Wake me up when the 27" Panel is Retina ready and a truly new Mac Pro arrives.
Might be a while. I have read the processing power needed to drive a 27inch retina type display just isn't available... Yet. There has been some complaints that the MB retina is a tad laggy when swiping or zooming (I have no first hand knowledge).
It's been funny reading all the reviews that burn the retina display as "not ready for prime time" as if the 15" we're Apple's only trick in the bag... realizing all the while that the 15" had to happen first because the 13" is what folks really want.
So the 15" primed the market and warned content providers what was coming,
but the 13" is the real deal with mass appeal.
But isn't 13" so popular mainly because of the lower price point?
I think they are not going to make retina Airs anytime soon, because the display requires large battery. And what sense would it make to have 13" retina Air and 13" retina Macbook Pro (the difference in thinness would be only marginal)?
I see the Retina Display as a norm for all macs eventually. It's a good thing. I think the iMac would be a great machine for a retina display. Wonder how cost effective that will be though? A 27" iMac w/ retina display.
4K screens cost a small fortune at the moment. I doubt we'll see a retina iMac for some time, perhaps even some years.
Hopefully with matte display option. It is a serious health and productivity issue for millions of people. Google MacMatte.
I googled 'MacMatte'. This is supposed to prove.. what? It's a pathetic blogsite that's too cheap to dish out $15 a yr for a damn domain name. Oh, and the petition has 1400 signatures or so? Amazing. That's not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point of the number of macs that are sold in a single quarter. But yeah, it's a 'health and productivity issue for millions of people'. Keep telling yourself that. And good luck with that blog site and petition. I'm sure it will go places...or not.
13" Retina MBP? Definitely a matter of when not if… I expected it likely to be this year.
I'm not sure if we'll see MB Air moving to Retina anytime soon… it may be kept as another differentiator for the "Pro" line. Also cost is a factor. Part of the allure of the Air is its lower price...
As for 27" Retina iMac… I think it'll be awhile before screen sizes like that make economic sense… right now the retina display adds a few hundred dollars to the 15" MBP price. That difference would be exponential on a 27" screen, and I think it would easily be well over a thousand dollars… so would Apple sell lots of high-end $3,500 Retina iMacs simply because they've got the Retina display? Probably not...
There's also the issue of GPU power… doubling the 27" screen resolution will require serious power… especially for high-end gfx apps… keeping that running cool inside the iMac enclosure will be a trick...
So I think it'll be a good while before we see that happen… still in the end, it'a a matter of when not if… it'll come eventually.
Might be a while. I have read the processing power needed to drive a 27inch retina type display just isn't available... Yet. There has been some complaints that the MB retina is a tad laggy when swiping or zooming (I have no first hand knowledge).
MacBreak Weekly just spent sometime on that particular discussion. I'm actually surprised they didn't introduce retina on the Mac Pro first. You would think if there was ever a place to add the necessary "horsepower" it would be here, thus giving it something to justify it's"king of Mac's" title. But then the more I think about it, it would need a display to go with it. A $1k retina display would fit the bill perfectly. It'll happen, but probably not until the start of next year sometime...
Unless someone really needed a new display right now I can't see spending that kind of money on an Apple display. You know retina can't be that far off...
As for 27" Retina iMac… I think it'll be awhile before screen sizes like that make economic sense… right now the retina display adds a few hundred dollars to the 15" MBP price. That difference would be exponential on a 27" screen, and I think it would easily be well over a thousand dollars…
There's also the issue of GPU power… doubling the 27" screen resolution will require serious power… especially for high-end gfx apps… keeping that running cool inside the iMac enclosure will be a trick...
The retina display didn't add a few hundred to the rMBP, the 256GB SSD will be the biggest cost in the $400 difference between the equivalent non-Retina HDD MBP.
The cost relates to shipment volumes and the manufacturing process. The good thing that Apple does is they ship the same panels in the Cinema Display so they can be competitive in price there.
