DisplaySearch: ‘Retina’ laptop panels carry a $65-92 premium

A lot of us are looking forward to high-DPI notebook displays from Apple and other vendors. Some say they might appear as soon as next month, which is definitely an exciting prospect. According to numbers by NPD DisplaySearch, though, the new, denser panels will carry a substantial premium for hardware makers—and of course, one wonders if that premium will be passed on to the consumer.

DisplaySearch’s Richard Shim told CNet News that high-DPI 13.3″ and 15.4″ panels (with resolutions of 2560×1600 and 2880×1800, respectively) are “already available from suppliers.” Here’s how they stack up, price-wise:

Shim says. According to his estimates, adding a Retina-quality panel in Apple’s 15-inch MacBook pro would cost Apple about $160 versus the $68 the company spends on its current models. It’s $134 for such a panel on the 13.3-inch model, compared to the $69 Apple pays right now.

We’re looking at an added cost of $65 for a higher pixel density at 13.3″, and $92 at 15.4″.

As CNet News points out, the new iPad’s Retina display costs $30 more than the iPad 2’s display. Apple ended up absorbing that premium entirely, since it launched the new iPad at the same $499 as last year’s model. High-DPI notebook panels will have premiums two to three times higher. At the same time, 13″ and 15″ MacBook Pro systems themselves cost 2.4-3.6 times more than the new iPad ($1,199 and $1,799, respectively). So, it sounds like Apple will have more room to absorb the Retina premium in its laptop line.

Will it do so? It’s hard to say. Unlike iPads, MacBook Pros aren’t really geared toward mainstream users. They’re clearly high-end systems, with price tags well above those of comparable Windows laptops. And we already have a precedent: Apple demands $100 to step up from 1440×900 to 1680×1050 on the 15″ MacBook Pro. It’s definitely possible that the next-gen models will feature high-DPI panels out of the box without a price hike… but I’m not holding my breath.

Comments closed
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    High resolution is nice, but IPS being the default go-to display type instead of TN would be much nicer.

      • Rand
      • 7 years ago

      Easier to sell high resolution though, then you just have a simple higher = better number.

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    I would pay $65 extra for a 13″ laptop that didn’t completely suck.

    I would pay $650 to never ever have to look at a TN screen with viewing angles so bad that there is actually no sweet spot.

    You know, those screens where the top of the image is already inverting blacks whilst the bottom half of the screen washes out with over-high brightness?

    The people who make, sell, and trade those things can go f*ck themselves.

      • Lazier_Said
      • 7 years ago

      First world problems.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 7 years ago

      The funny thing is that adding $50+ to a panel cost is enormous.

      It would only take about $20-30 to jump from a typical 13″ 768p TN to the MBA13’s 13″ 1440×900 TN (of much higher quality).

      So if $65-92 to a world-class screen makes you sick, remember that it’s less than $30 to go from complete garbage to one of the best mainstream screens on the market today.

    • dragosmp
    • 7 years ago

    100$ is acceptable for that increase in resolution. The problem, as it stands now, is there aren’t any options above 1080p on a 15-17″ panel. 2560×1600 can fit well on a 15″er and if the price difference between a 2MP1366x768 and a 4MP 2560×1600 is only some 100$, I know what I’d choose.

    • bhtooefr
    • 7 years ago

    At least it’s not the $1400 price premium (that is, $1400 [b<]MORE[/b<], IIRC, than a 1600x1200 IPS panel) that IBM was charging back in 2004 for a 2048x1536 15" IPS panel. (Protip: They didn't sell many, and the panels sat in warehouses for 5 or so years before resellers sold them on eBay for under $150.) If this is IPS, I'm on that like white on rice. I refuse to downgrade from 2048x1536, but I kinda want to upgrade from the old Core 2 Duo and the Quadro FX 570M that now gets beaten by the laughingstock that is Intel integrated graphics. Unfortunately, until these panels come out, 2048x1536 is the best, and the newest 15" 4:3 chassis can only hold exactly what I have.

    • obarthelemy
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t care that much about resolution past “good enough” (which is 1024×768 at 10″, maybe 1280×800, and up from there). I *DO* care about contrast, view angles, and battery life; and I care a bit about color fidelity, though not that much.

    Seems like a quest headed in the wrong direction.

      • bhtooefr
      • 7 years ago

      Well, given that it’s Apple we’re talking about, they may go IPS with this. If so, your viewing angles and color fidelity will be taken care of, although battery life may suck admittedly.

