The pixel density is just ridiculous anyway. Who really needs 4K in a 5 inch device? I have a 1080p 15" laptop and everything is so tiny I really had to adjust using it. Using scaling makes image look worse than native 1366x768. So, there is no middle option. Sure tech will always evolve, but there is a clear line between ridiculous application and as good as one will ever need at such small dimensions.

RejZoRThe pixel density is just ridiculous anyway. Who really needs 4K in a 5 inch device? I have a 1080p 15" laptop and everything is so tiny I really had to adjust using it. Using scaling makes image look worse than native 1366x768. So, there is no middle option. Sure tech will always evolve, but there is a clear line between ridiculous application and as good as one will ever need at such small dimensions.

+1 most of handheld device makers are banking on gullibility of consumers.
Also I am wondering how badly Apple will open itself to patent litigations from Samsung/LG/Sony/AUO and others if they start making displays based on existing technologies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_LED

RejZoRThe pixel density is just ridiculous anyway. Who really needs 4K in a 5 inch device?

If the tech world develops new products according to needs, we will still be using 56k dial up modems.

This company is out of control and needs to be put on a leash.

The Quim ReaperThis company is out of control and needs to be put on a leash.

Why, what did they do wrong?

This is like GM saying "we're not going to source turbos from Garrett, we'll design and build our own." (and that decision hitting Honeywell stock).

Apple, in the past, has really forced Microsoft and these other tech companies, HP, Acer, etcetera, to innovate.

Apple comes out with some new or cool or updated tech, that is VASTLY overpriced, but still awesome, and everyone else eventually copies or catches up, in order to compete.

I don't mind Apple coming out with the tech first, as long as it eventually gets to other companies, at actually affordable prices for mainstream consumers.

RictorhellApple, in the past, has really forced Microsoft and these other tech companies, HP, Acer, etcetera, to innovate.

Apple comes out with some new or cool or updated tech, that is VASTLY overpriced, but still awesome, and everyone else eventually copies or catches up, in order to compete.

I don't mind Apple coming out with the tech first, as long as it eventually gets to other companies, at actually affordable prices for mainstream consumers.

Outside of certain software & iOS this isn't true at all ~ in fact MS, Google, Sammy et al have outshone Apple multiple times in the past & will do so in the future as well.

FourstaffIf the tech world develops new products according to needs, we will still be using 56k dial up modems.

Not in this case. You can't compare pixel density where you need to use a lense to even see the pixels to a connection speed which is very much important and is easily noticeable even today if you go from 50Mbps to 100Mbps transfers which are both already considered very high.

RictorhellApple comes out with some new or cool or updated tech

RictorhellI don't mind Apple coming out with the tech first

RictorhellApple, in the past, has really forced Microsoft and these other tech companies, HP, Acer, etcetera, to innovate.

You are trying really hard to make it sounds as if Apple is the only company out there that has an R&D department that's worth a damn and that everyone else copies them.

Here I was thinking that in the year 2018 we would finally stop hearing this same old Apple mantra over and over again. I guess I was wrong...

R0H1TOutside of certain software & iOS this isn't true at all ~ in fact MS, Google, Sammy et al have outshone Apple multiple times in the past & will do so in the future as well.

In the recent past, particularly since Steve's Jobs died, yes, but I am mostly talking about specific areas like design, display quality, audio fidelity, etcetera.

Apple is not the uber, super innovative company, now, but they have pushed the other companies to do better, and do more, even if just in small increments, and bits and pieces.

I read this and thought good for them..
In house is always better imo.
The more you own the more you get to collect..
It creates competition and competition lowers prices..
Never thought I'd say this...Go Apple!

RejZoRThe pixel density is just ridiculous anyway. Who really needs 4K in a 5 inch device? I have a 1080p 15" laptop and everything is so tiny I really had to adjust using it. Using scaling makes image look worse than native 1366x768. So, there is no middle option. Sure tech will always evolve, but there is a clear line between ridiculous application and as good as one will ever need at such small dimensions.

10 years ago 1080p was meant to 40"+ screens, they said anything smaller didn't need it. Now I compare my old monitor 1280x1024 21" with my 1080p 24" current ones and the pixel distance is so huge in my old monitor I can't go back to it. I recently changed carrier and they offered me a sony xz premium with 4k screen. It's overkill yet I understand someday this will be the default screen resolution, can't compare my old phone with this. Things evolve.

Also, pixel density is specially important in art and photography. At least Apple knows its target, good thing for them.

