text:
Is about the content resolution not the display resolution!
The rendering is done locally and does not take any network bandwidth.
If the content being watched in high res even a low res computer will have to download it and then scale it down to the local resolution.
The network bandwidth would be the same.
assuming that corporate employees are only watching HD content will it slow down the network, your article would be true. otherwise, you're basically saying that by making faster cars would require more roads to be built.
You're an idiot.
the author must either be trolling and testing with how much bullshit in an article he/she can get away or be really dumb. i won"t even consider pointing out how flawed this is.
I really tried, but I am unable to read this article in a way that makes sense. The content coming across the network is not altered by the resolution of the screen displaying it. I can't understand where the huge bandwidth surge is going to come from.
What a load of bollox. You must be what we in the UK call a NUTTER! I'm a motor mechanic, not a computer expert, but I call BULLSHIT!
I suppose he meant with more of these machines connected, websites would have to be upgraded with larger files so that they wont look like POS on the new screens… kinda like how terrible using an iphone app on an ipad that hadnt been made specifically for the larger screen… just my guess.
Ummm lol? Do you even know what you are talking about? Suggesting bandwidth increase due to high resolution display…Why do I even bother coming to random blogs -.-
It would be nice if you could name these 'experts' you are citing so we know who not to hire. What a crock!
Rubbish. Unless I download higher quality video, the rest of the content I consume at work, like my email messages, Web pages and Web apps, .pdf docs won't take more bandwidth.
"experts told CIO Journal earlier this year " Experts? YOU wrote that article too. I suggest you retract this steaming pile of journalistic garbage before your career spirals farther down the (content truncated do to shortage of pixels)
You've got to be kidding!
Wow. A) if any CIO takes this article seriously, they have no business being a CIO B) whatever "experts" told you this information are not experts
Oh look, an idiot on the internet. Why am I not surprised?
This is so stupid it needs to go viral.
The only way a higher-res screen would increase bandwidth usage is if the user wants higher-res content. The PDF my boss wants to read is the same size no matter what the resolution of the screen is.
over 9000 pixels you say?
Holy crap, can I be utterly clueless and write for the WSJ too? How much does that pay?
This guy is a GENIUS!!!! I'll be sure to get my IT staff on that.
How are you even a journalist?
"Apple just had a keynote presentation, so all of us journalists are going to pretend to be computer scientists and IT specialists for a week!"
Someone archive this please.
what is this i don't even
Does this guy have any idea how bandwidth works? Just because the screen is of higher definition than most other products, this does not automatically increase bandwidth. A 30mb video file is going to be 30mb on this new laptop. It is also going to be 30mb on my old Aptiva from 1995. This guy is a joke and I can't believe the WSJ actually believed his mess.
The other article where you link to yourself (hilarious btw) actually nails it, but this one doesn't. The hardware doesn't use up more bandwidth, it allows for the creation of higher-quality content which would then use more bandwidth.
All the CIO assumptions you make here are pretty much ones we look out for and prep for, regardless of the display.
Not sure if trolling or just ignorant……
If they bothered to talk to web devs instead of IT drones they would know if there is anything "retina" will influence it won't be the use bigger images , but the use of SVG and similar vector graphics which would actually result in LESS bandwidth.
I have to follow the augumant that the author was referring to the better the screen resolution, the more people would be using bandwidth hog items like YouTube, FaceTime, etc..
No one really thinks that he thought the screen resolution has an effect on bandwidth consumption..come on, WSJ is not that stupid
As a sysadmin, I have to wonder if this article was meant to be posted on The Onion instead of the WSJ. Sure, once displays of this resolution become more ubiquitous site developers will eventually scale up content to look better at these resolutions, but that's a long way off. If screen resolution had ANYTHING to do with bandwidth utilization, systems admins would be locking down max screen resolutions across corporate America.
Yes, because of all the 2880×1800 content out there. Oh wait…
Is it a requirement that your tech reporters not understand technology?
This article is incredible, I now have a headache.
This is one of the worst tech articles I've ever seen. Simply increasing screen resolution doesn't mean your browser downloads more. It's not like browsers only download what's right on the screen.
Now, once web developers start adding high-resolution images, then yes, images will start to get bigger in size and bandwidth use might increase some measure, but until that point it's not going to make a lick of difference.
Writing link bait articles is one thing, but doing so by lying to execs about how much the new Macbook is going to ruin their business by draining all their bandwidth is just reckless and idiotic.
WSJ should start looking at who they hire because articles like this one are destroying their credibility.
I cannot even believe I just read that. I hope this man isn't paid much…
Hey I heard someone saying something let me report it as a fact…
Is it April fool's already??
Clint Boulton, I am afraid old chap that you are technically not competent to cover tech. issues. Please ponder on other issues / areas.
Thank You.
Stupidity level: over 9000!!!
So, did the WSJ abandon fact-checking by technical specialists?
At what point in the last 10 years of technology did I miss the part where having a big display requires an internet connection? I don't remember plugging my monitor into ethernet, nor hooking it up to wireless. I don't remember the part where TCP/IP or UDP works over DVI or HDMI. I don't remember the part where turning on my monitor pushes me closer to to my 300 GB Comcast cap.
Maybe I'm just not paying attention.
The pixels are smaller, so they should clog the pipes less, right?
This is a long-winded way to ask for a dunce cap.
If I use an external monitor instead of the retina display, can I get by using my current internet connection, or do I need one with more megabytes?
Have you done any research on this fact or do you just take any ridiculous claim you receive and post it as fact… The claim that higher pixel density and better resolution of a screen increases bandwidth is entirely incorrect.
This article made my day — thanks for the laughs. Hope it wasn't serious
This post is complete nonsense. Please explain how in the heck a higher resolution display has anything to do with network bandwidth. Please, CIOs and assistants reading this article, please IGNORE and do some real fact checking.
I'm not sure how much longer I can be a fan of Apple.
First, iTunes started charging me more for songs because I bought bigger speakers, and now this?
"Another option might be for CIOs to require workers who want to bring their own high-powered devices to the office to bring their own bandwidth as well."
I do that. Actually, I fax the extra bandwidth over every morning. I take the leftover bandwidth home at night on a USB flash drive.
Might be the most incorrect IT based article I've ever read. I REALLLY hope this is trolling at its finest.
I expect a complete collapse of the Internet when Apple starts selling HDTVs.
I would recommend you go back and read it again. I believe he is merely saying that because of the quality of the screen, people will more likely want to watch more "high-definition content on YouTube and other data-hungry websites" resulting in more throughput usage. Now it's hard to believe that this would result in "slow enterprise networks to a crawl", but I don't work in IT for a enterprise so this is just my opinion. Sounds like a marketing gimmick; watch out companies, everyone is going to be buying the the Macbook Pro with it's amazing screen and spend countless wasted hours at work watching high-def videos so you better watch out for usage!
This article is hilarious. Wait, this isn't the Onion?! On shi…..
This is from the Wall Street Journal? Oh my…
Please consult someone who knows something about anything before posting "stories", well no I guess "story" IS the correct word here, just like the 3 Little Pigs is a story.
Consult your local 12-year-old at least.
Science here. Your article is bad and you should feel bad!
How did this get published? How are you paid to post this nonsense?
For those of you wondering why this article is one of the biggest loads of donkey dung to ever make it to publication, let me explain it to you in laymans terms.
If you stream a video, which the article refers to here ("CIOs would do well to monitor network usage and make sure their employees aren't watching too much high-definition content on YouTube and other data-hungry websites.") it DOES NOT MATTER what resolution your display is. The file/video you are streaming is the same size no matter how you are "viewing" it. If you and I both stream a movie in HD from Netflix, and the movie is 1.5 GB's, no matter which of us is using a new Mac Book or an older HP Laptop – we are both still streaming the same 1.5GB file.
Writer, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
Not sure if stupid author or troll bait to get web traffic…
You were desperate to write an article … this is ridiculous
New computer box running to much internets…better drink my own piss.
Why would a Retina display compel one to watch even more crappy low res youtube video?
I don't always write about technology, but when I do, I pull it out of my butt and smear it on a web page.
@ Linux Lewis
Will YouTube still work on the Retina display Macintosh computer laptops?
There is absolutely no more bandwidth used with an increase in screen size or resolution.
You have no idea how computers work, do you?
Is this satire?
Will I need bigger speakers for the HD audio?
Your ignorance is astounding.
I like turtles! Also writing for the WSJ!
Dear Chicken Little,
Did you write this trash from your monochrome CRT?
How can this be, I've always hated Tupac.
Someone's about to lose their job
This article is just beautiful in its stupidity.
So does wsj have no standards when it comes to hiring people? This article is completely inaccurate. I mean, my semi-retarded 15 year old brother knows it is inaccurate.
Please just do a little bit of research before writing such a ridiculous article.
Clint, I would suggest that you stop pulling information from that expert, because he's feeding you drivel. As was stated before, screen size and resolution have absolutely no bearing on bandwidth consumption.
Clint, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Are you that daft that you seriously believe that resolution has anything to do with bandwidth?
Maybe try leaving the technical journalism to the technical people in the future, yeah?
LOL TRYING TO HIDE YOUR STUPIDITY ONLY SHOWS YOUR STUPIDITY. /caps off. comments went from 70+ to under 30 , back to 50 in 5 seconds.
Your journalism is bad and you should feel bad.
Are you actually saying that bigger displays use more bandwidth? Maybe you should let the informed people write your articles from now on.
Hi this is apple and we are suing you for making companies less likely to buy our products, and for being stupid in general.
How incredibly stupid, may as well delete the article instead of just comments.
First day covering the tech beat, huh? Don't worry buddy. It'll come.
wow this is the worst tech piece i've ever seen
This is shameful.
A higher resolution screen uses more network bandwidth? Really? Are you channeling Senator Stevens?
Just step away from the keyboard. Your misconceptions are going clog up the interweb's tubes. All of them.
Yeah this is why at my company only lets us use netbooks, the screens are smaller so we save a TON of money on bandwidth!!
"better quality displays require more network bandwidth"
How does that sentence exist?
Is this a troll?
no like, for real
is it?
"…better quality displays require more network bandwidth"
Quality reporting, WSJ!
Next week: how keyboards are costing your companys health plan a fortune by causing polydactylism in your employees.
This is perhaps the funniest thing I have ever read.
Screens don't use network bandwidth… no one should be afraid of anything but punching a hole in their monitor after reading this article.
You shouldn't be a tech writer.
Stop writing and look for another profession.
"better quality displays require more network bandwidth" You must honestly not know very much about computers.
Damn straight! That's why I make my employees set their monitors to grayscale. I save 2/3 the bandwidth!
Kill yourself
Whoever hired you did both you and the Journal an awful disservice.
You see, the display is a series of tubes…
I appreciate the feedback guys. It's an honor to bring hard-hitting factual journalism that the tech community so desperately needs. Stay tuned for for my next article where I expose the U.S. Post Offices plans to charge money for every email you send.
Relax, this guy used to work for the Onion.
It's a very poorly written article
There IS one aspect of retina-displays that increases bandwidth, and that is images sent when browsing the web are larger IF the website supports hi-res logos, photos, etc. In that sense there IS a real increase in bandwidth consumption.
However the effect of this is not nearly as substantial as the article implies, and will be a blip.
Hey, hit me up later when you decide tech writing isn't for you.
This article is bad and you should feel bad.
I can't believe how many bandwidths I wasted reading this on my Retina display. I should have read it on my 640×480 CRT display. I think my mom would make a better tech writer.
Computers do not work this way and you are a big goober
It's good that they have a track pad because the traditional mouse(even the optical ones!) actually have mice in them that power them with little wheels and a business full of them would have an astronomical cedar shaving and mouse pellet budget. Kudos to apple for saving you that expense. Wonder how long of an interval you get between fluid changes on those retina displays though. From what I've heard the fluid is very expensive.
Look at all the angry apple fan boys posting comments… amazing….
hold all these pixels!?
O Rly?
completely and entirely incorrect, there is no reason at all for a higher resolution display to use more network bandwidth. i cant tell if you misunderstood or just plain made this up.
Next they're going to recommend doing away with multiple displays to cut down on bandwidth usage… Gotta love a knowledgable, well-sourced article.
You must be a moron, go back to school fool.
Don't forget to mention the part about the much better quality speakers taking up more bandwidth too… This article is not complete.
are you fucking retarded.
Are you retarded? More pixels = more bandwidth? If you're going to blog about computers, make sure you even know how to use a mouse, you tard.
Am I on the onion?
"Another option might be for CIOs to require workers who want to bring their own high-powered devices to the office to bring their own bandwidth as well." – Yes, every CISO wants employees to bring their own networking into the enterprise. :facepalm:
Man I wish I had your job. You don't even have to think at all!
What an idiot
At least we know it's okay not to understand the topics we write about.
Wow, Clint Boulton I am dumbfounded. This is the most idiotic nonsense I have read in years.
Hide yo wife, hide yo kids – and hide your corporate network 'cause they takin' all the bandwidth up in here.
There is a reason why he has the same haircut as Jim Carrey from Dumb & Dumber.
The way it the article was written is really bad, but I don't think he meant that higher resolution increases bandwidth. I assume he meant that Retina displays give an incentive to user to use HD content, which makes the most use of their display, hence increasing bandwidth needs. At least I hope that is what he meant..
And to think of all the qualified unemployed professionals out there.
Stories like this highlight why there is no reason to pay for your online service. There are plenty of free places to find unreliable information on the internet.
Bring Your Own Bandwith– really? Do you understand how teh interwebz work?
I think you are confused about a higher resolution video being streamed would take more bandwidth? But if you watch 360p on 5.1 million pixels it is still only 360p…..
You're an idiot.Screen resolution has ZERO impact on how much bandwidth a system uses on a network.
Wait, you can actually a humongous dumbass -and- still get a job being paid to pull some bullshit out of your ass and sell it as truth? Sign me up for that gig!
Hahaha, among all the other problems with this, the Macbook Pro is definitely not "clearer than Apple's newest iPad." Via Engadget (a tech blog actually worth reading): "…the real story with this new laptop has nothing to do with external dimensions and everything to do with internal density. Pixel density, to be specific, a figure measured at 220 ppi. That's far lower than the 326 ppi the iPhone 4S delivered when it introduced the world to Retina and, indeed, the 264 ppi rating on the new iPad."
Way to go, WSJ!
If you write an article without checking your sources, you're gonna have a bad time.
Is this the Onion? LOL. People shouldn't be writing about things they know nothing about.
i need assistance…i loaded my new retina display ipad with a ton of HD movies and now it's TOO heavy. i bought this for portability, whats gives apple!
Ahhahaahahaha. Your journalism is bad….and you should feel bad. Do a TINY bit of research before you make outrageous claims.
Include this in your resume when applying to the Onion. This is pure comedic gold.
No, you are simply wrong. I'm not going to call you a bad journalist, but please do not report on things you are unfamiliar with. Display quality has *NOTHING* to do with network bandwidth.
That is not how technology works at all.
You are totally wrong.
You should quit your job if this is the work you produce.
Please tell me this article is a joke?
A very poorly constructed article. This is bad journalism, and you should feel bad.
Sure, high resolution images and high resolution videos do result in an increase in network bandwidth utilization, but there are multiple factors at play here. Most significantly, 99.99% of video content will still be HDTV resolutions (or less) for a multitude of other reasons. The Retina display isn't going to change that to any signifiant degree. Eventually, as other factors come into play over the next decade, we will consume more bandwidth due to increased availability of such bandwidth for higher resolution video streaming. Nevertheless, this article is poorly constructed.
I don't understand how you have a job at the WSJ.
Just to pile on, I'd like to state my intentions to also beat this pulverized horse:
This writer is an absolute moron and a hack journalist. He obviously didn't talk to any "experts" and his career is about to take a nosedive thanks to social media picking this up. If he writes for WSJ again then I will assume Murdoch's empire is slowly becoming The Onion.
what? how did this get published? is everyone at wsj over 50 years old or something?
Now I understand why the heads of corporations are so dumb. They get fed nonsense like this. Next time report on stuff that you know about or do some basic research…
This is just flat out untrue. Do you even know what bandwidth is?
Here let me help you not ruin your career by making inane remarks like above.
I think the key point you're missing is that companies making the apps/docs/videos will increase their resolution to look good on the retina displays which would lead to more data and higher bandwidth needs, but your argument here just doesn't make any sense.
On that note, businesses should consider upgrading their networks, by purchasing larger PVC Tubing for their internet to pass through faster.
I think the misguided part is that it is simply the display that requires the bandwidth. What this person should mean is that the high-res display will cause a demand for more high-res content to be available – and THAT will kill the bandwidth.
Or maybe the new Macbook has hosted video cards at Mac headquarters and streams the content
Haha wow this is sad. Go WSJ! It's like reading Fox News!
