5 ms·

Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S

37 points by jharrier 14y ago

shakyboy86 14y ago
But still Nokia has a long way to reach iPhone level.
- cbg0 14y ago
  In sales, or how exactly?
mtgx 14y ago
Both Xperia S and HTC Rezound had 342 PPI, and were launched a long time ago: http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_s-4369.php http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_s-4369.php http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_rezound-4099.php http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_rezound-4099.php And bragging about having 3 more PPI than the iPhone is just lame...just as bragging about having "better than HD" display because you have 48 extra pixels, is.
- sachleen 14y ago
  It's not just 48px, it's 61,440. But I do agree with both of your points. Not much to brag about there.
- jharrier 14y ago
  Agreed. Not a lot to brag about, but I'd at least mention that it is retina.
  - pearle 14y ago
    Why mention it? Isn't retina just an Apple specific marketing term for a high resolution screen?
    - esolyt 14y ago
      Apple also applied for a trademark for "retina display".
    - Groxx 14y ago
      One that has succeeded, and more people know what it means than "High PPI". I'd say leap on it, and argue in court that people don't associate it with Apple, they associate it with not noticing pixels.
      - esolyt 14y ago
        Which is even worse, because no other company can use this term that people "associate with not noticing pixels". Even when their devices outdo iPhone in terms of PPI, they will never be able to market it as retina. If we really are going to use a term for "high PPI", it should be a standard word that nobody has trademarked.
  - esolyt 14y ago
    What does retina mean? Can you explain to us? Do we really need a term for "high PPI"? If iPhone 4 is retina, then what is Xperia S? It is certainly not retina, because it would be insulting to call it retina when its pixels are even more indistinguishable. What about Galaxy Nexus? It is 316 PPI, slightly less than iPhone. Is it enough for being retina or not? Who determines?
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      The original contention is that it is the absolute (useful) peak of screen resolution, as in, at the distance the screen is normally viewed from, the individual pixels are imperceptible to the human eye, and adding more will not result in any perceptible difference. Similar to print media, where beyond a certain dpi your eyes just can't tell the difference if you added more dots.
      - esolyt 14y ago
        Your definition of retina is based on 2 assumptions: 1) Everyone has the same eyes. 2) Everyone holds their phone at the same distance. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Therefore, a display that is retina to you, may not be retina to me. It is therefore meaningless to talk about whether a display is retina or not (unless a specific human and a specific distance is specified).
        potatolicious 14y ago
        Your argument is faulty, and here is why: You are confusing with "these assumptions are not true 100% of the time" with "these assumptions are not true most of the time". In fact, just like sound perception, motion perception, and eyesight resolution, the vast, vast, vast majority of the world is tightly clustered around a maximum. There are a small number of humans who can hear above 20kHz, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of the world can't - in fact, most adults sit closer to 16Hz. Ditto, for the vast, vast majority of the people on this fair planet, framerates above somewhere between 70-80Hz become imperceptible, with a lot of people sitting closer to 60Hz. Both audio and video equipment are engineered with these limits in mind, and there is no fundamental problem with engineering screens with the limitations of the ultramajority in mind. The fact that there are a few extraordinary individuals whose sensory abilities far exceed that of the rest of the population, does not make it "meaningless" as a concept. What is "retina" as defined above, is retina to everyone but the statistical outliers. To address your original post, it seems like you're taking out your Apple rage against a concept that is older than Apple. "Retina" as Apple uses in its own advertising is really whatever the damn hell Apple feels like calling retina, but the concept predates Apple's usage of it and has validity. The Xperia S, the Galaxy Nexus, are all "retina" in the non-Apple-marketing sense of the word.
- vesky 14y ago
  Having 3 more ppi than iPhone is not much. Having that amount of PPI in a screen that's 1 full inch bigger is. And have you ever compared a ClearBlack display with an iPhone screen? I have. The iPhone is better due to the resolution, at night! But in daylight I'd prefer a ClearBlack display over any iPhone. Unless you only go out at night in which case you'll probably be better off with the iPhone.
goombastic 14y ago
I would buy a Nokia Android. Awesome hardware, great software. Windows 8 on a Nokia is like taking a camel to a horse race.
- moystard 14y ago
  Had the exact same thought while watching the conference. The problem does not come from the hardware, it comes from the software.
  - sv123 14y ago
    What have you heard negative about it? Seems pretty slick.
    - evandena 14y ago
      Will they seamlessly let you use Google services in a non-hackish way? I don't want to use Bing, Live, Sky, etc. I'm afraid unless I buy an open source OS, I'll be pushed into an ecosystem without choice.
      - craigvn 14y ago
        Yes they will. Problem solved.
    - moystard 14y ago