It isn't on a 5 inch device no matter how you want to turn it. We consider 1080p to be a norm on what, 22-24 inch monitors? You can't possibly convince me you need 4K on 5 inches. You just can't. I have 5 inch phones and I had to look at 5cm distance to even tell a difference between 1080p and 720p.

So, phones are out of the question in this regard as they have peaked its potential to their limits few years ago. It's just who can piss further with the longest male organ. Only thing that needs addressing is bringing 1080p to budget phones since most is still stuck at 720p. Other than that, nope.

Where Apple is aiming are desktop monitors and laptop monitors. For consumers, it's again pissing distance competition, only ones that really need or care about high pixel density are graphic designers.

There is a lot of competition out there, and sooner or later, the market will regain its sense. LG, Sony, and Samsung are long-term players in the market with a significant lead. I highly doubt that Apple will gain on them easily.

Well, good for Apple. More competition, so it should be good for us too, I guess.

If they are making 4k screens for smartwatches then yea its ridiculous. Diminishing returns kick in pretty fast with smaller screens. 1080p 5.5inchhes I'm game. Any more and you're digging into my battery life for little in return.
I went from a 50" 1080p for a monitor to a 27" 1080p monitor and the density difference was immediate and huge (same sitting distance.)

RejZoRNot in this case. You can't compare pixel density where you need to use a lense to even see the pixels to a connection speed which is very much important and is easily noticeable even today if you go from 50Mbps to 100Mbps transfers which are both already considered very high.

Its more about trying new tech and see what gets adopted. The past is littered with dead/dying tech eg. HD-DVD, 3D home tv. Wouldn't know what is successful and what is not until someone tries. If no one can feel the benefit, I am sure phone companies will just dial back to whatever resolution which provides optimal bang/buck.

RejZoRNot in this case. You can't compare pixel density where you need to use a lense to even see the pixels to a connection speed which is very much important and is easily noticeable even today if you go from 50Mbps to 100Mbps transfers which are both already considered very high.

Doesn't matter, if no one forced the adoption of newer, faster better nothing would evolve. Does anyone really "need" a Gigbit connection? Does anyone "need" a 500Mhz faster CPU? The work would still get done.

The number of TV's 4K, HDR, and some that feature freesync/enhanced sync was none before, but it will become commonplace, all driven by the technical ability. Which is far superior to my old 350Mhz K6-2, with a Cirrus Logic adapter, running 64MB of memory for Windows 95 and 36.6K internet connection on a 13" CRT.

I'm going to agree with @RejZoR here, these screen resolutions on mobile devices are getting stupid already. I have an iPhone 7 Plus and the screen resolution is fine. The text on the screen is crisp and I don't see any jagged lines, it's good enough; any more and we start reaching stupid levels. I even moved the device closer to my face and I still can't see the individual pixels. Granted my eyesight is piss shit poor (you should see my eyeglasses prescription).

SteevoDoesn't matter, if no one forced the adoption of newer, faster better nothing would evolve. Does anyone really "need" a Gigbit connection? Does anyone "need" a 500Mhz faster CPU? The work would still get done.

The number of TV's 4K, HDR, and some that feature freesync/enhanced sync was none before, but it will become commonplace, all driven by the technical ability. Which is far superior to my old 350Mhz K6-2, with a Cirrus Logic adapter, running 64MB of memory for Windows 95 and 36.6K internet connection on a 13" CRT.

You can't compare things that do make massive difference to things that literally don't. If pixel density is so high that you literally can't tell apart 1080p and 4K on 5 inch screen and you all go and compare it to Gigabit network, faster processors and stuff. WHAAAAAT? Do you want to know why you need Gigabite network? So transfer takes 6 seconds instead of 60 seconds. Would you call this comparable to visually indistinguishable pixel densities? All of a sudden 500MHz doesn't seem to mater to anyone and yet everyone is raving how Intel's CPU's clock to 4.5GHz and Ryzens are only at 4GHz. That's those exact 500MHz you know. And that's the clock that separates higher framerates in games to lower ones on competition. A physically noticeable difference.

Do you want to know what stupid high pixel densities do on mobile phones? Nothing. You can't see them, GPU is more taxed because it has to process more pixels outputting lower famerate in mobile games and it drains more battery as a result. For no actual benefits. Driving "innovation" just for the sake of innovation is a retarded waste of resources. Innovation for realistic benefits has never been a problem or argued against. Never. No one ever argued 4K as unnecessary on 60" TV's. Because at such sizes, it matters. It doesn't matter on 5" devices. Do you get it now? Probably not.

