It really is, thanks for bringing this up. I don't know if it's just me but most of the work I do (reading/programming/pcd design) just seems to work best fullscreen on 4:3 or similar ratios. When LCDs weren't mainstream yet you could rather easily get monitors with nice and comfortable (imo) 4:3 resolutions up to 1600x1200. Then came LCDs and the trend shortly continued (though initially at lower resolutions IIRC). Then out of nowhere (?1) came the HD trend and it became a struggle to find non-wide monitors and/or monitors with at least some vertical resolution to work with (seriously what was I supposed to do with 1024 pixels vertically?). Saddest thing is that when the average laptop/pc screen user isn't watching movies he/she is probably browsing a website. Which is the exact opposite of the screen ratio: high and small. And everywhere around the world scroll mouses were being scrolled more..
(1) I really don't know where this came from. Just pushed by the movie industrie? Seems far fetched. Screen producers? They were fine with creating 4:3 LCDs for a while so can't really be that either. Or one of the reasons is maybe that because laptops became more and more popula and due to the keyboard it it makes no sense having a non-wide screen on them?
And yes it does suck, but nice 16:10 aspect panels are still around, just a bit pricey.
[1] https://www.walmart.com/ip/RCA-DECG13DR-13.3-720p-60Hz-LED-H...
Inspired branding from Apple
So Apple's screen is "good enough" in resolution, but uses significantly less battery. And as I understand it, has top-end color reproduction and gamut range.
No, 'Retina' means that the pixel density exceeds what the eye can distinguish at the expected viewing distance.
IMO, it's a much smarter way to market than 1080p, 4k, 5k, etc. since it has real meaning to the consumer instead of chasing what may be arbitrary specs.