Why was Pixel density so important for 2012 smartphones.

[kyrax12]

Even currently, pixel density is one of the most important benchmark specs among phones.

In 2011, it wasn't as important. However when 2012 hit, it was like a whole battle for pixel density.

I remember it was camera megapixel that was considered important for consumers. Not saying it isn't now, but it seems pixel density has taken the throne on which consumers fight over.

 

[Ravynmagi]

iPhone 4 came out in 2011 with a 300+ DPI and pretty much everyone else had to play catch up to it.

 

[Ben90]

It is because of the retina display. Consumers saw such a huge difference between that and their old phones that it became something that was needed on the next device. Before that, while there were advances, it wasn't quite so obvious.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

It's because it's now old news and consumers, analysts, and pundits want something new.

 

[Lil Frier]

Here's how I see it:

1. Apple coins the term "Retina Display," and everyone has eyegasms, without understanding WTF is going on. "WTF is going on" is Apple has a great term from the marketing division to see people non-HD displays in 4" phones for life, because they're too ignorant to know that "Retina" on a 4" phone means 1136x640.
2. All of the competing devices worth a darn take down the "Retina" density (Lumia 920-1020 at 332 ppi, HTC 8X at something like 326, 441 for the S4, 468 ppi for One). Apple basically stops selling the "Retina" advantage on the iPhone, because the thing's been beaten, and ignorant folks have already been sucked into the term and won't listen to reason.

I had to explain to someone a few days ago that "Retina" just meant 326+ ppi, and his saying that the iPhone's display was better than the Lumia 925 because of its "beautiful Retina display" was a statement of hogwash. People really just take whatever catchy term Apple's marketing firm poops out, and they latch on for dear life. It's why Windows Phone's had a tough time growing, I think--they try too hard to point out legitimate advantages, instead of just acting all hipster-ish and using cheap tricks to get attention.

 

[Eug]

^^^ If anything, it sounds like you've been taken in by the marketing hype. 468 PPI is e-peen territory.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

im hoping battery life is one of the most important benchmark specs among phones in 2014.

 

[desura]

That's b/c Android phones are kind of dumb. Like, iOS fanbois will talk about how elegant and great the experience of iOS is, all the fun apps in it and how useful it is.

Android fanbois will talk about like the javascript benchmark score, the battery capacity in mAH (as opposed to hours of battery life), how big the screen is (even though it can't fit in their pocket), and of course, multi-tasking.

 

[Deeko]

This thread is going well.

 

[Crono]

The marketing didn't play as big a role as some people think. It just happened to be the right time for that aspect of display technology to advance. Same reason there were contrast ratio wars, megahertz races, megapixel games, and storage capacity one-upmanships before that and since then. More powerful processors certainly allowed for manufacturers to up resolutions and PPI to a large degree, though you can see that even Apple realized they couldn't do "retina" on their full range of devices at the same time (like the iPad Mini, partly because Apple's own analysis, though you can see small tablets like the Nexus 7 that have gone beyond retina now).

Whether Apple had "retina" locked down early is beside the point, as they didn't have all the marketing names in the other specification competitions. It was definitely a more consumer-recognizable name, but in the end it was gadget geeks like all of us who realize more PPI was a good thing... up until a point. Those already looking at high PPI devices usually were already very interested in those devices, whether they were iOS or Android. I doubt a significant percentage of buyers was swayed heavily by PPI alone, though seeing displays in person would/could make a difference.

You can't fault higher PPI devices for simply having higher PPI (even if it's beyond human discernment) , but it's not a good thing if performance suffers because of it. I think the phone manufacturers are slowing down the PPI increases right now since they realize consumers have stopped caring, though.

 

[notposting]

That's b/c Android phones are kind of dumb. Like, iOS fanbois will talk about how elegant and great the experience of iOS is, all the fun apps in it and how useful it is.

Android fanbois will talk about like the javascript benchmark score, the battery capacity in mAH (as opposed to hours of battery life), how big the screen is (even though it can't fit in their pocket), and of course, multi-tasking.

Mah Blackburry is fer biznesss!

 

[Capt Caveman]

This thread is going well.

The OP asks a lot of stupid questions.

 

[Red Storm]

That's b/c Android phones are kind of dumb. Like, iOS fanbois will talk about how elegant and great the experience of iOS is, all the fun apps in it and how useful it is.

Android fanbois will talk about like the javascript benchmark score, the battery capacity in mAH (as opposed to hours of battery life), how big the screen is (even though it can't fit in their pocket), and of course, multi-tasking.

lol

 

[Crono]

This thread is going well.