      Contrast is a weird issue on IPS displays – straight-on, it tends to be worse than PVA and TN displays, but as soon as you’re not viewing the thing straight on, it blows them out of the water, especially TN, due to the awesome viewing angles.

      • demani
      • 7 years ago

      From the tidbits I’ve gleaned, these are likely to be some form of IPS-I’m guessing the push to make these as cheap as possible won’t happen until next year, since they can be sold as a premium product right now-and that is good for the screen manufacturers’ bottom line (especially given how most companies seem to be getting pounded and losing money on screens).

    • anotherengineer
    • 7 years ago

    I would gladly pay 65-90 bucks just for an ips panel on a notebook, let alone high dpi.

      • Sunburn74
      • 7 years ago

      If I had the extra pixels on my laptop (which runs mostly MS office software, adobe reader, and google chrome), I’m not sure what I’d do with them.

        • bhtooefr
        • 7 years ago

        Adobe Reader is an example of a program that handles high DPI screens quite well, actually.

        But, the fun thing is, if your eyesight is either good enough or enhanced enough, you can run many windows that don’t fill your screen, and still have reasonable area to work with.

    • StashTheVampede
    • 7 years ago

    Let’s not forget that Apple basically owns these screens. Apple has spend considerable cash in R&D for these companies, they will be the first ones rewarded with the tech.

      • bthylafh
      • 7 years ago

      Windows is probably behind OSX with respect to correctly scaling up to higher DPIs as well.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        windows 7, perhaps, but there has been a ton of work done on windows 8 scaling.

          • Duck
          • 7 years ago

          It’s still going to be lossy DPI scaling. The same crappy results you would get with 7.

          • Rand
          • 7 years ago

          A lot of work done on DPI scaling… on the Metro side only. How many people do you think will realistically be able to work exclusively in Metro?
          As soon as you fall back to the desktop you get Win7 scaling. And for better or worse, the desktop is likely to be needed semi regularly even for the light usage.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            everyone who buys windows rt? i think an awful LOT of people will live in the metro world. they’ll setup their email, and the facebook client, and be finished. not everyone is a nerd.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            True, but most people already know the desktop paradigm. My parents, if they get a new PC with Windows 8, will most likely stay in the desktop world and eschew Metro.

          • demani
          • 7 years ago

          But it’s all marketing hype though, so why does it matter?

      • CampinCarl
      • 7 years ago

      [citation needed]

      IBM has had monitors with similar PPI as these displays will be. For a decade.

      Not that they were ever extremely mass produced, but I would think the amount needed to get the production going is far less than you seem to imply.

      Please, prove me wrong.

        • Rand
        • 7 years ago

        IBM T220/T221.
        3840×2400 @ 22.2in is the highest I can think of, both of these displays boast a higher PPI then those did however.
        They still broke 200 ppi however, much higher then any of todays monitor/laptop panels.

          • CampinCarl
          • 7 years ago

          Sorry, I meant citation needed on Stash’s comment. The displays that will be featured are not that much more dense than the displays that IBM developed a decade ago. It seems to me like there wouldn’t be a whole lot of R&D that would need to be done to make these displays available in the quantities that Apple will need.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      Apple spent money on R&D for monitors? Oo

      You mean leveraging there weight against current stocks and noming all the displays available at a certain PPI? No, apple spent no money on R&D here… as with pretty much all their products since they shifted to Intel.

      I guess they have what you would consider a marketing research team, which is sorta like R&D. I’m sure they do a lot of focus groups and what not, but nothing concerning state of the art technology.

        • Decelerate
        • 7 years ago

        More like spent money to pay/fund the building of the factory to ramp up production for mass releases. A bit like how Apple sends a check of 500 Million$ to Samsung every once in a while to bulk-purchase RAM.

        It’s always good from a manufacturer’s point of view to have money and/or security of a contract.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          See, I don’t remember this, I remember them buying panels from five different companies to keep up with their demand, which was in the news snippet roughly three months ago.

          If you mean simply buying products is R&D, even in bulk, I think we’re losing sight of the definition.

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://us.industrysourcing.com/page/verticalsites/news.aspx?id=253494[/url<] [quote<]Isaacson says Corning CEO Wendell Weeks told Jobs about an ultra-strong glass that the company had developed in the 1960s but shelved because it never found a market. It was called Gorilla Glass, and Jobs wanted to buy as much of it as Corning could produce in six months. Responding to the impatient Jobs' challenge, the Harrodsburg plant quickly went from making liquid crystal display (LCD) glass for products such as TVs and monitors to manufacturing Gorilla Glass for the first run of iPhones.[/quote<] R&D is almost meaningless without allowing it to end up in the hand of the public. About the Samsung RAM purchases, timely coincidence: [url<]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-samsung-chips-idUSBRE84F0BT20120516[/url<] From the past: [url<]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19925[/url<]

            • Bensam123
            • 7 years ago

            Lenovo was using this in their displays too… They aren’t the only ones that use products…

            Like I said, buying a product isn’t R&D. Throwing your weight around to get a company to produce what you want, IS NOT R&D. If the product is already developed and not used, it still isn’t R&D.

            R&D implies research and development. None of this is research and development unless you count economic stimulation residing from buying a product refering solely to the ‘development’ portion of R&D, which is a pretty far stretch.

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_development[/url<] Here is a article I was referencing in my first post. [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/22568[/url<]

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            Lenovo was using Gorilla Glass before Apple?

            You take R&D on the technical term, which is fine but doesn’t mean much in the bigger scheme. Did you know that Nokia spends (spent) twice in R&D than Apple? Look at what Nokia’s reduced to now.

            Lazaridis is also someone who focuses too much on the technical.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            reduced? nokia has the best screen for outdoor reading in the industry. they just won all the design awards for the year. they have phenomenal lower end phones that do all kinds of great things for the price. nokia also was maintaining a variety of product OS’ (apple does this too). I think you’re underestimating the value of nokia’s R&D.

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            R&D will go down if the company goes down.

            At the end of the day it’s about sales and profit.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            of course, and they have slashed their budget. My point was that your wrote off nokia’s r&d, and touted apples, when nokia pretty much IS cell phone tech. everyone complains about apple suing, but nokia is worse.

            bensam’s point, and an accurate one, is that taking somebody else’s finished product, and putting it on yours is very little r&d, if any. you MIGHT fit it into development, but it’s not research.

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            I fully understand your point and the gist of Bensam’s.

            But first:
            [url<]http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1880037619x0x563104/e4cb1db1-75d5-4678-85d4-bef7dab6f2e4/Q2_2012_Form_10-Q_As_Filed_.pdf[/url<] Research and development: 3 Months ending March 31st 2012: 168 Million. So unless Bensam works for Apple or has confirmation from them officially, how can he determine that they have [b<]not[/b<] done R&D on display tech? And design/development is part of R&D.

            • Bensam123
            • 7 years ago

            I never said before Apple, just that they also have used gorilla glass. I don’t know who started first. There is a list of devices that use gorilla glass on wikipedia.

            Yeah, you know how much Google and IBM spend on R&D? Look at what they’re reduced to now.

            I’m not using R&D as a technical term, I’m using it as it’s definition. This isn’t semantics. Like I described, you would have a tough time of getting R&D to fit your description. By that definition R&D applies to any company that buys products or services from another company.

        • StashTheVampede
        • 7 years ago

        Apple has invested serious money into the companies providing them parts for all physical items they have been selling for years. All Apple users owe a bit of gratitude to Tim Cook for being a good businessman: he’s helped lock up many supply deals, preventing competitors from even coming close to having a similar product.

        If you don’t believe Apple has spent massive money to secure up parts, how many other companies have a screen DPI the same as Apple’s iPhone at the same size? Samsung has a larger screen with similar DPI, but it’s not quite the same as Apple, no? Apple even went to buy an ARM firm to help them design custom chips for their iDevices AND Apple was one of the first to use Qualcomm’s latest chip that works on GSM/CDMA networks.

        The reason why Apple doesn’t have a real competitor is because Apple is making sure they first to market using parts that no one else can use (yet).

          • accord1999
          • 7 years ago

          [i<]If you don't believe Apple has spent massive money to secure up parts, how many other companies have a screen DPI the same as Apple's iPhone at the same size?[/i<] Yet Meizu, a relatively tiny company, didn't seem to have problems getting the same 3.5" 960x640 screen; they may have already beaten Apple to the 4" screen. The real reason is that Android manufacturers already made the leap to larger screens for their flagships. 3.5" 3:2 displays are for lower-end Android models. While HTC is much smaller than Apple, that hasn't stop it from getting access to a 4.3" 720p screen with highest DPI ever on a smartphone, or from getting a new 4.7" panel that is probably the finest LCD display ever placed on a phone. [i<]AND Apple was one of the first to use Qualcomm's latest chip that works on GSM/CDMA networks.[/i<] World phones that support CDMA on Verizon and GSM in Europe/Asia aren't exactly new and have been available for years. [i<]The reason why Apple doesn't have a real competitor is because Apple is making sure they first to market using parts that no one else can use (yet).[/i<] Isn't that Samsung? Which is technically the only company that could realistically research, develop and build every part of its smartphones in-house?

