or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Mac-bound Retina displays will cost Apple a $92 premium from suppliers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac-bound Retina displays will cost Apple a $92 premium from suppliers - Page 2

post #41 of 52

it's unknown whether the cost of these high-resolution screens would be passed on to the consumer.'

 

Of course it will, like every other component, and labor to make the thing. Why wouldn't it be? I agree with other posters above, I will be buying this thing with all the RAM, speed and features I can get, and I am sure Apple will charge me enough to keep up their 50% profit margin. That's fine with me.

 

'

The truth will set you free.
Reply
The truth will set you free.
Reply
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

"1080p HD TVs are already Retina?"  Wouldn't that depend on the size of the HD TV?

 

"Pick a size and we'll check. I'll bet each one turns out to be Retina."

 

 

..........................

 

Before I go on, I'm making it clear I'm talking about Apple's "Retina" terminology..... Apple's Retina display is 326 pixels per inch (960 x 640) on the latest iPhone and 264 pixels per inch (2048 x 1536) on the latest iPad. HD TVs can be either. One factor of pixel density is the size of a screen, but normal HD TVs don't have the same density. In other words, the latest iPad has more resolution than a 1080p TV (1920 x 1080). That HD TV can be a small one or a large one. The iPad is obviously much smaller than an average-size TV. So, really, Apple's "Retina" just means higher density of pixels. Imagine if a 50" HD TV had a pixel density of 264 ppi (same as latest iPad). Do the math and you'll see that it would be overkill. The new 4K TV is essentially 4,000 pixels wide. This isn't even close to a 264 ppi density. A new 50" 4K TV would be about 80 ppi. An existing 50" 1080p TV (1920 x 1080) is 38.4 ppi...... So, anyway, all this means is that 1080p HD TVs aren't Retina.

post #43 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike View Post

 

A new 50" 4K TV would be about 80 ppi. An existing 50" 1080p TV (1920 x 1080) is 38.4 ppi...... So, anyway, all this means is that 1080p HD TVs aren't Retina.

 

You're leaving out the expected viewing distance.  Any display is "retina" if you're far enough away from it.  Apple's definition of a "retina" display appears to be, "you can't differentiate individual pixels from the normal viewing distance".  Not sure if a 27" 1080p display qualifies as retina from 2-3' away (what I'd assume to be a normal viewing distance for a monitor that size), but it's probably pretty close.  Double that resolution - which quadruples the pixel count - and I'm virtually certain it would qualify, and likely qualify for screens even larger than 27".

post #44 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike View Post

Before I go on, I'm making it clear I'm talking about Apple's "Retina" terminology..... Apple's Retina display is 326 pixels per inch (960 x 640) on the latest iPhone and 264 pixels per inch (2048 x 1536) on the latest iPad. HD TVs can be either. One factor of pixel density is the size of a screen, but normal HD TVs don't have the same density. In other words, the latest iPad has more resolution than a 1080p TV (1920 x 1080). That HD TV can be a small one or a large one. The iPad is obviously much smaller than an average-size TV. So, really, Apple's "Retina" just means higher density of pixels. Imagine if a 50" HD TV had a pixel density of 264 ppi (same as latest iPad). Do the math and you'll see that it would be overkill. The new 4K TV is essentially 4,000 pixels wide. This isn't even close to a 264 ppi density. A new 50" 4K TV would be about 80 ppi. An existing 50" 1080p TV (1920 x 1080) is 38.4 ppi...... So, anyway, all this means is that 1080p HD TVs aren't Retina.

In that big paragraph of text... you forgot one key aspect of Apple's definition of "Retina" displays..... DISTANCE.

It's not simply the number of pixels... it's both pixel density AND the viewing distance at which you cannot see the individual pixels. Whether or not you subscribe to that theory... that's what Apple said.

