developer Connection
It is unclear to me on what the advantage of resolution independence is. It'll offer benefits for those with aging eyes, but that is an issue of text size, not higher DPI. So resolution independence, will work perfectly fine and is perfectly suitable for the current monitors.
On top of this there are bandwidth issues with dual-link DVI and DisplayPort that limit the resolution to 2560x1600. Higher resolution screens will have to wait for the next-gen DisplayPort, next-gen HDMI, or next-gen DVI. The 30" monitor already is at the limit of 2560x1600. So for higher resolution screen, they're stuck for a bit, waiting for the cables and ports to catchup.
Nothing is stopping them from taking the 24" to 2560x1600, for instance.
It is unclear to me on what the advantage of resolution independence is. It'll offer benefits for those with aging eyes, but that is an issue of text size, not higher DPI. So resolution independence, will work perfectly fine and is perfectly suitable for the current monitors.
On top of this there are bandwidth issues with dual-link DVI and DisplayPort that limit the resolution to 2560x1600. Higher resolution screens will have to wait for the next-gen DisplayPort, next-gen HDMI, or next-gen DVI. The 30" monitor already is at the limit of 2560x1600. So for higher resolution screen, they're stuck for a bit, waiting for the cables and ports to catchup.
For the looks, I think the main reason that monitors haven't been changed is because the Mac Pros (and the Mac G5 machines before that) haven't changed design language in like 3 years. Internally, the case has had a considerable change when it transitioned from PPC to x86, but externally, they pretty much look the same. Since the monitors are designed for the Mac Pros, not the Mac mini, there's been no need to change the looks of the monitors.
1. No new monitors since Aug 2006. The 30" had a specification change in Mar 2007.
2. I think Apple wants to keep the Mac mini as a low ball product to upsell iMacs and MacBooks. There's really nothing driving them to upgrade the mini.
3. The xMac hurts the high margin iMacs and Mac Pros. It's bad business. It'll only be good business when Apple goes corporate or tries to rapidly grow marketshare. They'll take a profit margin, and companies shouldn't trade profits for marketshare (within reason).
a Xmac at the mini and imac price points may end having higher margin as it uses cheaper desktop parts
It is unclear to me on what the advantage of resolution independence is. It'll offer benefits for those with aging eyes, but that is an issue of text size, not higher DPI. So resolution independence, will work perfectly fine and is perfectly suitable for the current monitors.
On top of this there are bandwidth issues with dual-link DVI and DisplayPort that limit the resolution to 2560x1600. Higher resolution screens will have to wait for the next-gen DisplayPort, next-gen HDMI, or next-gen DVI. The 30" monitor already is at the limit of 2560x1600. So for higher resolution screen, they're stuck for a bit, waiting for the cables and ports to catchup.
For the looks, I think the main reason that monitors haven't been changed is because the Mac Pros (and the Mac G5 machines before that) haven't changed design language in like 3 years. Internally, the case has had a considerable change when it transitioned from PPC to x86, but externally, they pretty much look the same. Since the monitors are designed for the Mac Pros, not the Mac mini, there's been no need to change the looks of the monitors.
1. No new monitors since Aug 2006. The 30" had a specification change in Mar 2007.
2. I think Apple wants to keep the Mac mini as a low ball product to upsell iMacs and MacBooks. There's really nothing driving them to upgrade the mini.
3. The xMac hurts the high margin iMacs and Mac Pros. It's bad business. It'll only be good business when Apple goes corporate or tries to rapidly grow marketshare. They'll take a profit margin, and companies shouldn't trade profits for marketshare (within reason).
a Xmac at the mini and imac price points may end having higher margin as it uses cheaper desktop parts.
Also the desktop ppc mac started at $1500 the mac pro starts at $2300
Steve has no intention of forcing people to buy all-in-ones. He just believes that that's what most consumers want, and so far sales have borne out his belief. There is a wide gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro that could be filled by another desktop, but whether that will appear and what it will look like are up in the air.
Resolution independence is a no-brainer. Basically it means that monitors will finally start following printers toward absolutely faithful reproduction. Very high resolution monitors mean: absolutely crisp, sharp text; gorgeous photographs; less eyestrain; and as with the iPhone, screens that are usable and even pleasant to work with at small sizes. You'd get a resolution-independent OS with a high-resolution monitor to replace your old OS and monitor for the same reason you'd get a high-resolution laser printer to replace your old 144dpi dot matrix printer. (Remember those? You have to go all the way back to the '80s to find a printer with resolution anything like a modern display!) It will be as if you were looking at your computer through a new pair of glasses.
As for the Mac Pro: Its case didn't change on the outside because Apple didn't want to signal a big jump to Intel. People were antsy enough about it as it was, so they wanted to project continuity and they kept all the existing designs during the jump.
Super expensive hi-res display for professionals/early adopters!
We should hear more about this at WWDC if they start letting the next cat out of the bag.
The foundation has been laid in leopard, but i doubt it will really show itself until 10.6!
