I'm pretty sure the price will remain the same, even if it does cost Apple a bit more at first. The backlight certainly isn't the most expensive component in a notebook.
I'm really hoping this makes it to the MacBook line sooner rather than later. I'd hate to go shopping in the spring, pick up what's on offer, and find out that the update 6 months later has a much better screen and runs for half an hour longer in real-world use.
Current technology LEDs use about 1/4 the power of fluorescent, or 1/10 the power of incandescent light for the same brightness. However, white-light LEDs also use a phosphor that will probably eventually fade over time (they are essentially blue LEDs that make the phosphor glow white). In addition, the newer generation of LEDs just coming on the market are a lot cheaper to produce but don't last nearly as long (perhaps 10x incandescent, but not "forever" like old-style LEDs).
So the trend is for LEDs to get much cheaper to produce in exchange for sacrificing a little of their lifetime, but not their efficiency.
The Luxeon series from Lumileds (bought a while back by Phillips) claim 70% brightness at 50,000 hrs. That might not be "forever" but it'll do for now.
I hate to rain on this back-slapping party, but I must admit to being rather stunned by the self-referential nature of the conversation here -- if someone came in from the outside (say, PC) world, they would be laughing out loud over the excitement amongst a handful of digiterati over a (supposedly) brighter screen.
That is, I suppose, the good and the bad about Apple.
The good: Apple is, yet again, pushing the technological envelope, and they are very good at getting all of you high-end types quite excited.
The bad: Yet another reason for Apple to keep its prices where they are, and keep throwing at its few high-end consumers the morsels of functionality that are, at best, of questionable value for 99% for the world's computing population (myself included).
Ironically, this is exactly the type of marginal (note that it is bolded, italicized, and underlined) functionality that some of the same digiterati regularly lambaste iPod's competitors over, and praise the iPod as having the discipline to refrain from!
Oh, I'll duck......
\
PS: For the record, I am really quite happy with the screen quality on both my 17-inch MBP (6 months old), and my 24-inch iMac (1 month old).
The Luxeon series from Lumileds (bought a while back by Phillips) claim 70% brightness at 50,000 hrs. That might not be "forever" but it'll do for now.
Interesting. Luxeon refers to a power regulation chip, I believe. There are many Luxeon LED-based flashlights available (I've purchased a few), and they are much brighter than regular white light LED flashlights. They are not as bright as Xenon bulbs.
Interesting. Luxeon refers to a power regulation chip, I believe. There are many Luxeon LED-based flashlights available (I've purchased a few), and they are much brighter than regular white light LED flashlights. They are not as bright as Xenon bulbs.
Yeah, I've been watching the Luxeons for a while and it's pretty amazing how they've ramped up the lumens. We've gone from being pretty bright if an LED can produce a single lumen to one that can do over 140.
The big deal at this point seems to be thermal management; there's not much surface area on a given LED to act as a heat sink and they get hot.
I'm curious how LED based laptop screen deals with heat dissipation.
I hate to rain on this back-slapping party, but I must admit to being rather stunned by the self-referential nature of the conversation here -- if someone came in from the outside (say, PC) world, they would be laughing out loud over the excitement amongst a handful of digiterati over a (supposedly) brighter screen.
That is, I suppose, the good and the bad about Apple.
The good: Apple is, yet again, pushing the technological envelope, and they are very good at getting all of you high-end types quite excited.
The bad: Yet another reason for Apple to keep its prices where they are, and keep throwing at its few high-end consumers the morsels of functionality that are, at best, of questionable value for 99% for the world's computing population (myself included).
Ironically, this is exactly the type of marginal (note that it is bolded, italicized, and underlined) functionality that some of the same digiterati regularly lambaste iPod's competitors over, and praise the iPod as having the discipline to refrain from!
Oh, I'll duck......
\
PS: For the record, I am really quite happy with the screen quality on both my 17-inch MBP (6 months old), and my 24-inch iMac (1 month old).
what exactly are you saying here? that's is odd that we would get excited over new screen technology? i don't see how that's anyway comparable to the ipod situation at all. led backlighting is an improvement of a necessary component of a laptop. most people deride ipod challengers because they needlessly add in poorly-implemented features while not concentrating on making the device better at its main purpose.
having better and more efficient backlighting on a laptop monitor means a brighter screen (for use outdoors) and longer battery life. this whole site is devoted to apple's software and hardware. not every announcement is going to be a device that changes the world.
The bad: Yet another reason for Apple to keep its prices where they are, and keep throwing at its few high-end consumers the morsels of functionality that are, at best, of questionable value for 99% for the world's computing population (myself included).
That seems a perfect reason for putting it in the Pro's first, like most other "expensive" innovations. The MacBooks are already great deals and I agree with your sentiments about the need to add needless expensive upgrades to them.