I'll let Steve explain it:

325

It's been almost 2 years since Apple introduced the term "Retina" into the tech vocabulary... the least you could do is learn what Apple actually said.
post #45 of 52
Quote:

Originall posted by montefuego

Of course it will, like every other component, and labor to make the thing. Why wouldn't it be? I agree with other posters above, I will be buying this thing with all the RAM, speed and features I can get, and I am sure Apple will charge me enough to keep up their 50% profit margin. That's fine with me.

 

 

Yeah, obviously it will be passed down to the consumer, just like how the new iPad's retina display was- oh wait, no it wasn't. It's a fact that the iPad 3 is costing Apple substantially more to make, it's a fact that their profit margins are thinner on the device, and thus its a fact that the extra cost was NOT passed down to the conusmer, contrary to what some rumors were saying (entry level iPad @ $570) before the unveil. So, what was that again? Amazing how so many posters are so willing to completely ignore the blatant facts just to get in a jab at Apple. There's a better chance that Apple will eat the margin, than raise costs on their notebook. The extra margins would be worth the negative PR and the effect on sales. 

post #46 of 52
Quote:
The screens DisplaySearch says are available that would be ideal for Apple's next-generation MacBook Pros are a 15.4-inch panel with a resolution of 2,880 by 1,800 pixels, or 220 pixels per inch, and a 13.3-inch screen with a resolution of 2,560 by 1,600 pixels, or 227 pixels per inch.

 

Please don't do this to the 13" MBP, Apple.

 

The base resolution should be the same as for the 13" Air (1440 x 900).

 

By all means double that to hit retina quality. But up the base resolution.

post #47 of 52

Dear Slurpy,

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my tone. I am not bashing Apple, I am a stockholder and I want them to make a lot of money, as well as change the world for the better. It is very likely that Apple computes a margin on the total cost of components, and then looks at the market to determine the best price to sell something at. In the case of the iPad, it is likely that the cost of several components other than the screen were costing less (as well as R&D) a year into selling it. Also, raising such a memorable price as $500 would be a marketing mistake that anyone could see. So even if their margin had to suffer, they would have to maintain that price. 

   In the case of the Macbook Pro, so many people order it in so many configurations, that I don't think there is a 'magic' memorable price attached to it. I don't remember the price I paid for the one I have.  

    Also, so many other components are changing from the earlier model: the case, the hard drive to solid state (or not), the elimination of the optical drive, maybe a solid state boot drive + 1 tb hard drive (my wish list), thunderbolt, USB 3, and so on. So the pricing will likely start from scratch. In the most recent book on Steve Jobs and Apple, the author contended that Apple never even thinks about price when designing a product; they simply design it the best way possible, and figure out the price when it's finished.

 

Also, my (poorly worded) final point is that many macbook pro users such as myself, are pro film or photo or music users who are frankly wiling to pay any reasonable price to get the best machine possible.  I'm eking along on what must be my 5th apple laptop, but it is 3 years old and has been dropped several times. I love it, but it's too slow under Lion to work effectively on photos or video. I am dying to get the next model (I waited for USB 3 and two thunderbolt ports, rather than one, to hook up my older display), I will load it up, and frankly, I'm desperate enough to pay anything they want.

The truth will set you free.
Reply
The truth will set you free.
Reply
post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I hope people realize that the descriptor "Retina" is only an Apple marketing term (besides the obvious biology description) and not some kind of catch-all term to describe image resolution. For the love of ****, please learn the difference.

Exactly. The real development behind these displays is the way Apple seamlessly combines pixel doubling for non retina-aware graphics with sharpened fonts and retina aware graphics. Hitting some theoretically limit to acuity is less important than dragging the display industry out of the ~100ppi dullsville that it has been stuck in for years.

This is more elegant solution than resolution independence which can't cope with lossless rescaling of non-vector graphics. It also neatly reestablishes a clear upgrade roadmap for GPU's which gamers will need to push this many pixels going forwards. Macs are about to become more desirable for gaming.