The OP asks a lot of stupid questions.

I'd rather have stupid questions that at least spark some semi-intelligent replies and discussion than an entirely worthless reply which adds zero value to the conversation, and is out of place anywhere outside of Off Topic.

Speaking hypothetically, of course. :sneaky:

 

[Eug]

Whether Apple had "retina" locked down early is beside the point, as they didn't have all the marketing names in the other specification competitions. It was definitely a more consumer-recognizable name, but in the end it was gadget geeks like all of us who realize more PPI was a good thing... up until a point. Those already looking at high PPI devices usually were already very interested in those devices, whether they were iOS or Android. I doubt a significant percentage of buyers was swayed heavily by PPI alone, though seeing displays in person would/could make a difference.

Well, that was what I was getting at earlier. 468 PPI (non-pentile) is pointless, except for e-peen reasons. <300 is not ideal though.

You can't fault higher PPI devices for simply having higher PPI (even if it's beyond human discernment) , but it's not a good thing if performance suffers because of it. I think the phone manufacturers are slowing down the PPI increases right now since they realize consumers have stopped caring, though.

You can't complain about high PPI per se, but the problem is it becomes a marketing point for no good reason just like camera resolution. Once you are well over 300ish (non-pentile), going higher doesn't help, and other factors such as brightness, black level, contrast, color balance, etc. become much more important.

For example, my ideal phone would probably be around 4.3", and 1280x720, for a PPI of 342. Basically the only reason to go 468 in a 4.7" phone like the HTC One is to be able to advertise 1080p. Sounds good to the uninitiated. However, for that size 1440x810 or something similar would be more than sufficient for example. Fortunately, the HTC One's 1080p 4.7" screen is reportedly a good one, but it's very good NOT because it's 1080p. It's good because of the other factors, but the uninitiated will only see the 1080p marketing blurb.

And as you mention, performance can become an issue. I'd rather have a 350 PPI screen with fast 3D than a 450 PPI screen that struggles in 3D. Battery life can also be impacted.

 

[Super56K]

I wish more flagship phones had taken the Moto X approach this year. That phone runs extremely well - no doubt in large part to not needing to push all those extra pixels. Sure, phone enthusiasts will balk at it on specs alone, but someone trying it out in a store? They would probably be surprised how lean and quick a (near) stock Android phone can run after experiencing Touchwiz and Sense and whatever else over the years.

And for myself, I've found that what makes the biggest difference isn't 720p vs 1080p on 4-5" screens, but the screen type used and the color accuracy (or inaccuracy).

 

[Eug]

I wish more flagship phones had taken the Moto X approach this year. That phone runs extremely well - no doubt in large part to not needing to push all those extra pixels. Sure, phone enthusiasts will balk at it on specs alone, but someone trying it out in a store? They would probably be surprised how lean and quick an Android phone can run after experiencing Touchwiz and Sense and whatever else over the years.

And from my own comparisons between phones - I've found that what makes the biggest difference isn't 720p vs 1080p on 4-5" screens, but the screen type used and the color accuracy (or inaccuracy).

I think one change that might be noticeable with Moto X is that while it is Super AMOLED like my RAZR HD, it's no longer pentile.

The pentile Super AMOLED 4.7" 720p screen' pixel density in my RAZR HD is decent but potentially borderline for some people IMO, since it's pentile. The detail is very good, but I can just make out some colour fringing on it at times. I haven't seen the Moto X's screen, but I suspect that colour fringing wouldn't be anywhere near as noticeable on that screen, despite the fact it has the exact same ppi as mine.

I think Apple got it right by choosing 326 ppi IPS, notwithstanding some outliers with super awesome eyesight. What I'm curious about though is whether this was truly planned by Apple right from the start, or if it just happened to be the "right" ppi by coincidence when Apple chose to quadruple the resolution of the previous iPhones.

 

[openwheel]

Here's how I see it:

1. Apple coins the term "Retina Display," and everyone has eyegasms, without understanding WTF is going on. "WTF is going on" is Apple has a great term from the marketing division to see people non-HD displays in 4" phones for life, because they're too ignorant to know that "Retina" on a 4" phone means 1136x640.
2. All of the competing devices worth a darn take down the "Retina" density (Lumia 920-1020 at 332 ppi, HTC 8X at something like 326, 441 for the S4, 468 ppi for One). Apple basically stops selling the "Retina" advantage on the iPhone, because the thing's been beaten, and ignorant folks have already been sucked into the term and won't listen to reason.