      I don't like this endless vertical list of application, even with the search feature. Also, the transitions feel slow with all these animations.
- powertower 14y ago
  > Windows 8 on a Nokia is like taking a camel to a horse race. What are you basing this statement on?
  - shuw 14y ago
TheBoff 14y ago
"More retina" is meaningless: the whole pointer is that it's indistinguishable from normal use distance. You can say "higher resolution", or even "retina when held closer to the face", but "more retina" really is nonsense!
- iNate2000 14y ago
  But it's more funnier.
Achshar 14y ago
They do indeed have marginally higher PPI, but they, understandably, didn't mention it in spec sheet. Because it's just lame to brag about 2 more PPI. Although I think it is impressive that they have achieved it in a screen that is 1 inch larger then iPhone's.
janardanyri 14y ago
Sidenote on marketing: this is probably an amazing screen, but the gadgetmarketspeak designation of "Pure Motion HD+" makes me tune out instantly. The cleverness of "retina display" was that a single explanatory sentence told you everything you need to know - this phone has better resolution than your eyes can fully perceive. "Pure Motion HD+" means nothing to me - is that better or worse than 'true HD'? (For that matter, was the original just plain 'HD' actually fake HD?) I had the unfortunate experience of trying to gauge displays at Best Buy yesterday, where machines in the same category would variously have resolution designations from "1280x800" to "SXGA" to "True HD" to nothing whatsoever, depending on what they thought sounded best, and the cumulative effect was that I felt less aware of my purchase options looking at the actual machines than simply checking opinions on Newegg. I can't imagine trying to navigate that process as a consumer with other priorities in life. And they wonder why Apple has such healthy profit margins in comparison...
- option_greek 14y ago
  There are some things other companies never seem to learn from apple: 1) Differentiating their phones by weird model numbers that no one remembers 2) Making product announcements with no details about price and availability 3) Cramming all kind of high end features and adding non catchy names like this PureGodKnowsWhatEver+ in their product descriptions and praying people will buy them.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmansen 14y ago
    4) Have real products that people can play with in stores (last time I was at Best Buy, not a single phone worked) 5) Support products long after they are released
- altrego99 14y ago
  Both are marketing gimmick at the end of the day. And Apple (Jobs) has been leading in that department very well - Nokia had 3G long before iPhone 3G was released. Nokia had multitasking long before it was there in iPhone 4. And Nokia E6 had a PPI of 328, much before 'Retina Display' was advertised... and such high PPI is useless except for marketing anyway.
rbanffy 14y ago
That's great news. All of us time-travelers who sport extra-high resolution artificial eyes will be able to see all the extra detail this higher density allows. Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density
- wideroots 14y ago
  We have seen this kind of competition everywhere. It's not about whether human eyes can tell the difference or not. It's about something of product A has higher number than that of product B. This has been the game everywhere (e.g. digital cameras with 10000000 MP). Don't hate players. Hate the game.
- jarek 14y ago
  > Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density Isn't that what they said in 2010, and 2005, and 2000? When we have a display that's "retina" when being held 1 mm in front of sharp eyes you might be able to say there's "no need." Until then, the market will decide.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old.
    - jarek 14y ago
      > I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Well, there's that Apple marketing page that in 2004 said 100 ppi was the "ideal resolution" (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.c...). I'm sure internally they wouldn't have minded a 220 ppi MBPwRd display with around 100 ppi effective, but they weren't saying that - they were saying higher density causes eye strain. > Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old. Arbitrarily small distance. Vast majority of people physically can't hold a screen that close in front of their face, so a "retina at 1 mm" display would be retina for all feasible uses - unlike the current "retina at 25 cm."
RandallBrown 14y ago
Nokia should never have released the 900 if this was so close on their roadmap. I say this as someone who bought the 900 and stopped using it because the screen and camera sucked. My 2 year old iPhone 4 was better in almost every way.
lambda 14y ago
Can we please say "higher resolution" or "higher density" rather than an abomination like "more retina"?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
vilius 14y ago
(The yet unreleased) Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the (one year old) iPhone. Oh... I mean... more pure motion HD plus than iPhone! And: It’s surprising that Nokia didn’t mention that the Lumia 920 is just like iPhone, but with more widgets, therefore better. I understand that this kind of marketing works. But how? How come people do not value true innovation and choose to buy "better than HD resolution" when what they really need is already crisp iPhone screen?
grecy 14y ago
A product with an unknown price that you can't buy is better than a product you've been able to buy for a year now. Interesting.
jinushaun 14y ago
Too bad the Metro interface doesn't take full advantage of those pixels. Text is now smoother, but flat squares with sharp corners look the same at any resolution.