You notice that even though some Android tablet makers build the retina panels for Apple, they don't use them in their own products. Their tablet shipments and margins aren't high enough to justify it. Sales of high-end standalone panels won't be particularly high either so their prices can't be competitive.
Apple doesn't have to double the linear resolution either:
25% would be enough but they'll likely do 50% just for good measure as some people will sit closer. The 7970M is at least 50% faster than the 6970M so capable of the extra resolution, although this GPU is only on the top model.
I hope they will laminate the glass to the panels too so that the glare is reduced. If they do the resolution bump and cut the glare, they will massively undercut high-end display manufacturers (by a factor of 5 at least):
The volume is one reason I think dropping the 21.5" is a good idea. The difference between the 21.5" and 27" with the same spec is $200 so they should be able to build one with the lowest spec and no optical for $1299. This means every iMac and Cinema Display has a panel from the same production run. They can even have the chassis designs similar and that will cut some costs. They could have a non-retina 27" on the low-end and retina 27" on the high-end if it offered a price variation - this would probably be necessary as a lower-end GPU would struggle with the resolution.
I think the 13" rMBP is going to be a big hit. It's likely that a dedicated GPU is going to go in there and it will hit a more afforable price point than the 15". I think people will start to question the value in the 13" MBA, especially once the rMBP prices come down. They could of course pull all the prices down eventually so that the 13" MBA replaces the 11" Air.
I hope it follows suit of being priced like the upgraded 13" MBP. A Retina laptop that affordable would be very appealing. But then, so is waiting for Haswell, especially since the 13" will rely on integrated graphics that will be heavily upgraded then.
Or do you mean as tablets replace MB Airs / Ultrabooks. I don't see the MB Pro's being replaced by tablets anytime soon but I definitely see iPad's replacing MB Airs. Just my 2 cents.
I have to disagree with that. My MBA does so much more than an iPad. I would rather it over na iPad any day. And since I am not a gamer,I have no problem with not being able to use the gyro for games. I haven't used my iPod touch in over 2 weeks. The battery is shit and the RAM is failing - I would take it to an Apple Store, but I have and they don't believe me. Everything on an iPad can be done on a Mac except for some games. But, everything on a Mac cannot be done on an iPad.
It's been funny reading all the reviews that burn the retina display as "not ready for prime time" as if the 15" we're Apple's only trick in the bag... realizing all the while that the 15" had to happen first because the 13" is what folks really want.
So the 15" primed the market and warned content providers what was coming,
but the 13" is the real deal with mass appeal.
I think that is exactly right. I'm not terribly interested in the 15" retina, but a 13" rMBP would have me looking and quite possibly buying.
I recall reading that the 13" MBP was Apple's best selling laptop - don't know if that's changed or not.
13" Retina MBP? Definitely a matter of when not if… I expected it likely to be this year.
I'm not sure if we'll see MB Air moving to Retina anytime soon… it may be kept as another differentiator for the "Pro" line. Also cost is a factor. Part of the allure of the Air is its lower price...
As for 27" Retina iMac… I think it'll be awhile before screen sizes like that make economic sense… right now the retina display adds a few hundred dollars to the 15" MBP price. That difference would be exponential on a 27" screen, and I think it would easily be well over a thousand dollars… so would Apple sell lots of high-end $3,500 Retina iMacs simply because they've got the Retina display? Probably not...
There's also the issue of GPU power… doubling the 27" screen resolution will require serious power… especially for high-end gfx apps… keeping that running cool inside the iMac enclosure will be a trick...
So I think it'll be a good while before we see that happen… still in the end, it'a a matter of when not if… it'll come eventually.
I actually wonder how much the retina display actually "adds" to the cost of the MacBook Pro. If you configure a base, 2.3Ghz MacBook Pro with a 256GB SSD, the price is $2,299 and you still only have 4GB of ram, 512MB of gpu memory, and no retina display. That is $100 more than the base retina display which has the same processor, double the system memory, and double the graphics memory.
