How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.
You realize that you don't have to buy their upgrades if you don't want to.
You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.
Re: You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
1) Can you point me to the page that has 16GB RAM for £70 that's for an iMac.
2) You want Apple to ship a full PC that doesn't actually work. Can you show me were on Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. websites where they offer such silly services?
3) You want a Mac and want Apple to warranty it but you don't want to pay Apple for the components that are required for it to work. Why exactly would Apple or any PC maker want you as a customer?
4) I know you see these great guarantees on components from unknown vendors with low prices but you have to realize they typically don't test their components as much or have comparatively loose variances to premium vendors. This is why they aren't premium vendors! They also offer these great warranties that they don't deal with well, hope you can't find your receipt, or don't bother to sending in the component on your dime. This isn't how PC vendors operate so when they charge for a component are also charging for service. You can say they are trying to get a profit from you, and yes they are, but so are the cheap vendors by not offering customer service. There is a reason why there are more than the single, unbelievably low price on Crucial for what you would consider as the exact same component.
Or they might just exit the "workstation" business. Doesn't make sense to me to not allow Mac users to make an upgrade to machines suitable for truly professional production work - which has long been part of their "aura" and abandon their "traditional base" when it seems like it could still be profitable, if a small component of their profits - but their bread and butter is now consumer electronics and they are a focused company.
Then your focus here above is right on the money; there's no way Apple will abandon the Pro market.
Consumers almost always buy the consumer brand of a product, BUT consumers often also know the brand name of the Pro category of the product they're seeking to buy. So if consumer electronics is Apple's bread and butter, then having a Pro category, even if it's a low profit niche, is smart business from a marketing perspective. The "halo effect" goes both ways in this regard. It's a metric worth having by Apple, to consumer's, and Pros alike.
It's a win, win, win, all around. If you & I can see the advantages, then I'm sure Apple has crunched the numbers and we'll be seeing a new Mac Pro solution to blow us away sooner than not at all.
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
So don't buy RAM from Apple. Do you REALLY think they're charging you this much for the RAM that already comes with the machine?
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.
You realize that you don't have to buy their upgrades if you don't want to.
You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
1) Can you point me to the page that has 16GB RAM for £70 that's for an iMac.
2) You want Apple to ship a full PC that doesn't actually work. Can you show me were on Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. websites where they offer such silly services?
3) You want a Mac and want Apple to warranty it but you don't want to pay Apple for the components that are required for it to work. Why exactly would Apple or any PC maker want you as a customer?
4) I know you see these great guarantees on components from unknown vendors with low prices but you have to realize they typically don't test their components as much or have comparatively loose variances to premium vendors. This is why they aren't premium vendors! They also offer these great warranties that they don't deal with well, hope you can't find your receipt, or don't bother to sending in the component on your dime. This isn't how PC vendors operate so when they charge for a component are also charging for service. You can say they are trying to get a profit from you, and yes they are, but so are the cheap vendors by not offering customer service. There is a reason why there are more than the single, unbelievably low price on Crucial for what you would consider as the exact same component.
A flagrantly ignorant poster (Ody boy) need not be encouraged to waste more bandwidth. I'd rather stand in a corner facing the wall than trying to convince someone like that of anything. Pretty soon, he'll argue things like "The sky is blue."
A flagrantly ignorant poster (Ody boy) need not be encouraged to waste more bandwidth. I'd rather stand in a corner facing the wall than trying to convince someone like that of anything. Pretty soon, he'll argue things like "The sky is blue."
"The sky should be sold to me with no color so that I can paint in whatever one I want."
Point taken, but they're not gonna give us more RAM or an SSD standard. Sure, we could see 4GB in the 11" and 13" MacBook, but I don't think we'll see 8GB standard in anything but the 17" MacBook, and even that's pushing it.
I'd settle for 8 GB optional in the MBA. That's the main thing that makes me hesitate about buying one.
With no ODD and SSD instead of HD, that's two motors gone. I wonder if, on a model with integrated graphics only, they could make a fanless design?
The HD Graphics 4000 can push up to 2560x1600 I believe, enough for Retina on a small screen.