37 points by jharrier 14y ago

shakyboy86 14y ago

But still Nokia has a long way to reach iPhone level.

cbg0 14y ago
In sales, or how exactly?

mtgx 14y ago

Both Xperia S and HTC Rezound had 342 PPI, and were launched a long time ago: http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_s-4369.php http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_s-4369.php http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_rezound-4099.php http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_rezound-4099.php And bragging about having 3 more PPI than the iPhone is just lame...just as bragging about having "better than HD" display because you have 48 extra pixels, is.

sachleen 14y ago
It's not just 48px, it's 61,440. But I do agree with both of your points. Not much to brag about there.
jharrier 14y ago
Agreed. Not a lot to brag about, but I'd at least mention that it is retina.
- pearle 14y ago
  Why mention it? Isn't retina just an Apple specific marketing term for a high resolution screen?
  - esolyt 14y ago
    Apple also applied for a trademark for "retina display".
  - Groxx 14y ago
    One that has succeeded, and more people know what it means than "High PPI". I'd say leap on it, and argue in court that people don't associate it with Apple, they associate it with not noticing pixels.
    - esolyt 14y ago
      Which is even worse, because no other company can use this term that people "associate with not noticing pixels". Even when their devices outdo iPhone in terms of PPI, they will never be able to market it as retina. If we really are going to use a term for "high PPI", it should be a standard word that nobody has trademarked.
- esolyt 14y ago
  What does retina mean? Can you explain to us? Do we really need a term for "high PPI"? If iPhone 4 is retina, then what is Xperia S? It is certainly not retina, because it would be insulting to call it retina when its pixels are even more indistinguishable. What about Galaxy Nexus? It is 316 PPI, slightly less than iPhone. Is it enough for being retina or not? Who determines?
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    The original contention is that it is the absolute (useful) peak of screen resolution, as in, at the distance the screen is normally viewed from, the individual pixels are imperceptible to the human eye, and adding more will not result in any perceptible difference. Similar to print media, where beyond a certain dpi your eyes just can't tell the difference if you added more dots.
    - esolyt 14y ago
      Your definition of retina is based on 2 assumptions: 1) Everyone has the same eyes. 2) Everyone holds their phone at the same distance. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Therefore, a display that is retina to you, may not be retina to me. It is therefore meaningless to talk about whether a display is retina or not (unless a specific human and a specific distance is specified).
      - potatolicious 14y ago
        Your argument is faulty, and here is why: You are confusing with "these assumptions are not true 100% of the time" with "these assumptions are not true most of the time". In fact, just like sound perception, motion perception, and eyesight resolution, the vast, vast, vast majority of the world is tightly clustered around a maximum. There are a small number of humans who can hear above 20kHz, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of the world can't - in fact, most adults sit closer to 16Hz. Ditto, for the vast, vast majority of the people on this fair planet, framerates above somewhere between 70-80Hz become imperceptible, with a lot of people sitting closer to 60Hz. Both audio and video equipment are engineered with these limits in mind, and there is no fundamental problem with engineering screens with the limitations of the ultramajority in mind. The fact that there are a few extraordinary individuals whose sensory abilities far exceed that of the rest of the population, does not make it "meaningless" as a concept. What is "retina" as defined above, is retina to everyone but the statistical outliers. To address your original post, it seems like you're taking out your Apple rage against a concept that is older than Apple. "Retina" as Apple uses in its own advertising is really whatever the damn hell Apple feels like calling retina, but the concept predates Apple's usage of it and has validity. The Xperia S, the Galaxy Nexus, are all "retina" in the non-Apple-marketing sense of the word.
vesky 14y ago
Having 3 more ppi than iPhone is not much. Having that amount of PPI in a screen that's 1 full inch bigger is. And have you ever compared a ClearBlack display with an iPhone screen? I have. The iPhone is better due to the resolution, at night! But in daylight I'd prefer a ClearBlack display over any iPhone. Unless you only go out at night in which case you'll probably be better off with the iPhone.

goombastic 14y ago

I would buy a Nokia Android. Awesome hardware, great software. Windows 8 on a Nokia is like taking a camel to a horse race.

moystard 14y ago
Had the exact same thought while watching the conference. The problem does not come from the hardware, it comes from the software.
- sv123 14y ago
  What have you heard negative about it? Seems pretty slick.
  - evandena 14y ago
    Will they seamlessly let you use Google services in a non-hackish way? I don't want to use Bing, Live, Sky, etc. I'm afraid unless I buy an open source OS, I'll be pushed into an ecosystem without choice.
    - craigvn 14y ago
      Yes they will. Problem solved.
  - moystard 14y ago
    I don't like this endless vertical list of application, even with the search feature. Also, the transitions feel slow with all these animations.
powertower 14y ago
> Windows 8 on a Nokia is like taking a camel to a horse race. What are you basing this statement on?
- shuw 14y ago

TheBoff 14y ago

"More retina" is meaningless: the whole pointer is that it's indistinguishable from normal use distance. You can say "higher resolution", or even "retina when held closer to the face", but "more retina" really is nonsense!

iNate2000 14y ago
But it's more funnier.

