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
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.
> 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.
> 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.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."
Comments
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
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.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."