The 2013 MacBook Air Review (13-inch)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTDisplay
When I reviewed the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display, I viewed it as the true Retina MacBook Air that everyone was waiting for. With modest increases in thickness and weight, the rMBP13 gave you a much better screen and a larger battery to drive it. Apple’s lineup made sense.
After being in Taiwan earlier this month and checking out all of the 13.3-inch 2560 x 1440 displays being used on notebooks similar in size to the 13-inch MBA, I was beginning to reconsider my position.
To hit an aggressive schedule, you have to mitigate risk. In the case of the 2013 MBAs, Apple kept the chassis spec unchanged in order to do just that. As a result, the displays too, remained unchanged. We’re talking about TN panels (admittedly higher quality than most) and traditional pixel densities. Compared to the Retina Displays deployed across the rest of Apple’s product lines, these panels just aren’t as good. Compared to what you typically find elsewhere, they’re still among the best.
There are two aspects to deploying a Retina Display in a MacBook Air that are worth discussing. The first is power consumption. Greater pixel density requires a more powerful backlight to drive the panel at the same brightness, which in turn reduces battery life. Apple’s solution is to deploy Retina Displays on products it can outfit with a sufficiently large battery. I’d argue that given the battery life of the 2013 MBAs, Apple could move to a Retina Display and still deliver reasonable battery life - but it would be a regression.
The second thing to consider is price. I don’t know just how much more a Retina Display would add to the cost of a MacBook Air, but it’s clear it would be non-negligible.
There’s no real solution to the first problem, but the second one should be less of an issue as panel prices come down. I don’t know where Apple will eventually land on all of this, but today what happens is we get a well defined separation between MacBook Air and MacBook Pro with Retina Display.
Professional users who need greater color accuracy and/or additional desktop resolution really should go for the MacBook Pro with Retina Display. If you don’t need either, the MacBook Air will suffice.
In practice, the MBA’s display isn’t bad by any means. I’ve been staring at it non-stop since WWDC and don’t mind using it at all. The biggest visual issue for me is actually the shifting contrast at off-center vertical angles. It’s not a problem once you properly adjust the display angle but it’s something you don’t have to deal with on the rMBPs. When I'm not in crazy work mode, the lack of resolution isn't a huge deal - but when putting together big articles like this one, I find myself missing the rMBP quite a bit. I guess that's why the rMBP has Pro in the name.
My review sample featured a Samsung panel (LSN133BT01A02), although I’m sure the usual panel lottery is in full effect this generation as it has been in the past. Brightness and contrast are both comparable to what we had last generation (my Samsung panel this year was a bit better than last year's). The brightness/contrast results are very comparable to Acer's 1080p S7, just to show you how far Ultrabooks have come.
I ran the 2013 MBA through Chris Heinonen’s new display workflow using CalMAN to give you an idea of color accuracy vs. the rMBP:
| CalMAN Display Comparison | ||||||||
| Apple iPad (3rd gen) | Apple iPhone 5 | 13-inch rMBP (uncalibrated) | 13-inch 2013 MBA (uncalibrated) | Google Chromebook Pixel | ||||
| Grayscale 200 nits Avg dE2000 | 3.7333 | 3.564 | 1.7825 | 3.348 | 7.132 | |||
| CCT Avg (K) | 6857K | 6925K | 6632K | 6809K | 6442K | |||
| Saturation Sweep Avg dE2000 | 3.193 | 3.591 | 2.1663 | 5.3608 | 7.0927 | |||
| GMB Colorchecker Avg dE2000 | 3.0698 | 4.747 | 2.4521 | 3.9883 | 5.7664 | |||
The 13-inch MacBook Air isn’t bad, but Apple’s Retina Display is just better.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
233 Comments
View All Comments
darwinosx - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Another peson who didn't read the article and knows nothing about Macs.watersb - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Excellent review!If only it were available with RAM...