Nope. I was actually thinking of bringing my LC 575 up out of the basement and getting 'er on the Internet again. Mac Pro, schMac Pro.
Your sarcasm was predictable. I ask because you insist you know whats 'ideal' for the iPad and what Apple should or shouldn't do with the product, lecturing and belittling the opinion of those who DO own it and use it , while not even owning one. Same for the iPhone, which hasn't interested you enough in the past 5 years to actually buy one beyond the beyond-obsolete 1st version. So yeah, my question was completely reasonable.
I ask because you insist you know whats 'ideal' for the iPad…
I insist that I think Apple knows and I trust them to know better than a few fanatics on a forum. Otherwise we'd've had an xMac five years ago that would have been a terrible machine.
My reply, of course, was only sarcastic because in allowing you to whale on me, I'll take the mickey out on you.
Same for the iPhone, which hasn't interested you enough in the past 5 years to actually buy one beyond the beyond-obsolete 1st version.
Of course it hasn't interested me. That's obviously true and not a lie. When a product comes along that interests YOU enough that you just up and forgo all your previous financial plans and wantonly spend your money on it wastefully, despite not being able to afford it, you let me know. I'll probably wind up buying it, too, given how similarly we see things!
The retina display didn't add a few hundred to the rMBP, the 256GB SSD will be the biggest cost in the $400 difference between the equivalent non-Retina HDD MBP.
The cost relates to shipment volumes and the manufacturing process. The good thing that Apple does is they ship the same panels in the Cinema Display so they can be competitive in price there.
You notice that even though some Android tablet makers build the retina panels for Apple, they don't use them in their own products. Their tablet shipments and margins aren't high enough to justify it. Sales of high-end standalone panels won't be particularly high either so their prices can't be competitive.
Apple doesn't have to double the linear resolution either:
25% would be enough but they'll likely do 50% just for good measure as some people will sit closer. The 7970M is at least 50% faster than the 6970M so capable of the extra resolution, although this GPU is only on the top model.
I hope they will laminate the glass to the panels too so that the glare is reduced. If they do the resolution bump and cut the glare, they will massively undercut high-end display manufacturers (by a factor of 5 at least):
The volume is one reason I think dropping the 21.5" is a good idea. The difference between the 21.5" and 27" with the same spec is $200 so they should be able to build one with the lowest spec and no optical for $1299. This means every iMac and Cinema Display has a panel from the same production run. They can even have the chassis designs similar and that will cut some costs. They could have a non-retina 27" on the low-end and retina 27" on the high-end if it offered a price variation - this would probably be necessary as a lower-end GPU would struggle with the resolution.
I think the 13" rMBP is going to be a big hit. It's likely that a dedicated GPU is going to go in there and it will hit a more afforable price point than the 15". I think people will start to question the value in the 13" MBA, especially once the rMBP prices come down. They could of course pull all the prices down eventually so that the 13" MBA replaces the 11" Air.
I've read a few theories on what would've required modification to make the stick form ssds for the rMBP and macbook air, although I'm not sure of your math on this. They occupied a price point they would have occupied anyway. The gpu got the typical nominal bump. The cpu didn't get a bump, but they cost the same amount anyway. Here is the 2.3, and the 2.6. They cost the same amount. Some of the cost was likely the panel. I don't see the 256GB ssd being the biggest factor. You can put something similar in an Air. The upgraded ssds are more likely just a way of delivering sizable margins. This is typical with any upgrade, and you can't really use cto options very well in the math. There is always a built in charge for the configuration. As for the parts themselves, most of the cost is likely built into whatever must be included in the drive itself. The NAND bump is significantly cheaper in typical ssds you buy off the shelf than any offered by Apple. This includes the non-proprietary types offered cto in the imac, mac pro, mini, and cMBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I insist that I think Apple knows and I trust them to know better than a few fanatics on a forum. Otherwise we'd've had an xMac five years ago that would have been a terrible machine.
