[necovek]

Except that everyone has different visual acuity and different distance they use the same devices at, and in the end, "retina" means nothing at all.

But this is exactly the type of marketing Apple is good at, though "retina" is probably not the most successful example.

[theshrike79]

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.

[necovek]

If your visual acuity is 20/10, you'd roughly need 3600 pixels vertically to not notice any pixelation if Bill Otto did the calculations right at https://www.quora.com/What-resolution-does-20-10-vision-corr...

20/10 is rare but can easily be corrected to with glasses or contacts.

You also left that "intended viewing distance" hanging there, without at all acknowledging what that is at a minimum?

[jackothy]

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.

[kolinko]

Examples?

[jackothy]

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)

[kolinko]

The single pixel example is wrong I think, because that’s not how light and eyes work - you can always spot a single point of light, regardless of how small - if it’s bright enough.

[jackothy]

Yes exactly that's why I went back right away to edit - if the whole screen is white but one pixel is off and you can spot it, then my logic holds.