I tried that after installing a SSD PCIe card and taking all HDD's out, but the PSU makes the case still too warm. In order to get rid of the humming and disk spinning noise, which I can't stand, I drilled a hole in the wall and put the Mac in the adjoining room - LOL. Nice 'n quite now. Going to hang the ACD on the wall to cover the hole - LOL
The current 27" iMac runs at double 720p HD resolution (known as WQHD - Wide Quad High Definition, 2560x1440 - quad because there are 4 times as many pixels as 720p HD).
I'm guessing the new iMac might be larger (possibly 32"), and will run at double 1080p HD resolution (QFHD - Quad Full High Definition), which is 3840x2160. I know several manufacturers have been demonstrating QFHD panels in the past six months, and since it's a straight doubling of the existing, widely adopted 1080p standard there's going to be strong demand for these panels going forward. You're going to see them widely adopted in high-end televisions and as computer monitors.
I'm too lazy to do the math and see if Apple can claim a QFHD monitor is a "retina" display at normal viewing distances, but they wouldn't even have to promote such a panel as a retina display. They could simply claim it offers twice the resolution of the best HD television (or, 4 times as many pixels). Either would make great marketing copy.
The WQHD panel in the current 27" iMac is somewhat of an oddball - that standard has never really caught on and not many panels are made, which makes the 27" iMac costly to produce. My guess is QFHD will prove far more popular in the marketplace, and that fairly soon a QFHD-panel equipped iMac will be cheaper to produce than today's model.
Where is this graph from? 50" screen from 6 feet? The recommended distance is 11-13 feet. And I'm not sure about 22 inches for a laptop... I'm on a MBP 13" right now and I'm about 14-16 inches from the display with it on my lap.
Where is this graph from? 50" screen from 6 feet? The recommended distance is 11-13 feet. And I'm not sure about 22 inches for a laptop... I'm on a MBP 13" right now and I'm about 14-16 inches from the display with it on my lap.
The PPI in and of itself has no barring on if it's a Retina Display or not. You have to also include the distance the eyes are from the display.
Here is a chart that shows that the larger the display the closer we have been to having Retina quality displays.
As you say, there are no tech that can feasibly double the current iMac displays which is why it will be a double of the smaller resolution noted already. This means that the elements on the screen will be slightly larger because they will have a 1x PPI that is smaller (even though it's unbelievably more crisp). Personally I prefer that which is why I never bought a HiRes MBP in the past as it just made the elements too small for my liking.
Some of those numbers are surprising. DVD is only 17 PPI on a 50" screen and only 36% of the way to retina? I guess I could do the math, but I'm tired.
For starters, I watch my 50" TV from a lot more than 6 feet - more like twice that, so I guess that makes it 72% of the way to retina. Close enough that it reaffirms my views that BR may be our last resolution improvement for a while. If you assume 12 feet for watching BR, that's 180% of retina - so further improvements just don't matter. I've been saying for quite a way that there's no real need for better resolution than BR for most people and this confirms it.
Some of those numbers are surprising. DVD is only 17 PPI on a 50" screen and only 36% of the way to retina? I guess I could do the math, but I'm tired.
For starters, I watch my 50" TV from a lot more than 6 feet - more like twice that, so I guess that makes it 72% of the way to retina. Close enough that it reaffirms my views that BR may be our last resolution improvement for a while. If you assume 12 feet for watching BR, that's 180% of retina - so further improvements just don't matter. I've been saying for quite a way that there's no real need for better resolution than BR for most people and this confirms it.
1) 17.31 PPI is correct for a DVD on a 50" display. At that point the actual resolution of the TV is inconsequential so long as it's equal to or higher than DVD resolution at 720x480. This is the site I use for many of calculations:
2) Sure, as the display size gets larger and less mobile the viewing distance alter more significantly. You can figure out what your device relative closeness to "Retina" are with this formula:
3438 x 1/n =
...where n is either the number of inches your eyes are from the display to get the minimum PPI needed, or n can be the PPI as determined by the site above to get the minimum distance in inches yours eyes must be from the display
For example: If your 50" HDTV has a resolution of 1920x1080 that is a PPI of 44.06. Plugging that into the equation — 3438 x 1/44.06 = 78 — means you need to be a minimum of 78" or 6.5' away from the set. If you do sit double the stated average distance of 72" or 6' then you only need a minimum PPI of 23.88 to achieve the same results which means with a 1920x1080 HDTV you can get a set up to 92" on the diagonal.
