[jillesvangurp]

They don't sell anything without hiDPI for quite some time now (a decade?). Making their software look good on obsolete screens is understandably not a priority for them. And if you are happy to plug in something that old, you are kind of signaling that you don't really care about what things look like anyway. So, why bother to make that look good?

[KronisLV]

> They don't sell anything without hiDPI for quite some time now (a decade?). Making their software look good on obsolete screens is understandably not a priority for them. And if you are happy to plug in something that old, you are kind of signaling that you don't really care about what things look like anyway.

My apologies for buying 1080p monitors that had no issues with neither my Linux, nor my Windows computers, I guess. I can understand that they might not care about what I care about (supporting the hardware that I have, rather than going out of my way to buy a new monitor just because of a new computer deciding not to work with it well), I'd argue that maybe that's even fine because it's their device and ecosystem, but jeez, that tone is super uncalled for.

As an aside, I use the M1 MacBook at a scaled resolution of 1440x900 because anything finer is hard for me to see. That's a visible PPI of around ~130 because of the 13.3 inch screen. A 1080p monitor of 21.5 inch diagonal size would have a physical PPI of around ~100, so that's around 80% of the pixel density. That's not to say that the panel on the MacBook is not much nicer, but rather that with software anti-aliasing it could definitely be okay. Somehow I don't want to buy a new monitor just for the weekends when I visit the countryside.

[baq]

Reality distortion field is strong with this one.

I have a perfectly good normie dpi 25x16 display which is extra crisp on windows. On macOS I had to install betterdisplay just to make it not miserably bad; it’s just plain bad now. As far as I can tell Apple removed the feature because of greed and laziness.

[setopt]

There are plenty of non-hiDPI screens from other vendors on the market, especially “large” screens that are “medium” in price. In an office you’re not always free to order a screen from any vendor you want (due to their framework agreements), unless of course you’re paying for that hardware privately.

I care about how things look, and have spent more time than I want to admit configuring MacOS apps to look good on the screens available to me. I just don’t care enough to buy an expensive office screen with my own cash if my employer can’t provide one.

[jillesvangurp]

I was talking about Apple. Apple stopped selling non hiDpi screens some time last decade. T

[ffsm8]

So in a nutshell:

Apple specifically wants that you cannot use non-apple displays by artificially worsening the experience for the user while strengthening the illusion that Apple's hardware looks better - even though the only reason it does is because Apple themselves made sure to make other displays look unnecessarily bad.

It's hilarious there are people that actually think this is totally okay and not just plain anti-competitive with just enough plausible deniability to get away with it

[lproven]

Well, in a word, no.

In a few more words: not at all, not even slightly.

To explain briefly:

> Apple specifically wants that you cannot use non-apple displays

No. Apple does not make or sell or offer non-HD displays and has not done for over a decade. Apple mainly sells phones and laptops with built-in hiDPI screens. Desktop computers that use external screens are a small part of its range, and it sells its own very high-quality screens for those.

Because font antialiasing is pointless on a hiDPI screen, and it only offers hiDPI screens, it removed antialiasing from its OSes.

However, the kit does still support old screens and you are free to use them. The antialiasing feature is gone, but to my (not very strong) eyesight it doesn't matter and stuff looks fine.

> artificially worsening the experience for the user

No. This is paranoia.

> It's hilarious there are people that actually think this is totally okay

People think it's okay because your interpretation is paranoid.

> not just plain anti-competitive

How is REMOVING features anti-competitive? In what universe does taking something out of your products hurt your competition? That is absurd.

[ffsm8]

> How is REMOVING features anti-competitive? In what universe does taking something out of your products hurt your competition? That is absurd.

You're unironically arguing that EEE isn't anti competitive?

The whole strategy is about removing support/features at the right time when users cannot realistically leave, putting the nail in the competitors coffin.

Simply put:

1. initial product supports both equally

2. People start using your product

3. Competitors product work less well

4. People will use the better working product. Despite the fact that the downgrade in quality is artificial.

Or is it only anti-competitive if Microsoft does it, Apple being the last bastion of healthy competition on the market, with groundbreaking examples like the AppStore and the green/blue bubbles in their chat app?

[lproven]

> You're unironically arguing that EEE isn't anti competitive?

What does "EEE" mean? Answer that and I can attempt to address the rest.

I still think your argument -- I lose the word very loosely -- is foolish and backwards.

[gond]

> you don't really care about what things look like anyway.

That statement has no connection to the premise.

There are multiple reasons to use an old screen besides the mentioned reason of not caring for x.