I think I deserve your job writing the CIO report more than you do. At least i know increased screen resolution does not mean increased network utilization, not directly anyway, and it is a stretch to assume that in any other matter as well. Perhaps your next advisory should be about how network storage systems will take a major hit from the introduction of flash media.
………………………………………….. .__"""-"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :"~-,
……………………………………__-~"::,-'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::~-,
………………………_______~"___-~"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :: :::::::::::"-,
………………..:/:::::::::::::::::__-~":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :_,-~":'\'-,:\:|:\|::\|\::\:|
……………….,'::::::::,-~~"~"_::',::|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::,~ ':\'-,::',"-\::":"::::::::\|:|/
……,':::::::,'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :,-'/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,–'::::::/"~'
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,_::|::\: : : : : : |: : \::::::::/:/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::",:::::::::::::: ::::\: : : : : : \: : : |:::::;;\
::::::::::::::::::"-,:::::::::::::::",:::::::::::::::/|\ ,: : : : : : : |::::,'/|::::|
:::::::::::::::::::::"-,:::::::::::::::"-,_::::::::::\|:/|,: : : : : : : |::: |'-,/|:::|
::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,_::::::::::::::"~-,_:::"-,/|/\::::::::::: \::: \"-/|::|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,__:::::::::::',"-,:::"_|/\:|\: : : : \::\":/|\|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,_:::::\:::\:::"~/_:|:|\: : : '-,\::"::,'\
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-,_:'-,::\:::::::"-,|:||\,-, : '-,\:::|-'-"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::,-,'"-:"~,:::::"/_/::|-/\–';;\:::/: ||\-,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :/…'-,::::::"~"::::"-,/_:|:/\:/|/|/|_/:|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |………"-,_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\ ………….."~–"_____""-~~"
Your article is bad and you should feel bad.
Clint, wikipedia has an article concerning bandwidth that may be relevant to your interests…
Yes the 640×480 meme I am looking at will use more bandwidth on my display which has a higher pixel count.
Who gave my grandfather a new Macbook Pro? At the very best, you are a fool and what's wrong with the technology field: old, unintelligent people making up flat-out lies to trie to convince fellow unintelligent people you're an expert.
I hope this is the last article you write for WSJ, or anyone. Basic journalism would have steered you far far way from an article this incorrect.
I am literally shaking my head at your lack of research.
Obviously this guy needs a tech Editor. He has no idea what he's talking about.
Good job! Perhaps you should start writing copy for the Tea Party! They need experts in "have no clue what I"m talking about nor any remorse about spreading absolutely invalid information to the masses".
I'm not tremendously surprised the WSJ doesn't even bother checking it's facts it's so called "reporters" are putting out these days.
Hi, Systems Engineer here. This makes no sense Most online HD content maxes out at 1080p (1920×1080), with defaults usually set to 720p (1280×720). The latter fits on the vast majority of consumer notebooks, while the former fits on the vast majority of workstation monitors and high-end laptops screens. The video bandwidth will never exceed the bandwidth necessary for 1080p resolution (until 4k becomes streamable), and chances are employees were already using that bandwidth before this laptop came out.
Just because a screen has 5MP of resolution does not mean that magically a full-screen HD video will consume 5MP-worth of bandwidth. For the love of god, take down this asinine article.
Today I learned you can can get a job at the Wall Street Journal with the reasoning and intelligence of a grade school child. You have to consider that not only did they hire this nitwit, but this article passed the desk of an editor who signed off on this drivel.
That is, unless Clint is a comedy genius. In which case he should work for The Onion and not tank the reputation of WSJ.
You should have stepped away from the keyboard when I told you to……..
lel comedy gold
10/10 my sides are BURSTING.
I just bought higher quality speakers, will I destroy the internet if I turn them on?
Wow, I am gobsmacked and can't believe how badly articulated this piece of "journalism" really is. First off, the idea that the amount of pixels per square inch that show up on a computer's display can affect network consumption and or bandwidth is ludicrous and should not even be considered to be real by anyone with a functioning brain. Second off, I really hope that you will consider researching a little bit before going off half-cocked and lying to the public about a topic which you clearly know nothing about.
Are… you retarded? What qualifications do you posses to write this garbage and spread rumors like this?
You, good Sir, are an idiot.
Yep. I guess that's what he meant. But then again, how many Youtube videos can you watch simultaneously?
When I saw the title of the article, I thought it was going to be about the "power nap" feature, where mac books come partially alive to sync data while sleeping, creating a teeny tiny draw of network data for checking email a couple more times a day.
But this, this is way better. My friend who linked me this article said "this is good for a laugh" and he was totally right. Others have made the technical argument to the enormous fallacy this article is based on, so I won't bother. I will conclude: lol.
Not only is this article incredibly false and misguiding, the author also got the resolution of the laptop wrong. Why are people this dumb in the field of technology allowed to write about it?
Well, this is embarrassing.
FALSE. whoever wrote this has no idea how computers work
The Wall Street Journal, everyone!
How….even in the year 2012, people know nothing about computers are the ones who write about them in publications?
COMPLETELY wrong.
Holy cow – someone doesn't have a fundamental understanding of how the internet works.
At least Clint still has a job if the WSJ ever decides to do comedy
Never go full retard mate.
Just a quick reminder that this is the sort of well-researched journalism you can expect when you pay to access the premium content available only to WSJ subscribers.
I'm assuming WSJ will have one less blogger on the morrow?
Clint Boulton is famous now!
Guys, this is Clint… Until you've had your face etched in e-pencil-ink, which is eraseable and more bio-friendly than e-ink, you aren't qualified to call my expertly-researched info bullshit.
I wonder how many CIO's are laughing at him…
I hate Apple and all, but even this is just a bunch of stupid thinking. Who makes this crap up?
Clint Boulton is famous now!
This article is a ploy to increase number of people coming to to read his blogs. I can not believe that wsj journalist could write this article other than on purpose. One can not be that illiterate in technology and work in wsj and write articles about technical stuff.
The author's level of stupidity and incompetence is mind boggling.
Hi, I am Ampix0 of http://www.Teknue.com We also write about Tech news . But.. you know we know what we are talking about. You just seriously shat all over the internet.
At first, I thought I was reading an article on The Onion…Wow. This is sad on so many levels. Poor guy…Hope he doesn't lose his job over this. I hope instead, he is sent to some technology classes at his local community college or VOTECH.
Wow, this is technically illiterate, even for the Wall Street Journal.
Wow, this is like, Fox News levels of ignorance. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
You're joking, right?
You're an idiot !!! Did you crap this story out of your ass ? A better screen requires more bandwidth ??? Do you even know anything about computer
Did The Onion write this?
oops my bad.
Hey, how do I make the link go blue? Cant make it go blue. Guys?
you're joking, right? Please tell me this is a joke.
How are you a reporter for technology? Shame that even the WSJ doesn't vet their "journalists" or their stories anymore.
We want our article back.
I'm sorry, but this article is a load of rubbish – it's wrong.
This is not grade school. Quick, delete this article and go hide under a rock before anyone reads it.
You guys have no idea what you're talking about. Bigger screen does not mean more bandwidth usage. The screen size does not affect the content which comes down through the internet. An HD video on youtube will consume no more bandwidth and no less bandwidth than it would on any other device. Stop talking out of your ass, Clint Boulton
I got a 52″ TV and my cable bill tripled. Must be that larger image. So I am going to sell it and get a 13″ TV to cut my cable bill in half.
I don't agree with the article either, but 99% of the comments are worst. Grow up. What is this, reddit? 4chan? Go away.
That's not how it works.
The amount of stupid I found in this post was too much for me. I.. can't… go on.
Honestly though, a LITTLE research before you post on something you clearly have no idea about?
This article is bad and you should feel bad
Nope. This article is 100% inaccurate. It's actually pretty similar to a story that the Onion would run. You should probably go ahead and post a correction. Soon. Save some face, as folks with bigger displays will be using more bandwidth power to embarrass you as a journalist.
Today I learned my computer-illiterate parents could get jobs at the Wall Street Journal.
I call bulls**t. Did the laws of physics change?
Jeezuz christ you are a moran. you MUST be trolling…
This is hilariously inaccurate. Who writes this shit? Mothers? Seriously take down this embarrassment of an article and go back to tech school, or journalism school, or wherever you crawled out of.
Bandwidth is not related to pixels in any way, shape or form.
Your article is bad, and you should feel bad.
Where to begin? The content from any source, no matter what size, will occupy the same amount of bandwidth no matter the display size of the receiving side. If I stream something from YouTube at 1080p the bandwidth is the same no matter the display it is on. The only way in which this might actually be a real issue is if you have a network full of MacBook Pros with Retina displays that are being used by remote desktop, then bandwidth usage could go up due to the larger pixel count. How embarrasing for you WSJ.
Like everyone else, I cannot believe that this was published at all. Does anyone else remember a time when journalism meant doing actual research and then writing something accurate? The Wall Street Journal, I suppose is trying to save money by hiring anyone that knows how to poke keys in lieu of hiring actual journalists. As a long time IT person (senior architect\systems designer), I am shocked that this was made public. I sent it to my mom WITHOUT any comments and asked her what she thought. This is her response VERBATIM, "Hi, son! You know I am not a techie person but how in the world does that make any sense? A screen can't make files from other computers bigger. What is wrong with that paper? Is it like tell your father that he needs a more powerful lawn mower because the new grass he planted in the front is more green than the older grass in the back." Epic win, mom. Cheers.
Wow…I don't know what's worse: the fact that this exhibits a high degree of ignorance of tech, or the fact that this must have passed some editor and/or fact check system to make it here. Shame on you WSJ for publishing this.
Do you really get paid for writing this kind of stuff? Can you let me know how I can get in on this scam?
Thanks for this piece. Will send check tomorrow. Glad we can count on you!
What a stunningly fantastic example of complete and utter failure to understand technology on any level. The resolution of a monitor has absolutely NO bearing on the amount of bandwidth the computer uses. I don't usually defend mac crap, but you should be ashamed to have published this complete garbage.
You are a disgrace to any tech blog out there.
Did the laws of physics change?
Where did you get your information? You are totally wrong. A large display will have no effect upon network traffic in any way shape or form. I have been pushing packets for 30 years now and this report is the most insane junk every written. This reporter and his checkers and his manager should be given a a basic IT course just to report on this area. This is FUD at its best. Your site was OK before but now has gone to the level of the onion in my opinion with this level of joke reporting.
The magical laptop downloads a 2gb movie but takes 100gb to download it!
Do not report on technology, if you don't even know the basics. Just stop, or read a selection of "for Dummies" books and articles, it is what I do with older and simple minded people such as yourself.
I would like to apologize for my lack of understanding the topics I write about. But, I just don't understand how I am supposed to know about all of this technology stuff! But, fear not. I am going to go talk to the Geek Squad. They will surely be able to get me squared away.
Why don't you learn about the technology before writing about it?
Wow, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
PLEASE FIRE THIS IDIOT!!! He has no business being a tech writer.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Seems legit.
I will be back after I download some more ram.
I get it. There was that article about how magazines didn't look as nice on the new iPad, so they needed to increase the resolution in the PDFs and that required larger files, and thus more bandwidth to load them, and so you think these new retina displays will somehow swamp corporate networks. Hahaha. Here's a hint. Word processors and spreadsheets don't require high resolution images in PDFs to run… I guess if the company has a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, they might need to download larger PDFs, given the content of this article there's a much easier solution: unsubscribe.
@Anon "Why don't you learn about the technology before writing about it?"
I am going to the geek squad for help.
Wow, just wow. Can you please explain how screen resolution has /anything/ to do with network bandwidth? This article must have fallen out of the "wonrg" tree, hit every "wrong" branch on the way down and landed in a big stinking pile of "wrong".
you are an idiot
This escalated quickly.
Perhaps WSJ should just fire the author now and get the embarrassment over with.
This is embarrassingly awful reporting…..put your journalism degree back in whatever Cracker Jack box you got it from and leave the work to people who have the talent and aptitude. Clint could you not even be bothered to Google any of the inane idiocy you've spouted here? You are a disgrace.
Bath salts, bath salts EVERYWHERE!
Terrible, terrible, shamful. You call yourself a reporter? You sir are an idiot. Do some research before you write another idiotic post. Why write about tech topics when you have no idea what you are talking about?
You missed April Fools by a bit there, better timing next time! Still, very funny, 9/10, would use to prank my technology illiterate friends.
Maybe you should should consult with some new experts. Screen area =/= network bandwidth. YouTube =/= working. Alien computers =/= reduced IT cost. Bring your own access =/= realistic idea.
Epic Fail
I keep my display at 640×480 at home and my connection speed is INSANE!
@Guy Icognito "Wow, just wow. Can you please explain how screen resolution has /anything/ to do with network bandwidth? This article must have fallen out of the "wonrg" tree, hit every "wrong" branch on the way down and landed in a big stinking pile of "wrong"."
Well, my sources say that the screen is better and has a higher quality, so it will display things at a higher resolution. Since it displays in a higher resolution, that means it will download all images and video in a higher resolution so it can display it at that higher resolution. Right?
Uh… not sure you're qualified to write anything tech related.
If video streamed at 2880-by-1800… sure – it would use more bandwidth – but why
This makes almost no sense. Seriously, you should probably do a little more research before you write.
How does better screen quality have anything to do with bandwidth usage?
CIO's Beware: Idiot tech bloggers will clog your network with FUD and complete rubbish!
you are too old/ignorant for tech. go back to print, homebro!
I am a dumbass, if I keep my job after this I will be very surprised. I love giving the WSJ a bad name.
@Der "I keep my display at 640×480 at home and my connection speed is INSANE!"
I knew my article was accurate!
Is this an April Fools joke? It's July son
Bring their own bandwidth? Screen size reflects data usage? You should consider writing about something a bit less technical, like women's shoe trends.
@Clint Boulton "I am a dumbass, if I keep my job after this I will be very surprised. I love giving the WSJ a bad name."
You make me cry.
My next job is going to be at the onion.
@Clint Boultan – Reporter
no man, they are gonna download at whatever resolution they are on the server they're coming from… just cause your screen is a higher resolution doesn't increase the resolution of everything on the internet…
Wow. I used to consider the WSJ to be a fairly reputable source, but this is the most ludicrous claim I've heard in ages!
Leave the writing about tech to someone who actually understands tech, OK?
This is the funniest thing I have seen printed in this newspaper in a long time.
This dude's fucking google+ says, "Occupation
Wow… WSJ… I'm speechless…
The Apple guys are going to love answering yet one more fucktarded question from the ignorant masses. Thanks Clint.
@Guy Incognito "no man, they are gonna download at whatever resolution they are on the server they're coming from… just cause your screen is a higher resolution doesn't increase the resolution of everything on the internet…"
But, Der posted that he keeps his resolution at 640×480 and it is faster.
Unfortunately, once anybody buys it and says your current website looks like crap on their new retina display and every site on a internet gets an "HD" makeover… the net will come to a crawl.
Seriously, Where do these "experts" come from. This complete ignorance of subject matter is becoming all too commonplace. At one time in history a reader could count on the information provided by the WSJ. This article illustrates just how sad the state of journalism is in this country.
To be clear: Screen resolution has nothing to do with bandwidth usage. Period.
Client….man…come on…really?!
wow. you have no idea what you're talking about. time to find a new line of "work".
You should probably stop writing about technology if you don't comprehend the basics. This is the saddest thing I have seen in years.
is this like The Onion ?
This article is just plain wrong. A higher resolution screen does not require more bandwidth. Higher resolution VIDEOS do, but this is completely different.
Not to mention, if an employer tried to give me a monthly bill for the bandwidth I used at the company, I would quit on the spot. That is a service I require to do my job, and I am not going to pay to be able to do my job.
way to finally get some readers!
The WSJ is competing with the Onion. Now you can justify your premium rate!!!
Now THAT's funny. Look at his picture on g+. lulz Guy iz a douche'
Absolutely amazed that the WSJ would ever print something as clearly and totally wrong as this. This is so stupid it deserves to go viral.
@Clint Boultan – Reporter
lrn2internet, he was making jokes at your expense
So bad journalism…Resolution does not affect bandwidth. Read it in my new book, The Bible 2: The Thirst for Even more Blood.
How do you suppose people bring their own bandwidth?
Really? Don't write about things you have no idea about
Ah but the pixels in the retina display are smaller so they can pack more of them into the telephone cable…
"better quality displays require more network bandwidth"
Hahahaha oh man that's priceless.
Wow, you really don't know how computers work do you?!
Well, if you replace everything about network usage with power consumption, this could be a more valid point.
Note: I have done NO research on the actual power consumption of the new Macbook.
