"Its retina because we said it is"

[kdarling]

Probably a major reason Apple had to invent the "retina" marketing term, was because the more common phrase "print quality" (300 dpi at 12") had already been used.

Back when the first iPhone went on sale in mid 2007, the Toshiba Portégé G900 WM6 Professional touchscreen phone had a 3 inch WVGA display with 313 ppi.. and was advertised as the "first smartphone with a print quality" screen.

The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 followed up with the same a year later, and then came other phones.

There was no way Jobs would let the much later iPhone 4 be known as "not the first smartphone with a print quality" screen. So they made up a new term. Brilliant marketing

 

[JohnDoe98]

Of course, if you have greater than 20/20 vision, then you will have to hold it farther back.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? If you have 20/15 you probably can't see close range as well as you can long range. With poorer vision than 20/20, like 20/25, or 20/30 you would need to hold your iPad further back because you pick up more detail up close.

 

[dccorona]

WWCD 2010

[url=http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6696/applewwdc2010179rmeng.jpg]Image[/URL]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

and if you listened to the presentation, instead of just looking at the powerpoint (which is designed to glaze over the most important information as the speaker tells all the details, btw), you'd realize this slide was in the context of the viewing distance of the iPhone.

 

[tanboom]

For the best definition, see the title of this thread

 

[NameUndecided]

Yay! A great example of what I was so cynically looking forward to for the day after the announcement:

People complaining about the upgraded features on a fun new device that no one is forcing them to buy before they've even seen it yet.

 

[motoleo]

I had a hard time being convinced of Retina. They went of of their way to explain it because they knew some of us would not believe it.

"And um, there's real math behind that. Experts agree with us."

Somehow, it just didn't register as entirely truthful.

 

[walie]

and if you listened to the presentation, instead of just looking at the powerpoint (which is designed to glaze over the most important information as the speaker tells all the details, btw), you'd realize this slide was in the context of the viewing distance of the iPhone.

i rest my case

 

[dccorona]

i rest my case

you realize how pointless this comment is, right? It means nothing. You rest your case? The most important information for that speech was that the number is 300 ppi. Listening to the speech, one realizes that it is in reference to the iPhones screen size/viewing distance. Not having that on the slide doesn't make it not true. You seem to not really understand the way presentations work.

You can continue to debate it all you want, but you. are. wrong. Its not as if we have differing opinions here...what I (and many others as well, from looking back) am saying is that the number given was VERY EXPLICITLY said to be in the context of an iPhone at a given viewing distance. Its made abundantly clear that the number is not a static thing. You continue to choose to ignore this fact.

 

[Snowy_River]

Wrong.

The term "Retina Display" was invented by Apple,Inc. when they introduced the iPhone 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retina_display&redirect=no

You might want to consider reading your own reference:

The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305*mm) from one's eye, or 57 arcseconds per pixel[42] is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can perceive.[43] With the iPhone expected to be used at a distance of about 12*inches from the eyes, a higher resolution would allegedly have no effect on the image's apparent quality as the maximum potential of the human eye has already been met.

 

[profets]

It's interesting seeing the 300 ppi limit for the iPhone come up. I had forgotten about that. I wonder what size screen they could increase the iPhone to and still qualify their definition of retina @ 300 ppi.

 

[sinitesh]

So what part of the iP3 did YOU predict? Lackluster? To what standards? It's cool if you don't like it but to call it a lackluster upgrade is just nuts IMHO.

Predicted everything and then some (obviously wrong about the rest). I am not saying that the "new ipad" isn't a nice device, just that considering the leaps made from first to second gen (not to mention Apple's mountain of cash) I was hoping for something more innovative and different. I say lackluster because there is in essence nothing at all new about it. Same hardware just next Gen. Ipad 2 introduced a magnetic smart cover (something arguably not that important from a strictly tech perspective but it shows ingenuity." With all of the great new tech out there they could have done so much more than a standard upgrade package. They could have added a wireless charging solution like Witricity or a screen with texture simulation like Heptic. Heck even pressure sensitivity or a 3D camera would have at least added some luster. There are at least 10 different ideas off the top of my head from tech that already exists some of which has been out for years that could have been combined with this gen to make it feel more like a leap forward rather than a cautious step IMHO. Still it is better than most of what I seen so I'm not mad just disappointed.