darwinosx - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
If only you took tow seconds to find out you can order it with 8 GB of ram.appliance5000 - Friday, December 20, 2013 - link
It's available with 8gb ram - but here's the rub: If you have the 512gb ssd coupled with the fact that it's mounted on the pcie bus, your page ins and outs are about as fast as memory - or seemingly so. It's a very fast machine - I've tested it stitching multi gb panos and editing multi gb layered files in CS6 and it just rips.FrozenDarkness - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
I think people get retina confused with higher resolution computers. Couple things, your windows computer? DPI up scaling sucks too much to truly run retina. Know that retina on a 13 MBP actually runs at a resolution of 1280x800 to be truly "retina" or else you're just up-scaling then down-scaling and burning your graphics card in the process. So in a sense, it's not truly higher resolution in terms of workspace, just in terms of beauty to behold. This also means a MBA retina would have to be a different, higher resolution panel, than the one used in the 13" MBP and at that point, what is the point of the MBP? I think you're more likely to see the MBP become more lik the MBA in size than vice versa.Also, panel lottery sucks, let's not act like apple is the only manufacturer who has a panel lottery or that samsung are only in "review" units.
A5 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Windows 8.1 is supposed to fix the DPI scaling in Windows. Win8 is already significantly better than 7.Beyond that, sharper pixels even without an increased workspace is still a good thing. I think the rMBPs have a mode that does both, anyway.
JarJarThomas - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link
Windows 8.1 can't fix the dpi scaling in windows cause the problem is that most desktop applications can't scale well.Fixing dpi scaling with win8 would be similar to the solution apple does for non retine enabled grafics, internally upscale it.
But that would not work with the way the windows grafic stack works and the applications are dependent on this.
So scaling will ONLY be better for modern ui apps, not for desktop apps.
And therefore it will suck
akdj - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
'Desktop applications can't scale well' because and ONLY because of the underlying OS. It's up to the operating systems architecture to provide third party scaling options/abilities. As we've seen with the rMBP....in less than a year, literally hundreds of apps....from small developers ala Pixelmator to the monsters...AKA, Adobe....have updated their 'code' for HiDPI displays. As has Apple with their software....and Windows with their native apps. Look at the Surface Pro for instance. Anything other than native Windows programming is a PITA. Windows 8.1 absolutely can help...regardless of how the graphic stack is set up....it's that low level coding that Windows needs to get creative with. Especially with dozens of OEMs, screen sizes and ratios....it will absolutely fall into Windows hands to provide decent scaling options and APIs for developers. High Rez monitors aren't going anywhere. 4k was all the rage at CES this year....and $7,000 Sony 4k TVs are already at Best Buys.OSx meanwhile has done an excellent job with pixel doubling trickery for text....while allowing developers the ability to natively use every pixel available 'in app' when drawing, editing video or stills....et al.
That said, and as a rMBP and 11" Air owner, I can honestly say the Air's resolution doesn't bug me in the least. It's a 2011 core i7 and I use it daily....right along side my 15" rMBP...which is the best computer I've ever purchased. Almost a full year with it and it still brings a smile to my face. I started my computer life @ 14 with an Apple IIe in '85. I remember being jealous when my buddy got the 'color' screen for his IIc...while I continued to slave away on a green monochrome screen. Lol....I suppose its where we come from, our ages....and therefore, appreciation for higher resolution vs decent resolution (11" Air) more than adequate and a helluva lot better than other choices on the market. Dunno
Bkord123 - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link
I do not claim to know a ton about computers, and I'll be honest, half of this review looks like it's written in Latin to me. However, regarding the comment that Windows 8 is better than 7, didn't I read several headlines that Windows 8 is more or less responsible for a massive decline in PC sales?TheinsanegamerN - Sunday, June 30, 2013 - link
the main reason pc sales are declining is a mix of a poor economy and computers lasting longer. machines reached the point of being fast enough for consumers five or six years ago. most consumers dont run out to get the newest thing in laptops, they wait until their current one breaks, which is more pronounced when jobs are not certain and raises are nonexistent. they were declining before windows 8 made it to market, though windows 8 isnt helping at all.