Why dont Samsung tablets have "retina" display? (They make the new iPads display)

KatanaDV20

KatanaDV20

KatanaDV20

Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Posts
3,165
Location
3rd rock...
Been browsing some tech sites and people are falling over themselves over the latest iPad "retina" display.

It is stunning no doubt - I messed about with the new iPad at my local branch of >>insert name of popular Indian takeout here<<.

But...Samsung makes the retina display for the iPad.

So why dont their own Galaxy tablets have it???? :confused:

I dont understand!! :rolleyes:

Obviously theres something Im missing....
 
doesn;t answer the question.

if apple designed it then they are just contracting samsung to build it sammy have no rights to use it.

if sammy designed it and are just selling it to apple the contract may be exclusive.

samsung build a lot of the components in apple gear because they are one of the worlds largest hardware manufactures.


also the apple display may not meet the design requirements for the samsung device.
 
Because 'retina' is a marketing term used by Apple to make it sound better than it actually is.

There's a limit to what the human eye can distinguish, At anything over 13 inches away (who holds there phone closer to their eyes than that?) anything more than around 260 PPI is pointless.

PPD-620w.png
 
estebanrey said:
Because 'retina' is a marketing term used by Apple to make it sound better than it actually is.

There's a limit to what the human eye can distinguish, At anything over 13 inches away (who holds there phone closer to their eyes than that?) anything more than around 250 PPI is pointless.

PPD-620w.png
Click to expand...

No different to 1080p being a marketing term.
 
No different in that average consumer Joe has no idea what it means or be able to discern a difference from any other high definition format, or in some cases (depending on viewing display and seated distance) tell no difference from DVD.

People will still lap it up and not care what it means.
 
Despite not being a big fan of apple (though I do like their hardware design) you can't fault them for maintaining 16:10 and it's better too have too many pixels than too few. If they keep driving forward, they're only going to be a net positive on screen design. Still they aint got no OLED so it's a bit six and half a dozen. Hopefully the eventual marriage will be sweet. :)
 
Because they don't care as much as apple do in putting a high res display in a tablet. They seem to be lagging behind apple and asus. Think they'll realise eventually and hope they have an OLED version like aln said. Also it could be to do with the way android scales?
 
Tefal said:
retina means nothing.
Click to expand...

Except it does.

Otherwise Apple wouldn't bother upgrading their hardware to meet the definition of a retina display, since there is a defining feature to live up to.

It's a more subjective term maybe than 1080p, but it still means something.
 
Last edited:
Samsung manufacture said product under licence but do not have the rights to use it in their own products. Besides if Samsung started copying Apple then we would be stuck with ropey software forever more. Did I mention iTunes? :D
 
Mr_White said:
Except it does.

Otherwise Apple wouldn't bother upgrading their hardware to meet the definition of a retina display, since there is a defining feature to live up to.

It's a more subjective term maybe than 1080p, but it still means something.
Click to expand...

You're right, I feel. It's not on the level of monster HDMI cables. Those cables are physically different and better than other HDMI cables, but have absolutely no discernible effect on anything. While the retina display is tangibly better, there's just no real chance of it making a difference in use.
 
Apple use 'Retina' because it sounds cool and hi-tech to the people who don't even know what pixels are. The rest of us can sit back and buy the cheaper, faster, better tablets and laugh at people who carry the apple logo with false pride.
 
Mr_White said:
No iOS device is 16:10, or 16:9 for that matter ;)
Click to expand...

Well I did say apple, not iOS. But to be fair 4:3 is also worth saving.

Now the Q2 2012 MBP may make me break down and actually spend way more money than I should, although I guess it's still technically a rumour at this point?
 
Monster HDMI cables are not better at all in the context of their use.

I've never used a so called retina display so cannot comment first hand on any discernible differences, chances are next to nothing next to another reasonably specced screen so the same logic to monster cables applies, albeit in a slight different manner.

While more pixel density is better than less (assuming you are not paying more for it or compromising elsewhere) Monster Cables offer zero benefit as a digital HDMI signal is either received, or is not. It's not susceptible to interference as an analogue signal is where better shielding and construction quality could make an impact.
 
aln said:
Despite not being a big fan of apple (though I do like their hardware design) you can't fault them for maintaining 16:10 and it's better too have too many pixels than too few. :)
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that it reduces graphics performance and battery life while increasing the cost of the device...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom