Print 51 comment(s) - last by epollyon.. on Feb 18 at 9:34 PM

All price changes and spec updates are available now

Apple is looking to lure customers to its MacBook line by reducing prices and increasing specs on some of its higher-end models.

Apple announced today that it is cutting prices on its MacBook Pros with Retina display and even a MacBook Air model.

The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display and 128GB of flash will now start at $1,499 (previously $1,699) while the model with 256GB of flash and a 2.6 GHz processor will start at $1,699 (previously $1,999).

The 13-inch MacBook Air with 256GB of flash also saw a price drop to $1,399.

The 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display didn't see a price cut this round, but it did get a bump in specs. This model now offers a 2.4 GHz quad-core processor (previously 2.3 GHz) while the top-of-the-line version has a 2.7 GHz quad-core processor (previously 2.6 GHz) and 16GB of memory. The price remains the same at $2,799.

Apple is likely reducing prices ahead of a refreshed line of MacBook devices. All price changes and spec updates are available now.

Source: Apple

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Wow!
By TakinYourPoints on 2/13/2013 8:47:06 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, a rant on color accuracy because people don't seem to know what they're talking about with 8-bit vs 10-bit, sRGB vs wide gamut, etc etc.

A larger color gamut does not imply greater color accuracy. In fact, with wide gamut screens the opposite is usually true.

Almost all content people view is intended for the sRGB color space because sRGB is the standard for the internet. sRGB is also equivalent to the ITU 709 standard color space used for HDTV, which is also very close to the SMPTE and EBU color spaces used for NTSC and PAL video. sRGB is not some antiquated irrelevant color space, it is actually the current standard. Since it shares primaries with the current broadcast standard it's not going away any time soon.

Many wide gamut monitors have an sRGB mode, so you can avoid color management issues most of the time and only use the wide gamut if you need it (which for most people, is never). However, wide gamut notebook screens don't seem to offer that option, so you're basically screwed unless you don't mind looking at distorted, inaccurate, oversaturated colors in anything that isn't properly color managed.

This leads to the fact that very few applications outside of the image viewing & editing category are color managed. Being color managed means they can recognize the color space embedded in an image's metadata (ie - sRGB) and use OS services to translate color values from the image's color space to the color space of the output device (ie - your wide gamut screen). Anything that isn't color managed just sends color values straight to the screen without translation, which means you get distorted colors unless the screen is calibrated to the same color space the image uses.

The main problem is that applications that that aren't properly color managed include all web browsers except Firefox with a plug-in, most video players (including WMP and VLC), all games, the Windows desktop background, and Windows UI elements and icons. That means that even if you calibrate your wide gamut display and install the resulting profile, most of time it isn't being used and you're looking at distorted colors. This is also why its important that more of OS X is color managed than Windows.

With wide gamut you are trading off color resolution and accuracy in the middle of the color space where it's most important in order to cover parts of the color space that are much rarer to find in real life.

This becomes a moot point if you have 10-bit color values, but only if you have a 10-bit path all the way through (application, OS, video driver, GPU, and display panel) which again is extremely rare.

So now let's say you have the holy grail, a 30-bit 100% AdobeRGB screen that is color calibrated and matches the AdobeRGB standard perfectly, and you have ideal applications and an OS where everything is properly calibrated and you have a 10-bit path all the way through.

That display won't look any different than if you had a calibrated 100% sRGB screen unless you're specifically working with photos shot in AdobeRGB.

For video it would look the same. For web browsing it would look the same. For games, the same. OS & application graphics and icons, the same.

If you're working with AdobeRGB, ie - large format high end digital commercial still photography in a professional print-based workflow, then its a different story, and those people spend a fortune on Eizo desktop monitors to do their work with. The other exception is maybe the occasional hobbyist who shoots in AdobeRGB and cares about how his photos look only on his own monitor.

tldr - We live in an sRGB/Rec.709 world. This hardware is more than enough to do color accurate work for the web or video.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki