The screen used to be a module that was encapsulated inside a metal shell and covered with a glass layer. This meant the module itself had to have at least some degree of self-containment as an independent module, with some form of backing (however thin/flimsy) and a layer of glass to hold the "LC" (liquid crystal) in.

Now the screen IS the display module. The metal shell is the actual backing of the LCD module, and the glass is the actual LC-retaining surface.

As for not touting improvements in depth & weight: there's only so much trumpeting of awesomeness that the audience can take before they glaze over. While not the only selling point, the screen is a major factor their advertising group is focusing on. Even without prominent declaration, you & I & others "get it" that it's lighter & thinner. It's not that Apple is neglecting a miracle of engineering, it's that flouting too many miracles at once numbs the audience and degrades the experience ... which methinks is why we did not see new iMacs: one piece of overwhelming awesomeness is enough for the month.

Yes, this is actually what they meant by "no glass layer".

The integrated display isn't really a miracle of engineering. In my opinion it's more a miracle of business that they convinced their display manufacturer to make the retina display modules in the shape of the MBP's display assembly. This sort of thing has actually shown up in smartphones for a while but this is the first time we've seen it in a notebook computer.

In advertising it is very important to keep the message simple and straightforward. Adding (too many) details makes the ad ineffective.

Most people who knows the big deal about size & weight can see it on the details page and in the movie ads.

The retina screen is what the competition can't match, not fully nor partially.

This is exactly what I thought was happening, from the press headlines and the front page. (That it's a new macbook with retina display.)

Until I clicked the video and found out the extent of the reduction here. They have completely blown the announcement in my opinion. Even something as little as "The All-New Macbook with Retina Display" would have been enough to draw attention to it. ('all-new')

It's not everyday that something gets reengineered so thoroughly. they blew playing this up. apple fans live for these big announcements, and put up with a lot of crap that really shouldn't be press coverage but are (marginal bumps) just so they can get at the juicy unveilings. This is one of them - and should be presented as such.

it's not too late, and the front page should be changed to reflect the extent of this miraculous reengineering right in the 6-word announcement; at least add "all-new" (copout) or something more descriptive right in the blasé sentence "Introducing Macbook Pro with Retina display", which sounds like...a macbook with a Retina display.

The "It's a whole new vision for the notebook" underneath it in that ugly grey doesn't do justice to the redesign, since that's exactly what they would say about a bump to retina display with no other reengineering.

I agree with you it's a big deal, but it's also out of the price range of most of their customers -- until the new design trickles down in a year or two, like it did for the Air. This is the part of the product cycle where you make a product just for wealthy or fanatical people while you figure out how to scale. So their marketing strategy is probably as much about selling the other 5/6 of their product line that people can afford. "Retina Display" is enough to get people's attention -- no reason to also emphasize that the rest of the product line is using an old design that's on the way out.

Just another factor to think about when you decide what and how much to trumpet ...

Then they don't understand the Apple product cycle and are currently being run by clueless monkeys.

if they want to do what you suggest, don't make a big announcement and don't put it across the front page...(bottom-left area is fine in case they're trying to limit the exposure). what they've done is just stupid and inconsiderate to the hardware team and apple's fans, who love these types of innovations even if they can't afford them yet.

most people who loved the idea of the air and apple's achievement with it didn't buy one when it came out, haven't bought one since, and still had fun hearing, reading, and talking about it.

What I don't understand is why it is marketed as a MacBook Pro, and not as a 15" MacBook Air. It has much more in common with the Airs than the Pros.

> It has much more in common with the Airs than the Pros.

Technologically yes, in terms of industrial design, power envelope and form-factor no, it doesn't have the characteristic tapered edge (or the possibility to slide it into an envelope), and it remains very heavy compared to an Air: the weight has gone down to that of the "old" 13" MBP (4.46 to 4.5 lbs), but it's half again the weight of the 13" Air 2.96 lbs) and almost twice the weight of the 11" (2.38 lbs).

Because it doesn't taper to a penny-edge and weighs several pounds more. It's not really what the "Air" was about.

If you say "15 inch air" people have expectations that you couldn't have fit all the muscle this thing has into.

"All-new" in advertising is so overused as to be meaningless. It would make 25% of those eight words into white noise.

um, next to a picture like that it makes you pay attention to what's new about it.

The only people who are going to be able to tell the difference between that picture and any other Mac from the last few years are people who don't need the tagline to tell them that it's all new, since they're going to be looking at the specs.

I've read that it's structurally pretty much the same as the existing MacBook Pro matte finish screen. As a matte user, I didn't realize it, but the glossy models have an extra pane of glass covering the entire display. The retina displays drop that extra pane of glass too (but are glossy).

This picture shows the difference: http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/pics/23da9d8f6b.jpg

It is impressive, but considering the obvious compromises(replaceable components and ports) and the probable compromises(harder serviceability) i wouldn't quite call it a miracle. I also don't understand what the rationale is behind sacrificing Pro features for size on a laptop marked "Pro".

My guess is that this isn't a macbook pro. Not for long. A fuckup or a compromise, but either way a departure from Apple's normally impeccably simple naming & branding of product lines. This is just a macbook. If all goes well and Apple can get prices down there might not be pros or airs anymore, just macbooks. In three sizes.

