Pixel Qi talks up next gen transflective displays with Retina-level resolution
1. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Again, Apple is a reference for every manufacturer. They could do this 10 years ago (IBM, Toshiba), but somehow only now this PPI thing is important. Everyone was just waiting for the Apple for green light, and now they admire Apple for being "resolutionary".
2. clevername (Posts: 1436; Member since: 11 Jul 2008)
Apples screen on the ipad 3 just happens to be the current best as far resolution goes. So yeah, their gonna be the benchmarks when talking about other technology and resolution. Just like phonearena now lists the ppi On its spec pages, Because the retina display showed that crisper displays are based on ppi and not necessarily resolution. Not being pro apple here, just saying that even though apple didn't invent hi res, they have bought it back to the mainstream publics eye. People in large numbers have a short memory. It doesn't matter who starts something, just who made it popular.
3. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Extremely high PPI technologies existed way before Retina screen, but there were many historical and technological reasons why they refused to be implemented. Only when Apple decided to go with full WYSIWYG Retina screen everybody suddenly become aware of this problem, and now we admire Apple for a great innovation. Everything that is now actual in IT world is made by Apple, and everyone is letting it do that. It's a conspiracy of some kind. In which everyone profits - on people that are almost engineered with blindness. This Apple referencing is no coincidence. One would say that if someone will introduce new tech, that it will be distanced to Apple - but it's clear that everything depends precisely on referencing to it.
Pixel Qi wants to make profits on Apple, not on their screen.
6. clevername (Posts: 1436; Member since: 11 Jul 2008)
Like I said. People have short memories. It doesn't matter who created something. Just who made it marketable. It also doesn't hurt when your company is the most valuable in the world, valuing over half a trillion dollars.
10. murali_v_2000 (Posts: 33; Member since: 31 Jan 2012)
Once again, it's NOT apple's screen. It is SAMSUNG's screen. Apple just assembles it.
4. jabberwocky (Posts: 89; Member since: 21 Feb 2012)
Apple's marketing makes it seem like they are a leader and everyone else is following. This is not the case. All manufacturers have increased resolution as screen technology improved (most are buying from the same few sources), only Apple gave it a flashy name and talked about it like it was a big deal.
Other manufacturers have been pushing pixel density, contrast, and particularly screen size harder than Apple. HD just doesn't seem new in the way that "Retina" does, even though "Retina" is just a fancy marketing term for ppi. In the old school CRT days, it was dpi, and manufacturers were all pushing that long before Apple got into the game. Those same companies are making LCDs now, so don't pretend Apple taught them to chase something new. It's the same old stuff.
I look forward to this fall, when Apple rolls out a 4 or 4.3" phone and gives it some absurd branding like Ergo. I am sure you'll hop on here and claim they are a leader in large phone sizes.
5. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
When there was dominantly PC era, screen resolutions increased but pixel densities weren't. Only Apple was able to intitiate that, despite the fact that high densitites were technologically available.
The same goes for IPS panels, which are in pro segment for over 10 years or so, and industry rejected them (and VA) in favor of inferior TN panels, and only after Apple introduced IPS (and that's e-IPS, cheaper technology) on an iPhone everyone begun to compete with ultra-high quality displays...
So Apple was the key for every turning point, the motivation for the whole Industry. Technologically speaking, it wasn't.
No one else did it like that - especially not the first SE Xperia X1 with its 312 PPI density in 2006.!
7. clevername (Posts: 1436; Member since: 11 Jul 2008)
Lol I never said they're a leader, innovator, or creator. In fact i I completely support your comment. I'm just saying apple made it marketable and that's what matters, not who creates something. And I only mean in the eyes of the masses. If apple is a leader or innovator in anything its marketing mid range tech. They do that better than anyone.
8. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2705; Member since: 26 May 2011)
My response to your extremely reductive reasoning grew too long, so I'm just going to make it a proper column. Thanks for the inspiration!
9. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
My reasoning is extremely reductive on purpose, because in relativisation of everything you just miss the point and fall into fragmentation.
Problems simply cannot be seen by taking into account all the facts that are scientifically measurable. Social research and philosophy can thus see much clearer something that cannot be quantitatively measured.
The World is now calibrated to aesthetics constituted by Apple. In all the opposite camps, the ghost of Apple defines everything they do.
Apple is in everything that is aestheticized - that is, everything that is not a truth procedure of other kind, like politics, knowledge and sexuality.
11. NeiPCs (Posts: 3; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
I liked this discution more than post :)
Thank's for yours opnions, everyone says a bit of I would to see here.