3) As for getting better than BR this is important as sets grow in size and people still want to sit as close to their sets as they do now. I want to be immersed by the display, by the story. This is why 1080p simply isn't going to cut for the future. We're already going past on computers which is how this trend has always happened. Text simply needs finer detain than a standard TV image. Did you ever try to plug a PC into your SDTV? If so, were you appalled by how bad it rendered but wowed by how great it looked on an HDTV? I sure was. I am excited for 4k systems arriving within the next 5 years. I'm excited for a wall of TV like in Fahrenheit 451.
* All values calculated using 20/20 vision as the base.
What Apple charges for some of it's components / products is obscene yet you take what was obviously a joke offensive in your defence. Hope your arse doesn't hurt too much as you clearly have an apple stuck up it.
Moderators are suppose to agree with your comments? Personally I'd rather these posters doing this our community a public service maintain the opinions and personalities they had prior to becoming unpaid moderators that clean up spam and overly hateful and inciteful comments.
What Apple charges for some of it's components / products is obscene…
A price which no one has to pay, and whose policy, as a result of the actions of consumers (I assume. There's no proof of it, but there's no explanation for the change otherwise), has changed dramatically from the turn of last decade.
I remember when laptop RAM prices were extortionate ALL the time. Now, whenever there is an iMac or MacBook family revision, the price Apple charges for RAM is competitive at launch. The fact that they do not lower or otherwise change prices of components or computers during the lifetime of the computer's run is a decision they made early and by which they have stuck since Steve's return. It has served them well, it seems.
Quote:
…yet you take what was obviously a joke offensive in your defense.
And I do apologize for not seeing it as such, but truly we have had more nonsensical thoughts than that presented here as actual opinions or passed off as fact. If you would, please forgive myself and any others for believing you'd earnestly suggest Apple ship a computer without RAM or HDD, as it's not the worst we've ever seen.
OK, so I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula posted above.
The current 27" iMac already looks to be a retina display, at a viewing distance of only 2.6 feet at least, which seems pretty reasonable for a 27" display. It sports a PPI of 109. But maybe Apple will define the viewing distance as 2 feet or 2.5 feet. Or maybe they'll release a 32" iMac.
At WQHD resolutions - double the current 1080p standard - a 27" monitor would become a "retina" display at just 1.76 feet, with a PPI of 163 (higher than the first laser printers!).
Even at a 32" diagonal screen size, you'd be looking at a 138 PPI display and a "retina" distance of only 2.08 feet. So I could see Apple releasing just such a beast as their next iMac. I doubt anybody is gonna sit closer than 2' to a 32" display (unless they're trying to get a tan...).
Comments
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.
You realize that you don't have to buy their upgrades if you don't want to.
You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.
Re: You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
I want Apple to make a Retina projector. I'm getting tired of my 100" screen generated by my 1080p projector.
1) Can you point me to the page that has 16GB RAM for £70 that's for an iMac.
2) You want Apple to ship a full PC that doesn't actually work. Can you show me were on Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. websites where they offer such silly services?
3) You want a Mac and want Apple to warranty it but you don't want to pay Apple for the components that are required for it to work. Why exactly would Apple or any PC maker want you as a customer?
4) I know you see these great guarantees on components from unknown vendors with low prices but you have to realize they typically don't test their components as much or have comparatively loose variances to premium vendors. This is why they aren't premium vendors! They also offer these great warranties that they don't deal with well, hope you can't find your receipt, or don't bother to sending in the component on your dime. This isn't how PC vendors operate so when they charge for a component are also charging for service. You can say they are trying to get a profit from you, and yes they are, but so are the cheap vendors by not offering customer service. There is a reason why there are more than the single, unbelievably low price on Crucial for what you would consider as the exact same component.
Quote: bigpics
Or they might just exit the "workstation" business. Doesn't make sense to me to not allow Mac users to make an upgrade to machines suitable for truly professional production work - which has long been part of their "aura" and abandon their "traditional base" when it seems like it could still be profitable, if a small component of their profits - but their bread and butter is now consumer electronics and they are a focused company.
Then your focus here above is right on the money; there's no way Apple will abandon the Pro market.