Tartaros10 years ago 1080p was meant to 40"+ screens, they said anything smaller didn't need it. Now I compare my old monitor 1280x1024 21" with my 1080p 24" current ones and the pixel distance is so huge in my old monitor I can't go back to it. I recently changed carrier and they offered me a sony xz premium with 4k screen. It's overkill yet I understand someday this will be the default screen resolution, can't compare my old phone with this. Things evolve.

Also, pixel density is specially important in art and photography. At least Apple knows its target, good thing for them.

10 years ago i was already using a 1920 x 1200 screen, witch is a higher resolution that 1080p... there was 30" 2560 x 1600 screens available at that time.

i am now using one 15" laptop screen at 1920 x 1080, and two 27" 2560 x 1440 at work, and the 27" are far more comfrtable to use than the tiny pixeled 15"
the diffrence betwen 2220 x 1080 and 2960 x 1440 on a S8 is so smal that samsung ships it with the lower relsultion enabled as standard, even tho the screen supports 2960 x 1440, to save battery.

• btarunrStocks of prominent display panel manufacturers such as LG Display, Sharp, and Samsung, tanked 4.4 percent on Monday, as reports emerged of Apple secretly developing its own screens and manufacturing them, for the first time.

Their stocks would have to drop a lot more than 4.4 percent to qualify as "tanked".

RejZoRIt isn't on a 5 inch device no matter how you want to turn it. We consider 1080p to be a norm on what, 22-24 inch monitors? You can't possibly convince me you need 4K on 5 inches. You just can't. I have 5 inch phones and I had to look at 5cm distance to even tell a difference between 1080p and 720p.

So, phones are out of the question in this regard as they have peaked its potential to their limits few years ago. It's just who can piss further with the longest male organ. Only thing that needs addressing is bringing 1080p to budget phones since most is still stuck at 720p. Other than that, nope.

Where Apple is aiming are desktop monitors and laptop monitors. For consumers, it's again pissing distance competition, only ones that really need or care about high pixel density are graphic designers.

As usual you keep spewing the same crap on this subject even though science has proven you wrong every time you spew this nonsense. Your eyes can see 720dpi/ppi at 1 foot away. This is why art is printed in 600 dpi or higher. I have told you this what? 4 times now? Yet you choose willful ignorance every time :/

If you cant tell the difference between 720p or 1080p or 1440p on a cell phone than you have serious issues.

techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/

SteevoDoesn't matter, if no one forced the adoption of newer, faster better nothing would evolve. Does anyone really "need" a Gigbit connection? Does anyone "need" a 500Mhz faster CPU? The work would still get done.

The number of TV's 4K, HDR, and some that feature freesync/enhanced sync was none before, but it will become commonplace, all driven by the technical ability. Which is far superior to my old 350Mhz K6-2, with a Cirrus Logic adapter, running 64MB of memory for Windows 95 and 36.6K internet connection on a 13" CRT.

Actually yes they do because wait times cost us a huge amount of time and money.
jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

HopelesslyFaithfulIf you cant tell the difference between 720p or 1080p or 1440p on a cell phone than you have serious issues.

Some of us have bad eyesight and have to wear glasses or contacts to be able to see the outside world. My eyesight is pretty damn bad, if I'm not wearing my glasses I have to have my hand nearly at my nose for it to be in focus and even then I have to concentrate hard to focus on it; otherwise it's just a colored blob. For me (and others like me) screen resolution doesn't matter to us because our bad eyesight hinders us from seeing it.

HopelesslyFaithfulAs usual you keep spewing the same crap on this subject even though science has proven you wrong every time you spew this nonsense. Your eyes can see 720dpi/ppi at 1 foot away. This is why art is printed in 600 dpi or higher. I have told you this what? 4 times now? Yet you choose willful ignorance every time :/

If you cant tell the difference between 720p or 1080p or 1440p on a cell phone than you have serious issues.

techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/



Actually yes they do because wait times cost us a huge amount of time and money.
jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

All I can say is lol and I guess you'll tell it for the 5th time because YOU don't get it. If you have to stare at the screen from 5cm for 10 seconds to spot a difference you're just proving my point. And no, my sight is perfectly good. Just because there is theoretical difference, that doesn't mean practical application makes any kind of god damn difference. And that was my point if you haven't get it yet. If you give bunch of 720p and 1080p phones to 100 people and 80 of them can't tell them apart without staring at pixels like absolute retards, then there's your problem.