Not trying to be insulting but using a marketing buzzword in place of a real and specific specification often leaves those with knowledge in the related field feeling like the speaker is ignorant. More so when you say something like:
No, I only have an iPhone. It has a retina screen. I just want an iPad mini but I can't deal with non retina screens for reading any more.
Your statement implies that anything that is not a Retina screen is (by definition) a lesser quality screen. A belief that is entirely inaccurate because there are better screens on the market that are not called Retina because that is marketing term owned and defined by Apple.
I'm talking about Apple products! They classify their screens as retina and not retina. Retina screens ARE better.
When I bought my MacBook Pro there was no such thing as retina, but there was a high resolution version if the 15 inch model. I got that one. When talking about it I would say it was high resolution, and if asked for species I could say it had 1050 vertical lines, so just below 1080 high def standard.
But the point of screens with retina displays is that I don't have to know about resolution or pixel density. I don't give a shit. As long as I don't notice individual pixels any more, I'm happy. And I'm not going to buy another device with a screen, from Apple or anyone, where I can see or notice pixels in everyday use.
Why does this make me seem ignorant? Marketing terms are super handy when they are the very thing that distinguishes one product from another, especially if that is the single feature I've been waiting for in the device before buying it.
They make you appear ignorant when the discussion is not properly limited to products that are limited to that marketing term.
So yes, when talking about Apple products with integrated screens the term does work as a convient shortcut to describe things. However, Retinue as a marketing term does not even have one set meaning. The pixel density required to be called Retina varies by the size of the screen.
For example Retina on an iPhone or iPod touch is 326ppi, for an iPad it is 264ppi and for a macbook pro It is 220ppi.
Technically the Nexus 10 had a better than Retina display when it was released bit it couldn't be called that because Apple has a trademark on Retina.
While Retina is better than not-Retina when it comes to Apple products (on the same device) the term has no set meaning.
Imagine a food company somehow got the trademark on using chilly pepper icons to indicate spiciness. Their salsa sauces had 1, 2 or 3 chillies. except on their spice mixes, they would also use chillies, even though the actual contents was much spicier because they expected you to eat a lot of rice with it. So sometimes, you got 'midly uncomfortably hot' meal, while at other times it'd be closer to "Oh god, fire". All other food manufactures used the Scoville scale. And you're saying "I can't eat anything over two chillies!".
They make you appear ignorant when the discussion is not properly limited to products that are limited to that marketing term.
I opened the discussion about iPad Mini with Retina. The conversation took a brief diversion into ebook readers. At the end of one of those posts, someone explicitly asked me about Apple products and I once again replied about Apple products. You are the only one with an acorn up your butt about this.
While Retina is better than not-Retina when it comes to Apple products (on the same device) the term has no set meaning.
The only meaning I have ever known for Retina Display, the way I have heard it defined by Apple and everyone else, is something almost exactly like this: "Under normal use, the pixels are too small to see them individually." It is NOT a description of pixel density or resolution in abstract terms. You are the first person I've ever come across who seems to think so.
Personally I think "Retina Display" is a very easy and well-understood term to describe any screen that has pixels too small to see individually under normal use. It's way nicer to say than all that. Google and Microsoft have their own brand terms for it, like ClearType.
Shall I say "I'd like a tablet with a Retina screen if it is an iPad or a ClearType screen if it is a Surface"?
Or shall I say "I'd like a tablet with a pixel density so high that I don't notice individual pixels under typical use"?
Or shall I say something like "Still waiting for retina desktop computer monitors"? Yeah, everyone knows exactly what I mean by that. I mean "Take these big pixels away from me!"
The second would be best because it doesn't use any brand specific trademarked terms.
How would you react if we were talking about trucks and I remarked that I would only buy a truck with an ecoboost engine. Would you immediately assume I knew that only Ford uses that term or would you think that I didn't know it was a Ford marketing term and think me ignorant?
What will happen when all current Apple products have Retina displays. Will the term still have value? Will we see Retina2?
That IS like saying you'll only eat mints with Neutrazin in them. Even if it does in fact make a difference that is still just a marketing term Breath Savers came up with. The compound could be in any mint but they can't CALL it Neutrazin because Hershy's has the trademark. Likewise you might prefer the resolution that Apple calls "Retina" but that term is one only Apple can use because it is their trademark.
Personally I think "Retina Display" is a very easy and well-understood term to describe any screen that has pixels too small to see individually under normal use. ... Google and Microsoft have their own brand terms for it, like ClearType.
We passed this without calling it out, but... Cleartype is a way of softening/rendering fonts, not a type of display.
Personally I think "Retina Display" is a very easy and well-understood term to describe any screen that has pixels too small to see individually under normal use. ... Google and Microsoft have their own brand terms for it, like ClearType.
We passed this without calling it out, but... Cleartype is a way of softening/rendering fonts, not a type of display.
We also missed his use of the word "any" which implies that non-Apple products can have Retina displays.
Personally I think "Retina Display" is a very easy and well-understood term to describe any screen that has pixels too small to see individually under normal use. ... Google and Microsoft have their own brand terms for it, like ClearType.
We passed this without calling it out, but... Cleartype is a way of softening/rendering fonts, not a type of display.
We also missed his use of the word "any" which implies that non-Apple products can have Retina displays.
Okay, so ClearType isn't the precise term I was looking for, but what is the Microsoft term for "pixel density so high that I don't notice individual pixels under typical use"?
If there IS another term for this (admittedly wishy washy) standard, I'll use that instead.
I'm not a "blind Apple faithful", and the "I own an Apple, not a PC" is pure straw man in my case, as I very happily have both.