Another note: I know that it would still be insignificant consumption, whatever it is.
Your posting alias is "ghanshyam b" (http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090521110506AAdczVM) and I claim my $5.
So when can we expect an article correcting this misinformation, WSJ?
HAHAH so wrong
This reporter has no idea what he's talking about… click bait to play off the news
Am I reading WSJ or The Onion?!
The easy solution to the bandwidth problem incurred by a high res monitor is to close one eye at a time while you're looking at it. You can alternate every few minutes too. A nice side-effect, of course is that this reduces eye strain by up to 50%.
Blacklisting this site for such terrible, terrible journalism. That is all. Goodbye.
This better be a parody article, as it seems to be something that the Onion would write, rather than something I just read off of the WSJ.
Please learn a little more about how computers work before you describe the implications of higher resolution in the workplace.
It's a shame they banned plastic bags in my area. The reusable canvas ones always let bandwidth leak out when I bring it to work.
Clint Boulton is a moron writing about things he doesn't understand.
This is how the bible happened.
Obviously no knowledge on how bandwidth works. WSJ: Please, put people who know what they are talking about in charge of things like this, not untrained and, frankly, ignorant recent journalism graduates.
Good job, Clint Boulton, good job. You've upset mom again.
It's obvious that the guy was wrong. But what amazes me is how many ego centric geeks it takes to all have to put in their identical comment over and over and over again. Killing an ant with a sledgehammer. Jeeeez
not how displays work…idiot
That this was meant for the onion. Please for the love of human decency tell me that…
Dude what are you talking about bigger displays require more bandwidth? Check your sources and do some actual research. WSJ loses again.
>write terrible article full of misconceptions and a level of idiocy that guarantees it'll go viral
>cash cheque from ad revenue
Thanks for marketing crap like this under your brand WSJ
Oh man. This is hilarious. They're right, all these internet "reporters" really are bringing down journalism.
Guys, you're the WALL STREET Journal. Focus on your area of expertise and leave technology reporting to the professionals if you want to avoid publishing articles that are blatantly incorrect.
Where's the downvote button?
I am reserving severely harsh judgement, because I am an optimist in most matters in life.
I would really like it if this were a troll article, please let this be a troll article.
You should be banned from writing any more articles relating to the tech industry. Please do everyone a favor and shut up.
5.1 million pixels!? If each pixel is available in 256 colors, that's 2 bytes per pixel for a total of 10.2 million bytes per screen. With a refresh rate of 120Hz, that's 2 full screen refreshes per second or 20.4 million bytes. Just one of these screens in the office would then consume 20 mega bytes per second or 160 mega bits per second — 160 Mbps!
CIOs should be worried. That is to say, if they think _that's_ how the technology works, they should be worried about being fired for incompetence. Much like this reporter.
Um. No……..
Really? What's stopping them from watching Hi-Def on their crappy 11″ netbook?
Was Clint Boulton actually thinking about what he was writing or was this just verbal diarrhea ?
LOL! Please never write about technology again. This whole article does not even come close to making sense, and shows a major lack of basic understanding.
This is possibly the most inaccurate article I have ever read in my life.
This article summarises the average Apple users knowledge on technology.
I'm disowning you. Father always said you were special, now I know what he was talking about.
Did you bother to research this, or did you just write up something based on a comment you overheard at Starbucks?
Dear Clint Boulton,
you are very dumb.
Signed, everyone.
Right…because so much traffic on corporate networks is from watching HD youtube videos…
Windmills do not work that way!
is it april 1st?
You fail
Wow this is one of the most ridiculous articles I have ever read. Did someone get the sports guy to write on technology? Larger resolution does not necessarily equal more bandwidth used. What a laugh this one is!
WSJ should really reconsider their choice of hiring this journalist.
WOW… this guy has NO clue what the hell he is talking about. Please please please remove this article ASAP… It is making your website look dumb
Please update your article to remove technical inaccuracies.
Excellent article, Clint. Did you know that wrapping an extra ethernet cable around your cellphone can boost its range? Try it!
Well this is just great! I just ordered a 55″ TV with 1080p, and I plan to stream movies. The size of my TV with its MILLIONS of pixels will surely make my internet cost skyrocket! What am I going to do now???
You really are Dumb dude. It's all rendered on the display and websites use the same amount of bandwidth on any device. Enjoy the end of your career.
The size of a display has nothing to do with the amount of data required to show it.
The only thing I can figure is that one way of optimizing web content for retina displays is that a website that supports Retina will do a css media query for scale. If it's a Retina display, it will change all the image URLs to point at the higher rez images from the server:
non-retina URL: http://example.com/foo.jpg
becomes Retina URL: http://firstname.lastname@example.com
following Apple's conventions.
This is how it's already done for Retina displays on iPhone and iPad.
Seriously? REALLY?
according to your logic; turning up the volume on my car stereo would decrease my gas mileage…as another poster said, please don't ever write about technology again.
congrats oblivious moron, you killed the last of my brain cells
This should have been common knowledge earlier. Now everyone will understand why we throttle our customers.
Clint, you clearly have no idea how network traffic works. I'll break it down for you. Pixels =|= Packets.
Thank you Clint for demonstrating your top notch skills. If you're not already already Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) certified, you should be.
Is it April Fool's already?
Thousands of redditors (all of whom know how computers actually work) are mocking this article. For your own sake, take it down.
If you did your research properly you'd know that the only waste of bandwidth is this article.
This article just made my head hurt…
If you don't know what your talking about, at least have a technical editor review your articles so you don't embarrass yourself and your publication.
Technology in the media is enough of an issue without trash journalism like this.
How I imagine Clint Boulton —> http://imgur.com/ZsrkZ
You might want to do some research the next time you write about something that you have no clue about.
Clint, I broke the coffee mug holder on my computer again.
This is the dumbest thing I ever heard. You've just sent a wave across the small business (or even large, highly-impressionable business) community with a totally bogus faux-technical wive's tale.
Bigger displays do not increase network utilization. Period. You're an idiot. You might have had a case if we were talking about non-HD vs. HD displays at a company where YouTube video watching was encouraged, but since every display out there these days is already 1080p or more, you have no ground to stand on.
Do some research before writing an article. How do you call yourself a journalist?
This article is crap. What does screen resolution have to do with bandwidth use? What's stopping me from watching HD content on my 1280×1080 laptop now? Does Facebook on a retina display just magically consume more bandwidth? Is there a "Spirit of Steve" HTTP extension I don't know about?
RE "I am sorry all, that you are mad. I am going to talk to some more specialists at the local arcade. I will be back to respond more later."
Only people who can check basic facts can be condescending.
Oh wait… this is serious?!
thank you for the stupidest article/blog I've EVER seen on WSJ. People should get fired for pumping out this nonsense
Hey, this would be a great article for The Onion.
Since, you know, screen resolution doesn't have any impact _AT ALL_ on network bandwidth.
You sir, are an idiot.
The bandwidth usage does not increase unless the source video increases in size. So unless YouTube or Netflix add a HDx2 viewing mode, nothing will change.
I thought from the title of the article that you would be discussing the automatic syncing or Power Nap updates would be a problem, but the resolution of the screen will definitely not cause any clogs.
I recommend checking out a larger discussion of the misconceptions of this piece here:
You should be fired.
I have to agree with all of these posts. The size and resolution of the monitor have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how much data a website is going to send to your device.
When a request is made to a website and the web server process the request and sends the same data back (minus minor adjustments to the type of browser, like CSS) regardless of the resolution of the device that requested it. Its then the DEVICE that adjusts the size of the content to fit the screen.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has read this is now dumber for having done so. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
This article is full of so much bad information it makes me want to cry.
Any CIO who thinks using a bigger screen hogs more network bandwidth just needs to be fired. But before firing them please tell them not to move their mouse so much because it causes motion sickness on the the network.
BTW: Nice web design, WSJ, putting a CLEAR button on a web form like it's 1997, real smooth, because you want to make really easy for the user to instantly erase everything they just typed.
Now this is what I call shitty journalism.
Clint just went full retard
You can't possibly be serious. The information for this article is simply wrong.
The intern who wrote this piece should be asked to stop showing up.
False. Moving on..
How do you write an article about something without having any idea what you're talking about
Can I get paid to make things up too?
this is the most ignorant IT article i have ever read, if i ever see an article by that moron posted here again you'll permanently lose a viewer
Wow….just wow. this article belongs in the onion."Another option might be for CIOs to require workers who want to bring their own high-powered devices to the office to bring their own bandwidth as well." one does not simply bring their own bandwidth. Please never write a tech article again. you have absolutely no idea what you are even talking about.
Corporate fatcats think fact-checking is only for Liberals. And, apparently, education as well.
Patently false. An idiot wrote this FUD.
I currently use a laptop with dual screens. Am I using double the bandwidth of my single screen counter parts?
WTF. It's okay to not understand technology, but why are you writing about it in public?
Seriously. There's stupid, there's seriously stupid, then there's miles and miles of empty wasteland, and then there's this article.
So it makes sense to me that in your words "the new Macbook Pro is fitted with a Retina display, whose resolution of 2880-by-1800 pixels packed into a 15.4-inch." However the videos being published on the internet by sites such as youtube, vimeo, cnn.com, and more do not publish videos over the internet that match that resolution. If a company was actually publishing videos of this quality or size it could impact the network. The fact that the macbook pro has a nice screen will not affect network latency.
I hope they don't pay Mr. Boulton for this work … this hurts my head just how wrong he is.
You may still recover from this: just keep a low profile for the next dozen major tech releases.
guess we better open those oil reserves…
And the coveted "blatantly-making-stuff-up" award goes to Clint Boulton for his performance in "CIOs Beware: New Macbook Pro Will Be a Bandwidth Hog." This is better than The Onion! Wow I would have expected better from the Wall Street Journal.
A video stream doesn't get 'larger' just because the screen it displays on has more pixels. This is a gross misunderstanding of how technology works.
This article is dumber than the time Steve Jobs refused surgery for cancer.
This article should be featured on daily wtf. One of the most idiotic things I've read in a long time, but at least it's good for a laugh. In fact, I think I have to tweet this right away to share with everyone I know. Hey, any publicity must be good publicity right?
I see that the bar for hiring technology columnists at the WSJ has now been set to — well — nothing.
A technology savvy child knows that what this article claims is — to put it mildly — stupid.
Using the author's reasoning, we should all go back to 800×600 screen resolution. Think of the bandwidth we'll save!
Clint reporting for work http://imgur.com/1Rm3G
How do you have a job writing about technology when you don't even understand the basics of that technology.
I just bought a 4 door sedan. I must be using twice the gas of my old 2 door. WOW
Are you kidding?
…I hope this is a joke.
I bet an empty paper bag can keep this guy occupied for hours.
HI there,
On behalf of theonion.com, I'd like to request that you return our story idea to us and cease and desist from posting such hilariously fictional fluff. That is totally our shtick.
High Resolution displays /= more bandwith. WSJ should fire this hack. If you don't know anything, atleast spend 12 seconds to google it before you write a completely false article.
i would like to thank the moron who wrote this article for educating me.
I've only been in the IT field for 22 years and had no idea that a larger screen would take up more bandwidth
ok no i cant stop laughing, this boob should be fired or at least not write anything tech related ever
Of course they do! Other things that use up bandwidth (and can explain corporate policies): jeans (which is why they can only be worn on Fridays), cigarettes (unless they're used outside), women (which is why they get paid less) and interns (which is why they don't get paid at all).
Surely someone should check facts before letting idiots publish articles with no basis in fact.
You win the internet, it will be delivered on four 3.5 inch discs later this month. Prepare your printer before hand.
Clearly, Clint Boulton has very little idea of how technology works. I'm sure he'll enjoy a long, fruitful career at WSJ.
this is totally going to lead to an increase in cat breeding to fulfill the high bandwidth content demand from these new macbook pros. those tubes aren't going to fill themselves!
And clueless-ness like this is the reason I stopped reading print magazines….
You made my brain cry.
Seriously? Take this article down, it's an embarrassment to your paper, you really need to get a new batch of writers and most importantly a new editor…
Can I have this job? I Actually know what technology does. You can pay me with PayPal, though it will cost you double because my paypal address is twice as long as Clint's….
Congratulations!! You have successfully made people dumber.
I have a hole bag of leftover bandwidth just laying around. Cant i just bring that?
Wow! … what a great view on technology…
you should NOT write articles for medicine as people will start dying
Someone needs to take computers 101
"But it may also wreak havoc on CIOs' networks and connectivity budgets — better quality displays require more network bandwidth, which allows users to increase data consumption."
With that line of thinking, would applying Windex to a monitor blow my networking budget or would it be like a speed bump?
Better be careful, the more words you type in this article the heavier your monitor gets when displaying it.
I've got an idea. Lets take someone who knows nothing about how computers work and have him write an article about Apple's new retina macbooks!
New Porsche released with 600HP engine. Now the speed limits will have to be increased!
Uhhh… what? The resolution and compression algorithm of the video being streamed is what determines how much network bandwidth it uses. The screen size has nothing to do with network bandwidth.
How did this make it to "print" . So wrong
How did this make it to "print" . So wrong
You know – this guy might have a chance in the 2012 election.
Wow, what a naive post! Here I thought this was going to be something worth reading for its information content. Silly me, reading WSJ for information! Instead, I get a farcical misunderstanding of the basics of technology! Wow. Perhaps we should each go back to using an abacus, so we don't consume electricity? Bah.
Get a clue, WSJ, and don't let the children write until they've learned a bit more than proper grammar and punctuation!
WTH? I subscribe to this paper and you just made me second guess my decision. I mean if you publish an article like this, how can I trust that what is supposedly going on around the world is any more accurate?
This is the most uninformed article I've ever read. And everyone wonders why print is dead.
@Clinton – don't forget to mention the use of a 27″ Apple cinema display hooked up to a pc/laptop in work will immediately crash the network.
BRB, going to order 15-inch 800×600 CRTS for everyone in my company.
It's people like you that screw up tech departments by spewing bs like this. You are a tool.
This is, by far, the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Bandwidth IS BANDWIDTH, and no matter what display you are using, it takes ONE amount of BW to stream ONE video on ANY device… even if you decided to stream a YouTube video on an IMAX sized screen, it would be the same as streaming it on your 4×2 inch cell phone display.
Who are these mysterious, unnamed "experts" you vaguely mention, talking about the new iPad? Must their identities be kept secret due to the LEET HAx0R SEEKREET IMPOOORTANT kNOWLEEGE they have? To protect the innocent? Was it Captain Underpants? Cornholio?
If you were to actually name your source here, would you just be exposed for lying because you hadn't talked to anyone in the first place and wanted to seem legit? Or would you exposed for being lazy and not bothering to find a CREDIBLE source? Would it jeopardize modern journalism? Oh wait! It's already dead! Ha, ha.
I REALLY hope no one actually falls for this load of crap! Shame on you WJS :'(
Best joke ever
Clint, I think it's time to stop sniffing glue.
Please box up your things, hand in your security badge and leave your job immediately. You obviously have no concept of what you are writing about.
The article you cited (also FUD written by you) relates to the iPad 3 ability to view HD content which has the potential for overages on a wireless plan. This is totally not applicable to laptops or corporate networks. Significant numbers of people in the workplace already view YouTube from their desks, and have HD capability.
You sir are a FUD monger of the worst and ill informed type hypothesizing about things you know little about. I do not know what your agenda is, but your journalistic credentials should be revoked immediately.
Clint Bolton,
I'd like to point out the fact that you're an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about.
Someone who knows what they're talking about.
yo you're dumb as hell
How the hell would a screen with a higher pixel density increase data traffic? Even if you know nothing about technology, common sense and logic should tell you that this makes no sense.
Idiot. should be fired.
That's universally stupid man.
*double take*
"But it may also wreak havoc on CIOs' networks and connectivity budgets — better quality displays require more network bandwidth, which allows users to increase data consumption. Consider that experts told CIO Journal earlier this year that the new iPad, which includes a Retina display of 2048-by-1536 resolution with 3.1 million pixels, would slow enterprise networks to a crawl and increase data costs from carriers."
Please say that is mistyped?
The only place a high res display would "use bandwidth" would be on the connection between the video card and the display itself. None of that has to do with the amount of bandwidth a page from a website or download requires.
Seriously, you shouldn't have a job in tech, the lowest paid tech who has only been behind the desk a week at a Geek Squad outlet inside a Best Buy would laugh at you. Not even that, the guy on the floor that just sells computers would laugh at you.
Actually if you are in Europe utilizing there power the MAC will actually blink Christmas light themes with music included.
You should check your facts before publishing (and fire your "experts"!). Display resolutions are *completely* independent of bandwidth.
Oh. My. God. This couldn't be more inaccurate if he said magic elves controlled bandwidth.
