That's perfectly fine. A colleague of mine also has two 32" Full HD monitors (ViewSonic VX3276-MHD-3) at home and is happy with them, but he doesn't realize that some people have higher expectations when it comes to screen precision.
The press release says this about the 52-inch: "expansive 12:9 panoramic view". So that's 4:3! (Yeah it's a typo, kind of embarrassing for them.)
It’s a typo, that monitor is actually 21:9. Oh, you already wrote that, nevermind.
Not sure that means they aren't very familiar with monitors, considering that is pretty much the industry standard definition of a 5k monitor.
If such a monitor proves useful to people, why should you care whether the industry refers to it as a "10k" monitor?
For most people who live outside of the Apple bubble, PPI is a far less useful measure than resolution, size, or aspect ratio (even though those three things together are what end up defining PPI). For many, many people, a 5k2k 120Hz wide screen monitor with a 160PPI is much more useful than a 27" 16:9 "Retina" display.
Okay Tim. 👍
Speak for yourself. That's what you think because that's how Apple designed their monitors and that's what Apple's advertising has taught you to think.
They are real 5k displays just like both Cavendish and Plantain bananas are real bananas.
So, because Apple is lazy/incompetent/both in their OS design, the industry has to adjust their definition of what a 5k monitor is? JFC.
