Hacker News Reader

Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

Apple have always been the first to push higher resolution devices for as long as I've been alive.

Laptops in the early 2010's were stuck on 1336x768 until Apple kicked up a fuss about having "retina", same with phones which had comically low resolutions until Apple made a fuss about it with the iPhone 4.

Sadly my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I can't make a lot of use of the extra real-estate, but it always seems as if they're ahead when it comes to resolutions on consumer devices.

View on HN

The ThinkPad R50p had a QXGA screen (2048x1536) option back in 2003. Granted Windows had zilch support for it which is probably why it died. Even the base model was a 1600x1200 screen. And there was plenty of phones with 200+ ppi before the iPhone 4. I think it has more to do with higher PPI screens getting cheaper and Apple could just get more supply first...

That was an extreme outlier, the r-series is an uncommonly deployed thinkpad line.

Check the t- or x- series which are many many orders of magnitude wider deployed.

You could get a 1600x1200 T60p too...

Which also had higher resolution than macbooks.

Random cheapo laptop: 1366x.. One better: apple Even better: higher priced laptop had 1920x.... Oh, and those had IPS displays unlike apple with (halfway decent) TN panels.

So everybody else pushed, then apple not only caught up but jumped ahead. And now they are again behind with 3k vs 4k and 5k vs 8k and miniled vs oled with the same order: cheap < apple < expensive.

Same for the macbook air/ultrabook form factor: Invented by Sony but only got popular once apple jumped on the train years later.

Apple is really good at "sherlocking" and getting out a polished/well-integrated version of something that has been around for years and making it popular.

Remember that it’s more than just raw resolution.

Of course macOS supports these higher resolutions but there’s also the color calibration and support for wider color gamuts other than sRGB and having that all integrated together.

For example, the iMac had Display P3 (a color space 50% bigger than RGB) support starting in 2015.

And Apple still hasn't shipped a laptop with a higher refresh rate than 120hz when competitors have been shipping 144 or even 240hz for years (A 100% bigger value than 120hz!).

Is there any evidence that such high refresh rates provide any value, or are even detectable by human eyes?

In games with fast motion, 120hz vs 240hz is easily perceptible (outside first person shooters it’s not good to provide much value). I would be fine with 120hz for desktop work, but 60hz displays has been a gripe of mine about Macs for a long time. 120+hz was available on CRTs 25 years ago…

I can see benefits even while scrolling a webpage or moving windows around. It's very confortable.

This been said, I can remember CRTs at 60hz with side scrollers and demos at 60fps with perfect image stability while scrolling. You could read tiny texts scrolling up and down perfectly. This is not the case anymore with LCD panels...

Try to read a webpage while scrolling, impossible.

60hz or 120hz I would pay for a stable image in motion. It would bring tremendous confort.

Yes, blind tests have shown that users are easily able to discern between 60 vs 144hz.

This isn't really contested anywhere.

I know this isn't what you mean.. but I'm imagining someone blindfolded in a research lab testing this out...

Blindfolded person: "I can't see a difference!"

IMAX did tests back in the day with footage of a baseball being pitched directly at the camera. They found that the intensity of emotional response tailed off after 60hz. It's not that the higher frame rate isn't perceptible, but that raising the frame rate doesn't really have any appreciable impact unless people expect higher frame rates.

There's a notable difference between passively consumed content and interactive content.

We're fine with 24FPS for films and tv shows, but try that for an FPS and it's considered nigh unplayable. I remember when the line was "the human eye can't see past 30FPS" now it's at 60. The treadmill keeps going.

Apple doesn't ship stuff just because it's available; there has to be some appreciable value.

Faster refresh doesn't necessarily mean a better display. I suspect Apple's displays are higher quality than most competitors even if they max out at 120Hz.

Here are the specs for the latest MacBook Pros:

    16.2-inch (diagonal) Liquid Retina XDR display;1 3456-by-2234 native 
    resolution at 254 pixels per inch
 
    XDR (Extreme Dynamic Range)

    1,000,000:1 contrast ratio
    XDR brightness: 1000 nits sustained full-screen, 1600 nits peak2 (HDR content only)
    SDR brightness: 500 nits


    1 billion colors
    Wide color (P3)
    True Tone technology
    Refresh rates

    ProMotion technology for adaptive refresh rates up to 120Hz
    Fixed refresh rates: 47.95Hz, 48.00Hz, 50.00Hz, 59.94Hz, 60.00Hz

120hz is slow technology but those MBP displays are around the best you can get when you look the whole picture, notch aside.

Exactly. You can't just look at one aspect.

> Sadly my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I can't make a lot of use of the extra real-estate, but it always seems as if they're ahead when it comes to resolutions on consumer devices.

With proper 2x scaling as intended by Apple there is no extra screen real-estate. 5k at 2x scaling gives you the real-estate of a 2560 x 1440 display, just with a doubled pixel density and thus much sharper. This is the actual value of HiDPI display.

I bought a mac during this period and I have a distinct memory of having to choose between a 1080p laptop or a much lower resolution mac. MBPr has a leap forwards but I mean laptops that WEREN'T Apple's at Apple's price range had already moved on from 1336x768.

Cheap laptops, maybe. I had a Dell 15" that did 1920x1200 in 2004. (And gawd that was an amazing computer)

Ahh, you nerd swiped me. I was involved in a hi rez phone before the iphone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N80

Hey, we probably worked together.

352 × 416 pixels at 2.1" is about 259 pixels per inch.

When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye.

So, not far off at all, you're right.

Dell's 6 year old 8k UP3218 has entered the chat

That sucker costs $3770, just as a data point.

The Apple monitor stand was over a thousand, wasn't it?

Has this monitor's price been announced?

$1599.

Of course the price was announced; the base model is $1599: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-studio-display

> The Apple monitor stand was over a thousand, wasn't it?

the Pro stand is $999 or VESA Mount Adapter is $199.

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/pro-display-xdr/standard-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com