Originally Posted by Rogifan
Whats the cost/benefit on retina iMacs? I mean I'd never go back to a non-retina phone or tablet on the iMac would it really be that noticeable? Aren't the iMacs well beyond HD anyway?
cost:benefit? it's unknown, other than everyone who says they go retina hate when they look at the same presentation 'non-retina'.
HD and retina are two different measures... HD is number of pixels (and whether they refresh each pixel or only 50% at a time [I/P]).
Retina is the pixel density... and whether the number of pixels/viewingangle is such that the retina can't 'see' a pixel (can't see the space between pixels).
The iMac being a desktop is considered to be a 28" viewing distance, and given that, the threshhold pixel density is 123PPI (see: http://actionatadistance.net/post/17211429061/retina-thunderbolt-display )
As luck would have it, a Macbook Air 13.3" is 127PPI. The question on cost is the manufacturing process of fusing 127dpi the same as 109?
Making the glass fused should improve some visual stuff, but would make the pixels more visible (less refraction, due to less glass). Assuming that the cost is roughly the same, then it's really just a minor (<$100 cost) to create the screen... Then it's the cost of supporting it in HW (probably $15), and and SW (zero by default, but someone has to pay for all those new graphics at 'retina size' and do test viewing of the new geometries (4x a MBA13)