Achshar 14y ago

They do indeed have marginally higher PPI, but they, understandably, didn't mention it in spec sheet. Because it's just lame to brag about 2 more PPI. Although I think it is impressive that they have achieved it in a screen that is 1 inch larger then iPhone's.

janardanyri 14y ago

Sidenote on marketing: this is probably an amazing screen, but the gadgetmarketspeak designation of "Pure Motion HD+" makes me tune out instantly. The cleverness of "retina display" was that a single explanatory sentence told you everything you need to know - this phone has better resolution than your eyes can fully perceive. "Pure Motion HD+" means nothing to me - is that better or worse than 'true HD'? (For that matter, was the original just plain 'HD' actually fake HD?) I had the unfortunate experience of trying to gauge displays at Best Buy yesterday, where machines in the same category would variously have resolution designations from "1280x800" to "SXGA" to "True HD" to nothing whatsoever, depending on what they thought sounded best, and the cumulative effect was that I felt less aware of my purchase options looking at the actual machines than simply checking opinions on Newegg. I can't imagine trying to navigate that process as a consumer with other priorities in life. And they wonder why Apple has such healthy profit margins in comparison...

option_greek 14y ago
There are some things other companies never seem to learn from apple: 1) Differentiating their phones by weird model numbers that no one remembers 2) Making product announcements with no details about price and availability 3) Cramming all kind of high end features and adding non catchy names like this PureGodKnowsWhatEver+ in their product descriptions and praying people will buy them.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dmansen 14y ago
  4) Have real products that people can play with in stores (last time I was at Best Buy, not a single phone worked) 5) Support products long after they are released
altrego99 14y ago
Both are marketing gimmick at the end of the day. And Apple (Jobs) has been leading in that department very well - Nokia had 3G long before iPhone 3G was released. Nokia had multitasking long before it was there in iPhone 4. And Nokia E6 had a PPI of 328, much before 'Retina Display' was advertised... and such high PPI is useless except for marketing anyway.

rbanffy 14y ago

That's great news. All of us time-travelers who sport extra-high resolution artificial eyes will be able to see all the extra detail this higher density allows. Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density

wideroots 14y ago
We have seen this kind of competition everywhere. It's not about whether human eyes can tell the difference or not. It's about something of product A has higher number than that of product B. This has been the game everywhere (e.g. digital cameras with 10000000 MP). Don't hate players. Hate the game.
jarek 14y ago
> Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density Isn't that what they said in 2010, and 2005, and 2000? When we have a display that's "retina" when being held 1 mm in front of sharp eyes you might be able to say there's "no need." Until then, the market will decide.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old.
  - jarek 14y ago
    > I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Well, there's that Apple marketing page that in 2004 said 100 ppi was the "ideal resolution" (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.c...). I'm sure internally they wouldn't have minded a 220 ppi MBPwRd display with around 100 ppi effective, but they weren't saying that - they were saying higher density causes eye strain. > Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old. Arbitrarily small distance. Vast majority of people physically can't hold a screen that close in front of their face, so a "retina at 1 mm" display would be retina for all feasible uses - unlike the current "retina at 25 cm."

RandallBrown 14y ago

Nokia should never have released the 900 if this was so close on their roadmap. I say this as someone who bought the 900 and stopped using it because the screen and camera sucked. My 2 year old iPhone 4 was better in almost every way.

lambda 14y ago

Can we please say "higher resolution" or "higher density" rather than an abomination like "more retina"?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

vilius 14y ago

(The yet unreleased) Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the (one year old) iPhone. Oh... I mean... more pure motion HD plus than iPhone! And: It’s surprising that Nokia didn’t mention that the Lumia 920 is just like iPhone, but with more widgets, therefore better. I understand that this kind of marketing works. But how? How come people do not value true innovation and choose to buy "better than HD resolution" when what they really need is already crisp iPhone screen?

grecy 14y ago

A product with an unknown price that you can't buy is better than a product you've been able to buy for a year now. Interesting.

jinushaun 14y ago

Too bad the Metro interface doesn't take full advantage of those pixels. Text is now smoother, but flat squares with sharp corners look the same at any resolution.