Nonsense. The cube and Next cube were only terrible machines because they favored design over functionality. Making severe engineering compromises while sticking on a large price tag is a bad idea in general. The real reason there can be no xMac is that Sonnet already owns the trademark .
I insist that I think Apple knows and I trust them to know better than a few fanatics on a forum. Otherwise we'd've had an xMac five years ago that would have been a terrible machine.
My reply, of course, was only sarcastic because in allowing you to whale on me, I'll take the mickey out on you.
Of course it hasn't interested me. That's obviously true and not a lie. When a product comes along that interests YOU enough that you just up and forgo all your previous financial plans and wantonly spend your money on it wastefully, despite not being able to afford it, you let me know. I'll probably wind up buying it, too, given how similarly we see things!
- Yeah, a 'few fanatics on a forum' want a smaller iPad. That's it. When it sells a few million in the 1st weekend, what will you say then, just a 'few million fanatics in the real world'? Or when it sells 20+ a quarter?
-Yeah, buying a phone once every 5 years definitely throws one's 'previous financial plans' in the toilet and is considered 'wanton spending'. You can score one free on contract, get a 3GS used for dirt cheap, etc. I'm sorry if my inquiry was so ridiculous, seeing as how you spend every breathing moment of your life on Apple forums, that you would actually be interested in owning products that you spend thousands of hours of your life posting about. And not to be harsh, but howbout, I don't know, getting a job? Or maybe explain to me these 'financial plans' of yours, seeing as how a job isn't required for them, and how buying a phone released within the past 5 years is going to throw these plans in the toilet. You clearly are not studying, are not working, and are doing nothing other than frantically refreshing multiple Apple forums and calling people 'fanatics' and belittle what I would consider rational people with rational wants, so I think I have a right to question that holier-than-thou attitude when nothing about you makes any sense at all. That financial argument is bullshit, seeing as how actually going out and doing something productive to make money is not something that greatly interests you. That would help your 'financial plans' alot more than buying a damn phone from a company you claim to like is doing to destroy them. The rest of us on this board that claim to lke Apple actually put our money where our mouth is, and buy/use their products. Amazing concept, right? It's why what we post is due to firsthand experience, not fiction, and why so many of us find your attempts to drive every thread down the shitter so unbelievably pathetic. Maybe you should seriously look at your priorities in life, if a phone/tablet/whatever has the potential to demolish your financial plans, and instead sitting all day refreshing fansites for a company whose products you dont own, maybe go out and improve your situation.
- Yeah, a 'few fanatics on a forum' want a smaller iPad. That's it.
Exactly; that's all we know so far.
When it sells a few million in the 1st weekend, what will you say then, just a 'few million fanatics in the real world'? Or when it sells 20+ a quarter?
Let's have it exist first, how's that? It's overly optimistic sales guesses (and design by committee and not one man) that killed the Apple III, remember.
You can score one free on contract, get a 3GS used for dirt cheap, etc.
Ah, but that's three years ago's phone. Why would I want that? I don't want that. I want the new one. I want the one available now. That sort of flies in the face of everything you've said about me and how I "don't care about this modern tech", dunnit?
I'm sorry if my inquiry was so ridiculous, seeing as how you spend every breathing moment of your life on Apple forums, that you would actually be interested in owning products that you spend thousands of hours of your life posting about.
I fail to see how anything I've ever said has indicated I'm not interested in owning them.
And not to be harsh, but howbout, I don't know, getting a job? Or maybe explain to me these 'financial plans' of yours, seeing as how a job isn't required for them, and how buying a phone released within the past 5 years is going to throw these plans in the toilet. You clearly are not studying, are not working, and are doing nothing other than frantically refreshing multiple Apple forums and calling people 'fanatics' and belittle what I would consider rational people with rational wants, so I think I have a right to question that holier-than-thou attitude when nothing about you makes any sense at all. That financial argument is bullshit, seeing as how actually going out and doing something productive to make money is not something that greatly interests you. That would help your 'financial plans' alot more than buying a damn phone from a company you claim to like is doing to destroy them. The rest of us on this board that claim to lke Apple actually put our money where our mouth is, and buy/use their products. Amazing concept, right? It's why what we post is due to firsthand experience, not fiction, and why so many of us find your attempts to drive every thread down the shitter so unbelievably pathetic.