 

[Archer1440]

Right. "lackluster" Guess they would have sold MORE than THREE MILLION in the first few days if it actually had merit, riiiiight?

 

[sinitesh]

I was counting down the days to the announcement and was prepared to buy one. If at least one of the features on my top 10 wish list or perhaps something I didn't even think of would have made it into this gen they would have had at least one more sale. Instead I am going to wait for the next gen or another company to come along and make a device I don't see trading up in a year or two. I haven't bought an iphone yet either, why because of the battery life of the 4s which is so far the closest I have come to forking out the cash. This problem could be solved not only by a better battery (they are improved just like processors every year) but a better charging solution like Witricity. A bigger screen to compete with android phones would be nice as well. I hope to buy my first iphone this year, but it is up to Apple to convince me. I tend to only buy something in that price range or if I already have something that in part fills the same needs if I plan on keeping it for many years or need it for work/school etc. It is called being thrifty and not buying into the consumerist mentality of filling up our landfills with products that are only a year or two old because I just have to have the latest thing (companies including Apple are getting better at the whole Eco-conscious thing, but ultimately it is the consumer that has to change). I may be overly picky, but I am also extremely patient. So yes they would have (not to mention the many others I have heard from that have chosen not to buy one either). Again not a bad product, just a lot of room for improvement and missed opportunities IMHO. Besides I didn't say anything about merit (twisting my words). Apple's products are pretty solid. Lackluster means uninspired and compared to the huge jump between the original ipad and the ipad2 not to mention the predictability of the screen because of the iphone 4/4s and the inevitable boost in performance that every upgrade will feature I feel it to be an accurate description. There are numerous companies out there with ingenious products that are compatible with Apple's lineup that are dying to work with them and could bring some major and unique advancements.

 

[Rogzilla]

i rest my case

If this is you resting your case, than you are the worst lawyer in existence. You proved nothing. The bullet point was that the iPhone 4 had screen with a dpi over 300. The definition of retina was explained by Jobs himself, which (as nearly everyone else in this thread has made clear) is that the pixel density is at such a high point that, when viewed from a typical distance, the individual pixels are impossible to tell apart.

 

[gloss]

You all are getting trolled so hard.

 

[ZBoater]

Who coined the term "retina" display? Wasn't it Apple? Doesn't it stand to reason they can call "retina" whatever they want? And they've even given a semi-plausible explanation? This is like AT&T calling HSPA+ 4G....

 

[jltj]

It's true that the term was invented by Apple, but it is meant to indicate a certain standard, and the public is to take the term seriously, then its definition shouldn't be changed willynilly to fit Apple's needs at the moment. Otherwise, any TV manufacturer can start describing their TVs as having Retina Displays, since at reasonable viewing distances, most people will not be able to make out individual pixels on their TVs, likewise with some computer and laptop monitors.

It is exactly like the situation with 4G, where everyone who has something slightly faster than the 3G standard is calling it 4G, so currently, the "4G" term is meaningless (simply because there are too many definitions ascribed to the term).

On the other hand, I do not find a problem with Apple calling the camera "iSight". It is a proper name that Apple invented and they can use it for whatever, just as they have used "iBooks" for laptop computers and are now doing so in the context of ebooks.

 

[walie]

Right. "lackluster" Guess they would have sold MORE than THREE MILLION in the first few days if it actually had merit, riiiiight?

In a world where the Kardashians are rich and famous by doing absolutely nothing, this isn't surprising.

----------

It's true that the term was invented by Apple, but it is meant to indicate a certain standard, and the public is to take the term seriously, then its definition shouldn't be changed willynilly to fit Apple's needs at the moment. Otherwise, any TV manufacturer can start describing their TVs as having Retina Displays, since at reasonable viewing distances, most people will not be able to make out individual pixels on their TVs, likewise with some computer and laptop monitors.

