4 ms·

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

by 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.

by esolyt 14y ago

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.