I've notices my TiBook screen fading over just the last few months. I'm glad to know some of this, because it encourages me to wait and buy a new MBP in 6 months rather than try to upgrade it.
So with a brighter screen and resolution independence on Leopard, is it likely Apple will come out with a HD laptop screen ( or a higher resolution), or am I way off? Don't know much about screens
So with a brighter screen and resolution independence on Leopard, is it likely Apple will come out with a HD laptop screen ( or a higher resolution), or am I way off? Don't know much about screens
Yes, higher res screens will happen. The question is when.
If you are curious as to what an LED backlit screen looks like, check out certain Sony Vaio models that have been on sale for awhile. I believe the TX series and one other have LED backlit screens.
Advantages: Very bright, VERY thin, very light, better for touchscreens (or is that OLED?), slightly longer battery life (not more than 30 mins-1 hour extra on the Sony models I saw.)
Disadvantages: Cost, durability? (screen is a lot thinner)
Computer monitors and LCD TVs will all have their backlights replaced in the coming years (starting this year) with LED (mainstream next holiday season MAYBE.) The sad thing about HDTV's is that even the crappy flourescent backlight in current models cost the majority of the wholesale price of a t.v. Hopefully LED prices drop fast
All these new notebook advancements coming this year are starting to make me consider making the stretch to a new mbp sometime this year even though I've got a CD one. Damn it's both a good feeling and a bad one.
1) I had no idea that CCFLs got dimmer over time. I guess I've noticed that my Powerbook isn't quite as bright as it used to be, but I thought I was just getting excited to get a new computer!
2) I've been thinking about the possibility that one day, iSight cameras might be somehow integrated into the screen itself, to allow for eye-contact during chats. Eye contact is the one thing that remains to be worked out before we've really achieved Spaceballs communication status.
Are there any engineers out there? Is this a possibility, ever?
3) To what extent should we expect the battery life to improve with LED backlighting?
I think I may just wait for this revision before I get a new notebook.
LED's dim as well, but their lifetime is so much longer, that it might not be noticable during the laptops lifetime.
A camera would have to work through the backlight, LCD, and color filters. With any current tech, it's not possible. I can think of some future tech that might, but it's too speculative.
Unbelievable! How in the world would such a technology work?
Imagine when web-chatting and web videos, etc. can let users look directly at the screen, instead of at the camera.
I vote for this as my #1 feature for the upcoming MBP.
Yeah, I read that last year.
I still don't see how a coherent image could be built up from such a design. What they are describing is a sensor that works somewhat like an insects eye. The problem with that is we have no idea how an insect's brain uses the many separate images the hundreds, or thousands, of lenses and sensory cells produce. How do they integrate them into one understandable field of view?
Apple provided us with no information on that matter.
In the "white paper" linked in the article, supposedly the current (2nd gen) LEDs are 12 percent more efficient than CCFL - with higher efficiency expected soon. Even though the battery life may not be so much longer than current models, the brightness improvement should make the switch worthwhile.
Do you think the price point will remain the same?
Advances in LED are coming fast and furious.
Insofar as lifetime is concerned, LED's are rated differently than all other technologies.
All technologies other than LEDS are rated by the time it takes them to fail. When 50% of a test batch fail, that is the rated lifetime.
LED's are different. Because an LED can run for millions of hours, it is rated with both current and retained heat as the determinants. As current use, and or, temp goes up, lifetime comes down. changing voltage (which changes the current being drawn) changes output by about the same percentage.
Of course, both of those affect other illumination as well. But while standard incandescents may be run at a lower voltage for longer life, the put out much less light. 10% lower voltage usually results in more than a 255 light drop.
Fls and other forms of lighting must be run at about the proper rated voltage to run at all. A new type of Fl can be run at different brightness ratings, but not by lowering the voltage.
The lifetime of an LED is determined by the time it takes for the light output to drop by 50%, for most uses. For more critical uses, 25% is the standard rating.
But, an LED will live on with its output dropping for ages, meaning decades.
One reason why some newer LEDs seem to have a shorter rated lifetime is because they are being rated by that tougher standard.
Previously, LEDs were not used for critical lighting, and so the 50% standard was fine.
The industry is actually ahead in all of its self imposed brightness and efficiency goals.
It's amazing that we now have LEDs bright enough for Tv's and even auto headlights!
Yeah, I've been watching the Luxeons for a while and it's pretty amazing how they've ramped up the lumens. We've gone from being pretty bright if an LED can produce a single lumen to one that can do over 140.
The big deal at this point seems to be thermal management; there's not much surface area on a given LED to act as a heat sink and they get hot.
I'm curious how LED based laptop screen deals with heat dissipation.
High output LEDs are BIG. The auto headlight LEDs are very large, and often there are more than one.