Comments
Might be a while. I have read the processing power needed to drive a 27inch retina type display just isn't available... Yet. There has been some complaints that the MB retina is a tad laggy when swiping or zooming (I have no first hand knowledge).
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
It's been funny reading all the reviews that burn the retina display as "not ready for prime time" as if the 15" we're Apple's only trick in the bag... realizing all the while that the 15" had to happen first because the 13" is what folks really want.
So the 15" primed the market and warned content providers what was coming,
but the 13" is the real deal with mass appeal.
But isn't 13" so popular mainly because of the lower price point?
I think they are not going to make retina Airs anytime soon, because the display requires large battery. And what sense would it make to have 13" retina Air and 13" retina Macbook Pro (the difference in thinness would be only marginal)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
I see the Retina Display as a norm for all macs eventually. It's a good thing. I think the iMac would be a great machine for a retina display. Wonder how cost effective that will be though? A 27" iMac w/ retina display.
4K screens cost a small fortune at the moment. I doubt we'll see a retina iMac for some time, perhaps even some years.
Hopefully with matte display option. It is a serious health and productivity issue for millions of people. Google MacMatte.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx
Hopefully with matte display option. It is a serious health and productivity issue for millions of people. Google MacMatte.
I googled 'MacMatte'. This is supposed to prove.. what? It's a pathetic blogsite that's too cheap to dish out $15 a yr for a damn domain name. Oh, and the petition has 1400 signatures or so? Amazing. That's not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point of the number of macs that are sold in a single quarter. But yeah, it's a 'health and productivity issue for millions of people'. Keep telling yourself that. And good luck with that blog site and petition. I'm sure it will go places...or not.
13" Retina MBP? Definitely a matter of when not if… I expected it likely to be this year.
I'm not sure if we'll see MB Air moving to Retina anytime soon… it may be kept as another differentiator for the "Pro" line. Also cost is a factor. Part of the allure of the Air is its lower price...
As for 27" Retina iMac… I think it'll be awhile before screen sizes like that make economic sense… right now the retina display adds a few hundred dollars to the 15" MBP price. That difference would be exponential on a 27" screen, and I think it would easily be well over a thousand dollars… so would Apple sell lots of high-end $3,500 Retina iMacs simply because they've got the Retina display? Probably not...
There's also the issue of GPU power… doubling the 27" screen resolution will require serious power… especially for high-end gfx apps… keeping that running cool inside the iMac enclosure will be a trick...
So I think it'll be a good while before we see that happen… still in the end, it'a a matter of when not if… it'll come eventually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15
Might be a while. I have read the processing power needed to drive a 27inch retina type display just isn't available... Yet. There has been some complaints that the MB retina is a tad laggy when swiping or zooming (I have no first hand knowledge).
MacBreak Weekly just spent sometime on that particular discussion. I'm actually surprised they didn't introduce retina on the Mac Pro first. You would think if there was ever a place to add the necessary "horsepower" it would be here, thus giving it something to justify it's"king of Mac's" title. But then the more I think about it, it would need a display to go with it. A $1k retina display would fit the bill perfectly. It'll happen, but probably not until the start of next year sometime...
Unless someone really needed a new display right now I can't see spending that kind of money on an Apple display. You know retina can't be that far off...
Thanks. Will definitely explore that!
Wish Microsoft would introduce a patch/update soon, though. It's also an issue in Excel and PowerPoint.
The retina display didn't add a few hundred to the rMBP, the 256GB SSD will be the biggest cost in the $400 difference between the equivalent non-Retina HDD MBP.
The cost relates to shipment volumes and the manufacturing process. The good thing that Apple does is they ship the same panels in the Cinema Display so they can be competitive in price there.