            • StashTheVampede
            • 7 years ago

            “Yet Meizu, a relatively tiny company, didn’t seem to have problems getting the same 3.5″ 960×640 screen; they may have already beaten Apple to the 4″ screen.”

            Did they release before Apple? No. Apple secure the first sets of screens out the possible vendors because they invested their cash to secure the very first out of the door. Apple also needed newer horsepower to push that resolution and now owns the chip maker that made it for them.

            “While HTC is much smaller than Apple, that hasn’t stop it from getting access to a 4.3″ 720p screen with highest DPI ever on a smartphone, or from getting a new 4.7″ panel that is probably the finest LCD display ever placed on a phone.”

            HTC/LG/Samsung are all Korean companies that are competing against Apple. LG and Samsung have spend significant amounts of money on their own R&D (to ship their own phones) on panels, it’s no surprise why those three are similar in specs (all fighting over the same turf/tech).

            “AND Apple was one of the first to use Qualcomm’s latest chip that works on GSM/CDMA networks.” Lots of world phones, check. How many world phones were with a single chip that also did 4g? Wait, that’s Qualcomm with the iPhone 4S. Did Blackberry have a world phone, single chip that also did the US standards for 4G? No.

            “Isn’t that Samsung? Which is technically the only company that could realistically research, develop and build every part of its smartphones in-house?”

            Samsung is truly the only company that could compete with Apple in the phone space. Unfortunately, they make a dozen different form factors, features and are tied to Android. The sooner Samsung forks Android (much like Amazon did) and consolidate their lineup, the sooner they’ll be seen in a similar light to Apple.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          Soo… once again a definition stating that simply buying items is R&D… ><

          No, buying already existing parts is not R&D.

          One of their suppliers for their iPad screens is Samsung… >>

    • blastdoor
    • 7 years ago

    I very much doubt that the prices suppliers quote in public are the prices that apple would pay. Apple isn’t some little two bit operation like dell or acer.

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      I lol’d at this.

        • adisor19
        • 7 years ago

        I remembered Michael Dell back in the 90s saying Apple should close up shop and give the money back to their investors.

        Oh how times have changed !

        Adi

    • holophrastic
    • 7 years ago

    I think it’s a crazy and very stupid world. The whole point of a higher resolution is to have a larger screen. And the whole point of a higher DPI is to have a nicer screen. But the whole point of a laptop is to be smaller, lighter, and lower powered.

    So why would I want to have a screen that’s more expensive, drains the battery, slows my GPU, and is still very small — as in too small to do more than one thing at a time?

    Sure 2560x lets me have two browser windows side by side. But 13″ wide definitely doesn’t.

    All this does is increase the popularity of the zoom tool.

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      You’re right, but I think you’re missing two points:

      1. There’s a happy medium here for computing (vs. apps/entertainment on tablets), where higher resolutions than normally ship at various sizes will help right now, and

      2. There’s a hope that with the availability of higher resolution screens, OS vendors will start building robust application scaling into their UIs.

      From personal experience, I don’t find my 16″ 1366×768 screen to be too ‘low resolution’ for it’s size, and yet I’m replacing it with a laptop with a 17″ 1080p screen for academic work. Both are perfectly usable in their respective niches.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      You have a valid point. However, with Windows 8 and iOS/OSX, the new OSes will properly scale resolution so things aren’t impossible to read as has been the case for Windows for decades.

      Furthermore, with advancements in power efficiency on the CPU and GPU side and faster charging batteries than ever, the impact on battery life will not be substantial. On the other hand, it’s a chicken and an egg scenario – – we need hardware with higher resolution displays so that software can finally start to catch up and take advantage of the added details that can be recreated.

      All things being equal if we didn’t aspire for higher resolutions, we’d still be using standard TV resolution of 640×480. As long as new OSes can adapt to higher resolutions, it will only improve the quality of the screens.

        • Rand
        • 7 years ago

        Win8 DPI scaling hasn’t changed at all on the desktop though, so unless someone is strictly using Metro all the time ‘Retina’ displays still won’t be viable and the desktop will likely remain something most people are going to need to access throughout the life of Win8.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      you hit the nail on the head. i also think 1080 is MORE than enough. Problem is though, it’s already available. how can you convince people to upgrade if what’s currently available is great? you can’t. so you convince them the even SEEING a pixel is a bad thing. force them to believe that they’re getting an inferior experience, like they did with the ipad 3, despite MOST people not being able to tell the difference between it and the ipad 2. This whole thing is retarded. i can appreciate res gains. i’m not saying 640×480 was amazing, but this whole obsession with MOAR PIXELS makes no sense on one of these machines.

