5 ms·

I'm impressed with the way Apple succeeds at branding things like relative pixel density. I expect there have to be some, but I'm having a hard time recalling

I'm impressed with the way Apple succeeds at branding things like relative pixel density. I expect there have to be some, but I'm having a hard time recalling similar schemes from other companies that weren't met with ridicule.

tvon 14y ago
I don't know. If Lenovo, Motorola and Microsoft had teamed up and said "HiDPI is the future, we're putting it on our flagship devices and making it a primary feature of Windows". If they had done that, and implemented it well (eg, most people say it's gorgeous), then they could have named it "Windows ThinkDensity MotoDisplay Technology 8" and that is more or less what we'd be calling it. Point is, it may be something that is conceptually simple and technologically practical but if company X bets their flagship product on the tech and ends up being the driving force in the mainstream adoption of said technology, then I think they get to brand it.
- incision 14y ago
  I don't know about that. I believe a big part of "Retina" working is the simple, flowing, suggestive name. Sony achieved this with "Walkman". Motorola got it with "RAZR". Samsung is right there with "Note", and "Galaxy" would be a great qualifier but has become a bit diluted by being stamped on everything. (In my opinion, Galaxy should have been transitioned to the ultimate qualifier to let people know that it's a premier, high-end product.) Stuff like "Super AMOLED Plus" and your "Windows ThinkDensity MotoDisplay Technology 8" there is madness.
- wmf 14y ago
  Microsoft actually did put a lot of high-DPI work into Vista, but PC makers and app developers completely ignored it. An advantage of Apple's vertically-integrated model, I guess.
- erichocean 14y ago
  I'm going to take a wild guess here that you either (a) don't work in marketing, or (b) if you do, you work for Microsoft. :)
- arn 14y ago
  Microsoft's version of Retina is called ClearType Full HD Display. Non retina is called ClearType HD Display.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    You forgot a few TM and R superscripts. Not having these is one of the main distinctions of Apple's marketing copy.
esolyt 14y ago
I don't have a problem with Apple inventing a term for "high enough PPI". In fact, we probably needed such a term to raise awareness about the importance of PPI. I think the problem is, Apple has the monopoly for using the term retina (they applied for a trademark which will probably be granted). As a result, Sony Xperia S has a higher PPI value than iPhone 4S but since it can't/doesn't market its display as retina, consumers may be misguided into thinking iPhone 4S has a sharper display. If we simply called them both "high-PPI displays", the consumer is more likely to become aware of the fact that retina is not a technology and it is trivial to determine which of these displays is sharper by simply comparing their PPI values.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  obvious solution is obvious: Sony just needs to market their phone as having a mega-ultra-hyper-clarity display, and then make a side by side comparison chart where they list the iPhone as only having a mega-clarity display. Your choice of Sony is ironic, because Sony names every damn feature on their products. I could replace "retina" in your comment with "MotionFlow" and complain that Sony is tricking consumers into buying their TVs.
  - esolyt 14y ago
    I get your point. But at least us, as people who understand retina simply means "high enough PPI", should not argue about whether a particular display qualifies as retina or not. Because it is subjective to decide how much PPI is enough for each type of product and there is no actual numerical barrier that we can agree upon. It is meaningless to discuss whether Galaxy Nexus display (315 ppi) qualifies as retina. It is simply a 315-ppi display.
    - atonse 14y ago
      I'd argue that while the word Retina happens to be a marketing term, in this context it is just as relavant. What we're really discussing is "do the pixels disappear?" - the reason they used the term retina display is that they are indistinguishable to your retina. "315ppi" or "super high ppi" is meaningless to me even as a techie because for me the gold standard for text clarity is 600dpi on laser printed paper, so even though it's adequate for the screen, it wouldn't impress me unless I saw it. "Looks like glossy magazine print" makes sense to any consumer. Again, yes in this case Retina happens to coincide with the trademark, but it's also a functional property, one that's relavant to the discussion.
redial 14y ago
I think it's a three part process, 1. They only name important features. 2. They give the spotlight to only one new feature at a time and they make it the cornerstone of their marketing efforts. 3. They are consistent across their entire product line. That why almost everybody knows the word unibody. Now everyone knows the word retina.
- incision 14y ago
  Right, I wasn't being facetious. It's genuinely impressive how they successfully put together all the things that you mention and at least a handful more while others juggle incredibly cumbersome, abstract names. The power of these things seem obvious to me, but the fact that only Apple pulls it off suggests that I'm nuts.
enraged_camel 14y ago
Apple succeeds because their brand names are simple, elegant, and intuitive.
mikeash 14y ago
It's not like Apple wasn't met with ridicule either.

tvon 14y ago

I don't know. If Lenovo, Motorola and Microsoft had teamed up and said "HiDPI is the future, we're putting it on our flagship devices and making it a primary feature of Windows". If they had done that, and implemented it well (eg, most people say it's gorgeous), then they could have named it "Windows ThinkDensity MotoDisplay Technology 8" and that is more or less what we'd be calling it. Point is, it may be something that is conceptually simple and technologically practical but if company X bets their flagship product on the tech and ends up being the driving force in the mainstream adoption of said technology, then I think they get to brand it.

incision 14y ago
I don't know about that. I believe a big part of "Retina" working is the simple, flowing, suggestive name. Sony achieved this with "Walkman". Motorola got it with "RAZR". Samsung is right there with "Note", and "Galaxy" would be a great qualifier but has become a bit diluted by being stamped on everything. (In my opinion, Galaxy should have been transitioned to the ultimate qualifier to let people know that it's a premier, high-end product.) Stuff like "Super AMOLED Plus" and your "Windows ThinkDensity MotoDisplay Technology 8" there is madness.
wmf 14y ago
Microsoft actually did put a lot of high-DPI work into Vista, but PC makers and app developers completely ignored it. An advantage of Apple's vertically-integrated model, I guess.
erichocean 14y ago
I'm going to take a wild guess here that you either (a) don't work in marketing, or (b) if you do, you work for Microsoft. :)
arn 14y ago
Microsoft's version of Retina is called ClearType Full HD Display. Non retina is called ClearType HD Display.
- Evbn 14y ago
  You forgot a few TM and R superscripts. Not having these is one of the main distinctions of Apple's marketing copy.

esolyt 14y ago

I don't have a problem with Apple inventing a term for "high enough PPI". In fact, we probably needed such a term to raise awareness about the importance of PPI. I think the problem is, Apple has the monopoly for using the term retina (they applied for a trademark which will probably be granted). As a result, Sony Xperia S has a higher PPI value than iPhone 4S but since it can't/doesn't market its display as retina, consumers may be misguided into thinking iPhone 4S has a sharper display. If we simply called them both "high-PPI displays", the consumer is more likely to become aware of the fact that retina is not a technology and it is trivial to determine which of these displays is sharper by simply comparing their PPI values.

tedunangst 14y ago
obvious solution is obvious: Sony just needs to market their phone as having a mega-ultra-hyper-clarity display, and then make a side by side comparison chart where they list the iPhone as only having a mega-clarity display. Your choice of Sony is ironic, because Sony names every damn feature on their products. I could replace "retina" in your comment with "MotionFlow" and complain that Sony is tricking consumers into buying their TVs.
- esolyt 14y ago
  I get your point. But at least us, as people who understand retina simply means "high enough PPI", should not argue about whether a particular display qualifies as retina or not. Because it is subjective to decide how much PPI is enough for each type of product and there is no actual numerical barrier that we can agree upon. It is meaningless to discuss whether Galaxy Nexus display (315 ppi) qualifies as retina. It is simply a 315-ppi display.
  - atonse 14y ago
    I'd argue that while the word Retina happens to be a marketing term, in this context it is just as relavant. What we're really discussing is "do the pixels disappear?" - the reason they used the term retina display is that they are indistinguishable to your retina. "315ppi" or "super high ppi" is meaningless to me even as a techie because for me the gold standard for text clarity is 600dpi on laser printed paper, so even though it's adequate for the screen, it wouldn't impress me unless I saw it. "Looks like glossy magazine print" makes sense to any consumer. Again, yes in this case Retina happens to coincide with the trademark, but it's also a functional property, one that's relavant to the discussion.

redial 14y ago

I think it's a three part process, 1. They only name important features. 2. They give the spotlight to only one new feature at a time and they make it the cornerstone of their marketing efforts. 3. They are consistent across their entire product line. That why almost everybody knows the word unibody. Now everyone knows the word retina.

incision 14y ago
Right, I wasn't being facetious. It's genuinely impressive how they successfully put together all the things that you mention and at least a handful more while others juggle incredibly cumbersome, abstract names. The power of these things seem obvious to me, but the fact that only Apple pulls it off suggests that I'm nuts.

enraged_camel 14y ago

Apple succeeds because their brand names are simple, elegant, and intuitive.

mikeash 14y ago

It's not like Apple wasn't met with ridicule either.