Why didn't Samsung and LG come out with a Retina display first?

[Stetrain]

Apple can afford to start using a new technology in large quantities even if it's relatively expensive or has low yield rates.

Apple probably spent a significant amount of money with these companies to fund the development and manufacturing in the first place, possibly in return for exclusive rights for some time period.

 

[homeboy]

They could patent the technology that makes the resolution possible. That is one of many possible reasons and we might never find out the true cause.

Exactly. It ways baffles me that mainstream media report on patent disputes these days but don't educate on what patents exactly are.

Companies or individuals don't patent ideas or concept but they patent methodologies or processes. The Retina Display might have patents that relate to the manufacturing process of densely packing tiny pictures, power consumption or other aspects.

 

[adnbek]

And you sound like a dick. Related to Digglett by any chance?

No, it has less ppi than the iphone 4 is my problem. Not that I didn't think it wasn't sharp. I'm not sure why people were complaing about the iPads display anywho. What I"m saying is that the ppi doesn't match the Retina defintion and now its okay. The highest resolution of any device ever is irreleveant. If the Asus Transformer achieved this feat, it wouldn't be called retina as people would be complaing its ppi isn't at least the iPhone 4s.

The "Retina" definition never changed. It's simple logic that Retina depends on distance from the eye. Even my 1080p TV with only 50ppi is "Retina" if I look at it from across the room.

And if you put your eyeball on the iPhone 4 screen, it loses its "Retina" definition. Just be careful not to touch the screen with it. All those fingerprints and smudges in contact with your eye can't be a good thing...

 

[linkgx1]

I like how you condescend yourself in your own statement.... "IMO". Everyone has their own choice. So don't go around boasting your OPINION like it matters. To most here, opinions are about as useless as a skin colored fanny pack. The fact of the matter is that you have not held the device to compare the two screens to come to such a conclusion. So to make such a statement really shows your ignorance.

ironically you just stated an opinion.

----------

The "Retina" definition never changed. It's simple logic that Retina depends on distance from the eye. Even my 1080p TV with only 50ppi is "Retina" if I look at it from across the room.

And if you put your eyeball on the iPhone 4 screen, it loses its "Retina" definition. Just be careful not to touch the screen with it. All those fingerprints and smudges in contact with your eye can't be a good thing...

Oh, well I was thinking the same thing but I"m all confused after reading the Retina thread.

I"m so lost now.

 

[whtrbt7]

Ah sorry, but I forgot to mention one other company manufacturing the displays which is Sharp. So altogether, Samsung, LG, and Sharp manufactured the Retina displays for the 2012 iPad. First batch of 2012 iPads will have Samsung displays since LG and Sharp are late with production. If you are against Samsung displays, you should wait until the LG and Sharp batches are out. Keep in mind that there are going to be "acceptable" failure rates among the display just like in any other manufacturing. The reason why Apple needs to outsource the displays is due to the extremely expensive manufacturing facilities that may or may not make money. For this reason, the manufacturers also can't put these displays on their own products until later. In any case, these other manufacturers make AMOLED displays as well which they supply on their own line of products. Apple's IPS displays are using different tech so that's why you'll notice that most of the other companies are using AMOLED instead of IPS LCD.

 

[Lawyer]

There are ways around patents, just wait, there will be a "retina display" from different companies in the near future. Probably won't be called a retina display though..