        • Rand
        • 7 years ago

        For many people 1920×1080 isn’t available though, very few laptops even give an option for anything but 1366×768.
        I’d hazard a guess that for a good 75% of people, even 1600×900 would be a significant benefit. The overwhelming majority of people are making due with less.

          • Airmantharp
          • 7 years ago

          Yup.

          I went for a custom Clevo- trying to find a laptop with a decent, high-resolution panel, a decent GPU, and a chassis that doesn’t look like a spaceship is definitely a feat.

          • Zoomer
          • 7 years ago

          1366 horizontal pixels are acceptable for a laptop, but 768 vertical is rather low, imo.

            • Rand
            • 7 years ago

            Agreed, with 16:9 anything but the very lowest resolutions generally provide adequate horizontal pixels. It’s the vertical resolution that’s the killer, sad as it is even on the very highest end I can’t get comparable vertical resolution to what I had in 2003 on a laptop (1600×1200). It just flat out doesn’t exist.

            The 1280×1024 from the late 90’s offered higher vertical resolution then all but a very tiny fraction of todays laptops.

        • esterhasz
        • 7 years ago

        I sincerely disagree. As somebody who works with a lot of text and scientific software, where sharpness and detail count, this is honestly the most significant development in computing in the last ten years. I am willing to spend obscene amounts of money for the additional sharpness and comfort for my eyes, which are often the limiting factor in my work day because they simply get too tired.

        The move from iPad 1 to 3 was such an immense step forward in reading comfort for me (honestly, if somebody cannot tell the difference, they must have already very bad eyesight – mine’s far from perfect but it is simply day and night when reading on screen) that after years of “meh” this is the one thing that is getting me excited in terms of computer hardware.

        I am not saying that my needs are or should be shared by others but it is simply too easy to dismiss this as pure hype. For some people, this is going to be truly revolutionary.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          maybe, but maybe some of it is perceived. if your eyes aren’t perfect, i think you’d have a tough time telling them apart. Most customers can’t tell. EVEN TECH JOURNALISTS can’t tell them apart. While it might have some application, i think it’s overblown. In some industries, sure, it might have advantages, but for your average consumer, it’s marketing.

          [url<]http://www.cultofmac.com/154831/many-apple-store-customers-cant-tell-the-new-ipad-apart-from-the-ipad-2-video/[/url<] [url<]http://gizmodo.com/5894094/we-people-an-ipad-2-told-them-it-was-the-new-ipad-and-they-loved-it?tag=apple#13372471068282&[/url<]

            • esterhasz
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t know about “average consumers” without a survey, but looking at an iPad 1 and 3 side by side, I find the difference to be extremely striking, especially on rendered PDFs, where the lower resolution produces really visible anti-aliasing. Again, I don’t know about other people, but I would even have paid a couple of hundreds more for that hires screen – the improvement of my reading experience (several hours per day) is staggering.

        • Firestarter
        • 7 years ago

        Seeing a pixel IS bad. Your eyes are better than you give them credit for, or if they aren’t you might need glasses.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          why? i can understand the issues with blurring causing eye strain, but that’s a minor part of the issue, and for the vast majority of people, cleartype helps alleviate that. the majority of eye strain comes from flickering anyway, and a better refresh rate will improve that.
          you might dislike seeing a pixel, and at 480p on a 22 inch monitor, i can see how that would be annoying. But at 1080 or even 900 it’s hardly something i worry about. 1366×768 isn’t as nice, but it works.

          As for my eyes, i’m 20/15, but i don’t buy the argument your presenting. well, actually, you never presented an argument, you just said “it’s bad”. IMO, it’s marketing. i showed you links where people can’t tell them apart, yet are willing to pay extra for them. you show me how it’s necessary.

            • Firestarter
            • 7 years ago

            I calculated the optimum resolution for my personal monitor here. It’s a 23″ monitor that I’m viewing from about 32″ distance. The horizontal side is 20″, it fills 32 degrees of my horizontal field of view ( tan[super<]-1[/super<](20 / 32) ). With 20/20 vision, our eyes can supposedly see details at up to 1 minute arc (1/60th of a degree). So, the optimal horizontal resolution to display all the detail that my eyes should be able to see is 32 * 60 = 1920 pixels. Uncanny eh? So I guess that means that a 23" 'full HD' display should be just about perfect for the desk at which I'm sitting at, no extra resolution necessary. However, I still see jaggies when I don't have AA enabled, and I still need sub-pixel rendering of my fonts. So it appears to be that either I have excellent eyes (not the case), or that having pixels be the same size as the smallest detail that our eyes can pick out just is not enough.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            again, you’re using calculations based on what? not ever seeing a pixel. i’ve already said i thought that was silly. if AA fixes it, which it does, then stop qqing.

