[nrivadeneira]

Generally I'd agree with you, but not in this case. In the case of something like Retina screens, I don't think there's any good reason to name something that is, as far as I know, simply a step up in a metric that is already commonly measured and unnamed.

"Flat design" and "responsive design" (probably better named "responsive functionality") are specifically different in numerous ways than other design trends and consistent within the trend itself. Naming the trends doesn't have to equate to a 'movement'. However, it does provide a much easier way to refer to and discuss them.

[fudged71]

I find it rather ironic that with higher resolution screens we are seeing more simple, minimal, and orthogonal designs. Straight lines and solid colors aren't going to have a recognizable difference with a retina screen. And I found that the only place I really recognized the retina-ness of the iPad 3 was with the complex icons that Apple had designed for the device... every other icon and interface that was simply increased to 2x didn't appear to utilize the benefit of the retina display.

So I'm really conflicted with this retina trend and how designers are (not) utilizing it. I don't think information density should increase, but certainly more complex artifacts could be used rather than these simplistic ones.

[msutherl]

I think something about the high resolution makes flat design (which is really just a derivative of 20th century modernist design) somehow feel ultra-clean. There's suddenly a new depth to the minimalism. It stands out more against 3D elements. It's much like how Swiss Design feels very different on paper vs. on a screen.

Subtle texture and animation on a retina display can recreate the latter effect to some extent.