You notice that even though some Android tablet makers build the retina panels for Apple, they don't use them in their own products. Their tablet shipments and margins aren't high enough to justify it. Sales of high-end standalone panels won't be particularly high either so their prices can't be competitive.
Apple doesn't have to double the linear resolution either:
http://www.cultofmac.com/168509/why-you-might-be-disappointed-by-the-resolution-of-those-new-retina-display-macs-feature/
25% would be enough but they'll likely do 50% just for good measure as some people will sit closer. The 7970M is at least 50% faster than the 6970M so capable of the extra resolution, although this GPU is only on the top model.
I hope they will laminate the glass to the panels too so that the glare is reduced. If they do the resolution bump and cut the glare, they will massively undercut high-end display manufacturers (by a factor of 5 at least):
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/
The volume is one reason I think dropping the 21.5" is a good idea. The difference between the 21.5" and 27" with the same spec is $200 so they should be able to build one with the lowest spec and no optical for $1299. This means every iMac and Cinema Display has a panel from the same production run. They can even have the chassis designs similar and that will cut some costs. They could have a non-retina 27" on the low-end and retina 27" on the high-end if it offered a price variation - this would probably be necessary as a lower-end GPU would struggle with the resolution.
I think the 13" rMBP is going to be a big hit. It's likely that a dedicated GPU is going to go in there and it will hit a more afforable price point than the 15". I think people will start to question the value in the 13" MBA, especially once the rMBP prices come down. They could of course pull all the prices down eventually so that the 13" MBA replaces the 11" Air.
I hope it follows suit of being priced like the upgraded 13" MBP. A Retina laptop that affordable would be very appealing. But then, so is waiting for Haswell, especially since the 13" will rely on integrated graphics that will be heavily upgraded then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
Or do you mean as tablets replace MB Airs / Ultrabooks. I don't see the MB Pro's being replaced by tablets anytime soon but I definitely see iPad's replacing MB Airs. Just my 2 cents.
I have to disagree with that. My MBA does so much more than an iPad. I would rather it over na iPad any day. And since I am not a gamer,I have no problem with not being able to use the gyro for games. I haven't used my iPod touch in over 2 weeks. The battery is shit and the RAM is failing - I would take it to an Apple Store, but I have and they don't believe me. Everything on an iPad can be done on a Mac except for some games. But, everything on a Mac cannot be done on an iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
It's been funny reading all the reviews that burn the retina display as "not ready for prime time" as if the 15" we're Apple's only trick in the bag... realizing all the while that the 15" had to happen first because the 13" is what folks really want.
So the 15" primed the market and warned content providers what was coming,
but the 13" is the real deal with mass appeal.
I think that is exactly right. I'm not terribly interested in the 15" retina, but a 13" rMBP would have me looking and quite possibly buying.
I recall reading that the 13" MBP was Apple's best selling laptop - don't know if that's changed or not.
I actually wonder how much the retina display actually "adds" to the cost of the MacBook Pro. If you configure a base, 2.3Ghz MacBook Pro with a 256GB SSD, the price is $2,299 and you still only have 4GB of ram, 512MB of gpu memory, and no retina display. That is $100 more than the base retina display which has the same processor, double the system memory, and double the graphics memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. I was actually thinking of bringing my LC 575 up out of the basement and getting 'er on the Internet again. Mac Pro, schMac Pro.
Your sarcasm was predictable. I ask because you insist you know whats 'ideal' for the iPad and what Apple should or shouldn't do with the product, lecturing and belittling the opinion of those who DO own it and use it , while not even owning one. Same for the iPhone, which hasn't interested you enough in the past 5 years to actually buy one beyond the beyond-obsolete 1st version. So yeah, my question was completely reasonable.
Originally Posted by Slurpy
I ask because you insist you know whats 'ideal' for the iPad…
I insist that I think Apple knows and I trust them to know better than a few fanatics on a forum. Otherwise we'd've had an xMac five years ago that would have been a terrible machine.