            • Firestarter
            • 7 years ago

            AA is not a fix, it’s a workaround, one that doesn’t always work. TrueType is also a workaround, one that works very well and effectively triples the horizontal resolution for text, but still a workaround with its associated artifacts. I guess that 1920×1080 at 10″ to 12″ would be about the pixel density where these kind of workarounds are not required anymore. That’s really not far off from that 15″ 1920×1080 display you mentioned.

            • demani
            • 7 years ago

            Simple comparison:
            – How many Excel cells can you easily read on a 1024×768 screen?
            – How many Excel cells can you easily read on a 2048×1536 screen?

            – How many Excel cells can you fit and still be able to read on a 1024×768 screen?
            – How many Excel cells can you fit and still be able to read on a 2048×1536 screen?

            For nearly all of the population, the higher resolution will allow for more data to be onscreen, even at a smaller character height, and with the same dimension screen.

            Text needs to be rendered at a certain height on screens in order to have enough pixels to render the
            letterforms- that minimum is usually around 8 pixels. So by doubling the linear resolution there is now the option of dropping the text size by 25% (from 16 to 12 pixels) and still having the text be better formed (more legible) than it was at the old 8 pixel height that was taller.

            And again, there is nothing saying Apple will go higher than 1920×1080 on the 13in screen- it may not be necessary at all to get the effect-certainly people are very satisfied with the jump to 1920×1080 on Samsung tablets as a notable improvement over the previous screen resolution.

            This carries over to image editing and onscreen viewing for the exact same reasons. Coding would also see the same benefits. Game playing and movie watching would see no advantages.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            so…. your point is that since excel doesn’t have zoom (which it does), that some more resolution means it’s better? how makes it better? if you have smaller cells (which you would, if you’re fitting more on the same size screen) it’s going to be harder to read. yes, you’re right that they would be crisper, but at what point do we stop caring? i think it’s roughly the 1080 mark on a 15 inch screen. that’s TONS.

            photo editing MIGHT have some advantage, but you zoom in like a bastard anyway. I think, as i thought before, that for the majority of people, this is overkill, and a waste of money.

            • demani
            • 7 years ago

            No-you asked for an explanation for how it is beneficial, of which I gave several. I don’t see where I said Excel doesn’t have zoom at all- I said you could set that to 75% and still have more clear text than you would at the half/quarter resolution. So you get both sharper, more legible text, AND more data onscreen. One of the limitations we currently run into is that the resolution of screens can currently be a limiting factor in how small text can be displayed, moreso than the actual size of the type (for example, many books have text at a smaller type size than onscreen type, and remain completely readable-precisely because they have better resolution).

            You are certainly well within your rights to believe 1080 is fine on a 15in screen. But experience shows that higher resolutions are appreciated on both smaller devices (both iPad3 and the latest Samsung tablet) and at ones at the same size (see bhtooefr’s post). You’ve been called on the generalization that it makes no difference for anyone else, and that it’s just marketing. It’s not, and you are incorrect in that assertion.

            If the rule of thumb is overkill for the majority of people well, almost anything shipped fits that categorization-After all I’m perfectly fine with an 8 core machine from 4 years ago, and have no need for something newer. But that doesn’t mean there are no improvements to be had by upgrading, and that I wouldn’t see any benefits.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            No. i said it has no appreciable difference for the vast majority of people. similar to how your 4 year old tower would function fine for 99% of the market. i never said there were NO benefits, i said the benefits are overstated, and it’s marketing. the fact you’ve bought the marketing says nothing about my point, except it might be true. i’ve already linked videos showing real people unable to tell the difference. not only real people, TECH JOURNALISTS. the “appreciated” difference is, in many, not all, fabricated.

            One of the limiting factors in how small text can be displayed is currently that it gets damn small, and people can’t read it 2 feet away.

            So far, i see nothing showing me i’m “incorrect”, rather, just more people claiming foolish things like “i need smaller text, cause it already goes small enough i can’t read it”.

            It doesn’t matter, i knew when i stated that people are foolish i’d be down voted and argued with.