Consumers almost always buy the consumer brand of a product, BUT consumers often also know the brand name of the Pro category of the product they're seeking to buy. So if consumer electronics is Apple's bread and butter, then having a Pro category, even if it's a low profit niche, is smart business from a marketing perspective. The "halo effect" goes both ways in this regard. It's a metric worth having by Apple, to consumer's, and Pros alike.
It's a win, win, win, all around. If you & I can see the advantages, then I'm sure Apple has crunched the numbers and we'll be seeing a new Mac Pro solution to blow us away sooner than not at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
So don't buy RAM from Apple. Do you REALLY think they're charging you this much for the RAM that already comes with the machine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
How about an option of Apple selling it with no RAM or Drives so we don't have to pay their rip of prices which for RAM currently stand at around a 700% premium compared to what you can buy elsewhere. 2 Drive slots one for a SSD the other for a 2TB drive.
You realize that you don't have to buy their upgrades if you don't want to.
You realize there's absolutely no sense to what you've said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
Why, because it won't happen sure but I would be happy if they did it and sold it cheaper. Makes perfect sense financially when Apple in the UK sell iMac with 16GB for an additional £480 which I can buy from crucial for less than £70 and having to dump Apples 2x2GB RAM. Apple's pricing for such stuff is a compete rip off. On the Apple store 2x4GB costs £160 yet 4x4GB doesn't cost £320 but another £160. What's their excuse cost of labour !!!!
1) Can you point me to the page that has 16GB RAM for £70 that's for an iMac.
2) You want Apple to ship a full PC that doesn't actually work. Can you show me were on Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. websites where they offer such silly services?
3) You want a Mac and want Apple to warranty it but you don't want to pay Apple for the components that are required for it to work. Why exactly would Apple or any PC maker want you as a customer?
4) I know you see these great guarantees on components from unknown vendors with low prices but you have to realize they typically don't test their components as much or have comparatively loose variances to premium vendors. This is why they aren't premium vendors! They also offer these great warranties that they don't deal with well, hope you can't find your receipt, or don't bother to sending in the component on your dime. This isn't how PC vendors operate so when they charge for a component are also charging for service. You can say they are trying to get a profit from you, and yes they are, but so are the cheap vendors by not offering customer service. There is a reason why there are more than the single, unbelievably low price on Crucial for what you would consider as the exact same component.
A flagrantly ignorant poster (Ody boy) need not be encouraged to waste more bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunch
A flagrantly ignorant poster (Ody boy) need not be encouraged to waste more bandwidth.
"The sky should be sold to me with no color so that I can paint in whatever one I want."
I'd settle for 8 GB optional in the MBA. That's the main thing that makes me hesitate about buying one.
I tried that after installing a SSD PCIe card and taking all HDD's out, but the PSU makes the case still too warm. In order to get rid of the humming and disk spinning noise, which I can't stand, I drilled a hole in the wall and put the Mac in the adjoining room - LOL. Nice 'n quite now. Going to hang the ACD on the wall to cover the hole - LOL
The current 27" iMac runs at double 720p HD resolution (known as WQHD - Wide Quad High Definition, 2560x1440 - quad because there are 4 times as many pixels as 720p HD).
I'm guessing the new iMac might be larger (possibly 32"), and will run at double 1080p HD resolution (QFHD - Quad Full High Definition), which is 3840x2160. I know several manufacturers have been demonstrating QFHD panels in the past six months, and since it's a straight doubling of the existing, widely adopted 1080p standard there's going to be strong demand for these panels going forward. You're going to see them widely adopted in high-end televisions and as computer monitors.
I'm too lazy to do the math and see if Apple can claim a QFHD monitor is a "retina" display at normal viewing distances, but they wouldn't even have to promote such a panel as a retina display. They could simply claim it offers twice the resolution of the best HD television (or, 4 times as many pixels). Either would make great marketing copy.
The WQHD panel in the current 27" iMac is somewhat of an oddball - that standard has never really caught on and not many panels are made, which makes the 27" iMac costly to produce. My guess is QFHD will prove far more popular in the marketplace, and that fairly soon a QFHD-panel equipped iMac will be cheaper to produce than today's model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Where is this graph from? 50" screen from 6 feet? The recommended distance is 11-13 feet. And I'm not sure about 22 inches for a laptop... I'm on a MBP 13" right now and I'm about 14-16 inches from the display with it on my lap.