Comments
I'm really hoping this makes it to the MacBook line sooner rather than later. I'd hate to go shopping in the spring, pick up what's on offer, and find out that the update 6 months later has a much better screen and runs for half an hour longer in real-world use.
Current technology LEDs use about 1/4 the power of fluorescent, or 1/10 the power of incandescent light for the same brightness. However, white-light LEDs also use a phosphor that will probably eventually fade over time (they are essentially blue LEDs that make the phosphor glow white). In addition, the newer generation of LEDs just coming on the market are a lot cheaper to produce but don't last nearly as long (perhaps 10x incandescent, but not "forever" like old-style LEDs).
So the trend is for LEDs to get much cheaper to produce in exchange for sacrificing a little of their lifetime, but not their efficiency.
The Luxeon series from Lumileds (bought a while back by Phillips) claim 70% brightness at 50,000 hrs. That might not be "forever" but it'll do for now.
That is, I suppose, the good and the bad about Apple.
The good: Apple is, yet again, pushing the technological envelope, and they are very good at getting all of you high-end types quite excited.
The bad: Yet another reason for Apple to keep its prices where they are, and keep throwing at its few high-end consumers the morsels of functionality that are, at best, of questionable value for 99% for the world's computing population (myself included).
Ironically, this is exactly the type of marginal (note that it is bolded, italicized, and underlined) functionality that some of the same digiterati regularly lambaste iPod's competitors over, and praise the iPod as having the discipline to refrain from!
Oh, I'll duck......
PS: For the record, I am really quite happy with the screen quality on both my 17-inch MBP (6 months old), and my 24-inch iMac (1 month old).
The Luxeon series from Lumileds (bought a while back by Phillips) claim 70% brightness at 50,000 hrs. That might not be "forever" but it'll do for now.
Interesting. Luxeon refers to a power regulation chip, I believe. There are many Luxeon LED-based flashlights available (I've purchased a few), and they are much brighter than regular white light LED flashlights. They are not as bright as Xenon bulbs.
Interesting. Luxeon refers to a power regulation chip, I believe. There are many Luxeon LED-based flashlights available (I've purchased a few), and they are much brighter than regular white light LED flashlights. They are not as bright as Xenon bulbs.
Yeah, I've been watching the Luxeons for a while and it's pretty amazing how they've ramped up the lumens. We've gone from being pretty bright if an LED can produce a single lumen to one that can do over 140.
The big deal at this point seems to be thermal management; there's not much surface area on a given LED to act as a heat sink and they get hot.
I'm curious how LED based laptop screen deals with heat dissipation.
I hate to rain on this back-slapping party, but I must admit to being rather stunned by the self-referential nature of the conversation here -- if someone came in from the outside (say, PC) world, they would be laughing out loud over the excitement amongst a handful of digiterati over a (supposedly) brighter screen.
That is, I suppose, the good and the bad about Apple.
The good: Apple is, yet again, pushing the technological envelope, and they are very good at getting all of you high-end types quite excited.
The bad: Yet another reason for Apple to keep its prices where they are, and keep throwing at its few high-end consumers the morsels of functionality that are, at best, of questionable value for 99% for the world's computing population (myself included).
Ironically, this is exactly the type of marginal (note that it is bolded, italicized, and underlined) functionality that some of the same digiterati regularly lambaste iPod's competitors over, and praise the iPod as having the discipline to refrain from!
Oh, I'll duck......
PS: For the record, I am really quite happy with the screen quality on both my 17-inch MBP (6 months old), and my 24-inch iMac (1 month old).
what exactly are you saying here? that's is odd that we would get excited over new screen technology? i don't see how that's anyway comparable to the ipod situation at all. led backlighting is an improvement of a necessary component of a laptop. most people deride ipod challengers because they needlessly add in poorly-implemented features while not concentrating on making the device better at its main purpose.
having better and more efficient backlighting on a laptop monitor means a brighter screen (for use outdoors) and longer battery life. this whole site is devoted to apple's software and hardware. not every announcement is going to be a device that changes the world.
The bad: Yet another reason for Apple to keep its prices where they are, and keep throwing at its few high-end consumers the morsels of functionality that are, at best, of questionable value for 99% for the world's computing population (myself included).
That seems a perfect reason for putting it in the Pro's first, like most other "expensive" innovations. The MacBooks are already great deals and I agree with your sentiments about the need to add needless expensive upgrades to them.
I've notices my TiBook screen fading over just the last few months. I'm glad to know some of this, because it encourages me to wait and buy a new MBP in 6 months rather than try to upgrade it.
Why are they infamous? What have they done that's so awful?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?infamous
Sorry, it's a pet gripe of mine how often that word is misused where something like "famous" is probably intended.
Martin Short says, "Oh, noelos. In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This company Apple, it's not just famous, it's IN-famous."