It is exactly like the situation with 4G, where everyone who has something slightly faster than the 3G standard is calling it 4G, so currently, the "4G" term is meaningless (simply because there are too many definitions ascribed to the term).

On the other hand, I do not find a problem with Apple calling the camera "iSight". It is a proper name that Apple invented and they can use it for whatever, just as they have used "iBooks" for laptop computers and are now doing so in the context of ebooks.

EXACTLY. By Apple new definition of "retina", every single HDTV is now a retina display!!

 

[bawbac]

I was counting down the days to the announcement and was prepared to buy one. If at least one of the features on my top 10 wish list or perhaps something I didn't even think of would have made it into this gen they would have had at least one more sale. Instead I am going to wait for the next gen or another company to come along and make a device I don't see trading up in a year or two. I haven't bought an iphone yet either, why because of the battery life of the 4s which is so far the closest I have come to forking out the cash. This problem could be solved not only by a better battery (they are improved just like processors every year) but a better charging solution like Witricity. A bigger screen to compete with android phones would be nice as well. I hope to buy my first iphone this year, but it is up to Apple to convince me. I tend to only buy something in that price range or if I already have something that in part fills the same needs if I plan on keeping it for many years or need it for work/school etc. It is called being thrifty and not buying into the consumerist mentality of filling up our landfills with products that are only a year or two old because I just have to have the latest thing (companies including Apple are getting better at the whole Eco-conscious thing, but ultimately it is the consumer that has to change). I may be overly picky, but I am also extremely patient. So yes they would have (not to mention the many others I have heard from that have chosen not to buy one either). Again not a bad product, just a lot of room for improvement and missed opportunities IMHO. Besides I didn't say anything about merit (twisting my words). Apple's products are pretty solid. Lackluster means uninspired and compared to the huge jump between the original ipad and the ipad2 not to mention the predictability of the screen because of the iphone 4/4s and the inevitable boost in performance that every upgrade will feature I feel it to be an accurate description. There are numerous companies out there with ingenious products that are compatible with Apple's lineup that are dying to work with them and could bring some major and unique advancements.

The enter key, sentence structure and paragraphs are your friend.

 

[anjinha]

EXACTLY. By Apple new definition of "retina", every single HDTV is now a retina display!!

So?

It's true that the term was invented by Apple, but it is meant to indicate a certain standard, and the public is to take the term seriously, then its definition shouldn't be changed willynilly to fit Apple's needs at the moment. Otherwise, any TV manufacturer can start describing their TVs as having Retina Displays, since at reasonable viewing distances, most people will not be able to make out individual pixels on their TVs, likewise with some computer and laptop monitors.

But the definition never changed. Retina display, as defined by Apple, was always about having a certain pixel density so that you can't see individual pixels at the normal distance you use the device. They never changed that. They never said 300 dpi made it a retina display. They did say that FOR THE IPHONE 300 dpi made it a retina display according to their definition.

 

[slffl]

This part from the Verge is concerning:

"Apple's brand new iPad has just launched with a Retina Display! The resolution is 2048 x 1536, quadrupling that of the first and second generation iPads. The new 9.7-inch iOS tablet keeps the same screen size as its predecessors, but now comes with just over 3.1 million pixels, resulting in an impressive 264ppi density. You might not think that's quite enough to merit Apple's designation of a Retina Display — one dense enough to make individual pixels indistiguishable — however Phil Schiller explained that the iPad is expected to be held at a distance of 15 inches away from the user's eyes, qualifying it for that title."

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now

&$@$ The Verge. They are the new Gizmodo of tech blogs. Their target audience are anti-apple zealots and you can see it in all of their headlines and stories.

 

[anjinha]

Before Retina was said to represent anything with a screen that had a higher than 300ppi, now its something that Apple says is subjective to the user.

if it wasn't marketing before, it reeks of marketing now

Nope. This is exactly what Steve Jobs said when he was explaining the retina display on the iPhone 4 keynote:

"It turns out that there's a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch that when you hold something around 10 or 12 inches away from your eyes is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels."