The part where they say only iPhone has ... a sufficiently high pixel density [that] will render individual pixels invisible to most users with normal eyesight, when a display is held at a normal viewing distance.
Of course they will tell you they did not lie and meant a retina word, which they have patented with a connection to displays. But it's a proper bollocks lawyer speak. It's disingenuous and manipulative. It suggests iPhone's screen is special, one of the kind, when actually it's just a word and PPI of displays of many other phones is much higher.
A sufficiently high pixel density will render individual pixels invisible to most users with normal eyesight, when a display is held at a normal viewing distance.
A sufficiently high pixel density will render individual pixels invisible to most users with normal eyesight, when a display is held at a normal viewing distance.
That's not the definition of their Retina displays. If it was, they wouldn't be able to claim they were the only ones that had it.
Likewise with iPads for tablets...."Retina display" is a marketing phrase and nothing more.
That's all. It's the same with the Retina Macbook Pro. I had a look at it last time I went to renew my commitment to the Cult of Mac in the Apple Store and apart from the sharper screen what does it do that the normal Macbook doesn't? I'm not an Apple hater either. I'm typing this on my Macbook Air.
A sufficiently high pixel density will render individual pixels invisible to most users with normal eyesight, when a display is held at a normal viewing distance.
Nothing wrong with what you are saying there at all... However as has been explained to you on numerous occasions that has nothing to do with the retina decree set out by Apple.
I have absolutely no idea why you keep repeating it very strange.
Nothing wrong with what you are saying there at all... However as has been explained to you on numerous occasions that has nothing to do with the retina decree set out by Apple.
I have absolutely no idea why you keep repeating it very strange.
Remind me - what exactly is this "retina decree"?
And can you post a link to a page on their site that refers to this "retina decree"?
Because IIRC, "retina decree" was something you or someone else here conjured up in a previous discussion.
I was pretty sure the above is precisely how Apple would define "retina".
"It’s a larger Retina display. At 326 pixels per inch, it has a pixel density so high your eye can’t distinguish individual pixels."
If I recall, in their keynote, Apple said the "magic PPI number" was 300. The "retina" iPad only has 264ppi compared to the Nexus 10's 300ppi. The fact that Apple have labelled the iPad 4 as having a "retina display" pretty much affirms the fact that it is a marketing term and nothing more. There's no point trying to argue that as the facts speak for themselves.
By Apple's own definition and apparent "research" the iPad 4 display cannot be considered "retina". But the fact they they still applied the moniker means that it is pretty much meaningless as it could in theory apply to anything Apple wants it to.
If I recall, in their keynote, Apple said the "magic PPI number" was 300. The "retina" iPad only has 264ppi compared to the Nexus 10's 300ppi. The fact that Apple have labelled the iPad 4 as having a "retina display" pretty much affirms the fact that it is a marketing term and nothing more. There's no point trying to argue that as the facts speak for themselves.
By Apple's own definition and apparent "research" the iPad 4 display cannot be considered "retina". But the fact they they still applied the moniker means that it is pretty much meaningless as it could in theory apply to anything Apple wants it to.
Only if you ignore the whole part about the typical viewing distance of a device.
Only if you ignore the whole part about the typical viewing distance of a device.
Some cows are small, but other cows are far away.
I highly doubt the viewing distance with an iPad is going to be of such a noticeable difference. It's a poor justification for an extremely questionable "feature". The Nexus 10 would qualify as a "retina display" using the requirements that Apple themselves set out in the original keynote, but the iPad 4 does not.
But for a phone, people typically hold it around 10" or more from their eyes.
Holding it any further won't make pixels more visible.
Holding much closer isn't what you could reasonably describe as a typical viewing distance.
I don't know why you keep arguing the toss over this, as though you can't actually grasp what is actually a very simple idea, without clutching at completely atypical examples to purposely miss the point.
I highly doubt the viewing distance with an iPad is going to be of such a noticeable difference. It's a poor justification for an extremely questionable "feature". The Nexus 10 would qualify as a "retina display" using the requirements that Apple themselves set out in the original keynote, but the iPad 4 does not.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Its quite simple:
- an tablet has a larger display than an phone, so it will typically be help a bit further away than a phone.
- because a tablet is typically held a bit further away than a phone, the pixel density doesn't need to be as high as it does on a phone.
But for a phone, people typically hold it around 10" or more from their eyes.
Holding it any further won't make pixels more visible.
Holding much closer isn't what you could reasonably describe as a typical viewing distance.
I don't know why you keep arguing the toss over this, as though you can't actually grasp what is actually a very simple idea, without clutching at completely atypical examples to purposely miss the point.
Not answered one question as I thought I will leave it at that.
Not answered one question as I thought I will leave it at that.
Sorry - I didn't think the concept needed me to hold your hand and literally spell everything out for you.
Can you provide exactly these typical viewing distances for devices plead.
There is no exact typical viewing distance.
However, using a phone as an example, in most typical use it would typically be held at a sufficiently great distance for it to apply.
If you want to argue that it does not apply if you hold a phone at an uncomfortably close distance from your eyes, then that is only to purposely miss the point.
Can you provide exactly in ppi the sufficiently high ppi figure you keep quoting.
There is no exact PPI, but the figure of 300 has long been recognised in print as ballpark figure at which this is achieved at the sort of viewing distances involved.
If you want to argue that there has to be an exact figure here, then that too is only to purposely miss the point.
Can you give examples of normal eyesight please.
Pretty much anyone with good enough eyesight to comfortably use a phone. "Normal eyesight" for the sake of the argument included pretty much anyone who doesn't have unusually acute eyesight.
If you want to argue that someone with exception eyesight may be able to differentiate pixels, then that too is to purposely miss the point.