EDIT:
...
damn you solipsism, that was my line!
So with a brighter screen and resolution independence on Leopard, is it likely Apple will come out with a HD laptop screen ( or a higher resolution), or am I way off? Don't know much about screens
Yes, higher res screens will happen. The question is when.
damn you solipsism, that was my line!
I'm surprised no one beat me to it. It's all I ever think about when I here that word.
PS: My little Buttercup has the sweetest smile.
Da management can consider itself not only vindicated, but even deserving of an apology from Senor Noelos.
I apologise. I'll even apologize for any American readers.
Noel
Advantages: Very bright, VERY thin, very light, better for touchscreens (or is that OLED?), slightly longer battery life (not more than 30 mins-1 hour extra on the Sony models I saw.)
Disadvantages: Cost, durability? (screen is a lot thinner)
Computer monitors and LCD TVs will all have their backlights replaced in the coming years (starting this year) with LED (mainstream next holiday season MAYBE.) The sad thing about HDTV's is that even the crappy flourescent backlight in current models cost the majority of the wholesale price of a t.v. Hopefully LED prices drop fast
1) I had no idea that CCFLs got dimmer over time. I guess I've noticed that my Powerbook isn't quite as bright as it used to be, but I thought I was just getting excited to get a new computer!
2) I've been thinking about the possibility that one day, iSight cameras might be somehow integrated into the screen itself, to allow for eye-contact during chats. Eye contact is the one thing that remains to be worked out before we've really achieved Spaceballs communication status.
Are there any engineers out there? Is this a possibility, ever?
3) To what extent should we expect the battery life to improve with LED backlighting?
I think I may just wait for this revision before I get a new notebook.
LED's dim as well, but their lifetime is so much longer, that it might not be noticable during the laptops lifetime.
A camera would have to work through the backlight, LCD, and color filters. With any current tech, it's not possible. I can think of some future tech that might, but it's too speculative.
Why are they infamous? What have they done that's so awful?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?infamous
Sorry, it's a pet gripe of mine how often that word is misused where something like "famous" is probably intended.
No, famous relates to something that is good, or popular, as well as well known. infamous means bad, unpopular, as well as well known.
The description fits.
Unbelievable! How in the world would such a technology work?
Imagine when web-chatting and web videos, etc. can let users look directly at the screen, instead of at the camera.
I vote for this as my #1 feature for the upcoming MBP.
Yeah, I read that last year.
I still don't see how a coherent image could be built up from such a design. What they are describing is a sensor that works somewhat like an insects eye. The problem with that is we have no idea how an insect's brain uses the many separate images the hundreds, or thousands, of lenses and sensory cells produce. How do they integrate them into one understandable field of view?
Apple provided us with no information on that matter.
In the "white paper" linked in the article, supposedly the current (2nd gen) LEDs are 12 percent more efficient than CCFL - with higher efficiency expected soon. Even though the battery life may not be so much longer than current models, the brightness improvement should make the switch worthwhile.
Do you think the price point will remain the same?
Advances in LED are coming fast and furious.
Insofar as lifetime is concerned, LED's are rated differently than all other technologies.
All technologies other than LEDS are rated by the time it takes them to fail. When 50% of a test batch fail, that is the rated lifetime.
LED's are different. Because an LED can run for millions of hours, it is rated with both current and retained heat as the determinants. As current use, and or, temp goes up, lifetime comes down. changing voltage (which changes the current being drawn) changes output by about the same percentage.
Of course, both of those affect other illumination as well. But while standard incandescents may be run at a lower voltage for longer life, the put out much less light. 10% lower voltage usually results in more than a 255 light drop.
Fls and other forms of lighting must be run at about the proper rated voltage to run at all. A new type of Fl can be run at different brightness ratings, but not by lowering the voltage.
The lifetime of an LED is determined by the time it takes for the light output to drop by 50%, for most uses. For more critical uses, 25% is the standard rating.
But, an LED will live on with its output dropping for ages, meaning decades.
One reason why some newer LEDs seem to have a shorter rated lifetime is because they are being rated by that tougher standard.
Previously, LEDs were not used for critical lighting, and so the 50% standard was fine.
The industry is actually ahead in all of its self imposed brightness and efficiency goals.
It's amazing that we now have LEDs bright enough for Tv's and even auto headlights!
And yes, prices are coming down.
Yeah, I've been watching the Luxeons for a while and it's pretty amazing how they've ramped up the lumens. We've gone from being pretty bright if an LED can produce a single lumen to one that can do over 140.
The big deal at this point seems to be thermal management; there's not much surface area on a given LED to act as a heat sink and they get hot.
I'm curious how LED based laptop screen deals with heat dissipation.
High output LEDs are BIG. The auto headlight LEDs are very large, and often there are more than one.