Did I just travel into The Onion? Bigger display means more bandwidth? You have got to be kidding me. If this were so, then why do some major investment firms have computers with 3, sometimes up to 6, monitors for each analyst or managing director? This is absolutely terrible journalism and I hope that you never write another tech blog for as long as you live.
Wow. Just wow.
Wow… Clint droppin' the ball like Ronnie Milsap. Stop spreading this false info. It's disgraceful.
Dear Sir,
Excellent blog write! Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you. I have the believe you are a well-educated, knowledgeable, and responsible and trustworthy person I can do business with from the little information so far I gathered about you during my search for a partner and by matter of trust I must not hesitate to confide in you for this simple and sincere business.
I am honourably seeking your assistance in the following ways.
(1) To serve as Chief CIO of my new startup and provide advisement on purchase of 7511 (SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN) of MacBook AirPro
(2)To make arrangement for me to come over to your country to assist with business transactions.
(3)To provide enterprise planning for use of the MacBook AirPro, including monitoring of BandWidth and color levels in laptops screens.
Moreover, I am willing to offer you 15 % of the total purchases as compensation for your effort /input after the successful transfer of initial funds to your nominated account overseas.
Furthermore, you can indicate your option towards assisting me as I believe that this transaction would be concluded within a stipulated period of time you signify your interest to assist me.
Anticipating hearing from you immediately.
Thanks and God bless.
You might want to know what you are talking about before publishing an article like this
You're a moron…
This is sad. Do you even have a tech editor? You've lost a reader for life.
The only possible angle of truth to this is if you look at the size of apps that you have to download. To a degree, apps that include higher resolution graphic images bundled in the app, are going to be larger in size. But even then, to clog a network, it would mean that people would be constantly downloading apps. For streaming video, browsing the web, or anything you do online, there will be no increase in bandwidth. Streaming video does not increase bandwidth because your display has more pixels. Web pages do not increase in download size because you have more browser real estate than other computers.
The information downloaded is the same regardless of the display its displayed on.
a 100MB picture on a 15′ monitor is still a 100MB picture on a 150″ monitor.
I think you mixed this up with video streaming and applied a misconception about resolution.
Higher video stream resolution = more bandwidth. But still, the device displaying the video is irrelevant.
You know absolutely nothing about computers. In no way will the MBP higher resolution screen increase bandwidth use. Never write about technology again. Please and thank you.
Here's how I think this went: Someone who actually knew how computers work said something to the effect of "higher-resolution screens will increase the demand for higher-resolution videos, which are larger files that will require more bandwidth to stream or download."
Agreed, lazy reporting.
How in the world does this clown have a job? I can understand my Grandmother not grasping the concept of *Network* vs. Graphic Displays, but somebody who has a *BLOG* Simply having a bigger screen does *NOT* equal a greater load on the network. Even with the slackers are work (contrary to many bosses beliefs) spend the bulk of their time staring at spreadsheets, and inventory and or client tracking/relational tools that are screen agnostic. So long as your computer has a video output, the computer is going to draw it on the screen and there is not a damn thing you can do to affect the amount of data thrown across the network based on how many pixels you are drawing on your screen. Somebody PLEASE pull this guy's BLOG pass.
You sir, are an idiot! And shame on you WSJ for allowing this to be printed!
You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. It really is quite sad that you are allowed to publish something so uninformed on reputiable site. Congrats on having a computer and kayboard, as this seems to be all you need to be a blogger. Be careful what monitor you use though; we don't want your blogs taking too long ot upload.
Wow, yet another flagrant display of shoddy reporting. May want to check your "sources". Whatever credibility you had has been flushed down the tubes.
Please fix this:
"better quality displays require more network bandwidth, which allows users to increase data consumption"
High Def content requires more bandwith, which etc….
Displays often refers to the monitor of a system, and the way it is phrased here sounds like monitor when it might actually refer to better quality resolutions for streaming.
Actually, the rest of the articles still makes it sound like a screen can use network bandwidth. I'm out of here.
Someone just outed themselves as a Microsoft shill. Really, really poor journalism – at least try to disguise the source of your second income.
I… what… that doesn't even…
/bangs head on desk
How the hell did this make it past your own common sense, let alone an editor?
Thank you Clint for writing this article. 30 seconds of my life I can never get back.
Everyone who read this is now dumber for having done so.
Impression of the author:
help how do computers work help how did i get in a tech column i am not good with computer help wat is an internet
Ohhhh this is kinda like why my iPhone gets so much heavier when I load it up with apps.
This is awesome.
The extra pixels according use 20% more bandwidth than previous displays. Electricity on the other hand is also a factor here. to make the color red on a retina display, the pixel requires 3mv, to make green it requires 4mv and to make blue, (which is a combination of red and green) it makes 6, which is why 3+4 = 6. Then space pandas came and i forgot the rest.
Amazing to look at the garbage that makes it through the editorial filtering process.
You sir, do not know how computers work.
Is this an extremely early april fools?
The logical mistake is this:
The article cited is displays going from ~640×480 of older handhelds to iPad displays capable of streaming HD video, which is 1920×1080. Most laptops are already capable of viewing streamed data at this resolution, or getting the content in HD and then down-scaling it for the display.
Increasing the resolution of the display above 1920×1080 will not effect the source video: it's still going to be 1920×1080. The laptop will have to up-scale it, but that occurs on the laptop itself and does not effect network usage.
Next time actually understand technology before writing about it.
Well this is embarrassing…
wow, your article really opened my eyes.
You should be ashamed that you were paid to write this. Do yourself, your readers, and your publication a huge favor by doing some research before you write. Considering that this is posted on the internet I can only assume that you know what google, bing, yahoo, duckduckgo, and other search engines are and how to use them. Spending 5 minutes doing research would have shown you that the premise of your article is wrong and you would have avoided looking like a fool.
This article is rubbish.
Take it offline to prevent further humiliation.
Methinks something got lost in the translation here. Someone heard "computers with larger video bandwidth will eat up more network bandwidth" and thought "OMG! video data streaming will clog the intranet!"
My guess is that the actual story is more to do with network-based screen sharing — using ARA or VNC to remotely control these laptops on the network will definitely consume more network bandwidth.
A note to both reporters and editors though: True journalism (as opposed to yellow journalism) involves fact checking. ANY level of fact checking on this story would have revealed the real issues and helped the WSJ avoid getting egg on its collective face.
Isn't there an editor around who can retract this BS?
Streaming higher quality images would increase bandwidth usage but there is no effect simply by switching to a higher screen resolution.
This *has* to be a joke.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! What an embarrassingly poor article. You people who use these mainstream sources as actual "news" deserve everything you (don't) get. Wake up, and stop letting them feed you this crap. This author should be sweeping floors somewhere.
You do know that everything you said is absolutely incorrect right?
LOL. wtf?
Oh… I think that I get it now. They think that the screens will cause bandwidth problems because they think that everyone's screen needs to be monitored remotely at all times.
Stupid fascists.
My 10 year old son read this and he thinks you are an idiot.
I can only hope this was written in jest. If not, I think you have achieved a level of idiocrity previously thought unattainable
Clint, please explain how having a higher resolution display on your laptop has any affect on network traffic.
Perhaps someone should use Visual Basic to write a GUI to analyze the TCP/IP traffic hoping for a better impact assessment?
"which includes a Retina display of 2048-by-1536 resolution with 3.1 million pixels, would slow enterprise networks to a crawl and increase data costs from carriers. Now imagine how a Macbook with 5.1 million pixels — two million more than the new iPad — will increase data traffic in office networks."
I work at a fortune 500 software company. Pixels on a screen don't slow down the network. If someone streams a video and the screen can support a high resolution like 1080p (which most modern computer monitors can). They can steam higher quality videos and THAT would slow a network down MAYBE a bit depending on your office.
Please stop writing articles you don't know anything about.
Are you actually retarded?
you are a moron. or perhaps you are morons. Unsure.
We will be bringing formal charges for content theft momentarily.
This article is 100% inaccurate. Retract, please, for the love of all that is holy.
You do realize that everything you wrote is false? You should really have a chat with whoever told you this was true. Who is editing this guy's garbage?
they allowed this story to be up for 2 days now?
You went full retard man; everybody knows you never go full retard.
Wow, stop writing about computers please.
Are you retarded?
lol You have no idea what you're talking about.
*laughs* He doesn't seem to understand that if you stream a 100mb video file, you're going to use 100mb of data, regardless of how big the damn screen is. It's not like if I upgrade my monitor that suddenly youtube videos will take longer to load.
This is a joke right… You do realize the internet doesn't work like that. The images aren't going to magically get bigger because of a retina display. You are dumb.
Complete garbage. Your lack of understanding of basic technology is troubling.
This is hilarious
This is pretty misleading. You need to speak to a web developer before you write stuff like this.
I just wanted to comment on this article before it gets shamefully deleted.
Someone is wrong on the Internet!
In other news, cameras with larger lenses cause nearby areas to go dark. Film at 11.
This article is amazing. See Clint Boulton's other article: "New iPhones fast, use more minutes than old iPhones"
Wow. You need to go read how the internet works and stop posting on it until you do.
Wrong on at least two counts.
First, and as it's been pointed out, displays don't require network bandwidth. Sure, they may require greater graphics bus bandwidth, but that's not something anyone needs to worry about, as it's completely within the machine in question. At most, you could say that a higher-resolution display might tend to cause users to make use of a larger amount of bandwidth, assuming that they are savvy enough to seek out higher-bandwidth alternatives. This is a far cry from the statement that "better quality displays require more network bandwidth."
Second, the laptop in question is not "clearer than Apple's newest iPad." The iPad has 104 pixels per inch, while the new MacBook Pro has "only" 87. Similarly, calling the display "the crispest screen for a computer yet" is also highly inaccurate. The IBM T220 and T221 monitors of yore had 204 pixels per inch–over twice the resolution of the MacBook Pro.
Piss-poor journalism.
CIOs love me at the company where I work, because the only displays my devices have are 1px, and simply indicate whether the device is powered on or not. Talk about saving tons of bandwidth!
I for one didn't know screen resolution affected bandwidth, guess I am the moron. No wonder my doors in the house got smaller when I got a high res plasma at home, and there was a traffic jam when letting the dogs out. All makes sense now.
Wrong on at least two counts.
First, and as it's been pointed out, displays don't require network bandwidth. Sure, they may require greater graphics bus bandwidth, but that's not something anyone needs to worry about, as it's completely within the machine in question. At most, you could say that a higher-resolution display might tend to cause users to make use of a larger amount of bandwidth, assuming that they are savvy enough to seek out higher-bandwidth alternatives. This is a far cry from the statement that "better quality displays require more network bandwidth."
Second, the laptop in question is not "clearer than Apple's newest iPad." The iPad has 104 pixels per inch, while the new MacBook Pro has "only" 87. Similarly, calling the display "the crispest screen for a computer yet" is also highly inaccurate. The IBM T220 and T221 monitors of yore had 204 pixels per inch–over twice the resolution of the MacBook Pro.
Poor journalism.
this article wasted more bandwidth than a screen ever could
Wow Clint, you're an idiot. I'm surprised, I count almost 500 people saying the content of your article is wrong and it's still up. This is the problem with mainstream news…
Please learn your facts before you post something so absurd. How does a retina display have anything to do with bandwidth consumption? Energy consumption increase, maybe, but not bandwidth. Quit this job and go back to college or something.
You call this a small mistake!!!
"better quality displays require more network bandwidth".
Wrong. Very wrong.
Wow, just… wow.
Screen pixel density has nothing to do with the network bandwidth. At all.
If you use a screen-sharing program (such as VNC) regularly to fix or otherwise use a machine with a high pixel count, first you are doing it wrong, and second you setup that program wrong for the environment you're dealing with.
This is a problem only a bad sysadmin would have.
I need to drop my sub for this mag.. just Wow.
you should become a politician
Thanks a lot jerk! Time Warner cut off my internet because of my 27 inch monitor after reading your blog post. Now I can only connect with a cell phone (not one with a retina display).
Whenever I download images on my phone they are smaller and load faster, so at least there's that.
Yes, because to use a laptop on the internet. EVERY PIXEL GETS REFRESHED OFF THE NETWORK. This laptop will not use more data than an old one. Even then, when is the last time that you saw a business pay per MB for their network transfers?
Stupid Journo is Stupid
Mr. Boulton, you work for an established new firm, with a dignified history to uphold. You have a responsibility to your readers and the firm you work for, to report on things you are knowledgeable on… You will receive no pity from anyone who knows that the internet is not a "series of tubes" – Shame on you…
"better quality displays require more network bandwidth"
This article is completely wrong. Currently, most hd video is available in at best 1080p format. That means the resolution is 1920 x 1080. Getting a bigger screen with more pixels wont matter, because 1080p is the best quality/ highest bandwidth format, and most regular computers can play it. This Author needs to do his research, or at least know what he is talking about before starting to write. This article needs to be deleted, it is spreading mis-information.
What. The. Hell? Completely. Wrong.
you went full retard on this one.
Most CIOs are morons so I am sure to hear about this in a meeting in the coming weeks.
I thought this was a WSJ blog, not The Onion…
So you write a column geared towards Chief Information Officers, but you have almost no understanding of Information Technology?
This will go well. WSJ, remaining as relevant as ever to the modern world.
You should lose your job. People look to places like this for information and idiots like you should not be able to post incorrect information. SERIOUSLY, did you do any research before writing this?
Wow, that is incredible news – just because it has higher resolution, it will automatically transform all of my server side content into bloated hi-def stuff – and I never would have thought of monitoring my network, or even controlling what my users could do – wow, that is news in itself
Wow. Just wow. This is terrible, terrible journalism. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing this.
This is the stupidest thing I have read in days. Please consider a different career.
Well, it's back to CAT FANCY for you, my friend.
Wow. Do you have the slightest understanding as to how computers work? This is asinine.
This article is written by someone with technical knowledge of a typical CIO
author is on bath salts. better get more bandwidth
Can't tell if this Clint chap is a clinical moron or just trolling
Epic fail
Everyone stop being mean. It's clear the author had a stroke while writing the first few characters of this story. I think it is quite brave that he continued on to the necessarily ridiculous end under such circumstances.
Your article is bad, and you should feel bad.
This is the dumbest article I've read on the internet in a long time. Mr. Boulton's understanding of computers is no better than my Grandmothers, and even she might realize the tremendous logical fallacy which Mr. Boulton bases his article on. This man should lose his job for this piece.
I had no idea new displays use network resources. Thanks, wsj!
Is this an Onion article, because it sure sounds that way with this logic
So, if CIO's are reading this, no wonder most are clueless. Not to mention, the WSJ reporting like this. Here comes the new Wall Street Disaster!
Everyone knows the internet comes from these fancy machines that have screens, so this is perfectly correct.
This is pure rubbish. This article is better suited as a purposeful reply answer on Yahoo Answers.
Really? Really? Wow.
Thats some solid reporting. Good to see you did some research instead of saying something blatantly false.
This article is such a blatantly poor attempt at professional journalism it amazes me that a writer such as this could land a job at the WSJ. This is so bad it actually deserves the flood of arbitrary comments it will inevitably receive.
Crikey. You don't have to know much about technology to conclude that this article is astonishingly inaccurate.
How is babby formed?
But just think of all the extra pixels the they has to downstream from the clouds!
I was gunna play Xbox 360 online but I has 1,080 pees on my tv, and my internets is only for 720 pees. I has too many pees!
Wow, this is absolutely full of so much win I don't even know where to begin. Did you get paid to write this? If so, where do I sign up?
He could tell by the pixels. Even knowing that yes, apps designed for higher resolution iPads and Macs will be larger in size to download due to containing higher res graphics these have nothing to do with the bandwidth used while running the app. And in fact all iPads/macs use the same App so even low res devices download the high res graphics which are unused.
If some day sites like wsj.com add super high resolution photos just for these types of devices then yes maybe some impact could be seen, but this would only happen when most devices have that resolution so again not relevant today.
There's so much wrong with this article that the 'journalist' should be embarrassed.
Also if your employees are wasting their time watching HD video content on your network rather than working then you're doing something wrong.
Has this seriously not been corrected in the past 2 days it's been available? Editors must be out to lunch — what a bunch nonsense
Troll tech blogger is a troll.
I just…. I can't…. what?
I sell patented Network Lube precisely for this situation. Network admins simply apply my lube to their internet tubes – problem solved.
Well, you are on your way to become a CIO yourself. At least you have the qualifications
Clint, this may the be most innacurate article that I've read on the WSJ. The reason that "experts" told CIO Journal that the new iPad would slow enterprise networks to a crawl and increase data costs is because you are efffectively DOUBLING the amount of machines on the network if people use a workstation AND an iPad. It has absolutely nothing to do with pixel density.
Not only is your post misleading but it is extremely innaccurate. This is like saying that if you download too many apps on your iPhone that your iPhone will start to get heavier and weigh your pants down.
My laptop started getting too heavy so I deleted a bunch of files on it.
This is the most bafflingly stupid article I've read on here in years. And bafflingly isn't even a word!
Are you kidding? Yes, of course pixels translate directly to network use. Somehow.
How did this Yahoo Answers reply get posted to the WSJ?
Obviously Clint Boulton needs to get out of his rocking chair and stop being an tech-savvy as a grandma.
Oh my. The bigger graphics drivers alone will eat up a good chunk of our bandwidth!
Sorry author, you are an idiot.
oh my no…
Is this a joke?
AAAAHAHAHAHAHA….Seriously though, where the hell do some people get their information. If you know nothing of technology and networking the worst thing you could do is try to write an article educating people on it. If you do this you will more then likely be completely wrong, just like the above article.
Hai guise!!!1
This guy totally have a solution though, bring your own bandwidth. ANY1 GOT A CARTON OF BANDWIDTH I CAN BORROW?
I am amazed at all of the hate going on here. I work in IT and the truth is, he is right because people have more pixels on those monitors and they require more power. Stop being ignorant jerks. You are going to ruin someones life!
Er … this is sponsored by the Wall Street Journal? Really? Do they let just anybody write here? This article is so factually incorrect that I cringed. I literally cringed while reading this. I just accidentally read the part of the article that's still on my screen, and I cringed again. What experts actually think this? Is this a thing?
Wow WSJ… Where did you find this guy? Try doing some real research before posting a completely false article. Display has ZERO to do with bandwidth. WSJ should be embarassed, especially since this article is still published 2 days later!
wow, just wow.
Yeah you're now famous now. . . not in a good way. Welcome to reddit. Could you please do a AMA. . . I can see something legendary occurring.
Perhaps you should have researched before writing this article. Think of all the bandwidth and other resources you wasted!
LOLOLOLOL. dear gosh… I'm really glad I got into this field, to be taught how to manage networks by guys like you! You just made my day a WHOLE lot better. Thank you! Really! So much! Now I'm going to go send out a few GPOs that limit screen resolution so they don't slow down the kids torrenting HD videos, music, gaming… you know… things that REALLY matter! Idiot.
Are you a Fraking MORON? Display size has absolutely NOTHING to do with network bandwidth usage. That is akin to saying that because i got a new 50″ 1080 flatscreen TV that i now have smaller doorways in my house or that because i got a new bigger GPS the speed limit on the highway got reduced. I sincerely hope that you were joking when you wrote this.
Only higher quality streaming would task the network more than an average resolution screen would. I mean, it could've been implied to this article, but saying that a higher resolution screen will consume more bandwidth is just unprofessional.
Clint Boulton, you and your doofy haircut should be fired for such FALSE information.
Do you know nothing about how computers work?
more power does not mean more bandwidth
Thank you for this wonderful post Clint Bouillon. I don't know why you're receiving so many negative comments. Thanks to you I'm going to invest in a Macbook Air now. Is the new 11″ macbook air efficient enough for my DSL bandwith connection?
So conversely does this mean bandwidth is CAPPED by the number of pixels in your monitor? Because that would be silly.
Hundreds of Comments and still no edit?
This is a joke…right?
This article was a good laugh.
WSJ… this is just embarrassing… Consider moving Mr. Boulton to non-technology related articles.
No, see. A higher resolution monitor connects to the server on the other end, multiplies the size of the remote files by 4, then downloads them.
Maybe he's saying that by having a retina display will result in more people watching porn at work, like he intends to do. So by that logic, if you have an increased number of people streaming porn at work, it will slow down the network a bit.
The author of this article is a raving idiot. He knows nothing about how computers or networking actually works. Clint, please do the planet a favor and keep your mouth shut when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
wow. I think you just went full retard. really? reallllyyy??? can someone be this fucking stupid?!?!?!?!?
You're kidding, right? Clint Boulton, please consider doing some research and learning a little bit about how computers work before you write another tech article. This is absurd.
You may have accidentally written a very great article for The Onion.
You better be trolling… Otherwise stop writing technical blogs, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Lol. More display -> more network bandwidth. Haha, hehe.
This article is so incredibly mis-informed it's laughable. Higher resolutions do NOT mean more bandwidth consumed.
Does the WSJ have editors and fact checkers??
Please tell me that this article is a joke.
You have got to be kidding me. Clint Boulton, you are summarily fired. Stop posting retarded crap.
The only thing that would change would be transferring assets made purposefully for native resolutions. Things like wallpapers and program UIs. However, this is probably less than 0.00001% of all network traffic in a corporate environment. Even remote desktop programs, which eat up a lot of network bandwidth, encode video before sending it over the internet, so the increase in network traffic from those programs would be minimal (It would simply require slightly more processing power from the host computer to encode a higher-resolution image, which puts any problem firmly outside the network)
This is a terribly hyperbolic article. Every problem put forth by these >1080p displays is already mitigated by existing "infrastructure" laid out by current software.
Wait – what? Oh gawd dammit – my new display overwhelmed my ISP.
Really, WSJ? Really? I guess you don't take IQ into account when hiring your writers.
"WSJ… this is just embarrassing… Consider moving Mr. Boulton to a dumpster".
You do realise this article is totally untrue? The resolution of videos being streamed (and other data) is fixed regardless of how high your resolution is. No research or consultation went into this story.
I suspect the author is getting confused with the launch of the 3rd generation of iPad, which also for the first time had a retina display and was branded a "bandwidth hog" by certain groups, but this was because of the new 4G network capabilities, not the increased resolution.
Cannot tell if he is truly retarded, or just really, really stupid.
wow Clint you even look dumb, even on my large screen
That is some high quality and thoughtful reporting there Clint. Let me guess … journalism major?
You have got to be kidding me. Clint Boulton, you are summarily fired. Stop posting retarded crap.
I see I'm far from being the first to say this, but I think it bears repeating:
Never again should you allow this Cliff Boulton guy to write tech-related pieces for your paper. He doesn't know what he's talking about. At all. And it's not even tech arcana – it's something my little sister could have told you.
For shame, WSJ, For shame!
The new display would require more bandwidth if, and only if, web content producers create higher quality graphics to support that display. Such a thing seems very, very unlikely for simply the reason you describe here… those content producers will see a corresponding increase in their outgoing bandwidth (if, and only if, a significant number of users are consuming that high resolution data).
Essentially this article is meaningless FUD. There is no reason to suspect that the higher resolution display on the MacBook pro would lead to increased bandwidth unless content providers make drastic changes.
My guess is that he spoke to an Apple Genius or the Geek Squad as his "expert" source
I can't believe how little research went in to writing this.
WSJ, a Murdoch corporation.
I assume this article was generated by a computer by randomly stitching together words and phrases, and not actually written by a person _using_ a computer.
Because an article this utterly wrong…it can't have been generated by a thinking person. Surely. *optimist*
Are you serious? Is this the Onion? Face Palm
You stole our article.
The Onion
You sir are fundamentally incorrect in the interpretation of bandwidth. Bandwidth is a generic term used for many electronic engineering subfields spanning signal processing to digital information transfer. No doubt you confused the increased memory bandwidth required by a larger resolution display with the concept of network bandwidth. Or perhaps you are somewhat misinterpreting the idea that a display interface (HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort, etc) generally requires increased bandwidth for external displays.
In either case, the display resolution will be rendered locally on the machine by the graphics card. The rendering will be pushed to the local LCD through a local interface. An increased display size has no effect on the network bandwidth; there is no effect what so ever on any IT department that supports Apple laptops.
Please exercise more due diligence in the future.
Please, PLEASE research something before you post about it. You'll look like less of a fool.
Is this a joke? How could you possibly make any assumptions like that? Do you even know what IPv6 is?
Dear Clint,
This may come as a surprise to you (which is unfortunate, since you should do some actual research instead of simply making up your articles) but 1080p content streaming, whether displayed on a 2880px x 1800px display or a single pixel, is the EXACT SAME BANDWIDTH.
Scumbag reporter edits post to make it seem like he didn't mess up.
I want to exposed myself
Pathetic. No idea what you're talking about. WSJ is a joke.
wHat a iNtellegent arturcle – nOw I cna banned aPPles from my Farm,
But seriously, if this guy is paid on number of hits/traffic brought to the site, he hit a home run with crappy content – probably top story on the site – and all the WSJ cares about is traffic numbers to show their advertisers
thanks Clint, haven't laughed so hard in a long time. What a load of bollocks.
Tight deadline, eh Clint?
That is not how display resolution works.
Hilarious wrong.
This is a joke, right?
Oh my gosh. How on earth did you ever get a job with the WSJ? You're so ignorant that this piece reads like something from Comedy Central. Your stupidity is overshadowed ONLY by your obvious disdain with Apple products. Go bury your head in your stupid Windows laptop and shut the hell up.
You could at least correct yourself or, better still, remove the article.
Slow news day, I guess.
The person that wrote this article clearly has no idea what they are talking about. How do you tie screen resolution to network bandwidth? I have a 3-headed system with a combine resolution of 6200×4040. That has no direct correlation with my network utilization and it never will.
I am dumber for having read this…
Clint's, please turn in your employee badge and pack your desk. You're officially publishing things in THE WSJ that don't make one LICK OF SENSE. FAIL.
Hey Clint, there is no need to worry
I run this when I have that problem with my display
I totally improves my overall performance…
Clint Boulton has no IT knowledge at all, is WSJ trying to be the next TMZ?
This article is just 100% wrong. Whether it streaming video, using a web page, or playing a game, the resolution of the display has NO impact on the bandwidth used by the computer.
Clint Boulton is completely incompetent to cover tech stories.
Just wanted to throw my hat in and say that Mr. Boulton should perhaps consider a career where his lack of research and technical understanding are more fitting – for example as a field writer for AARP magazine.
And being blond myself I can make that joke. Really?! Even a little girly girl geek like me knows that the display has nothing to do with network bandwidth.
Now is there a correlation to the larger the computer and prettier the graphics the more ONLINE movies, games and videos a user might watch?! Well heck yeah!
And therein probably lies the statistics. Doh.
Sorry Cliff, the internet that the retina MacBook Pro downloads is the same one that the rest of us download. So if any website serves hi-res graphics for retina screens every computer downloads the same ones. Until HTML updates to allow alternative images to be served to different screen densities very easily, the Retina MacBook Pro, Retina iPad, and Retina iPhone will get the same exact images your Asus gets.
haha, that's not how computer work!
Is this the kind of hack that the WSJ employs? How the f–k can I trust anything else when one of your reporters spews completely stupid, uninformed crap like this?
… and clearly I cannot always spell.
Hey WSJ, are you hiring? I am also an idiot who neglects to sanity-check articles.
You've gone so far past full retard I don't think there's any chance of recovery.
you are high son
is you need someone who actually know something about the subject at hand, please contact ANYONE ON THE INTERNET
did The Onion buy WSJ?
I really hope this is a joke…
Jesus Christ.
ass clowns like you should go back to school to learn how to at least do some research before opening their traps to speak on a subject of which they obviously have no concept of. High resolution screens are in no way related to bandwidth consumption on a computer… ever. You fail at life… go get a job at burger king… where you belong.
I just had to upgrade my network tubes… we installed hard drives that spin faster and they required more network bandwith, no to mention that the wireless keyboard and mice totaly destroyed out wifi.
Thanks for the good laugh, Clit, it will keep me amused all day as I drive my data truck through the intertubes with Ted Stevens.
I bet he also considers himself a computer scientist and has extensive experience in html.
Unless you're suggesting that the user can fit THAT MANY MORE youtube videos on the screen at a time then you may want to revise your article.
I guess this guy also saves his MS Word documents in tiny fonts to save disk space.
False. Larger displays do not consume more bandwidth. At most, they'll be able to benefit from higher resolution video streams, but that still doesn't really make this true… Existing displays can already make use of 1080p, plenty of streams don't even offer that much, and why the hell are your employees watching Netflix at work all day? The problem, and it's hard to argue that there even is one, is the actions of your employees, not what devices they have.
Wait so is the internet like, a place?
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
Please tell me how a 720p Netflix adds more bandwidth when the screen changes.
Please allow someone with a background in IT to fact check next time. This article needs to be removed, as correcting it renders the author without a point…..
Look at my thumb…gee you're dumb
It appears the CIO Journal quoted one guy who basically said the retina display could lead to folks downloading more high-def content which in turn could lead to increased bandwidth consumption. That single (somewhat unfounded) assumption was morphed by the WSJ article into "experts" (note both the dubious term and the plural) saying that this would "slow enterprise networks to a crawl", etc.
The article is a /fail both from a technical perspective and even just a pure journalist perspective. Way to (try to) mislead your audience!
is this an onion article?
Clint, I award you no points… this clip says everything i need to express: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
This is pure stupid
Clint, are you retarded? This isn't how technology works. Put your keyboard down.
and he did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
This article is pretty misleading, honestly. The most relevant concern is that employees will be less satisfied with low-bandwidth video, and will select high-bandwidth video more often, increasing data usage. Will they be more likely to do this on an iPad with a higher-resolution display? Perhaps, but it's hardly a simple buy new iPad->use more bandwidth relationship.
geez how sad. Does the author of the above article understands what computers do on the internet ?
Note to self – never listen to, hire, or take advice (even second-hand) from "Clint Boulton".. because he actually put his name to an article about how a higher resolution screen equates to more network utilization, and to a degree worth 'warning' CIO's about..
The only way this makes sense — and maybe what he intended, though he obviously didn't make that the least bit clear — is that users will choose to stream a movie in HD rather than standard (Amazon, for example, gives you that choice).
i told my cousin who is 6th grade about this, his exact words, "WHAT AN IDIOT!". Clint, dude, the display has no effect on the network performance of a computer or any device for that matter. But, im sure you know that now. lol
oh wow. 8/10 would rage again
this is a great troll
Seriously? Wow.
You guys need to stop commenting, it's eating up too much valuable bandwidth when I resize my browser to read them all.
Because all that white space on web pages, not to mention the higher resolution text, requires that much more data. Face. To. Palm.
Please never write about technology again.
I'm sorry Clint but maybe this isn't quite the profession for you.
The amount of bandwidth used is determined by the content, not the display size. This reporter is a fool.
That is the biggest load of balls I have read on the internet in a while.
Somebody needs to read up on what uses bandwidth.
This post is hilarious, WSJ really needs to do a better job of vetting out their bloggers. Thought this was an early April fools joke.
how did I get here? I am not good with computor
What. The. F****. I could feel my intelligence dropping as I read this. Video resolution is fixed. It does not change. If you stream a 1080p video to a 60 inch 8k TV, it will use the same bandwidth as streaming the same video to an 11 inch 720p screen. IF you stream a higher quality video yes, it will use more bandwidth. However, the size of the screen has nothing to do with the bandwidth. This article clearly shows no research was done, and that yes, you can work with computers for a living and not know a thing about them. You should avoid further embarrassment and take this "story" down. Or is the internet too slow at the office, because everyone upgraded from 14 to 16 inch screens?
Or… Palm. To. Face?
What in the holy bloody hell are you smoking? Go. Away.
This is just embarrassing
This is too true! When any of my employees needs to download a large file, I make them turn off the screen to save bandwidth.
Clint Boulton: Halp I don't know how to computer
This article is terrible. The screen size has 0 direct correlation to bandwidth usage. I'm not even sure how your drawing the lines between the two. Consider adding that.
Wow, this one's going to make journalism's blooper reels for generations to come.
Best of luck on your next career choice, Clint.
Wow.. I guess anything flies at WSJ these days.. Excellent research Clint
Who asked you to write about technology anyways? Get a life dude.
Wow the author is a complete idiot. Good work Clint Boulton! You continue the excellent trend of journalists writing about things they do not understand!
Mr. Boulton, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I'd like to interject for a moment, what you're referring to as resolutionary is in fact GNU/Resolutionary.
Oh mah gawd is this the level of retardation I can expect from every mac user?
Clint, pls go!!!!!
reading this article just made me dumber
actually the author is right, this new higher resolution macbook will consume so much more bandwidth, because of it's flux capacitor, which as you all know is the leading consumer of both bandwidth and plutonium. 1.21 jiggawatts if I am not mistaken….
Wow. Just wow. How do you earn a title like "Reporter" for not doing the crucial first part of your job that involves – gasp – research?
Computers! how do they work?!?
Can't the WSJ afford some tech editors? this is ridiculous.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Why the hell would a nicer screen suck more bandwidth. You should stop using your grandmother as a tech source.
CEO's should also consider hiring little people (dwarves, midgets, whatever). Regular size employees require full-height ceilings and breathe too much valuable air.
