[snowwrestler]

To create the MacBook Air, Apple took out the spinning HD, the optical drive, and soldered in the battery.

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.

[ucha]

The Macbook Air runs on a CPU with a nominal TDP of 15W vs 28W for the Macbook Pro Retina. I'm pretty sure a Retina display could run with the current Macbook air CPU given that they share the same integrated GPU. That will make a difference.

[rsynnott]

> I'm pretty sure a Retina display could run with the current Macbook air CPU given that they share the same integrated GPU

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.

[baddox]

I don't understand your point. Technology improves over time, and it's reasonable to expect that Apple will create an even smaller laptop with a Retina display which it might call a "Macbook Air."

[cenhyperion]

> Technology improves over time

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.

[mikhailt]

That is true but CPUs and panels do decrease in power usage over time to the point that you can adopt Retina in MBA without harming the battery life. Not to mention if they find a way to cut down on the weight, they can also increase the battery's capacity.

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.

[snowwrestler]

Yes but as CPUs and Retina panels get more efficient, they will be placed into the MacBook Pro as well.

[dhruvmittal]

I really wish more people recognized this relationship between the number of pixels and power necessary to drive those pixels. Journalists seem to constantly call for higher pixel densities on everything, ignoring the practical reasons and tradeoffs that must be considered.

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.

[danmatte]

A Retina Air would be more like a thicker Air than a thinner Retina MacBook Pro.

As for power, I deliberately didn't go into detail, but the short answer is Broadwell.

[snowwrestler]

The Air is 0.68" at the back. The Pro is 0.71". There's not much room there for a distinction between "thicker Air" and "thinner Pro," even if we think they'd be willing to make the Air less wedgey.

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.