Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 19:12 UTC
Apple It's one of those days again: Apple held a product announcement today, announcing several new products. The most important of which was rumoured about for a long time now: a smaller iPad. It's called the iPad mini, and has the potential to become the best-selling iPad - and thus, the best selling tablet.
Thread beginning with comment 539853
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Interesting
by MollyC on Wed 24th Oct 2012 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Member since:

Will you be splurging on the new 13-inch MacBook Pro for its "retina display"? I hope not, because resolution aside, that is a p.o.s. device considering its $1700 price tag.

One thing I don't get about "retina display" fanboys, if "retina display" is so great, how come you guys don't demand it on your 27-inch monitors, where it would REALLY shine? Seems a waste on a small screen, if you ask me. I admit that my aging eyes aren't sharp enough to see individual pixels on a phone or tablet at 720p so using a higher resolution would make no difference to me on such small screens. But you young-uns claim to be able to see individual pixels on those small screens, and therefore do back flips over "retina display"; but it seems that on a big 23-inch or 27-inch monitor, you'd be able to see individual pixels even more, yet you're satisfied with 1080p on those big monitors. It makes no sense, and seems to me to be a good bit of brainwashing by Apple's superb marketing machine, an outfit which could successfully convice folks that a new Apple-branded abacus is a newly invented revolutionary "game changing" computing device.

When I see "retina display" fanboys condemn Apple's retina-display-less laptops and iMacs for lack of such a display AND when I see those same "retina display" fanboys open their wallets for Apple's retina display $1700 dual-core laptops and $2200 quad-core laptops for the sole purpose of getting a "retina display", then I'll believe that they really do think that "retina display" is all that and a bag of chips. But until then, I'll continue to maintain that "retina display" serves only two purposes: as a talking point for Apple's marketing machine as they run out of ideas, and as ammo for Apple's fanboys to use in the fanboy wars. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Interesting
by kittynipples on Wed 24th Oct 2012 18:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
kittynipples Member since:

If there was a mobile GPU that existed that could drive a 27" iMac "retina" display, I'm sure Apple would have used it, but the technology doesn't exist.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting
by howitzer86 on Thu 25th Oct 2012 17:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
howitzer86 Member since:

You probably already knew this, but technically those 27in screens are "retina" already, especially if they have the 27in iMac resolution. It's all determined by where your head is in relation to a screen and its size, not just the resolution. In simple terms - if you can't see the pixels from your normal position, its retina.

I also think it has to do with performance and diminishing returns. You can have a screen that is really close to retina, so you don't really see a need to spend more to bump it over the line into offical retina.

Reply Parent Score: 1