More New 5K Monitors Announced!

[Pezimak]

No matter how often you or others repeat this, it still isn't true. The retina displays on first iPhone, then iPad and iMac just made those products a lot better. That's not marketing, that is product innovation. The term "retina display" you can call marketing, because it gives the innovation a catchy name, but you can't call it spin, because it quite accurately describes the effect (that the screen is now so good that your very good retina cannot see pixels/grain anymore) and does not – as spin does – try to show something in a positive light that is not actually deserving it.

The last time I can recall ever seeing individual pixels on ANY screen is when I had a CRT TV or monitor. So even though Apples displays are very good, I shall still call it spin because in ‘my’ eyes as far as seeing pixels go it made no difference, and other phones also had higher res screens with higher PPI then the iPhone at the time, if that is what you are basing Apples Retina term to be referring to. But I am ONLY talking about phones here.

I am unsure of the history of 5K monitors but I believe Apple had held that as a unique point for a while, so in that regard they could use the term. Tablets I have no idea about the competition and its resolution as I haven’t been interested in it for a long time.
6K monitors Apple were not the first with I don’t think.

I am not belittling Apples displays quality here… only the marketing on the iPhone screen when it first started using the term Retina. These day’s it has no bearing really as we now have several 5K and 6K monitors such as the ones LG have announced. And phones come in all sizes and resolutions. Tablets as I said I have no idea about, I don’t really look beyond the iPad.

 

[the future]

Ok, the first iPhone with a „retina display“ (and the first time this term was used) was the iPhone 4 which was released June 2010. Please link to other phones available at the time with high-PPI.

 

[PaulD-UK]

@the future The Samsung Galaxy S. 233ppi. Announced March 2010.

"Steve Jobs declared he would wage "thermonuclear war" on Google's Android operating system, which he viewed as a "stolen product".

Apple filed a major lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011, accusing the company of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad's design, product packaging, and user interface. Apple argued that Samsung chose to "free-ride" on Apple's success rather than innovate its own technology.

Apple won a significant initial verdict of over $1 billion in 2012, though the decision was reversed in part through years of appeals. The companies finally reached a settlement in all outstanding U.S. patent disputes in 2018, the terms of which were not disclosed. "

 

[Pezimak]

Ok, the first iPhone with a „retina display“ (and the first time this term was used) was the iPhone 4 which was released June 2010. Please link to other phones available at the time with high-PPI.

Sorry I am not going to trawl the internet for every spec of every phone made. iPhone 4 ‘at the time’ had the highest PPI barely of 326, it beat the LG KM Arena 900 which had a PPI of 311

http://www.lg.com/uk/mobile-phones/km900/?srsltid=AfmBOooBFWreQJhjE_h7h45PgNijbITEDHecPQ1MAjuM7TsjrwBObN36

LG KM900 Arena - Full phone specifications

www.gsmarena.com

But also of note is:

iPhone 5S 2013
1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi

iPhone 5s - Technical Specifications – Apple Support (UK)

support.apple.com

Nexus 5 2013
1920 x 1080 (445 ppi)

http://www.lg.com/uk/mobile-phones/smartphones/lgd821/?srsltid=AfmBOor9klMxYW772ucUd9T-1yQE5jwuUg6EnQDHO4QTAVYM-RZXuDTu

 

[maflynn]

With all of this discussion on Retina, I wanted to provide my $.02

Retina by its very definition is a marketing term and not as objective/black and white as people make it out to be. My eyesight is such that I don't see pixels even on lower PPI monitors, so much so, many people wouldn't say the LG 34WN80C-B UltraWide 1440p monitor as Retina (109 PPI) but I couldn't see the pixels, so is it retina for me?

My point is that retina is an apple coined term to market their products, first for the iPhone, then for the MBPs

 

[Pezimak]

With all of this discussion on Retina, I wanted to provide my $.02

Retina by its very definition is a marketing term and not as objective/black and white as people make it out to be. My eyesight is such that lower I don't see pixels even on lower PPI monitors, so much so, many people wouldn't say the LG 34WN80C-B UltraWide 1440p monitor as Retina (109 PPI) but I couldn't see the pixels, so is it retina for me?

My point is that retina is an apple coined term to market their products, first for the iPhone, then for the MBPs

Precisely, it is pure marketing. I checked and the iPhone 17 Pro has a PPI of 460, that is 10 more than my Nexus 5 had in 2013. Flagship Android phones are pushing 577 PPI these days.

Anyway I am excited to read more about the “5K” LG 39” monitor. I will also wait to see what Apple releases but the chances of their new monitors having more than one input even are slim.

 

[the future]

Samsung Galaxy S. 233ppi. Announced March 2010.

High-ish PPI, but probably not retina (at typical viewing distance for a phone)..

Sorry I am not going to trawl the internet for every spec of every phone made.

And I didn‘t ask you to. One or two examples suffice.

LG KM Arena 900 which had a PPI of 311

… see, that‘s better. Never heard of this thing, and it certainly didn‘t make an impact in the market, but still.

Anyways, those other phones (and those that followed) basically just confirm that high-PPI was a big deal for phones. Hence „retina“ was neither just marketing, let alone spin, but a real user need that was being met for the first time.

 

[the future]

My point is that retina is an apple coined term to market their products

… and no-one denied this. But it is a marketing term with real substance, as it quite accurately describes the threshold for not being able to make out individual pixels for most people at standard viewing distance.

 

[the future]

Precisely, it is pure marketing.

Neither did the other user to whom you want to agree say it is „pure“ marketing, nor is it indeed this. It is a marketing term describing a real user need being met.