I had to explain to someone a few days ago that "Retina" just meant 326+ ppi, and his saying that the iPhone's display was better than the Lumia 925 because of its "beautiful Retina display" was a statement of hogwash. People really just take whatever catchy term Apple's marketing firm poops out, and they latch on for dear life. It's why Windows Phone's had a tough time growing, I think--they try too hard to point out legitimate advantages, instead of just acting all hipster-ish and using cheap tricks to get attention.

Exactly, isn't marketing a wonderful magic trick?

 

[MrX8503]

I had to explain to someone a few days ago that "Retina" just meant 326+ ppi, and his saying that the iPhone's display was better than the Lumia 925 because of its "beautiful Retina display" was a statement of hogwash. People really just take whatever catchy term Apple's marketing firm poops out, and they latch on for dear life. It's why Windows Phone's had a tough time growing, I think--they try too hard to point out legitimate advantages, instead of just acting all hipster-ish and using cheap tricks to get attention.

If he has the iPhone 5, it does have one of the best displays, but not because of its ppi. So your friend got that part wrong.

Exactly, isn't marketing a wonderful magic trick?

Apple's marketing budget is chump change compared to Samsung.

 

[jpeyton]

This thread is idiotic comment after idiotic comment. Sigh.

Android phones didn't jump from 720p to 1080p just for increased pixel density. It's about standards, and consolidating Android around a small handful of widely compatible media-consumption-oriented resolutions.

1920x1080p? Your TV has it. Your computer monitor has it. Your tablet has it. Your phone has it, too. If Google can push Android onto each of these devices (Chromecast, Chrome OS, etc.), your apps/games will look great across all of your screens. You could download a single 1080p digital copy of a movie and enjoy it on all your screens at full quality. Any game you play will have the same FOV on all your devices.

If anyone is an outlier, it's Apple with all it's non-standard, haphazard resolutions. 960x640? 480x320? Oh wait, 3.5" wasn't the "magic" size, let's try...1136x640? 2048x1536? It's a fun multiplication game, but widescreen movies look like ass on an iPad, and iPhones only jumped on the 16:9 bandwagon a year ago (scaled down no less).

 

[Crono]

edit: forget it, not worth it

 

[MrX8503]

This thread is idiotic comment after idiotic comment. Sigh.

Android phones didn't jump from 720p to 1080p just for increased pixel density. It's about standards, and consolidating Android around a small handful of widely compatible media-consumption-oriented resolutions.

1920x1080p? Your TV has it. Your computer monitor has it. Your tablet has it. Your phone has it, too. If Google can push Android onto each of these devices (Chromecast, Chrome OS, etc.), your apps/games will look great across all of your screens. You could download a single 1080p digital copy of a movie and enjoy it on all your screens at full quality. Any game you play will have the same FOV on all your devices.

I've never heard of that theory and I would disagree. The PPI increase is a numbers game and just plain tech advancement. I doubt it has anything to do with unifying resolutions especially when Android is res independent.

If anyone is an outlier, it's Apple with all it's non-standard, haphazard resolutions. 960x640? 480x320? Oh wait, 3.5" wasn't the "magic" size, let's try...1136x640? 2048x1536? It's a fun multiplication game, but widescreen movies look like ass on an iPad, and iPhones only jumped on the 16:9 bandwagon a year ago (scaled down no less).

I prefer the tablets to be more square and it seems like a lot of people do too.

 

[lopri]

I don't believe PPI is that big of an importance at current stage. And it's difficult to go beyond 1080p on a phone, regardless of screen size. I personally feel OK for 250-ish PPI, though 300+ PPI is better.

There is also a language factor. Some languages seem fare better w/ lower PPI and others (Arabic? Chinese?) benefit greatly with higher PPI.

 

[Eug]

This thread is idiotic comment after idiotic comment. Sigh.

Android phones didn't jump from 720p to 1080p just for increased pixel density. It's about standards, and consolidating Android around a small handful of widely compatible media-consumption-oriented resolutions.

This argument doesn't really make a lot of sense. Arguably, having lower-than-1080p screen resolutions is smarter to use on phones, because for video downscaling from 1080p is not an issue, and for 3D graphics, it's actually a big benefit because it means higher frame rates (and lower power utilization).

Furthermore, if your consolidation argument were true, then you wouldn't have both 1280x800 and 1280x720 as Android phone resolutions, for example.

 

[Sheep221]

1080P is marketing, using it on everything else than desktop screen and probably 17 inch laptop is useless, the pixel density on such a small area as 4 inch phone screen will give you same detail loss as using screen with regular 320x480 and 1280x800 respectively. You just don't see the details of HD video on small HD screen despite the resolution because our eyes can't focus on such a small place effectively.