"Retina" makes my eyes hurt.
Seriously though, the bigger annoyance to me is the "Post PC Era" thing Cook kept saying. I know he's trying to make a point but there's got to be a better catchphrase for the history books than this.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sick of the term Retina??
- Thread starter Lindenhurst
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Retina" makes my eyes hurt.
Seriously though, the bigger annoyance to me is the "Post PC Era" thing Cook kept saying. I know he's trying to make a point but there's got to be a better catchphrase for the history books than this.
I've done it, i've found the ultimate apple fanboy. I'm fine without "retina" (not a real term). I have an amoled screen with an infinite contrast
Are you serious about that last bit ("I have... infinite contrast.")
As much as I loved OLED displays, first of all: all OLED displays are Active Matrix display. So all OLED displays are AMOLED displays. There's no difference. It's marketing (just like you believe retina is not a real term).
Second of all, you don't have infinite contrast. You might have top notch black levels, but contrast also has to do with brightness. And currently, brightness of OLED displays are much lower than LCD displays. If you look at it that way, a LCD display might even beat an OLED display: simply because LED TVs can be so much brighter.
I'm tired of retina as well as post-PC, revolutionary, magical, amazing and all the other Apple buzzwords but I assume they must be good for marketing or they'd drop them.
The people posting that comparison image from the Apple website are missing the movable magnifying glass for some reason. Without that, the demonstration doesn't work and they do look the same.
Get an HTML5 browser.
As far as I am concerned, Apple can call the technology whatever the hell they want, because it's completely amazing. They delivered in a big way. Over a year with a retina display on my iPhone has more than sold me. And spoiled me.
If Ford builds a sedan with 500 hp, they can call it a "Steaming Pile of Crap" and I wouldn't complain because the thing has 500 hp.
Get an HTML5 browser.
As far as I am concerned, Apple can call the technology whatever the hell they want, because it's completely amazing. They delivered in a big way. Over a year with a retina display on my iPhone has more than sold me. And spoiled me.
If Ford builds a sedan with 500 hp, they can call it a "Steaming Pile of Crap" and I wouldn't complain because the thing has 500 hp.
I wish more people understood this. Looking at the two small comparison images is completely worthless. This is what you should be seeing (with the magnifying glass):
The new iPad's retina display is really something you need to see in person to fully understand. It's hard to convey the difference when you're looking at a screen (in this case, your own computer screen or iPhone or iPad display) that has a set pixel density.
When I first use my new iPad, I expect the experience to be similar to the first day I used my iPhone 4 back in 2010, when me and everyone else were use to the 3GS screen.
Talk about hype gone mad - for me it's a close run thing i.e. watching paint dry or having any interest in this so called retina screen. Hmm! difficult one but on balance I'll go with watching paint dry
I think I'll be hanging onto my iPad 2 for quite some time as I don't see New iPad as a game changer.
Retina is a word that Apple coined to refer to their new higher resolution displays, much like the word iPad for their new tablet device, or the word FaceTime for their video calling feature, or maybe the word Siri for their virtual assistant feature, or how about the word Safari for their web browser, or we could also look at the word Airport for their wifi devices.
It's just a word, the only people who think Retina is being used as a technical term, are the people that tell the rest of us to stop using it as a technical term, when none of us are.
get over it.
It's just a word, the only people who think Retina is being used as a technical term, are the people that tell the rest of us to stop using it as a technical term, when none of us are.
get over it.
The irony is that Apple does not design or produce LCD panels. LCD manufacturers (LG, Samsung etc.) do not call their own panels "retina" and they sell them to everybody. When this LCD panel gets installed into, say, Dell devices, it's properly called IPS LCD panel. When the same panel gets installed into Apple device it magically becomes "retina". The funny thing is that some people believe in Apple marketing BS. I have had my LCD TV (and before that my CRT TV) for years and was not aware that it was retina even though given the viewing distance and pixel density it clearly qualifies to be called retina.
They don't produce them, but they sure as hell employ a large number of people to design them, and they invested a huge sum of money in their manufacturing partners to build the production capability. At the end of the day, that's essentially the same thing. The part of Samsung that builds displays is not the same group of people that designs them, and once you've made that division, you start hurting brains when you try to map it out.
That's what's complex about most large companies--"Samsung" isn't really one company. It's a huge array of different companies sharing the same name and overlapping in leadership. That's why they can have both a great relationship with Apple and a highly contentious one at the same time.
Not exactly the way it works. These displays aren't going in any other products any time soon and maybe never, depending on who licensed what from whom in the co-venture.
This wasn't an off-the-shelf purchase like many other components.
That's less than clear because it's too soon to tell. Apple uses the term to describe a family of its high-resolution displays, and only time will tell how the rest of the market shakes out.
It could end up being like Sony's "Trinitron" displays, which used aperture grille technology that other manufacturers had access to, either by working with Sony to license and rebrand it or by developing similar means on their own. Other manufacturers making high-ppi displays using similar technologies can come up with their own brand names. Maybe we'll see Samsung "InvisiPixel" displays later this year, or maybe they'll stick with the QXGA shorthand, which communicates less information.
"Retina display" could also end up being used more broadly to describe any display technology from any manufacturer conforming to pixel size under 1 arcmin at typical distance.
And that's illustrating the point: a term was needed to contextualize the difference. High resolution isn't new. High density is new, and it needed some sort of name. HDTV came about for the same reason--a term for products to distinguish them from the rest of the market.
People had been using the retina concept for a decade. I've heard dozens of times at what distance from what sized TV 1080p is distinguishable from 720p.
Apple merely gave the concept a name, one that makes sense and is easy to remember. And its a perfectly legitimate and useful concept.
Posting the low-res comparison screen without the magnification is hilarious.
Apple merely gave the concept a name, one that makes sense and is easy to remember. And its a perfectly legitimate and useful concept.
Posting the low-res comparison screen without the magnification is hilarious.