I don't see anything wrong with that at all. They've created a branding term that allows consumers to get an idea of the sort of pixel density they can expect without having to actually check, should they not want to bother.
If your "visual acuity" is so good that you can see the pixels of a retina-branded display from the intended viewing distance, you might need to be studied for science.
It's not so impossible to spot flaws if you're using worst-case testing scenarios. Which are not worthless because such patterns do actually pop up in real world usage, albeit rarely.
Had one happen to me recently where I was scrolling Spotify, and they do the thing where if you try to scroll past max they will stretch the content.
One of the album covers being stretched had some kind of fine pattern on it that caused a clearly visible shifting/flashing Moiré pattern as it was being stretched.
Wish I could remember what album cover it was now.
Though really it's simple enough: As long as you can still spot a single dark pixel in the middle of an illuminated white screen, the pixels could benefit from being smaller. (Edit: swapped black and white)
Agreed. It is not high resolution as such, but high resolution that the user can relate to - like cannot see the pixel.
Still remember the hard time using Apple newton in a conference vs the palm freely on loan in a Gartner group conference. Palm solved a problem, even though not very Apple … user can input on a small device. I kept it, on top of my newly bought newton.
Or AMD calling monitors which meet quality and feature requirements 'FreeSync'
Or Intel calling USB4 devices and cables which meet quality and feature requirements 'Thunderbolt 5'
Compared to, say, manufacturers who aren't willing to meet any certification requirements or to properly implement the standards at play saying they have "USB-A 3.2 2x2 ports" on their motherboards.
Retina doesn't carry the same weight as an industry certification effort like thunderbolt, but it still informs people that a screen actually meets some sort of bar without them having to evaluate pages of tech specs, and reviews saying whether the tech specs are accurate or have undocumented caveats.
Finally, establishing such certifications are difficult - look at the number of failed attempts at creating industry quality/feature marks in the television market.
Retina means high pixel density, not high resolution. And there are very few standalone displays on the market which can be called “retina”, unfortunately.
Interestingly, I would venture to say that DPI is a measure of resolution: that's the way it's still used in printers or scanners, for example (600 dpi). And retina instead means high angular resolution, or pixels having small arc measures from "appropriate" distances.
The term "resolution" transitioned gradually to mean number-of-individual-lines-rendered horizontally and vertically for displays, but really, the idea is how many dots can you "resolve" (or "resolving power"): a "high resolution" screen or screen mode had a larger number of individual pixels being drawn, which meant that the density is higher. You never talk about a scanner having a resolution of 7200x3600 even if it can scan 12"x6" at 600dpi.
So really, in an informal conversation, I believe both are fine. If you want to be extremely precise, you missed the mark: width and height in pixels is the sanest way to call what you refer to as "resolution".
> For device displays such as phones, tablets, monitors and televisions, the use of the term display resolution as defined above is a misnomer, though common. The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch (PPI).