            • demani
            • 7 years ago

            No- you simply said you didn’t think it was useful. People who have experience have provided counterarguments, and yet you’ve waved your hands and just continued to say it’s all marketing. So you dismiss evidence, and the alleged evidence you provided isn’t evidence at all. The one where someone was just handed an iPad 2 and told it was a new one is hardly anything to note: its the same issue people have been dealing with HDTV for years in that without an opportunity to actually see the improvement people think that the clearer signal of DTV is enough difference. Its not until they actually get HDTV that they realize what HD really means. The other one is completely dependent on the apps-in fact old, non-updated apps did look better on the old iPad because the new one shows flaws in the graphics (things actually look more pixelated when using the scaling mode, precisely because of the increased resolution-many old games looked better on CRTs back in the day because the CRTs provided a certain level of analog smoothing both in pixel shape and color gradation-digital displays exposed the flaws). Again, hardly scientific enough to even claim as anything beyond an interesting social and technical phenomena (though not evidence of anything).

            Saying “just more people claiming foolish things like ‘i need smaller text, cause it already goes small enough i can’t read it'” is hardly showing comprehension of what was written. I CAN read smaller text-in fact I do in many books and magazines every day (and so do most people). But I cannot on a computer display at 75-110 ppi because the resolution isn’t high enough to render it legibly. That isn’t foolish, that is something I can witness with my own two eyes (and my vision isn’t perfect by any stretch). That isn’t fabricated, it is a fact.

            Viewing graphics (you know, looking at your snapshots-commonly done by most users) will also see an improvement since the resolution is higher (again, for the same reason that increasing printer resolution makes printed photos look better). You lose 3/4 of your photographic information on a lower resolution screen (compared to a high res screen), Yet you are fine with that and think it is insignificant. Do you stick with an SDTV as well?

            Again, any content creation application can benefit from it, most documents will be more legible, and graphics can be significantly higher detail-but that is all marketing to you?

            YOU have yet to prove that those are all invalid, but you have decried everyone else as being foolish. Have you actually done anything with a hi-ppi screen? Or is this all purely uneducated conjecture on your part?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            No (just to keep with the trend). On the first paragraph, you make a lot of points. some of them are valid. In the HDTV realm, i do have an old 720p panel i picked up on kijijj. I went 720, because realistically, going any higher is typically wasted, especially at any kind of distance. 4k tvs are retarded. at that distance, it simply isn’t used. could it look marginally better to SOME people? sure, but not most. I know a lot of people who have hdtvs and sdtvs and don’t give a rats ass about them. uncles, aunts, etc. they like the bigger screen, but the “hdness” isn’t important. i personally do like hdtv, but i think the law of diminishing returns has set in.

            I’m familiar with some of the scaling concerns on old applications with the ipads.

            I’ve used hi resolution screens. and on my current 1080p monitor, i have no issues reading excel at 55% zoom. that’s an F TON of cells. the issue i run into is physical size, not pixels.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Everything we talk about on this site is unnecessary.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            sure, but this only makes slightly more sense than quad channel memory for my grandmother.

        • demani
        • 7 years ago

        Okay- YOU think 1080 is more than enough, but at what size? Maybe the 11 or 13in display will be 1920×1080. But this coming about because there is a decoupling of resolution and size of the screen. It used to be that if you wanted higher resolution the only benefit was on a bigger screen, since UI elements were too small even if they did have a 15in 1600×1200 display.

        But, I have yet to see anyone not notice immediately the sharpness of a new display when showed content that too advantage of it (i.e. not movies, where it makes little difference). And even with higher resolution you can still do things like move the zoom in Excel to 75% (zooming out) and see more info than you could before, and have it be perfectly sharp rather than starting to blur together (I review some spreadsheets and data sets on an iPad 3 that were simply not possible on an iPad1/2 because the resolution simply wasn’t there to resolve the details enough to make text legible). Anyone doing anything with text will notice the benefits immediately-and text makes up a large portion of computer use. Anyone doing image creation (either 2d or 3d) will see benefits from sharper detail without needing to zoom in, to more precise lines and points.

        It does make sense if you step back from the “more pixels only means more spreadsheet cells”. And by your analogy, why stop at 300 dpi on printers? Every modern printer is at least 600×600, and some are many times higher resolution than that. Yet the page is still the same 8.5×11 inches. What’s the benefit? The advantages there apply here as well.

        • End User
        • 7 years ago

        I’ve got both an iPad 2 and an iPad 2012. The difference is striking and very noticeable. MOAR PIXELS kick ass.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          cool. i already said it’s noticeable for some users. But many can’t tell the difference.

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            Who?