My reply, of course, was only sarcastic because in allowing you to whale on me, I'll take the mickey out on you.
Same for the iPhone, which hasn't interested you enough in the past 5 years to actually buy one beyond the beyond-obsolete 1st version.
Of course it hasn't interested me. That's obviously true and not a lie. When a product comes along that interests YOU enough that you just up and forgo all your previous financial plans and wantonly spend your money on it wastefully, despite not being able to afford it, you let me know. I'll probably wind up buying it, too, given how similarly we see things!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The retina display didn't add a few hundred to the rMBP, the 256GB SSD will be the biggest cost in the $400 difference between the equivalent non-Retina HDD MBP.
The cost relates to shipment volumes and the manufacturing process. The good thing that Apple does is they ship the same panels in the Cinema Display so they can be competitive in price there.
You notice that even though some Android tablet makers build the retina panels for Apple, they don't use them in their own products. Their tablet shipments and margins aren't high enough to justify it. Sales of high-end standalone panels won't be particularly high either so their prices can't be competitive.
Apple doesn't have to double the linear resolution either:
http://www.cultofmac.com/168509/why-you-might-be-disappointed-by-the-resolution-of-those-new-retina-display-macs-feature/
25% would be enough but they'll likely do 50% just for good measure as some people will sit closer. The 7970M is at least 50% faster than the 6970M so capable of the extra resolution, although this GPU is only on the top model.
I hope they will laminate the glass to the panels too so that the glare is reduced. If they do the resolution bump and cut the glare, they will massively undercut high-end display manufacturers (by a factor of 5 at least):
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/
The volume is one reason I think dropping the 21.5" is a good idea. The difference between the 21.5" and 27" with the same spec is $200 so they should be able to build one with the lowest spec and no optical for $1299. This means every iMac and Cinema Display has a panel from the same production run. They can even have the chassis designs similar and that will cut some costs. They could have a non-retina 27" on the low-end and retina 27" on the high-end if it offered a price variation - this would probably be necessary as a lower-end GPU would struggle with the resolution.
I think the 13" rMBP is going to be a big hit. It's likely that a dedicated GPU is going to go in there and it will hit a more afforable price point than the 15". I think people will start to question the value in the 13" MBA, especially once the rMBP prices come down. They could of course pull all the prices down eventually so that the 13" MBA replaces the 11" Air.
I've read a few theories on what would've required modification to make the stick form ssds for the rMBP and macbook air, although I'm not sure of your math on this. They occupied a price point they would have occupied anyway. The gpu got the typical nominal bump. The cpu didn't get a bump, but they cost the same amount anyway. Here is the 2.3, and the 2.6. They cost the same amount. Some of the cost was likely the panel. I don't see the 256GB ssd being the biggest factor. You can put something similar in an Air. The upgraded ssds are more likely just a way of delivering sizable margins. This is typical with any upgrade, and you can't really use cto options very well in the math. There is always a built in charge for the configuration. As for the parts themselves, most of the cost is likely built into whatever must be included in the drive itself. The NAND bump is significantly cheaper in typical ssds you buy off the shelf than any offered by Apple. This includes the non-proprietary types offered cto in the imac, mac pro, mini, and cMBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I insist that I think Apple knows and I trust them to know better than a few fanatics on a forum. Otherwise we'd've had an xMac five years ago that would have been a terrible machine.
Nonsense. The cube and Next cube were only terrible machines because they favored design over functionality. Making severe engineering compromises while sticking on a large price tag is a bad idea in general. The real reason there can be no xMac is that Sonnet already owns the trademark
Originally Posted by hmm
The real reason there can be no xMac is that Sonnet already owns the trademark
I do like that thing. I commend their resourcefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I insist that I think Apple knows and I trust them to know better than a few fanatics on a forum. Otherwise we'd've had an xMac five years ago that would have been a terrible machine.
My reply, of course, was only sarcastic because in allowing you to whale on me, I'll take the mickey out on you.
Of course it hasn't interested me. That's obviously true and not a lie. When a product comes along that interests YOU enough that you just up and forgo all your previous financial plans and wantonly spend your money on it wastefully, despite not being able to afford it, you let me know. I'll probably wind up buying it, too, given how similarly we see things!
- Yeah, a 'few fanatics on a forum' want a smaller iPad. That's it. When it sells a few million in the 1st weekend, what will you say then, just a 'few million fanatics in the real world'? Or when it sells 20+ a quarter?
-Yeah, buying a phone once every 5 years definitely throws one's 'previous financial plans' in the toilet and is considered 'wanton spending'. You can score one free on contract, get a 3GS used for dirt cheap, etc. I'm sorry if my inquiry was so ridiculous, seeing as how you spend every breathing moment of your life on Apple forums, that you would actually be interested in owning products that you spend thousands of hours of your life posting about. And not to be harsh, but howbout, I don't know, getting a job? Or maybe explain to me these 'financial plans' of yours, seeing as how a job isn't required for them, and how buying a phone released within the past 5 years is going to throw these plans in the toilet. You clearly are not studying, are not working, and are doing nothing other than frantically refreshing multiple Apple forums and calling people 'fanatics' and belittle what I would consider rational people with rational wants, so I think I have a right to question that holier-than-thou attitude when nothing about you makes any sense at all. That financial argument is bullshit, seeing as how actually going out and doing something productive to make money is not something that greatly interests you. That would help your 'financial plans' alot more than buying a damn phone from a company you claim to like is doing to destroy them. The rest of us on this board that claim to lke Apple actually put our money where our mouth is, and buy/use their products. Amazing concept, right? It's why what we post is due to firsthand experience, not fiction, and why so many of us find your attempts to drive every thread down the shitter so unbelievably pathetic. Maybe you should seriously look at your priorities in life, if a phone/tablet/whatever has the potential to demolish your financial plans, and instead sitting all day refreshing fansites for a company whose products you dont own, maybe go out and improve your situation.
Originally Posted by Slurpy
- Yeah, a 'few fanatics on a forum' want a smaller iPad. That's it.
Exactly; that's all we know so far.
When it sells a few million in the 1st weekend, what will you say then, just a 'few million fanatics in the real world'? Or when it sells 20+ a quarter?
Let's have it exist first, how's that? It's overly optimistic sales guesses (and design by committee and not one man) that killed the Apple III, remember.
You can score one free on contract, get a 3GS used for dirt cheap, etc.
Ah, but that's three years ago's phone. Why would I want that? I don't want that. I want the new one. I want the one available now. That sort of flies in the face of everything you've said about me and how I "don't care about this modern tech", dunnit?
I'm sorry if my inquiry was so ridiculous, seeing as how you spend every breathing moment of your life on Apple forums, that you would actually be interested in owning products that you spend thousands of hours of your life posting about.
I fail to see how anything I've ever said has indicated I'm not interested in owning them.
And not to be harsh, but howbout, I don't know, getting a job? Or maybe explain to me these 'financial plans' of yours, seeing as how a job isn't required for them, and how buying a phone released within the past 5 years is going to throw these plans in the toilet. You clearly are not studying, are not working, and are doing nothing other than frantically refreshing multiple Apple forums and calling people 'fanatics' and belittle what I would consider rational people with rational wants, so I think I have a right to question that holier-than-thou attitude when nothing about you makes any sense at all. That financial argument is bullshit, seeing as how actually going out and doing something productive to make money is not something that greatly interests you. That would help your 'financial plans' alot more than buying a damn phone from a company you claim to like is doing to destroy them. The rest of us on this board that claim to lke Apple actually put our money where our mouth is, and buy/use their products. Amazing concept, right? It's why what we post is due to firsthand experience, not fiction, and why so many of us find your attempts to drive every thread down the shitter so unbelievably pathetic.
Wow, you done? You've some serious issues, bucko.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I do like that thing. I commend their resourcefulness.
They actually own the trademark, which makes me laugh. I figured you'd like it.