I think Apple have somewhat of an aversion to having price be the only or main differentiator between products. That's why the old macbooks were scrapped. Pros were more powerful & Airs were more portable. Macbooks were only cheaper. Cheaper models can exist, but they have to have some unique advantage that'd make some users buy them regardless of price.

The existence of a Macbook pro & a Macbook pro retina bends this rule. If a 13" air and a just-as-thin 13" pro retina both existed, it would break it.

> My guess is that this isn't a macbook pro. Not for long.

It most definitely is, they're going to deprecate the older design over time. Just look at the specs, CPU and GPU are the same between old-style and Retina, but only the Retina gets a 16GB RAM option (with 8 base, versus 4 base for old-style), a retina display, Retina gets HDMI (and a second TB, which is the future as far as Apple's concerned), an updated Magsafe design.

The old-style remains to clear inventory and to wait for the cost of making/buying retina panes to get lower.

My guess wasn't that it'd be spun off into a separate line. Rather that Making the macbook pro thinner would make the only major advantage in the Air's favor price. That'd lead to an eventual merging of the two.

I don't think it's quite as stark as you say.

This is a transition product just like the original Macbook Air was, which incidentally also looked like an odd duck compared to the clarity of having Macbook and Macbook Pro lines.

It's likely just a typo in your comment, but the Pro Retina is a 15.4" model, not 13".

I agree. Its a bendable "rule" and Apple are willing to bend it in order to make gradual transition. But the Air is also an example that they return to clarity eventually. I don't think they'll continue to sell pros & airs for long if the only real difference is price. I definitely don't think they'll sell Air, Pro & Pro+ for long either, other wise they would have named it something else.

*Not a typo, but I clarified the sentence.

I can well imagine some pros who view upgrading RAM as a very important, even vital feature.

I can also view many pros who view the thinner size as far more important.

As it turns out Apple also makes a not thinner "pro" laptop you can upgrade the RAM on so what's the big deal?

when the maximum is 16g I really do not see the issue here. They charge the same price to upgrade the memory in the Retina Mac Pros as the regular ones.

Considering the for $400 more over the price of a standard Mac Pro notebook you get the new screen, 4g more memory, light weight, and SSD, it really comes off as a good deal in the scheme of Apple pricing. Yeah you lose the DVD, which I cannot recall when I last used one.

My suggestion is just order it maxed out in memory, if the $200 is something to quibble about in a $2200 laptop the you should not be buying one in the first place.

> I can well imagine some pros who view upgrading RAM as a very important, even vital feature.

For this laptop? 16GB likely is the maximum the chipset can handle (in hardware) and Apple offers the BTU option. BTU RAM is considered a sucker's games for individuals, pros have much lower a reason to care.

As a professional computer user, I'd much rather buy the computer with the RAM and not worry about upgrading it later. Professional truck operators buy the truck already customized for the job they need it to do, and don't just walk on to the dealership, buy one, and then weld shit to it.

It probably means that the "display" is the "glass". We already have that from high-end phones like Samsung's Galaxy S series, HTC One X, iPhone 4/4s, etc. It saves space and it makes the text pop on the screen, like it's painted on in.

They continue to clamp down on their controlled ecosystem business model. Benefits do come from standardization and not allowing users or unqualified service providers screwing around trying to fix things, though it increases costs then - and I am unsure which is worst. Standardization can exist without a controlled ecosystem.

What did you want? The smaller size is a focus of the commercial and is one of the huge text headlines on the promo page.

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/

You can only fit so much in a product name.

I disagree; I believe this marketing focus is more effective.

Consider their entire product line. The MacBook Air is thinner than this, and it's old news. The next-generation MacBook Pro is their first Mac with a Retina display.

They made a huge deal out of the fan, which was exactly what I was expecting from Apple.

But you're right, I read somewhere that it weighed almost as much as a macbook air. But didn't see that advertised on Apple's website. Which was for me the biggest news next to the new display.

> I read somewhere that it weighed almost as much as a macbook air.

You read some bullshit then, it's not even close to the Air in terms of weight. 4.46 pounds for the Retina and 2.38-2.96 pounds for the Air (11 or 13")

4.46 pounds = 2.02302197 kilogram 2.96 pounds = 1.34263342 kilograms

700 g difference. It's pretty close. My guess is you might have a hard time telling which is more heavy if you blind your eyes and weigh one in each hand.

Unless you have a handicap you would be able to tell instantly. It's a huge weight difference--the MBP Retina is 50% heavier than the heaviest MBA. That's the additional weight of an iPad sitting on the MBA.

The weight difference between the iPad 2 and the new iPad is quite noticeable and it's just 51 grams. The difference between these laptops is 14 times that.

Does the thinness of your computer really matter?

To some people. I have an Air. I love it. It's small, It's light, It can fit anywhere. It takes up about as much room as a folder in my backpack, which is awesome for air travel, the more I can get in my carry ons, the less I'm paying for baggage.

When you've got to carry it, yes.

YES. It's a laptop. If you can't sacrifice the screen size, where else do you trim the fat?

thinner = less mass = less weight = portability. A laptop is designed to be a portable machine, no?

Desktops however, I do not care if there is a massive tower under my desk. I don't move it unless I'm plugging in something new, or upgrading components.

No, unless you carry it around a lot, at which point durability is more important than thinness resulting in thinness not being important.

So ultimately, no it's not regardless of the use case.

You know we are talking about laptops, right ? By definition they are supposed to be portable.