1. Resolution independence is definitely coming. Apparently many of the pieces are already in place in Leopard. See this page of the Ars Technica Leopard review: Core UI
2. It seems that Apple had hoped to be further along with resolution independence than they are. See this email ad from early 2007 for WWDC 2007: ad
3. Resolution independence is primarily valuable if and only if you have a high resolution screen. Thus it's certain that Apple will produce high res screens, but there's no reason to do so until resolution independence is working.
4. The new screens are likely to be expensive, so it's improbable that they're going to be put into iMacs. Apple might put them in Macbook Pros and/or Mac Tablets, but most importantly for my thesis, they'll certainly put them in a new line of monitors.
5. You wouldn't put out new monitors just for the existing Minis and $2799+ Mac Pros. (That's the current low end for a Mac Pro, not $2300, but $2800!) So there's got to be a new line of Macs to run these new monitors. The new line of Macs may or may not need new technology to run the monitors, but they'll certainly feature a new design, and I have to believe that they'll be positioned to appeal to a wide spectrum of the professional/prosumer market.
Misc. comments:
We shouldn't underestimate the potential value of resolution independence. Beautiful sharp graphics is likely to be a powerful selling point. It would bring graphics professionals out in droves, and it would set Apple further apart from Windows.
I accept that the Mac Pro design was not altered at the time of the Intel change in order to maintain consistency during a potentially turbulent period, but the Intel change has been complete for 18 months. A design update now seems overdue.
The all-in-ones are doing well for Apple, but I don't think there's any evidence that headless Macs in the $1000 to $1500 range wouldn't do at least as well. Afterall over 90% of the desktop computers sold in the world are headless. I can't believe that this fact is lost on Apple. And the arguments about cannibalization of other lines just don't make sense to me. Yes, Apple rightfully attempts to minimize the variety of computers it makes, but for the last couple years there has been a glaring hole in the lineup, and it has recently become even larger and more conspicuous as the price of the Mac Pro has increased and the capability of the Mini has stagnated.
I want to buy a new Mac. But none of the current categories appeal to me. It's always dangerous to generalize from our own experience, but I don't think my needs and desires are that unusual.
Assuming most Mac Pro users have a need to use Photoshop one way or another this should be an important question.
Does Photoshop make sense with Resolution Independence? Is Photoshop working better or worse with RI?
IMHO Photoshop would actually be worse and hence RI not a big selling point for Pro users:
Resolution independence blurs/scales images depending on the virtual resolution. But a Photoshop user would likely not want the system to interfere with the pixels, blurring them at its own will. If something is blurred or antialiased the user wants to be in total control of that and not have to blur a pixel that's already pre-blurred by Resolution Independence, distorting the user-applied blur effect, making it harder to judge the final look.
If anything Photoshop would work best if Resolution Independence is deactivated or if the actual screen resolution is a whole multiple of pixels, e.g. 2x2 or 3x3 screen pixels for one image pixel.
As there is clearly some interaction needed between the OS's Resolution Independence and Photoshop as an application, I wonder whether Adobe is to blame for any RI delay as well.
Seeing how long it took Adobe to come out with an Intel native version of Photoshop, how much longer will it take them to come out with an RI-savvy version of Photoshop?
There's no point for Apple to introduce high-res monitors requiring RI when the core Mac graphics applications cannot support RI - and might even have a worse user experience than on current lower res monitors. Chicken and egg.
It is perfectly sufficient for the OS to provide some kind of built-in upscaling clutch for non-RI-aware applications that are not graphics based, e.g. MS Office type apps. But applications where every pixel matters do not fall into this category.
For Resolution Independence to be a success I'm sure a host of major graphics applications must be ready for it.
Perhaps at WWDC we are greeted with a new beta version of Photoshop which natively supports RI - without compromising the application's core functionality.
Consumers are buying more & more laptops & Apples advantage is showing in market share now. Apple won't spend precious time & resources on a mid-range Mac for this reason IMHO.
Monitors may be related to RI but could also be related to MP case redesign - not sure here. We will hopefully find out within the year!
How does Photoshop fit into the Resolution Independence puzzle?
Photoshop will benefit from RI just like every other app. The image view already supports zooming, so it won't really change in practice. The rest of the GUI will just be drawn at higher resolution to that it maintains the same apparent size that it currently does. The approach to RI that Apple is taking does not simply draw at the current resolution and scale the result up as a raster operation -- scales up the coordinates and draws at the higher resolution, which gives a vastly better result.
The primary downside of RI (once it is implemented everywhere and the bugs are worked out) is that now more pixels have to be drawn, so performance per square inch of display goes down.
We'll probably switch to display port first, it's going to be a giant leap for Apple to offer 200-300dpi displays.
the macbook= Dual core
The Probook=Dual core
The mini= Dual core
The iMacs=Dual core
The native Quad core=???
Mac Pro=Octa core, the quad core is a missfit were you still pay for expensive FB DIMMs and CPUs to be able to run Octacore and upwards
MacServer=OctaCore!
By having a strict quad core computer compared to the pro the RAM cost would be cut in half, also CPU and MB costs would drop. Theay could make one hell of a Xmac selling it for 1500 dollars and still make a lot of money on them.
Nothing is stopping them from taking the 24" to 2560x1600, for instance.
I would buy one!