Why does Apple offer full "native resolution" at all if it functionally locks buyers out of it?

I like my 13" M2 MacBook Air, but one thing about it has always annoyed me. They advertised it as having 2560x1664 "native resolution." But then they intentionally render that full resolution unusable by not scaling interface elements (fonts, menu bars) with the change in resolution. You're basically locked into the default resolution of 1470x956 (which should be the real advertised resolution).


Would it really kill Apple to do what every single other OS does, and allow scaling of the interface elements You know, to let people use the full resolution that paid for? If the answer is that 1470x956 is enough for a 13" screen, fine - but then why have the native resolution in the first place? And why not allow font scaling for larger, high res external monitors?

MacBook Air, macOS 15.2

Posted on Jan 18, 2025 6:20 AM

Reply
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Posted on Jan 18, 2025 10:17 AM

You seem to assume that when the Mac is running in Retina modes, that it isn't using the resolution of the display.


I'm currently running a 27" 4K monitor in Retina "looks like 2560x1440" mode. This involves three resolutions:

  • The System Settings > Displays, or "UI looks like", resolution is 2560x1440 pixels.
  • The Mac draws on a canvas that has 2x as many pixels in each direction – a 5120x2880 pixel (5K) canvas.
  • The Mac downscales the 5K image to 4K to get the picture that it sends to the monitor.

This is not the same as "2560x1440 (low resolution)" mode, where the canvas only has 2560x1440 pixels. (That mode is hidden away in the "Show all resolutions" view because most people have little use for it.)


If go into Displays Settings and select Retina "looks like 3008x1692" mode, the Mac draws on a 6K canvas before downscaling things to 4K for the display.

Similar questions

23 replies

Jan 19, 2025 6:09 AM in response to woodmeister50

But that doesn't entirely make sense to me, at least not intuitively. If I display all of the available pixels, by definition that will be sharper, right? That's why they included all those pixels in the screen in the first place. Put another way, if it is sharper to show fewer pixels, why have a 2560x1664 at all?


Maybe it is a matter of semantics. All of my applications (like picture viewing) are getting 2560x1664 to work with and those pixels will map 1:1 with pixels in, say, an image I am creating, but Apple is describing the results for purposes of the settings panel as 1280x832. Is that accurate?


I also want to be clear that 1) I am seeking to understand, not bash. I like the machine a lot, and I've bought several other MacBooks and a few desktops over the decades, and 2) I am extremely technical - I've been in infrastructure for 30+ years, and currently write software for the management of cloud infrastructure (building and managing large numbers of globally distributed kubernetes clusters) for a living. I just stopped paying attention to desktop and laptop device tech a good while ago. So I get what people are saying about what is happening behind the scenes. It's the UX/what is being communicated by the resolution choices window that is confusing me. I'm taking it at face value, and it appears that it is not accurate at face value.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Why does Apple offer full "native resolution" at all if it functionally locks buyers out of it?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.