How, exactly, does the increase in display = an increase in bandwidth use? pfft.
There's about 600 comments on this article rebuking its information. He links to another article (one of his, mind you) about how the iPad will tax networks heavily too.
He seems to have a less-than-rudimentary understanding of technology. And he is associating greater pixel display with greater network strain. It would seem he's drawing this conclusion from the fact that (a) both the MBP and the iPad have retina and (b) he quoted an "IT expert" in the iPad article whom said that the iPad will add strain to corporate networks.
It may have rang true for the iPad, because you're adding another device to utilize data. Even then though, it wouldn't be that bad.
I'd say two things are at work to create this amorphous pile of shit called Tech Journalism: (1) A retard with a keyboard (2) an attempt to drive up site traffic (notice the 600+ comments).
Please tell me this is satire on some level. This can't be real.
Note to WORLD: Journalists are technologically retarded.
Prime example: THIS article, and people who claim Siri can't work on old devices because of "the chips".
There's about 600 comments on this article rebuking its information. He links to another article (one of his, mind you) about how the iPad will tax networks heavily too.
He seems to have a less-than-rudimentary understanding of technology. And he is associating greater pixel display with greater network strain. It would seem he's drawing this conclusion from the fact that (a) both the MBP and the iPad have retina and (b) he quoted an "IT expert" in the iPad article whom said that the iPad will add strain to corporate networks.
It may have rang true for the iPad, because you're adding another device to utilize data. Even then though, it wouldn't be that bad.
I'd say two things are at work to create this amorphous pile of shit called Tech Journalism: (1) A retard with a keyboard (2) an attempt to drive up site traffic (notice the 600+ comments).
Literally the dumbest article I've ever seen on WSJ (and there has been some tough competition).
Every new MacBook Pro on the network actually adds overall bandwidth for the organization and the internet. The total is calculated by 2048 X 1536 = 3145728 Gbps! Organizations will be giving bandwidth back to the grid which will lower the data plan cost for all I Phone users.
and give him a bunch of AOL CDs.
I can't believe you actually think that an HD display on a device will use more Data. The only increase that could occur would be if they streamed HD movied (which aren't as high res as the screen in any case.) It would only increase bandwidth if the data being presented was of a higher definition. Ha! What are they going to do HD SQL Queries!
You are a moron.
Clint Boulton calling himself a reporter is like Fox News saying they tell actual news… You should be ashamed of yourself
Mr. Boulton, please go back to writing for The Onion.
For a second I thought I was at the onion. how embarrassing.
@osm0sis, Nate, and Carl: I thought the same thing at first, then I read the rest of the article and it basically talks about increasing HD content consumption. Having an HD screen you are going to lean more towards looking at HD content.
@Clint: I see what you did thar…
why does this guy have a job with the wsj? if i said something this retarded at my job NAD THEN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET, i'd be fired
This guy is the worst technology reporter of all time…
Oh what the hell's going on in here? This is all wrong.
I wonder if when Clint orders a cheeseburger at the drive through it comes out as a steak? That's essentially his implication. Photos, when e-mailed, become better quality (higher memory) as they are being transferred.
I bet Clint hopes women work this way too. Buy one over seas and by the time she arrives it's Brooke Burke…. Oh, the life!!
This is absolutely the most brain cramping thing I've ever heard…
Oh, Clint. Thanks for the laugh!
I'm sorry Clint, you seem to be mistake, network bandwidth is not directly related to screen resolution, aspect ratio, watt hours, shader clocks, or if or if not a computer uses HT-Link, network bandwidth is directly influenced by a given user's network requests. If a given user only uses external network access for work related data then it's not going to make a bit of difference on the resolution, I personally have 6 computers from a 1680x945tablet to a 1920×1080 laptops to a desktop workhorse with a full aperture 4K projector setup and i run them all on 3G internet, and my 4096×3112 computer has the lowest band width, because i rarely use it for internet media.
is this the onion??
i just downloaded some mp3s on my ipod. it weighs more than before. how come ?
Sup bro can I get a job writing here guys? I used a computer once.
Quick! Change resolution to 800 x 600 so company doesn't notice increase in network traffic while I watch youtube in High Def…
You're done, Clint…
This is just so very wrong. Screen resolution has very little correlation to bandwidth consumption.
I think it's time Clint Boulton started his own blog about weathering the job market as an unemployed reporter.
That's nonsense. All you have to do is cover up half the screen and you'll only use half the network bandwidth.
I usually just duck tape the part of the screen I don't need to save on network bills.
Watch out visiting pages overseas, you might get long distance charges!
This article fails.
y̵̺͉̪̙̯̰̩͔̅͋o̵͍̲͇̩̰ͭͫ͟ȕ̗̖̦̘͚̜̺̳̏ͯ͗̈͂ͮͪ ̟͓͎͎̖̭̦̹̒̒ͯ͌c̥̤̳̲͎̦̦͓ͦ͋́a̜͕̦͉̜̜̟ͪ̈̕͠ñ̨̧̙̳͓͈ͩ͋̓̂̆̓ͤ̈͞'̸̨̝͉̹̳̌͗̕ṯ̝̲̝̯̖̃̈́ͮ̍̋ͭͪͦ̃ͅ ̸̨͎ͦ̿̔ͨͧ͊͑̎s͔͇̞̐͠e̵̢͇̹̍͂r̴̘͋̔̿ͧ͐̓͐͛į̶̴̲̩ͭ̉̐̀̇ǫ̯̘̺͍͉̲̬̤ͫ̋ͫ̒͘ŭ̦̩͉͍̱͙ͧͬͯ͂̐ͤ̍̚ś̠̘͖̞̠̟̊ͥͯ̒̍̑̒̚l̴̷̷͉̰̘͓͔̃ͨ͐͑͊͆ͅy̦̙̠̥̩ͪ͂͐̕͝ ̶̨ͮ̏̏ͪ̄͂҉̱͖͚b̵̠̫͓̼͔͓̦͗̂͆̓͑̓ͧͬ͢͞e̡͍̠̩̪̳̮̩ͭ̓̅̈́͐ͬ̅͆ͅ ̧̭̰̱̠͈̗̠͑͌ͦ͜͡t̜̙̻̖̔̆́̀͠h̹̪̣̜̺ͤ̾̃̒ͧͭ́̓i̷͆͗͒͛҉͍̟̻͙̗̩̩̦s̶̨̝̜͈͂ͨ ̶͇͍̍̾͗̀͘s̲̄ͭ̊̊̇̾̀ṯ̸̤̙͙̦̖̦̾͠u̝̻̭̭̘̠̺̓͠p̬̻͙͖̱͙͒͑̎̾ͥ͌í̧̭̫͇̲̫̬͈̩̅͊ͫ̀ͅd̖͖̗͉͒ͧ͆̌͘͠
The main source of increased bandwidth usage is Apple's new policy of mirroring the screen full time uncompressed back to Apple.
Wow, you literally have no idea how the internet works. Please educate yourself before writing more factually incorrect articles.
This is true guys! Why else do you think his twitter profile pic is such low resolution?
Clint appears to be a regular WSJ contributor. He's got a nice headshot and everything, and AFAIK those are still hand-drawn.
So rather than blaming Clint directly, maybe its WSJ that's slipping? "Professional with Factiva"? Is that some kind of yogurt that helps you poop?
Clint really? Really? This is the worst and dumbest piece of journalism to date. Great work, maybe you should be making lattes….oh wait don't you might not understand the sizing chart.
This just in, hard drives become heavier as you add data to them.
Wow – this is the most asinine understanding of network bandwidth I've ever seen. Congratulations Clint… you're a idiot!
You must be new.
I actually feel dumber for reading this article
I'm a housewife and I think that this article makes no sense at ALL.
It's basically saying: since this detergent will make your clothes cleaner, expect to become a clotheshorse.
Hey, it takes a lot of bandwidth to download all those extra pixels to show on the retina display, everyone knows that. Before I hit the "post" button here, I need to zoom the browser down so I can save on bandwidth.
Clint. Why not leave tech related articles to someone who has an ounce of knowledge about technology and how it works. The resolution of the display has no correlation with network bandwidth usage. Thanks for contributing to sensationalist journalism!
you sir.. are a moron.
Mr. Boulton
This article is obviously very poorly researched, and you would do well to retract it before Apple catch wind of it. The leap in logic made in order to reach the conclusion that high native resolution would eventually equal high data usage is ludicrous. When compared, the data consumption capable by even a slow netbook and tabbed browsing is obviously much higher than that of the iPad (which is still more of a dandied-up iPhone than a replacement for a workplace computer).
To conclude: Please stop presenting this drivel as news. Learn to use a search engine. Remember that wild, hare-brained assumptions will, in the end, never replace some actual investigation in journalism.
Thank you,
Amazing that the Wall Street Journal publishes this garbage. I guess I should have expected it seeing as how it is so heavily involved in the globalist agenda.
Fire this guy. Right away.
This is probably the worst peice of journalism I have read in a very long time.
Screen Resolution != Network Usage
If your employees are watching hours of youtube videos in 2K resolution at work, I think your problem is the employees, not the display they're watching on. Although I'd also be impressed they even found that much footage at that high resolution, since nearly everything maxes out at 1080p – which all your monitors almost certainly already run.
Speaking of wasting bandwidth… Who gave this Clint clown a keyboard?
reddit says you're an idiot. should be fired imo
You know, DPI on the new ipad is at least 100 higher than on the new macbook pro. Doesn't sound clearer to me.
Related: http://intertubes.ytmnd.com/
That's a load of crap. The reason why the data usage jumped on the new IPad is because people are downloading videos/pics at higher resolution. But the video resolutions are capped at HD, unless you take the experimental route. Current macbooks already let users download and watch HD videos. So I don't see any difference in user activities as far as video watching goes. Besides, how many workers actually watch movies at work? Those FED employees watching porns are an exception. And how many people download high-res images all the time and at work?
And even if a user surfs a lot at those sites with high-res graphics, the jump in the data usage won't be there because the websites will not increase the resolution of the images they send out just to those super macbooks.
Hey Clint!
The only thing worse than your haircut is this article.
Honestly? This is the dumbest thing I read in a while. Also, the MBP display is not crisper than the iPads. It's about the density, not the resolution.
(also, your ipod does weigh more when you store music on it. It's a miniscule difference that is impossible to notice, but it does weigh more. Cause you know, mass equals energy divided by speed of light squared)
I can see how an better display can cause more bandwith consumption in that it will cause ppl to want to download HD movies where they before where happy with "regular" movies.
Huuuuuuh?!?!? I can't even put into words, how PATHETIC, this article is.
what the hell dude
Thank you for being such an idiot. I will happily go on with my life knowing that whatever other ill fortune my fall upon me, you are busily writing up this tripe to keep other idiots busy. The more you write, the more the sheep read, the less of you will be doing 45 mph in the fast lane of the freeway while signaling for a left hand turn.
Please keep up the "good" work.
A better display doesn't magically make everything higher resolution, unless you go out of your way to find abnormally high resolution video and stream it continuously, your bandwidth won"t be affected.
Do you even know anything? Have you ever used a computer? Do you understand bandwidth at all?
Is there a technically competent editor in the house? If so, how was this drivel published?
It's immediately evident that the author of this article has no clue what he's talking about. TO BE CLEAR, INCREASED SCREEN RESOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BANDWIDTH.
Insanely, laughably, absurdly, completely, utterly false.
A screen's resolution has nothing to do with the amount of content that's being served to it. A retina display will be no more of a bandwidth hog than a workstation with more than one monitor.
How did this hogwash get published?
I see, so that's why Apple didn't include an ethernet port on this model. how clever.
aww that's cute. He must have heard the word "bandwidth" somewhere.
I hope for your sake Clint, this is just a very late April fools day joke.
please tweet this shit. get it trending, get him fired.
May the internet have mercy on your soul.
This is truly an impressive kind of stupid. It's so deranged, I don't even know where to begin.
You really aren't the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
This is recklessly shoddy "technical" reporting. His reasoning – completely without any research – seems to be as follows: Because the new iPad (that happens to have a higher-resolution display) was said by others to likely increase corporate network traffic if allowed at the workplace, this laptop with a higher-resolution display will do the same.
It is clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of computer technology that Mr. Boulton is comically unqualified to write technical articles for a church bulletin board, much less be featured on WSJ. Please research your typing monkeys before posting their drivel in a serious venue.
Interesting article! Clint, please don't let the comments here discourage you — this is a pretty common sight, wen people who understand a little bit about something think are experts. It's a phenomenon called the "Armchair Expert", and it can be pretty sad to see but is very common. Just look at the Diablo 3 forums, it's even worse ("login is down again? blizzard why are you so stupid just add more servers!").
To everyone else, if you actually take a minute to read the article above, you'll see it references sites like YouTube and others, which select the default resolution of the content they serve to you via a combination of your network speed and display resolution. In a corporate setting with fast network speeds, the bottleneck tends to be display resolution. So YES – if you have your laptop next to your workstation playing a youtube playlist to your headphones while you work (which again, is common in a corporate setting), you WILL incur much higher bandwidth usage.
Yes, person who is about to angrily reply to me that you don't listen / watch youtube at work, you do exist. But you are not everybody. And you are probably not an IT expert. So when experts tell you one thing, and they are correct, try not to disagree with them too loudly.
Good lord this guy has the mental capacity of a rotting raspberry. Are you really this technologically handicapped?
You went full retard, man. You never want to go full retard.
Impressive, you get paid to do this?
youre almost a fucking bad as he is.
put the keyboard down and back away!
Hey guys, I think you're all being really unfair. That's a really nice drawing that he's using as his avatar, he is CLEARLY a professional and knows what he's talking about. I have to bring my own bandwidth to the office every day in a brown paper bag because the cafeteria's bandwidth costs too much.
So how does it feel to be famous on the internet?
FInd some content at that resolution and your point will have merit.
I see that WSJ welcomes "thoughtful comments" from readers. It's too bad they don't require "thoughtful journalism" from their reporters.
This is seriously the funniest thing I've read all day.
Herp derp.
buddy I got about thirteen gigerbits in my 6-meg port, aside from my 8-piped hard-floppy.
No probs
…and time for a retraction.
Whatever you do, don't type "Google" into Google.
You clearly haven't a clue. How can you write about something that you clearly have no clue about.
No, Oliver, you're just as incompetent as this guy. Even if you're streaming off youtube in HD, the default setting is 720p, even if you have a larger monitor. Any computer manufactured in the last 10 years will be capable of that pathetic resolution unless you work in a care home and all the patients are still using 800×600 displays.
I hope you get fired
Sent from my grave
Samsung Facebook?
Is this a joke? increased pixel density has NO effect on network bandwidth usage.
how many other articles has he written that were this bad?
No way, this can't be legit
You could easily fix this problem if you would just download more ram. Go to downloadmoremram.com, its a fast and easy solution…. I don't know why you didn't include this in your article!
Bahahahahahhaa… bahhahahahaha…. Really?
@Oliver. I'm working with a pretty fat pipe, and a 30″ monitor with a default resolution of 2560 * 1600 and YouTube still defaults to 360P. Yes, there are sites that adjust on the fly, but not at the resolution that the new MBP is operating at. Some of us bump it up higher, which is 760P in most cases and sometimes 1080P, which most CURRENT computers are already capable of displaying. Clint's article IS incorrect. in a big way, and next time you assume we are all ARMCHAIR EXPERTS, maybe you should do your own research first. I would consider you an armchair. Just an armchair.
You do not have a clue about what you are writing about. A higher end display does not result in a higher bandwidth.
I'm sure Clint Boulton has figured out by now that monitor pixel density has absolutely nothign to do with bandwidth usage. At all. AT ALL.
You sir, are a moron.
Perhaps you meant to say that they will consume more media, which could result in more bandwidth use… However that's not really an accurate assumption given these facts. This article is horribly inaccurate and misguided.
The guy at Best Buy told me that as long as I use the Monster USB cables, my bandwidth should be low. Something about how Monster uses gold plated nitrogen purged cables that split the bandwidth molecules into many smaller bits that allow the bandwidth to be significantly less heavy and move faster through the intertubes. It was super techie and I didn't follow it but that's why he is a pro at Best Buy. As long as these HD resolutions use Monster cables, we should all be a-ok.
This was the most utterly stupid I've read since…at least since Ballmer said "It doesn't even have a keyboard…".
Who gave you a free lunch to say this? Dell?
I have never in my many years read such a big bunch of lard..
how the hell… i cant event.. My brain..
As earlier.. download more ram..
I dot't know how stuff works!!!!
This is it, folks – the future of journalism
EDIT: I just got fired for using company bandwidth to change the resolution on my monitor
The entire premise of this article is totally wrong. Similarly, every point and metaphor used to sell that premise is 100% incorrect.
What the hell happened to fact-checking?
Clint, how you still have a tech job, I don't know. FAIL.
Where's the associated story about Netflix/Youtube offering 1800p streaming??? This is a pretty funny article… although it would probably have been a better April 1 post.
This is true. Every time I turn on my Plasma 1080P HD SmartTV, the bandwidth at my house goes way down. But if I flick on the 13″ black and white with rabbit ears, it goes back up again.
How has this article not been amended or the author fired yet?
This article should be removed. It is anti-factual in a way that even the most limited of journalistic efforts would reveal. The link between a computer's computational and display hardware does not in any way traverse a network. There is zero correlation between display size and bandwidth consumption except perhaps in the sense that users with a better display might be more inclined to download or stream high-resolution video content.
Where can I sign up my developmentally delayed brother to take over Clint Boulton's job? He could not do any worse. This article is ridiculous. How does someone with less knowledge about networks than my 92 year-old grandmother keep this job?
streaming higher resolution videos takes more bandwidth than lower resolution videos. see? all you had to do was learn that "screens" and "videos" are completely different entities
Did he bother checking his facts with his resident IT tech or a friend that does a lot of work with computers? FAIL!
I don't think you should be writing articles on technology. This really is inexcusable.
Just sayin
Can I get a job at WSJ making up tech BS? I want my sketch to be a steaming pile of poo.
What a disgrace
Hey everyone, thanks for the comments. As you can see, we've corrected the post.
I'm fairly certain that as a CIO, your first mistake is buying expensive as hell Apple products in the first place. I'm sorry to inform you but companies that matter want cheap and functional, which is not the definition of anything Apple makes.
We don't buy 50 dollar pens, we don't want 2000 dollar laptops that can't run most popular business software and is made of easily scratch-able aluminum. No, I want a cheap dell made of hard plastic that runs everything from SAP to Lotus Notes and lasts 20 years, rarely needs parts or service, and cost only 500 bucks to begin with.
This is one of the most mentally paining articles I've ever seen.
Will a device with a 2880X1800 display suck more data down????? It depends if it is consuming content that is at a native 2880X1800 resolution. If it is simply watching the same 720p or 1080p content scaled to 2880X1800 there will be do difference in the amount of bandwidth consumed. If the user is checking email, working in Word there is no difference. If using youtube as an example most videos come in at 1920X1080 or 1280X720 (1080p and 720p). Youtube player is max at 2048X1536. Also consider that most users will not stream uncompressed video. Most content on youtube or any other site is heavily compressed using h.264. Otherwise you would need a 2.8Gbps Internet connection to stream uncompessed 1080p at 60fps. Compressed 1080p encoded with H.264 will use about 8-12Mbps. Assuming the same frame rate and codec one could expect 20-30Mbps for 2880X1800 compressed video as the 2880X1800 display has 2.5 times more pixels tan 1920X1080. Next time quit sensationalizing and give us the real info.
CIOs would thus do well to ignore this article as its anti-factual garbage.
Clint, bro, seriously? You know what impacts data usage more than a display resolution increase on a networked device every time without fail? Adding another user to your network. Maybe CIOs should just tell their company to quit growing.
Clint, I hate to break it to you, but you need to check your facts. This article couldn't be farther from the truth, and in its current state, is actually quite embarrassing to both you and the WSJ.
Streaming media CAN soak up bandwidth, but this has nothing to do with the number of pixels that a screen can display. While the screen can display a higher resolution, it won't change the resolution that streaming media services will be sending to the device. Go grab a member of your IT group and have them read over your article, and try not to be angry with them when they can't control their laughter.
Oh, and if you're going to be writing a CIO blog, you should probably spend some time learning the technology before making this kind of embarrassing mistake again.
I see that the author of this article clearly had zero insight on how the technology he's attempting to describe works and its implications. This is amongst the silliest claims I've seen in IT…
@Michael Hickins
It's still wrong.
wow what a foolish article. could it be that, people are using more online video every day, regardless of their displays ??
This is about the quality of journalism I would expect from a "conservative" publication like the Wallstreet Journal. Epic fail.
Is this a joke? MOST streaming services offer automatic resolution adjustment based on available network bandwidth. Even so, those same streaming services would top out at 1080p and more often than not only go up to 720p (because of bandwidth). The size of the screen or the amount of pixels that the screen can show does not determine what content is pulled through the "tubes." The service and the bandwidth determine this. The fact that the MacBook pro has this ridiculous resolution DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL **REQUIRE** MORE BANDWIDTH. I could just as easily cause this "problem" with my two 22″ monitors running 1080p that are standard at my job… And even if I didn't have that, what's to stop me from streaming 1080p on a monitor that doesn't support it? If I full screen it, it will just be sized down, but the content that streams through will still take up just as much bandwidth. LRN2TECH.
So much fail on this post
"CIOs with loose bring-your-own-device policies might find their corporate networks clogged should employees bring the just-announced Macbook Pro computers to work. "
This article has not been corrected.
Wow, this is the first thing I've ever read on WSJ that made me loose respect for this pub as a whole. Who the hell edited this garbage. Completely false!
This article reeks of technological illiteracy, even after the attempt to salvage it with the edit. No idea why they didn't just take down the whole thing.
there's nothing factual about it.
@David, the MBP and iPad are retina, which is double pixel density. The effective PPI on the new MBP is 220ppi, with the iPad at 264ppi and the iPhone 4S at 364ppi.
Poorly worded and flat out wrong. You and the WSJ should be embarrassed.
Don't buy a mac book pro.. It'll fill up my internet tubes
I'm pretty sure this is a spoof article. Either that or Clint Boulton lied on his CV.
This type of misinformation – or partial truths or whatever you want to call it – can be very detrimental to the public discourse concerning IT issues. While its funny – and in another political environment I might just laugh – this is serious. We seem to be almost daily bombarded with news about how bandwidth limits are being imposed, or restricted. The cost of accessing free – public information is getting increasingly expensive. Please stop spreading the lies that are bringing about the end of the free and open internet.
Original Wall Street Journal post:
"Clearly Barack Obama is a satanist muslim communist fascist who wants to destroy American families!"
Corrected Wall Street Journal post:
"Some people say that clearly Barack Obama is a satanist muslim communist fascist who wants to destroy American families!"
hahahaha that's all I have to say. Sense…this article makes none.
paging The Onion.
Why the hell does the WALL STREET JOURNAL employ such an imbecile. This is the worst thing I've ever read (that's bad because I've even visited 4chan once) on the internet. This guy should be fired for such poor journalism. I'm in shock right now. I can hardly type this without suffering a brain aneurism. Clint, do us all a favor and hand in your letter of resignation and leave the country never to be heard from again.
A word cloud representation of this article's comments: Honestly, I expected "idiot" and "Onion" would be bigger…
Even the correction is garbage. Most HD video online is either 1280×720 or 1080×1920. Most monitors have been close to, or higher than this for a few years. This new screen size is not going to magically give people access to higher resolution video. It will, however, make all of our 1024×768 compliant websites look a bit tiny The article is still extremely misleading and poorly researched.
Dear Clint and Michael,
A thousand geeks of the interwebnet empire descend upon you. Our comments will blot out your bandwidths!
Uhm, more bandwidth only if the iPad also gives them an extra eight hours a day to watch videos.
Re: Updated Article
This is still inaccurate. As I stated previously, even if the user tries to choose HD content, they will most likely not be able to watch or not want to watch the content if their network doesn't support it. In "Auto" mode for selecting HD or not, most streaming services intelligently detect what the bandwidth availability is and adjust accordingly. So, the only risk that companies need to recognize are users who watch HD content already since 1920×1080 resolution monitors have been around for a while and are actually not uncommon in professional environments. (1920×1080 being the highest resolution content, so there is no reason to debate "1800p" content).
You really thing changing/fixing the article will fix your idiotic brain? no moron, you're still stupid and need to learn a thing or two before posting, should consider quiting or who hired you to fire your a$$ off.
Heh, I love that even the 'CORRECTION' paragraph is wrong, at least for any enterprise utilizing QoS (which is all of them.)
Thanks for the laugh. Its always nice to be reminded just how much smarter I am than the masses when it comes to computers.
Really WSJ? Idiots… Time to get my tech information from a venue that actually has knowledge of current tech before reporting on it.
I see the Murdoch high standard of journalism (i.e hire unquestioning idiots to write about things they don't understand) has finally seeped into every corner of WSJ.
Oh god just delete this tosh already. It was bad before the correction and now the correction just reads like a bad attempt to salvage a bad article.
1080 has been a standard monitor resolution in enterprise for some time now, especially in IT heavy environments which run new hardware.
This also totally ignores the fact that most HD content providers will auto detect which to use based on bandwidth, not monitor resolution. Users in the enterprise will already be using HD content where it is possible to do so, bandwidth permitting.
Ooops guys it looks like I have almost hit my bandwidth quota rendering this page on my Retina MacBook Pro.
This article is terrible.
i may not agree with every point made in this article, but the bring your own bandwidth thing sounds cool. i'm going to sign up for an AT&T DSL account and use the phone line at my desk to relieve network congestion here at my office. computer > ethernet cable > DSL modem > phone cable > cisco IP phone > network switch > firewall > fibre modem > internet = win!
Fire Clint Boulton.
CORRECTION: People consume those things regardless of resolution. The increase in network traffic would be negligible at best.
Clint, sit down before you hurt yourself. Stay away from sharp objects as well. And perhaps, in the future, don't get your technology information from the drunk at the other end of the bar. This is probably the most idiotic piece of junk I've ever read from a so-called respectable news outlet.
This is, sadly, what you get from CIO's. Decisions made based on a piss poor understanding of the technology involved.
Ram. I like that! RAM everything! Even the gigabytes!
Nice rewrite, suggesting people will watch more HD video because of the higher res screen. Still wrong though. Besides. Shouldn't those people be working instead of watching videos at the office all day anyway?
If you read WSJ for your tech news, you're going to have a bad day.
CORRECTION: People consume those things regardless of resolution. The increase in network traffic would be negligible at best.
The "corrected" version of this article is wrong too. People not view video more and would probably view HD video less on the Retina MacBook Pro's because it wouldn't actually look better full screen. 1080p video only takes up part of the screen at full resolution on a device like this.
this is just idiotic
Guess that degree in journalism is really paying off.
Do you even know how a computer works… The only argument you could argue for the new MacBook Pro using more bandwidth would be downloading Retina apps that have larger images… Even then you're only talking about 10 or 20MBs extra… You might want to consider another professional that doesn't involve having opinions and stating them like they're fact.
Still blatantly wrong, guy. Seriously WTF. Stop writing.
Whoever these "analysts" are, they need to be fired along with the author because they're obviously not worth what they are being paid, even with the "correction".
how does computers work?
Wow, really? Are you guys at WSJ retarded? Don't you have anyone in IT that you can check with before writing ridiculous articles?
This just keeps getting better and better.
Where would one find such content that would exceed the 1920×1080 resolution (which most computers support nowadays)? — moreover, at what company do employees constantly stream/download videos during work hours? — I'm baffled by this guy, his logic is amazing(ly illogical).
Example of writers who don't know what they're talking about. I officially won't be reading the blog section on wsj anymore
Are you freaking kidding me? Rendering by retina display is done locally and not through the bandwidhth. The 1080p resolution that you view on Youtube is still going to take same bandwidth when you run it on new the macbook.
Please get this article down and save yourself from further embarassment!
"Some analysts have suggested that owners of devices with high-resolution screens will likely consume more video and HD video…"
Who are these analysts? Why would I care what they say? "Some analysts" have suggested that I am in fact a dinosaur.
I'm tempted to create a new version of troll face in this guy's honour.
Followed on twitter, you're hilarious.
Some analysts don't realize that you can ALREADY watch HD content regardless of what your monitor's max output resolution is!!!
Dumb, useless article for the computer illiterate by the computer illiterate.
Classic – says he was wrong and tries to defend what he just said was incorrect.
I don't care.
Come on guys, lets help him get two achievements out of this
*First Article with 1000 Comments
*Last Article with 1000 Comments
My article is bad and I feel bad.
All those people who commented here have no idea what they're talking about.
I did the research. It's all true.
I should have never written this article :'(
I note that this article has been "corrected". I'd like to see a correction that says the author has been let go for being an idiot.
Is this the level of reporter you currently hire? I love Mossberg, but candidly, this man is a moron. Also, you need to highlight the correction portion in bold to make it stand out and be clearly identified.
Clint may have the last laugh, as far as the original claim went. See:
Bottom line: websites have the option to deliver higher-res versions of their content for retina displays, and Apple.com is already planning on doing so, at least for the new iPad. So in the long run there may be increased bandwidth to support retina displays.
But it's not going to happen overnight, and for many websites not at all. And even if one believes that the impact on bandwidth will be significant, the article's premise is still deeply flawed. You could write the same article every time a bigger monitor or a faster machine is released. "CIO's beware! Making your users more productive with better equipment may wreak havoc on your networks!"
So full of fail, it's already gone viral.
Was this like a really clever resignation? Or… what?
This is… so very embarrassing. But hey, who cares about journalistic excellence when you have a huge spike in views?
Your journalism is bad and you should feel bad.
Oh yeah, that's a great edit you made to the article. You leave the inflamatory title (of course, how else can you drive hits for idiots?). Then, you make your second paragraph a mismash that still implies that the higher resolution is direct cause of the higher use of bandwidth. Then you bury the truth later in the article.
Seriously? You hire people like this to write articles? Quick, someone find Clint Boulton and tell him about the direct correlation between global temperature and the number of pirates.
And it's been my experience that pixel density has little to do with the layman's impressions of a display. High gloss and over-saturation have more to do with the average person's impressions of a display than the resolution. My wife still can't tell the difference between HD and non-HD content, for chrissakes!
Not entirely off-base.
Since web developers(or more likely, project managers) like to have their website imagery look all pretty at all screen resolutions these new iphones/ipads/retina MBPs require user agent detection to serve up the correct ppi imagery. therefore, serving up higher ppi imagery doe indeed = higher bandwidth movin' through the tubes
Now marginally less addled!
I'd laugh about all this if I weren't so insulted that the WSJ would hire this caliber of reporter for a section titled "The CIO Report." Somebody take this clown out back and put him out of his misery, along with whomever in HR is responsible.
"An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that the higher resolution Retina displays of the new iPad and forthcoming Macbook Pro computers would increase consumption of network bandwidth,"
So just delete it. The hyseterical conclusions of the original, erroneous article should be stricken from the record.
"CIO's Beware: Your clients may start demanding the best technology for the job. Here's how to lead them astray."
Perhaps if you purchased the Three Wolf T-Shirt from Amazon and wore it while writing your tech articles they would be better.
really? Is that all you can think of? How about finding a better story to write like something with the battery. New retina display required much more power to perform properly even if it is in non-high resolution operating mode. That's something you can write.
Or the new mac safe that isn't compatible with the old one which is not what Steve would do. His believe in universal adapter for all Macbooks has been changed. this might be some more interesting topics to write about. ..sigh…
Seriously though, I can BS my way through an entire article too. My first topic will be how dinosaur farts caused global warming. Hit me up WSJ editors.
It's easy to make Apple look smart, just write articles like this and they'll look like kings of the universe in comparison.
Let me get this right, the premise of this article just changed from "Retina displays increase network traffic" to "Retina displays increase device popularity which increases network traffic."
"CIO's Beware: CIO Journal is a really terrible place to read technology reporting and insight" Careful WSJ, it's a short but swift fall into the realm of Business Insider's SAI
Hey WSJ: you can hire my dog for half the price of Clint Boulton, and you'll get better articles.
How in the world did this article get published? You would think WSJ would have someone with actual tech knowledge read over each article to make sure it at least makes sense.
Who the eff is the idiot writing this article. Never let the moron near a computer again.
Clint Boulton, stick to journalism, not tech. Trying to do both makes it apparent how little you understand about the topic. Even with your edits, the article is still poor.
Wow… just wow. Please put quotes around the word "reporter".
Wow. And you're supposedlly a "tech" writer?
That's a correction? People with nicer screen might watch more video !?! Jesus H. Chris man. Just delete this pile of shit already.
This computer also has a bigger battery, should we be readying the power grid for the new Macbook pro's?
That explains why my tubes have been clogged and my staff emails took three days to get to me… my 'tubes are all clogged up with those extra pixels.
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.
when did the WSJ become such a joke?
the same hair-cut as jim carey from Dumb & Dumber
Is this why my iPhone is heavier after filling it up with songs?
Is the article author retarded or something? File sizes of video (HD or otherwise) don't magically increase because a computer is utilizing a higher screen resolution.
Even the "correction" is ridiculous, suggesting that because people have a fancy, higher-res screen that they'll be more inclined to watch a greater amount/higher quality of video during their work hours. Why? Where does this notion even come from? There's no basis to any of it; the correction cites "some analysts" — a vague term that wouldn't even be accepted into a wikipedia article.
I can just as easily say "some people believe they have super powers". Does that make it true or worth blogging about? No.
Main point to take home: the non-retina Macbook Pros allow people to watch HD content as well (I have a 13-inch MBP and can view 720p and 1080p video perfectly fine). If network usage isn't already an issue, then there's nothing to worry about. The new retina display doesn't change anything, except that the HD video won't take up as much screen space.
More pixels equals higher bandwidth usage?! Oh no, wait. More pixels equals more video equals more bandwidth. How are you even writing about technology??
CIO's who read this article (and take it's advice) are the reason IT departments in major corporations are slowly becoming defunct. Crush progress. Fear change.
Seriously, you're a tech writer? No offense, but anyone who would publish this rubbish should just quit the field now. Not only are you damaging your own credibility, but you're making a whole bunch of upper-managers go back to their IT staff and tell them they need to monitor usage because displays are getting better! For shame.
Ahh, Wallstreet Journal is about as knowledgeable about computers as my grandma
If you actually did a study and found out whether or not similar users on different resolutions consumed different amounts of data that would be nice. You are just speculating and this is ridiculous.
Bad form WSJ, bad form.
Correction should be recast again as a full retraction.
Sad, coming from the WSJ. The entire premise of this article is completely wrong. Your re-write and "correction" did absolutely nothing to solve this problem. Please hire real journalists, WSJ.
"Experts told CIO Journal earlier this year that employees using the new iPad, which includes a Retina display of 2048-by-1536 resolution with 3.1 million pixels, would be likely to download more video content because of the more attractive display, thus slowing enterprise networks and increasing data costs from carriers."
Note that the "experts" do not dare attach their names to the comment, nor is the comment in any way sourced.
In other news:
* Experts report that drinking too much water can lead to spontaneous combustion!
* Experts suggested recently that individuals who engaged in incest were likely to become immune to the common cold!
* Experts in a recent report detailed how sheeps bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes!
Is such elementary — and by "elementary," I mean "elementary-school-level" — fact-checking really such a foreign concept to the Journal?
The previous Macbook Pro's screen already supported full HD video and there is little to no content at higher than full HD video. So how would this screen have any effect on the resolution of video watched or bandwidth used?
TL; DR: Bullshit.
Clint Boulton, keep this article as a reminder to what a bad journalism looks like. Even this "corrected" version is bad. They might consume more HD videos? I consume HD videos all day, and my screen is 50% smaller. Unless they figure out how to use more hours a day than there is in a day, they won't spend more bandwidth.
You can't fix this anymore.
This is actually pretty funny. Not only is the premise of this article wrong, but the author clearly doesn't understand what they are talking about. Sure, the screen is higher resolution – the content isn't. Thus, it makes no difference in bandwidth consumption. Come on WSJ, this is just pathetic.
I honestly thought this piece was an April Fool's gag.
Consider putting "Just kidding!" at the end of this article.
Alternately, have your fact-checkers go look for video content on the 'net that is actually higher-resolution than existing laptops.
…you do have fact-checkers, right?
Wow, even after the article was "corrected" it's still a complete pile of shit. Hire intelligent people. I can write better than this in my sleep.
Your article is bad, and you should feel bad.
This article is embarrassing for The Wall Street Journal.
This was painfully embarrassing to read.
Whoever wrote this originally should be fired.
You really should be writing about politics not technology, with politics you can sound like a moron and people will still love you.
Even after reading the correction, and hearing all the gripe about the original, I see no reason to read any article with as shitty of a topic as this. WSJ? more like middle-school newspaper reporting.
Yeah, because with my current MBP I think about going on Netflix and say, "Nah, my resolution isn't good enough. But if I had a NEW MBP things would be different."
Here comes the 1000 comment train! Let's ride it all the way to mediocrity!
Anyone who could make a mistake this absurd does not understand computers or the internet nearly well enough to be reporting on the topic. Time to move to the style section Clint.
RIP Clint Boulton's Career in Journalism.
Proof that any idiot can type random words then call themselves a journalist.
Even with the correction, the whole premise of this article is presented in a very stupid manner. It should be retracted. Articles like these are the catalyst for dumb IT policies.
Even after re-writing it sounds stupid…
This article is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. You would have to be so dumb to write this article, I can't even believe it.
This is right up there with Fox's link between Angry Birds and the Flame malware. Ah, Murdoch "journalism"..
Another issue is that he states that laptop has a crisper screen then the new iPad. Which is not true because the iPad has a higher density (about 40 ppi) more then the new Laptop.
Retna display is a curse on the world.
Stop reporting on anything IT related. WSJ should just closed down their CIO Journal now
The only waste of bandwidth I see is this article.
Just read througha bout 150 comments. Making my day. I almost feel bad for the guy… but I'm gonna re-post my 3 favorites anyway:
"over 9000 pixels you say?"
"If I use an external monitor instead of the retina display, can I get by using my current internet connection, or do I need one with more megabytes?"
"the same hair-cut as jim carey from Dumb & Dumber"
Hahahahahaha. Thanks for making my day WSJ comments!
Almost all video delivery sites support a maximum stream of 1080p, so this idea is invalid.
1 Thowsand
I hope everyone at the Wall Street Journal turns off their monitors for a while, because they are probably getting a lot of Internet traffic right now.
Indeed, corporate IT departments are going to be in trouble if people start using these high-resolution displays to watch 2 simultaneous 1080p video streams from Youtube. That is a real risk that we face.
This assumes that people aren't already using monitors larger than 1024 x 768 (since the only people who won't already be using HD video where possible are those stuck with 13″ LCD displays or VGA CRTs).
CIOs with loose bring-your-own-device policies might also find their corporate networks slowed by malicious viruses.
it is not even about resolution! it is about screen size! a 15″ laptop is more likely to stream bandwidth eating HD than a 10″ tablet, and a 10″ tablet does more streaming than a 3″ smartphone.
They took out the part about bringing your own bandwidth. http://i.imgur.com/lhU59.png
Even with the revisions to the article, the premise remains flawed.
The new iPad display is capable of displaying full 1080p HD content (and then some), whereas the iPad 2 is limited to about a third the resolution of 1080p. In other words, users of the new iPad are more likely to stream full HD content than users of the iPad 2 because NOW the device can display it.
The Macbook Pro (as well as other non-Apple laptop and desktop computers commonly used in business) passed this same HD threshold long ago, so incremental increases in resolution are unlikely to have much impact on bandwidth.
This is an embarrassment for WSJ. Fire this clown.
Title of article still misleading. Content of article still misleading. That this might be a *new* concern, or a *device specific* concern: Daft.
Are you guys for real? Does WSJ have technophobes for staff writers? This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on WSJ!
BYOB: Bring Your Own Bandwidth
Even with the correction, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
I suggest that you get a Tech Editor for Tech articles; otherwise, don't even bother.
You know I hear the ISPs are charging by the pixel nowadays.
This is satire, right?
Are you high?
Did you do any research on this?
Whoever typed this for you is not your friend.
What if we use a bigger font, would that help with bandwidth?
Thank you. If I was having a bad day, the ignorance of this article would have turned it completely around.
Just… wow. The premise of the theory is baseless and misleading. A subject matter expert or analyst should have fact checked this before printing.
I thought I was reading this on the Onion.
Just sit further away, that will lower bandwidth
Can't see the original, but reading the comments there are a lot of you out there with a bit of knowledge throwing your weight around, Many demanding that it is 100% wrong. That makes you wrong. You guys need to carefully read the posts that claim "over 9000 pixels". these are the most accurate. Jusr like in the mid 90′s when predictions were that the internet would slow down to a crawl (from 56kbs LOL). Obviously the infrastructure was invented/upgraded to support the new users and life was good. apple is only one company with these high res screens which WILLcreate demand for more bandwidth. Apple has a long track record of ripping off it's customers, I think it is pretty clear that they paid for this article.
While you're at it, download some more RAM for your InterWebs!
Edit the article all you want, the damage is done.
Yes this article was unbelievably stupid.
But you commenters probably made this the worst day in is life, he'll probably lose his job.
The only positive thing is that nobody who made it to CIO could possibly be this stupid about technology. Please write about other topics in the future if you have no idea about technology.
Nice Guy, he deserves to lose his job if he truly believes this.
Just… Wow….
Your original premise is wrong. No amount of editing will make this article legit. In the future when you don't know what the hell you're writing about I'd suggest consulting someone who does. Just a phone call. Try it. They will tell you to stop editing and to humbly accept that you were wrong. Be the bigger man and change the article to "I was wrong, please forgive me" you might make a few fans.
Of course, higher resolution displays *can* use more data to show you higher resolution images. But if you are reading text, for instance, even if it is higher resolution, it is still the same text, just a bit easier on the eyes, and takes the same amount of bandwidth to transfer it to your machine.
Perhaps one should consider that the image of Cliff Bolton, at the beginning of this article, takes more than three times the bandwidth than the actual article! If you really want to cut down on bandwidth, get rid of images all together! Eliminate video, flash, audio, all that stuff that takes more bandwidth than is needed. Take away their video conferencing, and give them plain-text email. No more podcasts, because text-only web pages can reduce bandwidth consumption.
Those who say that a picture is worth a thousand words, clearly haven't looked at the file sizes of today's multi-megapixel cameras. And a movie is worth, what, 30 pictures a second and a song? By my calculations, a second of music is worth about 300 words. How much do you have to give up before the whole thing becomes worthless?
Hey guys I'm looking to hire a new copywriter for my marketting company. Clint, if these bitches at WSJ give you a hard time, hit me up!
thats rite since i gfot my nu 60″ tv my bandwidth usage has gone thru the roof. woot.
SOMEONE got fired.
why get welfare when wjs pay better for crappy articles…
If you went to journalism school please tell me which university so I know not to send my kids there… The misinformation and lack of fact checking in the original article felt like something from a junior high school student.
Wow. A substantial rewrite and you still land on "More resolution = end user more likely to watch video = clog my corporate network". How many things are wrong with this?
Why not just bite the bullet, withdraw the article and APOLOGIZE to your readers?
Wow, I understand that you're not techie but please do enough research. Google is your friend. Or just stick to other topic on which you're familiar with. I didn't even bothered to finish your article. You make the cyberspace so "sad". -adobongkangkong
Some analysts? Who are these analysts? May I offer them my shoe in their teeth
I think the issue is that Apple is forcing product sales to their AppStore and lack of optical drive will force more downloads. So, it will use more bandwidth on average. Not to mention that even the stupid restore partition is based on downloading the entire OS from the internet.
The main issue tech companies should worry about are the lack of ports, moving towards a port that isn't highly support yet and the inability to do any self-repairs (but no large company does that anyway). However, smaller companies will suffer if they think they can save money by doing any repairs or upgrades themselves. Not to mention the point brought up on slashdot of the pain a tech will endure to do his normal hard drive removal and resale of the computer as a shell.
NEWS AT ELEVEN: People with high resolution screens are shrinking your pipeline! What a bleeding dufus.
Clint, just scrap this article altogether. The changes are as ridiculous as the original article was ignorant. This is like saying that because I drive a nicer car than you, I must put way more miles on my car than you do on yours.
is this real life? are you stupid?
Let me tell you another secret…
Do not watch videos in full screen. You are getting charged double in internet fees for displaying the desktop picture behind it…. well it is fairly similar to the claim in this article lol
There's a neat trick to get free internet: rewind each vid after you watched it and all those bytes go back the other way. Zero bandwidth, hooray!
What the hell? I think you accidentally the whole article.
How are you even a tech reporter when you don't understand basics of technology? You're just an idiot who randomly speculates on things and tries to use big words to sound smart, even though you have no clue about the topic on which you are writing. "Connectivity Budgets?" Seriously? The fact you couldn't even be bothered to research the subject should be enough to tell your boss that not only are you unqualified, you're unwilling to actually do your job.
Your rationalization for why the original article wasn't pointless and wrong is stupid. You might as well write an article saying that upgraded HDD capacity will slow down networks, because users will be downloading more porn, or that faster GPUs will reduce productivity because more time will be spent playing games. You should also write an article about how they will increase employee obesity because the new laptops are lighter.
Duh, that's a pretty kitty, i'll hug him and kiss him and call him george, duh.
you clearly don't understand resolutions and bandwidth. With the calibre of intelligence you have shown in this article (in a tech job too, might i add) i am really starting to wonder how you have survived life this long….
Stupid article is still stupid.
To quote the convenience store clerk in "Juno": "This is one doodle that can't be undid home-skillet."
The first incarnation of this article is permanently enshrined in the pantheon of internet stupidity.
You just went FULL RETARD
Please post the original article up here. For better amusement.
I note no links to sources of these "analysts".
"An earlier version of this article incorrectly [sic] said"
First of all they misspelled "idiotically". Second, now there is no point at all to the article. Its only 'point' is that maybe, just maybe, people will be tempted to seek out some secret super-duper hi-res versions of videos, thereby "wreaking havoc" on the network. How in the world does this author even have this job?
Even though the content has been revised, this article is still such an astonishing brain fart of such magnitude that upon reading I could feel my own brain short circuiting.
Where these devices are being used as part of an orgnisation's BYOD approach, there is a risk that they could drive higher network bandwidth and higher compute requirements. If the BYO approach is to effectively treat all unknown devices as a thin client, connected to a Virtual Desktop or Terminal Server then the MBP will tell these services what display size and colour depth it has and will ask the central servers to try to output at that level. The vendors of these thin-client solutions will be able to advise on how to set appropraite policies to minimise this risk by capping one or all of the display size, colour depth or indeed network bandwidth that these services can consume.
I simply refuse to believe anyone would be so misguided as to write this article in good faith. It's the most blatant piece of linkbait I've seen in a long time, and it's obviously been very successful.
Clint Boulton, well played sir. Well played.
Journalists – chimpanzees.
Nice attempt at attracting traffic by using mac book pro as your headline. This is by far the most useless news article i have read in months.
I don't know what you are smoking, but it certainly is distorting your bandwidth!
Just change the name to FOX STREET JOURNAL already. You should strongly consider not writing about tech ever again (ever).
I've heard faster graphics cards will lead to increased porn consumption, because the porn will be so smoothly rendered as to be irresistible.
Conversely, frequent use of USB flash drives will lower the sex drive, as it subconsciously reminds users of the difficulties posed by coital insertion.
Finally, I recently read that reading the WSJ makes you think about technology like a retarded witch-doctor.
There is no correction on the premise of this article. Obviously, Clint has no idea what he is talking about. Unfortunately, it is my experience that when such incompetent people are allowed to hold positions for which they are obviously not qualified for. The organization itself is corrupted and incompetent as well.
While our friend Clint should not currently have a job. The unethical and corrupt organization that employs him will allow him to remain. I used to respect the WSJ. No longer.
Even the "correction" is mostly garbage. The current run of macbook pro can run 1080p video content. There is no reason to think that people switching from their current setup to the new one would suddenly consume MORE video content. So we are left with a misleading headline, a poorly written article and a bogus assumption. Bravo WSJ.
Please please please – your experts are idiots at best – 1920 × 1080 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p source) is HD tv and video standards – most modern laptops can handle that with no problem. so that claim is spurious at best. And what about having a new laptop would make a user all of a sudden want more video? Journalism is the use of the brain – http://imgur.com/Oa7E0
Yes, Mr Editor, even your correction does not fix the obvious inaccuracies of this article. My 5-year-old Dell D630 can play HD content, and even if I CHOOSE to have HD content displayed at a site like YouTube, I'm only getting 720P. We are a LONG way off of this making any difference whatsoever. 30 seconds of research would have solved this whole mess. There is no CORRECTING of this article. Simply delete it, and advise Mr. Boulton to research things a bit before he swallows his shoes again.
While I think I see the psychological basis for the behavioral change the author is conjecturing, this is an entirely unsubstantiated proposition which serves no discernible purpose but to prejudice IT departments against high resolution displays. The author also fails to point out that Apple is not the only provider of systems and displays which can take advantage of full resolution HD video.
because I'd ask for my money back.
the worst technical article – useless and grossly inaccurate
Hahaha what a moron. Should have deleted the article, not updated it, now the collective force of the internet gets to point and laugh.
Did you proof read your own article before posting it? Did you do ANY research at all? This is terribly inaccurate and grossly represented in written form. Congratulations to WSJ for hiring people who do not understand technology to write articles about technology.
CIO Journal has the focus of a trade journal with the global resources and
expertise of The Wall Street Journal.
CIO Journal has the focus of a trade journal with the global resources and
expertise of The Wall Street Journal.