[esolyt]

"other companies have already started or will also start implementing this new Retina technology."

That is simply impossible for two reasons:

1) Retina display is a trademarked Apple phrase and no other company will ever have retina displays. 2) Retina is not a technology.

I think the word technology is being overused these days.

The author was simply talking about high-PPI displays when he said "this new Retina technology", which other companies have already "implemented" in their smartphone displays. Unless one is talking only about Apple products (which is not the case here) the term retina display should not be used.

[radley]

For most people, Retina is synonymous with High-PPI, like Kleenex for tissue or Coke for cola. Retina is easier to say & understand. High-PPI is lost in a sea of resolution jargon.

[Groxx]

Not that "High-PPI" is all that useful of a term either, any more than "Ultra High Frequency" or "Very High Frequency" or "Super High Frequency".

[hayksaakian]

High PPI is the literal description of the phenomena referred to by the OP. Its not a buzzword or a trademark, its a technical specification.

[Groxx]

326 PPI is a technical specification. "High PPI" is a buzzword used to sell things - our current use of it will be invalid in a few years.

edit: deleted first sentence, was more off-topic than useful.

[esolyt]

I don't think we need terms like "retina" or "high PPI" at all. Consumers can decide which PPI is good enough for themselves.

Sharp is now producing 5-inch 1920x1080 443 PPI displays. Obviously this is much higher than anything we have ever seen, so it is not a "retina display". What should we call it? Instead of "cornea display" or "very high PPI", I prefer the term "443 PPI".

[hayksaakian]

given that apple's retina and android's xhdpi spec fall into the same number's it's still fair to use the phrase 'high dpi'

[dmorgan]

>That is simply impossible for two reasons: 1) Retina display is a trademarked Apple phrase and no other company will ever have retina displays. 2) Retina is not a technology.

Useless pedantic "correction" of the day award.

If you want to be fully pedantic though, you're wrong on both counts:

1) Retina might be trademarked by Apple, but nothing stops another company to sign a deal with Apple to use the name for their displays. So, "impossible"? Hardly.

2) Retina is very much a technology. Or rather, what is the definition of technology? Something that requires specific construction that can be identified qualifies as a "technology". In this case, Retina is: a high dpi screen, where high is the level that is impossible or extremely difficult for a person with 20/20 vision to separate pixels when looking from the average viewing distance for that particular class of device. If it's also the name of a SPECIFIC implementation of such things by a PARTICULAR company doesn't matter much, people are not lawyers.

We use a brand name as a substitute for the technology it represents all the time in other fields too. Even PC was once "IBM PC".

[fuckernaut]

Actually, your post is more deserving of your little award. Congrats!

[dmorgan]

Thanks, but I did it ironically.