There are many, many marketing terms in this world thar are „pure“ (as in pure BS), but retina display is not one of them.

 

[MarkC426]

With all of this discussion on Retina, I wanted to provide my $.02

Retina by its very definition is a marketing term and not as objective/black and white as people make it out to be. My eyesight is such that lower I don't see pixels even on lower PPI monitors, so much so, many people wouldn't say the LG 34WN80C-B UltraWide 1440p monitor as Retina (109 PPI) but I couldn't see the pixels, so is it retina for me?

My point is that retina is an apple coined term to market their products, first for the iPhone, then for the MBPs

Yep, retina displays are desirable on phones / tablets as it’s a small screen and close to your face.

Apple then added this tech to their monitors, which as many people say, isn’t a necessity for them.

 

[maflynn]

and no-one denied this. But it is a marketing term with real substance, as it quite accurately describes the threshold for not being able to make out individual pixels for most people at standard viewing distance.

I think the issue is that people are trying to say these 5k monitors are not true 5k because they're not "retina"

This retina talk, and linking PPI to monitors is largely confined to mac people, its not something I noticed on the windows platform. I could be wrong, but the circles I run in, and the reddit subs I view, it doesn't seem to be a thing.

 

[Pezimak]

I think the issue is that people are trying to say these 5k monitors are not true 5k because they're not "retina"

This retina talk, and linking PPI to monitors is largely confined to mac people, its not something I noticed on the windows platform. I could be wrong, but the circles I run in, and the reddit subs I view, it doesn't seem to be a thing.

That, is precisely what has been done in this thread. Retina IS nothing more then a marketing term, it has no relevance beyond Apples marketing team giving a name to a specific PPI it has built its OS to run at. And IMO in doing so they have crippled Mac OS ability to scale well requiring third party add ins to do so properly.
5K is 5K, it is the number of lines of pixels in a horizontal in this case. It is completely exclusive of the term Retina as that is a marketing word used by Apple to describe many different resolutions.

 

[MarkC426]

I think the issue is that people are trying to say these 5k monitors are not true 5k because they're not "retina"

My take on all this is completely different (and people will disagree with me…. 🫣)

I expect a 5k monitor to be 5120x2880 pixels (in the same way my 2k QHD is 2560x1440), retina displays are not.
Whenever I have bought a new/larger monitor it is to get more screen space, not the same amount.

Yes, you can run a 27” 5k monitor at native resolution (not retina, which gives the equivalent of half screen space, and the same as a QHD) but it is completely unusable unless you are ‘Steve Austin’.

 

[Dark-Signature]

This retina talk, and linking PPI to monitors is largely confined to mac people, its not something I noticed on the windows platform. I could be wrong, but the circles I run in, and the reddit subs I view, it doesn't seem to be a thing.

Of course you're wrong, because I've been using 220 PPI monitors primarily with Windows since 2015. Working with these monitors is simply much more pleasant. Anyone who doesn't see the point in this will probably be happy with printed paper and 150 DPI. Yes, that was certainly the case in the past. But then the printing industry made the leap to 300 and 600 up to 1200 DPI for the mainstream, and I don't remember readers complaining, "Why such a high dot density? You just have to hold the printed page 30 cm further away so you can fool your eyes into thinking you're not holding poor print quality in your hands!"

Sorry, but if you don't appreciate better quality, you should stay out of these discussions. The future will clearly move towards 220 PPI or higher, and users who think this isn't necessary will simply die out!

 

[Dark-Signature]

5K is 5K, it is the number of lines of pixels in a horizontal in this case. It is completely exclusive of the term Retina as that is a marketing word used by Apple to describe many different resolutions.

You still don't understand.

 

[Pezimak]

Of course you're wrong, because I've been using 220 PPI monitors primarily with Windows since 2015. Working with these monitors is simply much more pleasant. Anyone who doesn't see the point in this will probably be happy with printed paper and 150 DPI. Yes, that was certainly the case in the past. But then the printing industry made the leap to 300 and 600 up to 1200 DPI for the mainstream, and I don't remember readers complaining, "Why such a high dot density? You just have to hold the printed page 30 cm further away so you can fool your eyes into thinking you're not holding poor print quality in your hands!"

Sorry, but if you don't appreciate better quality, you should stay out of these discussions. The future will clearly move towards 220 PPI or higher, and users who think this isn't necessary will simply die out!

Lol the only possible way that makes any sense is if people have bionic eyes as they age to replace the real ones that just will NOT see a difference.

Also it is a bit arrogant and naive to tell people to stay out of discussions because they do not agree with you. That is not a discussion then that is a yes man club.

 

[the future]

I think the issue is that people are trying to say these 5k monitors are not true 5k because they're not "retina"

Some say so, most don‘t (I don‘t, see my previous posts).

But the other thing happening in this thread is people trying to claim that high PPI on desktop displays is useless, and to that I (and others) completely disagree. In this context, degrading „retina“ as „pure marketing“ is a way to support that claim - and quite simply just wrong.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

Sorry, but if you don't appreciate better quality, you should stay out of these discussions. The future will clearly move towards 220 PPI or higher, and users who think this isn't necessary will simply die out!

If you get to choose who should be in or out a discussion, it's hardly a discussion anymore is it? Then it starts to sound like a monologue of a person who does not tolerate dissent.

 

[IvyKing]

Lol the only possible way that makes any sense is if people have bionic eyes as they age to replace the real ones that just will NOT see a difference.

FWIW, I'm 71 and have absolutely no problem telling the difference between a 110PPI and 220PPI monitor, though 160PPI versus 220PPI would be more of a challenge. I'm not a gamer, so the 60Hz vs 120Hz vs 240Hz isn't an issue for.