Lastly can you confirm each and every retina display meets this standard or betters it.
I can point you in the direction of this article which applies some mathematics to the retina-ness of different devices, based on typical viewing figures.
Feel free to interpret those figures any way you wish.
Obviously the S3 will have an improved next generation screen whilst the iPhone 5 will give you a whizzy remote control that you just can't live without.:rolleyes:
I got that quite wrong per-launch a year ago. Samsung also have a gimmicky whizzy remote control.
Comments
I think there is conflation of two separate issues here.
The issue of whether or not the criteria they use to define their retina displays is bollocks.
And whether or not it is bollocks to suggest only Apple devices have such hi res displays.
Both are bollocks...
Please explain how this is bollocks:
A sufficiently high pixel density will render individual pixels invisible to most users with normal eyesight, when a display is held at a normal viewing distance.
That's not the definition of their Retina displays. If it was, they wouldn't be able to claim they were the only ones that had it.
That's all. It's the same with the Retina Macbook Pro. I had a look at it last time I went to renew my commitment to the Cult of Mac in the Apple Store and apart from the sharper screen what does it do that the normal Macbook doesn't? I'm not an Apple hater either. I'm typing this on my Macbook Air.
Nothing wrong with what you are saying there at all... However as has been explained to you on numerous occasions that has nothing to do with the retina decree set out by Apple.
I have absolutely no idea why you keep repeating it very strange.
Remind me - what exactly is this "retina decree"?
And can you post a link to a page on their site that refers to this "retina decree"?
Because IIRC, "retina decree" was something you or someone else here conjured up in a previous discussion.
I was pretty sure the above is precisely how Apple would define "retina".
Then what is their definition?
From their website:
"It’s a larger Retina display. At 326 pixels per inch, it has a pixel density so high your eye can’t distinguish individual pixels."
So to clarify is it you that's added the references to "average eyesight" and "average viewing distance" or is that official apple stance ?
I do recall they changed their definition when the iPad came out as the retina iPad was nowhere near the spec of their previous "definition".....
If I recall, in their keynote, Apple said the "magic PPI number" was 300. The "retina" iPad only has 264ppi compared to the Nexus 10's 300ppi. The fact that Apple have labelled the iPad 4 as having a "retina display" pretty much affirms the fact that it is a marketing term and nothing more. There's no point trying to argue that as the facts speak for themselves.
By Apple's own definition and apparent "research" the iPad 4 display cannot be considered "retina". But the fact they they still applied the moniker means that it is pretty much meaningless as it could in theory apply to anything Apple wants it to.
if that was the definition, then they couldn't claim the iphone was the only phone that met it could they?
Whatever they and their fanboys want it to be.
I've already agreed at least four times now that the wording on the new page is questionable.
But this argument predates this page - prior to this page, I don't think they made such a claim.
Second paragraph isn't really an answer to the question.
Only if you ignore the whole part about the typical viewing distance of a device.
Some cows are small, but other cows are far away.
I highly doubt the viewing distance with an iPad is going to be of such a noticeable difference. It's a poor justification for an extremely questionable "feature". The Nexus 10 would qualify as a "retina display" using the requirements that Apple themselves set out in the original keynote, but the iPad 4 does not.
Can you provide exactly in ppi the sufficiently high ppi figure you keep quoting.
Can you give examples of normal eyesight please.
Lastly can you confirm each and every retina display meets this standard or betters it.
But for a phone, people typically hold it around 10" or more from their eyes.
Holding it any further won't make pixels more visible.
Holding much closer isn't what you could reasonably describe as a typical viewing distance.
I don't know why you keep arguing the toss over this, as though you can't actually grasp what is actually a very simple idea, without clutching at completely atypical examples to purposely miss the point.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Its quite simple:
- an tablet has a larger display than an phone, so it will typically be help a bit further away than a phone.
- because a tablet is typically held a bit further away than a phone, the pixel density doesn't need to be as high as it does on a phone.
No part of that is complicated.
Not answered one question as I thought I will leave it at that.
I think you will find that we adjust ourselves to the phone size. Its only recent we started getting given identical habits.
The N4 size and bigger is better. I'm quite happy with 720p right up to 15" size screens.
Sorry - I didn't think the concept needed me to hold your hand and literally spell everything out for you.
Can you provide exactly these typical viewing distances for devices plead.
There is no exact typical viewing distance.
However, using a phone as an example, in most typical use it would typically be held at a sufficiently great distance for it to apply.
If you want to argue that it does not apply if you hold a phone at an uncomfortably close distance from your eyes, then that is only to purposely miss the point.
Can you provide exactly in ppi the sufficiently high ppi figure you keep quoting.
There is no exact PPI, but the figure of 300 has long been recognised in print as ballpark figure at which this is achieved at the sort of viewing distances involved.
If you want to argue that there has to be an exact figure here, then that too is only to purposely miss the point.
Can you give examples of normal eyesight please.
Pretty much anyone with good enough eyesight to comfortably use a phone. "Normal eyesight" for the sake of the argument included pretty much anyone who doesn't have unusually acute eyesight.
If you want to argue that someone with exception eyesight may be able to differentiate pixels, then that too is to purposely miss the point.
Lastly can you confirm each and every retina display meets this standard or betters it.
I can point you in the direction of this article which applies some mathematics to the retina-ness of different devices, based on typical viewing figures.
Feel free to interpret those figures any way you wish.
"Typical" here basically covers anything other than holding the device uncomfortably close to your eyes.
Surely you don't need me to explain that holding a device further away won't increase the ability to differentiate between individual pixels.
I got that quite wrong per-launch a year ago. Samsung also have a gimmicky whizzy remote control.
...and how misleading Apple really are