The image is hyperlinked to the source.
Some of those numbers are surprising. DVD is only 17 PPI on a 50" screen and only 36% of the way to retina? I guess I could do the math, but I'm tired.
For starters, I watch my 50" TV from a lot more than 6 feet - more like twice that, so I guess that makes it 72% of the way to retina. Close enough that it reaffirms my views that BR may be our last resolution improvement for a while. If you assume 12 feet for watching BR, that's 180% of retina - so further improvements just don't matter. I've been saying for quite a way that there's no real need for better resolution than BR for most people and this confirms it.
1) 17.31 PPI is correct for a DVD on a 50" display. At that point the actual resolution of the TV is inconsequential so long as it's equal to or higher than DVD resolution at 720x480. This is the site I use for many of calculations:
2) Sure, as the display size gets larger and less mobile the viewing distance alter more significantly. You can figure out what your device relative closeness to "Retina" are with this formula:
...where n is either the number of inches your eyes are from the display to get the minimum PPI needed, or n can be the PPI as determined by the site above to get the minimum distance in inches yours eyes must be from the display
For example: If your 50" HDTV has a resolution of 1920x1080 that is a PPI of 44.06. Plugging that into the equation — 3438 x 1/44.06 = 78 — means you need to be a minimum of 78" or 6.5' away from the set. If you do sit double the stated average distance of 72" or 6' then you only need a minimum PPI of 23.88 to achieve the same results which means with a 1920x1080 HDTV you can get a set up to 92" on the diagonal.
3) As for getting better than BR this is important as sets grow in size and people still want to sit as close to their sets as they do now. I want to be immersed by the display, by the story. This is why 1080p simply isn't going to cut for the future. We're already going past on computers which is how this trend has always happened. Text simply needs finer detain than a standard TV image. Did you ever try to plug a PC into your SDTV? If so, were you appalled by how bad it rendered but wowed by how great it looked on an HDTV? I sure was. I am excited for 4k systems arriving within the next 5 years. I'm excited for a wall of TV like in Fahrenheit 451.
* All values calculated using 20/20 vision as the base.
As a moderator you are an embarressment.
What Apple charges for some of it's components / products is obscene yet you take what was obviously a joke offensive in your defence. Hope your arse doesn't hurt too much as you clearly have an apple stuck up it.
Moderators are suppose to agree with your comments? Personally I'd rather these posters doing
thisour community a public service maintain the opinions and personalities they had prior to becoming unpaid moderators that clean up spam and overly hateful and inciteful comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
What Apple charges for some of it's components / products is obscene…
A price which no one has to pay, and whose policy, as a result of the actions of consumers (I assume. There's no proof of it, but there's no explanation for the change otherwise), has changed dramatically from the turn of last decade.
I remember when laptop RAM prices were extortionate ALL the time. Now, whenever there is an iMac or MacBook family revision, the price Apple charges for RAM is competitive at launch. The fact that they do not lower or otherwise change prices of components or computers during the lifetime of the computer's run is a decision they made early and by which they have stuck since Steve's return. It has served them well, it seems.
Quote:
…yet you take what was obviously a joke offensive in your defense.
And I do apologize for not seeing it as such, but truly we have had more nonsensical thoughts than that presented here as actual opinions or passed off as fact. If you would, please forgive myself and any others for believing you'd earnestly suggest Apple ship a computer without RAM or HDD, as it's not the worst we've ever seen.
OK, so I ran the math for a few display sizes and resolutions, based on the 3438 x 1/n = formula posted above.
The current 27" iMac already looks to be a retina display, at a viewing distance of only 2.6 feet at least, which seems pretty reasonable for a 27" display. It sports a PPI of 109. But maybe Apple will define the viewing distance as 2 feet or 2.5 feet. Or maybe they'll release a 32" iMac.
At WQHD resolutions - double the current 1080p standard - a 27" monitor would become a "retina" display at just 1.76 feet, with a PPI of 163 (higher than the first laser printers!).
Even at a 32" diagonal screen size, you'd be looking at a 138 PPI display and a "retina" distance of only 2.08 feet. So I could see Apple releasing just such a beast as their next iMac. I doubt anybody is gonna sit closer than 2' to a 32" display (unless they're trying to get a tan...).