Yes. The pixels don't change size just because you scale a UI. If I'm sitting 16 inches or more from the MacBook Pro, it's by definition a retina display, period, whether that's a comfortable working distance or not.
It happens to be that good user experience means scaling an interface for the expected working distance, but that's totally separate from "retina" vs. "non-retina".
At 1 meter, the 110 ppi screen of a MBP is retina.
It's the way I'll use it that defines the distance of use, and it tells me it's not retina at the normal distance I'm supposed to use it.
The way I use it is defined by the content and interface I will display on screen.
Software [and size of the screen] defines the distance.
None of which has anything to do with the "retina" standard. The screen is a retina display regardless of the content on the screen.
Yes, if you reach at least 250-300 ppi, unless you get the microscope out, pixels are too small at any minimal reasonable use distance. But you were the one talking about HDTV.
If I watch a 32" 1920x1080 TV program at 2.5 meters, it can be called retina as you said.
But if I use it as a computer screen, i will have to get closer, and it definitely won't be retina anymore: pixels appear now too big.
It's not an opinion that an 800x600 canvas would be an absolute loss compared to a 1024x768 canvas.
Well, yes.
But the screen is smaller.
Forcing an 800x600 or some other arbitrarily smaller canvas on the iPad makes it impossible to use as much space, for the sake of the questionable benefit of forcing some UI controls to render more smoothly. It offers zero benefit for video, a net worsening for images (non-retina artwork that gets scaled up rubs lots of people the wrong way), and does nothing to fix the text situation.
For videos, I will use as much as possible of the 1600x1200 pixels of the screen, the same 264 ppi as the 9.7" iPad. The screen is smaller, the video is smaller.
With Safari on an iPhone, [roughly] web pages are rendered on a larger virtual resolution than the screen, then the user can zoom in or out. I'm not sure how it is on the iPad, but I suppose you can use the same technic on the iPad, I don't need to consider my screen as a 800x600 screen.
On my desktop, I can change the width of my Safari window, and text or images do not resize.
The inverse is not true. With a larger workspace, you do have to option to get smoother text (just enlarge it) or zoom in on the images if you want to. On your proposal, you'd be forced to work with that enlarged text and would lose 40% of your workspace, and the only things that would actually get a visual upgrade are the buttons, icons, and text labels. There's no way that Apple would offer an 800x600 effective tablet at this size and force consumers to give up usable space for no meaningful gain.
Well, at 1600x1200 you get everything sharper, too.
I can't imagine anybody would want bigger toolbars eating into more of their usable space. I especially can't imagine Apple doing it after how much they highlighted the work area of the mini. But you're right that if someone did have that opinion, it might be worth the trade to them. Fortunately for the rest of us, their numbers are small if they exist at all.
As my basis is the workspace should be proportional to the surface of the screen, I need screens with same pixel density on the two iPad models for consistency in the UI.
If you absolutely want 1024x768 as a minimum for the mini (and 2x later), then make a larger iPad at 326 ppi, 9.8" 2560x1920. Still supposing Apple offered the right tools to achieve adaptable UIs, of course.