      • bhtooefr
      • 7 years ago

      Resolution is a linear measurement – pixels per inch. Higher resolution means you can fit more fixed pixel size elements on your screen, or make those elements bigger and higher detail – sharper text among other things.

      Myself, I want more elements on the screen, so that’s what I’ll do – have it put more elements on my screen, at the same pixel size as before. I have better than 20/20 left vision, plus bifocals due to my right eye, so screw you all, I want more pixels. 😉

      Windows scaling sucks for using higher detail (yes, I know, Metro will be OK, but Metro in itself sucks), because of it breaking older software (or not at all working with older software, giving you a blurred raster scaled window), but is more flexible. When it works. Which it doesn’t.

      OS X will use quadruple scaling – one pixel becomes four – which is actually why Apple is pushing for such high resolution – it means that every program *WILL* scale perfectly – just like on the iPhone 4 and the iPad 3 (I refuse to call it the new iPad) – but it also means that screen elements will be the same size as on the lower resolution screens they replace. Actually, there’s rumors that they’re going to be doing nontuple scaling as well, meaning that screen elements can be bigger than before, but evenly scaled, for people who want bigger screen elements. And, because of the higher resolution, such nontuple scaling results in more desktop area than quadruple scaling on the old monitor would.

      tl;dr You get zoomed by default on OS X, and you therefore get sharper text and icons and such without having to squint.

        • demani
        • 7 years ago

        But remember, you can also zoom out and still get better character formation than you did before. SO you can get more info on screen AND have it rendered better than it was before. Best of both worlds (and you can still go for letters that are super tiny and have a boatload of extra content on screen).

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      No. You’re not getting it. Look at an iPhone 4 next to an iPhone 3GS. The screens are the same size, but one has double (quadruple) the resolution. All UI elements are the same size on both displays. All photos, fonts, websites, etc, are the SAME SIZE. One just has a higher DPI.

        • deathBOB
        • 7 years ago

        Not really. You can read smaller text much more easily with high dpi. I’ve found I can decrease the zoom on web pages and still read resulting in more web page in the same space. The difference is surprising and I would love to be able to do the same on a laptop. Of course my story will probably change as my eyes age and I can’t see up close.

          • demani
          • 7 years ago

          Exactly: for example- you can read Techreport main page on an iPhone 4 without zooming, but you can’t on an iPhone 2/3/3gs. That’s the benefit of the resolution bump-smaller elements can be rendered with enough pixels to make them legible.

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          Right, thats the point. Everything is the same SIZE, its just clearer because its a much higher resolution. I explained this in the other thread. Instead of being 16×16 pixels, for example, you’d say ‘4% of the screen size’, so that no matter WHAT the actual resolution is, assuming the physical screen is the same size, the element will be the same size.

    • Duck
    • 7 years ago

    $65 / $92 is not what I would call a “hefty premium”.

    You could easily save that much by using cheaper components elsewhere; such not having to always fit the latest Intel CPU built on the most cutting edge process tech.

      • bthylafh
      • 7 years ago

      It’s not, and at first blush I’d be all over paying another ~$100 for a high-dpi screen.

      However, the OEMs will probably charge more than that as a hedge against potentially more warranty repairs since it’s a relatively new and untried thing, and there’s not so much data on long-term reliability. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s ~$150 more each.

    • adisor19
    • 7 years ago

    Let’s hope they do what they did with the iPad 3 and simply absorb the costs as highly unlikely as that is..

    Adi

      • Ragnar Dan
      • 7 years ago

      Assuming all other costs remained constant seems rather unlikely.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        It’s a complicated profit equation. If they offer benefits (such as ‘retina’ display) without price increases, people might upgrade to the latest/greatest even if their fruit product is already perfectly good enough.

        Bottom line is that many (if not most) apple buyers make their decision based on things that non-apple buyers might not, and Apple sales/marketing dept has figured out how to maximize the profits. If that means selling iPad3 at the same price iPad2 sold a year ago, so be it.

          • jpostel
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]people might upgrade to the latest/greatest even if their fruit product is already perfectly good enough[/quote<] Exactly what I was thinking. My decision factor would be the battery life. If the battery life is the same (or close) with a higher-res screen and all other specs the same, I would get it.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            Other words i they will be removing the optical drives, leaving them a LOT more space to play with/add battery.

            • demani
            • 7 years ago

            That will also help mitigate the cost of the screen to some extent- even if they only save 10 bucks, that’s 10-15% of the screen cost increase. More integration with a new chipset may give other benefits (potentially smaller logic boards). So it might be easier for them to absorb costs.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This