An 11.88” Retina MacBook Air
fpblog.net
fpblog.net
> Recall that Apple made the discrete GPU-less 13.3” Retina MacBook Pro thinner last year, but not the 15.4” model. These facts would match up nicely with a three-tier laptop segmentation strategy. Eventually, Apple would sell only three Retina MacBooks ranging from thinnest to thickest, stratified by price and screen size: 11.9”, 13.3”, and 15.4”.
The latest 13" rMBP was made thinner than the 13" rMBP before it, but it only _caught up_ to the thinness of the original 15" rMBP. The first 13" rMBP was actually thicker than 15" rMBP (something I found quite odd when it first happened).
(Mid 2012, Early 2013, Late 2013) 15" rMBP - 0.71 in high
(Late 2012, Early 2013) 13" rMBP - 0.75 in high
(Late 2013) 13" rMBP - 0.71 in high
So that entire paragraph is making an argument based on an incorrect statement.
To clarify, what I meant by three-tier:
11.9" Retina Air - slightly thicker than the current Air
13.3" Retina Pro
15.4" Retina Pro
And the older Air would stick around for a while.
I really doubt Apple would throw away the Air branding or thinner design.
Is there anything your laptop can't do that is important to you?
Broadwell will be perfectly capable of driving the display.
Oh god, you're right, they did! That's horrible!
Sorry for throwaway.. long time lurker, just posts seldom.
On a purely numbers basis, the difference doesn't seem significant (hence how I talked myself into the purchase), but there's a massive "human scale" threshold that's crossed in that difference. IMO, an 11" MBA feels more "like an iPad" in those respects vs. a 13" MBP very much feeling "like a computer".
Not knowing more about the specs of this hypothetical 12" machine, I'm theorizing it'd be approximately halfway between the 11" and 13" Air in size/weight. That of course may not be right, but it seems unlikely to be way off. So, while my comparison is hypothetical and imperfect, I don't feel it's quite apples and oranges, either.
This makes sense to me: I'm actually replacing a 2008-era MacBook with a Retina MBP primarily because of the screen and the machine's smaller physical size.
A couple people in my firm are also using older but still functional iMacs, and we'll replace those when the Retina versions hit. Better displays are actually compelling reasons to update (despite what I wrote here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/mac-os-10-7-is-out-... a couple years ago).
I suppose retina is a good bullet point for them over other laptops, though, so maybe it is worth it for them for improving sales.
To create the new Retina MacBook Pro, Apple took out the spinning HD, optical drive, and soldered in the battery. But they also put in a Retina display--as well as the more powerful GPU and larger battery it requires
The current MacBook Pro IS the Retina Air in everything but name only. It's the thinnest and lightest laptop that Apple can make with a retina display.
In summary: the hard part of a Retina Air is not the pixel density, the hard part is the power. Any blog post that does not address that question is not adding much to the conversation.
They don't share the same integrated GPU; the MBA is a HD5000; the 13" Retina is a HD5100, the 15" Retina is a HD5200.
The major practical difference between the HD5000 and HD5100 is clock speed; while they have a similar theoretical cap, at full speed the HD5000 uses 22W (more than the TDP of the chip it lives in!), so in practice generally operates at far lower speeds.
They could probably get away with a HD5000 powered Retina thing, but screen power consumption would still be a factor. IGZO should deal with this sooner or later, though.
Not so much in battery tech. It's really holding back a lot of hardware innovation on computers and also holding back the viability of EVs for many consumers.
The Retina display in iPad Air is much more power efficient compared to the retina display in 3rd gen iPad due to reduction of backlight LEDs and move to IGZO type of panel.
The current Macbook Pro/Air situation is fairly elegant- it's a simple tradeoff between portability and resolution when you choose between the two 13" Macbooks. And it's not as if you get shafted by that choice, given how similar the machines are aside from their displays.
As for power, I deliberately didn't go into detail, but the short answer is Broadwell.
And when Broadwell chips roll out they will be placed in the Pro just as easily as the Air. They're both on Haswell right now.
Product differentiation matters to Apple. I just don't think a slightly slower processor and a 0.01" thickness cuts it.
Will probably write about other 2014 Apple products next.
Deleted comment
Apple will be seem as "falling behind" if they do not get rid of their non-retina displays sooner as the rest of the industry starts to catch up. Especially with Sharp's IGZO panels being used in many new products being released this year. Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc are all going to be releasing 4K displays in addition to including retina-class displays for their tablets and laptops.
Just because a smallish form factor proved propular doesn't mean you're not suddenly going to find a size which is a dealbreaker.
12" is tiny and doesn't really improve portability for a laptop-like device (which goes in a backpack).