I have never once said Retina screens are better than comparable screens with comparable pixel densities from other companies. The only person who thought that was Steve, and I pointed out that when I said Retina screens are better than Non-Retina screens I was only talking about Apple products. Retina is a really, really good shortcut for "pixel density so high that I don't notice individual pixels under typical use", and if you think otherwise, it's up to you to come up with a better term as easy to use as "retina".
Personally I think "Retina Display" is a very easy and well-understood term to describe any screen that has pixels too small to see individually under normal use. ... Google and Microsoft have their own brand terms for it, like ClearType.
We passed this without calling it out, but... Cleartype is a way of softening/rendering fonts, not a type of display.
We also missed his use of the word "any" which implies that non-Apple products can have Retina displays.
My point is that the term Retina is a good enough to describe any display with "pixel density so high that I don't notice individual pixels under typical use". If you have a better short term, please tell me so I can use it in the future so you stop complaining.
Since when has iPod been drifting towards being a generic term for media player? Are there still any viable mp3 players that are not iPods? Is this an outside the US phenomenon?
I'm sure that someone on the forum has a non-Apple mp3 player that is brilliant and fantastic and they'd looove to spend an hour telling us about it.
I for one am selling my ipad (3rd ed) and getting either an ipad mini or an air. I'm leaning towards the mini, but I'll play around with them in person before deciding.
EDIT: In terms of reading-ness, I have a kindle that fits perfectly in my inside suit pocket, and is super convenient on the subway.
I really wanna buy another Kindle Keyboard. The nook tablet was great... as a tablet. As a take-everywhere-with-you-reading device, it doesn't cut the mustard.
I read all my ebooks on my Galaxy Note II now just out of convenience. It's "good enough". My poor first generation Nook is getting dusty and the battery hasn't been charged in almost a year, even though I much prefer it for reading all other considerations being equal.
Since when has iPod been drifting towards being a generic term for media player? Are there still any viable mp3 players that are not iPods? Is this an outside the US phenomenon?
This is an "every teacher I had in middle school, high school, and community college" phenomenon too.
Comments
When I bought my MacBook Pro there was no such thing as retina, but there was a high resolution version if the 15 inch model. I got that one. When talking about it I would say it was high resolution, and if asked for species I could say it had 1050 vertical lines, so just below 1080 high def standard.
But the point of screens with retina displays is that I don't have to know about resolution or pixel density. I don't give a shit. As long as I don't notice individual pixels any more, I'm happy. And I'm not going to buy another device with a screen, from Apple or anyone, where I can see or notice pixels in everyday use.
Why does this make me seem ignorant? Marketing terms are super handy when they are the very thing that distinguishes one product from another, especially if that is the single feature I've been waiting for in the device before buying it.
So yes, when talking about Apple products with integrated screens the term does work as a convient shortcut to describe things. However, Retinue as a marketing term does not even have one set meaning. The pixel density required to be called Retina varies by the size of the screen.
For example Retina on an iPhone or iPod touch is 326ppi, for an iPad it is 264ppi and for a macbook pro It is 220ppi.
Technically the Nexus 10 had a better than Retina display when it was released bit it couldn't be called that because Apple has a trademark on Retina.
While Retina is better than not-Retina when it comes to Apple products (on the same device) the term has no set meaning.
Alternate definition: a word you can say to force HMTKSteve to expose his pedantry.
Imagine a food company somehow got the trademark on using chilly pepper icons to indicate spiciness. Their salsa sauces had 1, 2 or 3 chillies. except on their spice mixes, they would also use chillies, even though the actual contents was much spicier because they expected you to eat a lot of rice with it. So sometimes, you got 'midly uncomfortably hot' meal, while at other times it'd be closer to "Oh god, fire". All other food manufactures used the Scoville scale. And you're saying "I can't eat anything over two chillies!".
Personally I think "Retina Display" is a very easy and well-understood term to describe any screen that has pixels too small to see individually under normal use. It's way nicer to say than all that. Google and Microsoft have their own brand terms for it, like ClearType.
Shall I say "I'd like a tablet with a Retina screen if it is an iPad or a ClearType screen if it is a Surface"?
Or shall I say "I'd like a tablet with a pixel density so high that I don't notice individual pixels under typical use"?
Or shall I say something like "Still waiting for retina desktop computer monitors"? Yeah, everyone knows exactly what I mean by that. I mean "Take these big pixels away from me!"
How would you react if we were talking about trucks and I remarked that I would only buy a truck with an ecoboost engine. Would you immediately assume I knew that only Ford uses that term or would you think that I didn't know it was a Ford marketing term and think me ignorant?
What will happen when all current Apple products have Retina displays. Will the term still have value? Will we see Retina2?
Regardless I think this has been blown a little out of proportion with both parties being a little prideful.
Shall we move on?
If there IS another term for this (admittedly wishy washy) standard, I'll use that instead.
I'm not a "blind Apple faithful", and the "I own an Apple, not a PC" is pure straw man in my case, as I very happily have both.
I have never once said Retina screens are better than comparable screens with comparable pixel densities from other companies. The only person who thought that was Steve, and I pointed out that when I said Retina screens are better than Non-Retina screens I was only talking about Apple products. Retina is a really, really good shortcut for "pixel density so high that I don't notice individual pixels under typical use", and if you think otherwise, it's up to you to come up with a better term as easy to use as "retina".
Just use the ppi of the screen.
I for one am selling my ipad (3rd ed) and getting either an ipad mini or an air. I'm leaning towards the mini, but I'll play around with them in person before deciding.
EDIT: In terms of reading-ness, I have a kindle that fits perfectly in my inside suit pocket, and is super convenient on the subway.