A blurb from the overall display analysis on Anandtech:
"Even at the non-integer scaled 1680 x 1050 setting, the Retina Display looks a lot better than last year's high-res panel. It looks like Apple actually renders the screen at twice the selected resolution before scaling it to fit the 2880 x 1800 panel (in other words, at 1920 x 1200 Apple is rendering everything at 3840 x 2400 (!) before scaling - this is likely where the perf impact is seen, but I'm trying to find a way to quantify that now). Everything just looks better. I also appreciate how quick it is to switch between resolutions on OS X. When I'm doing a lot of work I prefer the 1920 x 1200 setting, but if I'm in content consumption mode I find myself happier at 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050."
How would it be useless? Those who edit large photos (12gb+ RAW) would definitely find it handy as it allows them to see more detail with less real estate. Architects can use it since it can handle more detail with it's much higher DPI. This is just 2 quick examples where screen real estate is important but doesn't need a rendering powerhouse to use. Regarding 'facebook'ers they are already over spec'd with any laptop right now, a laptop from 2001 can do the same of what they want. But if someone decides to buy a caterpillar to dig a small patch for a flowerbed in their front yard, it's their choice.
The original discussion was me pointing out that it won't make images look worse - I've been clear from the start that it's not going to make images look better either - images will all look the same.
Ok, now here is how things are. If you look at both of those quotes and start really thinking about it you will the true irony about this screen. As stated in that Anandtech article, the maximum scale is 1920x1200. This means that the one thing that I could have seen as a benefit of this display which is mentioned in the second quote was working with photos. See I thought when I first heard about this was yes looking at nice high res photos would look great, but the kicker is that you do not get any more screen real estate as you do with a 1920x1200 display, none. So in the second quote you take that 12gb+ raw, and it will not look any better on this display than it would on a 1920x1200 one. You will still have to scroll all over the place to see the image. Hell those large images will look the same but I will see more of them on my 27" Dell. Oh and even the people defending the screen agree as seen in the following quote:
Oh and about everything looking so good on it, well of course. It is a very nice screen, plain and simple, but that does not mean it is any better than a top quality 1920x1200 screen. Yes if it did not have that built in scaling or at least let you run it at the actual native res then sure it would be extremely nice with the right images, but it does not.
Here is an interesting read.
It's a great example of the bloated prices that Apple applies to its products, and how they're able to sell their products using 'magical' and 'incredible' lingo which, ultimately, mean nothing at all (except to boost the egos of latte sipping hipsters).
Just look at some of the upgrade prices on the MacPro portion of the Apple website.
32GB of memory, add $975 -- and we're talking about either 1066 or 1333 Ram, this isn't superfast 2133 Ram.
It comes stock with a 1TB HDD. An extra 512MB SSD is $1000. An extra 2TB 7200rpm HDD is $300.
Which is actually reasonable compared to the extra super-multi drive you can have installed for $100. And when I say super-multi, I don't mean BD-R, I mean DVD-RW. A DVD writer goes for, what? $20 on NCIX?
Hell, to add another 5770 in order to run X-fire 5770s you have to add $250. For one extra 5770. WTF?
Seriously, if Mac Pro users don't see that they're getting ripped off, (especially in the light that Protools runs on Windows now) then they're idiots.
It should be noted that Apple never ever ever updates ALL of it's products at the same time. The desktops will be coming next.