Why is that a boneheaded move? I think that 1280x800 fits plenty of information on a 13" screen. I usually run an external display for more space.
If anything, 1400x900 on the new MBA seems a little bit small (and Apple doesn't allow you to bump the size of everything up like you can in Windows). It's interesting that 1680x1050 is still an upcharge on the 15".
The fact that a 1920x1080 is only available on a single production laptop, the Sony Vaio Z and a small number of 17" laptops (possibly some 16"ers too) makes me suspect that the market for high resolution screens is very slim.
The best I can tell, the availability of high resolution screens on laptops has actually dropped over the past few years rather than increased. It seems rare now that screen resolution is even an option on laptops.
Personally I'm one of the people who is in the market for high resolution laptop screens. Unfortunately its a choice between high resolution and durability or size. I'm never traveling with a 17" screen again and I don't really want a poorly engineered Vaio Z.
We're talking about the 13". You do realize 1280x800 and 1920x1080 aren't the only choices, right? You don't have to look far, Apple's own Macbook Air comes with a 13" 1440x900. (And to rub it in, a 11" 1366x768.)
I think the kind of people who just look at the size of the screen and not the number of pixels, are likely the same people who will just buy the same size Windows PC because it's several hundred dollars less.
In other words, the people willing to pay Apple prices care enough about their computer purchase to actually read the specs. Like if you buy a high performance car, you at least want to do enough research not to look like a total idiot in front of your gear head friends after you've spent that much money.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and Apple customers really only care about how nice it will look on the coffee shop table.
I know at least 2 such Apple customers. It's an Apple, it's good enough, and that's all that matters to them; specs are the last things they care about.
A colleague has a Vaio with that resolution running Win7. It doesn't seem to respect DPI settings system wide, he is continually adjusting font sizes. I don't know why he puts up with it, it seems much more hassle than it is worth.
My work provided me with a 13" MacBook Pro and I hate how the display is only 1280 by 800. When we get our new budget I am hoping I can get an upgrade to a 15" with the hi-res display, but we shall see.
My MacBook Pro 15" from a couple of years ago has a 1440 by 900 display and that is MUCH better than this 1280 by 800. Shame that Apple still thinks that is acceptable.
Comments
I almost choked on a sip of tea when I noticed that the 13" "Pro" is still stuck with a 1280*800 display. Talk about boneheaded move.
Why is that a boneheaded move? I think that 1280x800 fits plenty of information on a 13" screen. I usually run an external display for more space.
If anything, 1400x900 on the new MBA seems a little bit small (and Apple doesn't allow you to bump the size of everything up like you can in Windows). It's interesting that 1680x1050 is still an upcharge on the 15".
> Why is that a boneheaded move?
Because people want higher resolutions without using an external display. Or at least a choice.
The fact that a 1920x1080 is only available on a single production laptop, the Sony Vaio Z and a small number of 17" laptops (possibly some 16"ers too) makes me suspect that the market for high resolution screens is very slim.
The best I can tell, the availability of high resolution screens on laptops has actually dropped over the past few years rather than increased. It seems rare now that screen resolution is even an option on laptops.
Personally I'm one of the people who is in the market for high resolution laptop screens. Unfortunately its a choice between high resolution and durability or size. I'm never traveling with a 17" screen again and I don't really want a poorly engineered Vaio Z.
We're talking about the 13". You do realize 1280x800 and 1920x1080 aren't the only choices, right? You don't have to look far, Apple's own Macbook Air comes with a 13" 1440x900. (And to rub it in, a 11" 1366x768.)
And the macbook air has a higher resolution in an 11" form-factor
The number of potential customers for this model that actually know what that means is very small.
If Apple put in a 1900x1080 screen, what you'd hear instead from consumers is that everything is too tiny to read.
I think the kind of people who just look at the size of the screen and not the number of pixels, are likely the same people who will just buy the same size Windows PC because it's several hundred dollars less.
In other words, the people willing to pay Apple prices care enough about their computer purchase to actually read the specs. Like if you buy a high performance car, you at least want to do enough research not to look like a total idiot in front of your gear head friends after you've spent that much money.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and Apple customers really only care about how nice it will look on the coffee shop table.
I know at least 2 such Apple customers. It's an Apple, it's good enough, and that's all that matters to them; specs are the last things they care about.
A colleague has a Vaio with that resolution running Win7. It doesn't seem to respect DPI settings system wide, he is continually adjusting font sizes. I don't know why he puts up with it, it seems much more hassle than it is worth.
Nice false dichotomy.
My work provided me with a 13" MacBook Pro and I hate how the display is only 1280 by 800. When we get our new budget I am hoping I can get an upgrade to a 15" with the hi-res display, but we shall see.
My MacBook Pro 15" from a couple of years ago has a 1440 by 900 display and that is MUCH better than this 1280 by 800. Shame that Apple still thinks that is acceptable.
Market segmentation.
Yeah. It segments away people who want more than 113 dpi in a sub-5 lb laptop with a hard drive larger than 256 GB quite effectively.