If they are going to sell new buyers on the loss of an optical drive in a pro machine, this is how it is going to happen.
post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

As ever, Apple will buy in bulk and drive down the price.

This is the kind of thing that's just beyond obvious. Apple will buy in bulk. Apple will calculate the amortized cost since they don't fluctuate their price points over a cycle. Whoever came up with the rumor was already counting on this. They most likely took that under consideration with their numbers, not that it really gives them much in the way of accuracy. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

Can you imagine Dell or HP trying to keep up with this move from Apple?   This will create a 3-4 year advantage to Apple.  It's a home run   

 

Unfortunately this doesn't really tell us much of anything. Apple's notebook displays so far have been based on generic panels. Note I said based on. They may have a number of small specifications. If this is a case of LG or Samsung developed something that Apple wishes to use (keep in mind Samsung has been working on this for a long time), then that's a different story, and these would be available to other manufacturers. Others have offered IPS notebook displays before. None of us really know how (or if) they'll be implemented in this space, but if another oem like Dell decides they don't wish to be thrashed by Apple's marketing kool-aid and napkin math science (retina is grossly oversimplified), Samsung will most likely come up with an offering. It isn't really copying either when they've hyped similar research for years. 

post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Unfortunately this doesn't really tell us much of anything. Apple's notebook displays so far have been based on generic panels. Note I said based on ... None of us really know how (or if) they'll be implemented in this space, but if another oem like Dell decides they don't wish to be thrashed by Apple's marketing kool-aid and napkin math science (retina is grossly oversimplified), Samsung will most likely come up with an offering. It isn't really copying either when they've hyped similar research for years. 

The key thing to remember is that part of the magic of "retina" is in the software. Specifically the way non retina-aware graphics are pixel doubled rather than shrunk.

Any PC manufacturer can push out HiDPI panels and deal with customers complaining about the size of everything on screen. Dell and other PC manufacturers are dependent on Windows building in support for this. Windows 7 still does not display fonts anywhere near as smoothly as the antialiased ones in OS X and iOS.
post #51 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

At what distance? ;)

 

I think it's a bad comparison but it's also a interesting topic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

 

Standard distances. As I said, you can put your eye up to an iPad if you like, so as to see it's pixels, that is immaterial. You can watch TV at 5" inches away if that's what you find fun, but again that isn't interesting. 

post #52 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

It depends on viewing distance, but it has little to do with normal 20/20 vision or the vision of any other individual. The criteria is for two adjacent points of light to be indistinguishable from a single source. The criteria is that the two light sources are separated by 1 minute of arc or less. This is 1/60 of 1°. Someone with a vision defect may see two sources blur into one for separations greater than this. However, it is an immutable law of physics that one cannot resolve sources with smaller separations no matter how good his vision is. Pick a viewing distance--let's say 6 feet or 72 inches. The pixel separation for a retina display is

 

d = (pi/180)(1/60)(72) = 2.0944E-2 inches

 

The pixel density is

 

1/d = 47.75 dpi

 

A standard 1080p HDTV with 46 in. diagonal measure display has this pixel density. 

 

Of course distance matters, but I never claimed otherwise. As for your claim that 20/20 vision doesn't matter, you are wrong sir. When we are dealing with research on optics, 20/20 vision is the standard by which all comparisons are made. Below 20/20 is called myopic, that means you can discern greater detail at close proximity, but you discern detail less well at large distances. Hyperopic means you are above 20/20 and can see finer detail at larger distances but cannot discern as fine detail at close proximities. And yes, we all know you can accommodate refractive errors using our muscles to some degree, but again we are excluding that from our metric.

 

Now, you claim "the criteria is for two adjacent points of light to be indistinguishable from a single source" and you then provide the measure. Well, here is my question to you: indistinguishable by whom? The formula is derived from subjects with no refractive error as that would distort the data, hence, 20/20 vision.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Mac-bound Retina displays will cost Apple a $92 premium from suppliers