besides the fact that "retina display" is a marketing term invented by Apple, I don't really see what the big deal is. I have pretty good vision and I don't notice individual pixels on my 1080p screen. More pixels means more load on the GPU.
I was also fine with lower resolutions for years because that was the only option. After using high-DPI displays for a couple years, I can't stand working on old low-DPI monitors for long periods of time. It's similar to how we were all happy with our mechanical HDD computers for years, but after using an SSD-based machine for a few months you can never go back to slow HDD-based machines.
It's not about seeing individual pixels. It's about the text clarity and reduced fatigue after reading text all day.
As for hard drives vs SSDs, I can hardly notice the difference in read/write speeds day-to-day. I merely use an SSD because it is more durable in the situation that I drop my laptop.
Of course I can _see_ the difference. The MBP looks really nice. But when I sit down to code or watch a movie on the MBA, I have pretty much the same experience as I do on my work machine.
The difference in resolution is immediately obvious, but once I start working I forget that the displays have a different resolution.
Things like aspect ratio are much more important, and I think that 3:2 is the best aspect ratio for work. 16:9 and even 16:10 has always felt a bit cramped in the vertical, 3:2 feels perfect.
1080p doesn't mean much if you leave out the screen's pixel density. There's a world of difference between a smartphone with a 5' 1080p screen and a 24' monitor with a 1080p screen.
It's like arguing whether or not macbooks are "ultrabooks". Choosing to discuss using these terms is ultimately just allowing these companies to arbitrarily control discussions. I think we should try to resist corporate capture of language when possible.
Consider the context of the parent comment. If I can barely notice individual pixels on my 1080p monitor with good vision at a normal viewing distance, then surely the difference between a 4K screen and a 2K screen can't be that noticeable, even to a professional artist (who probably has more ideal viewing conditions, a more trained eye, and lower viewing distance).
Looking at apple's website, their MacBook Air (which I assume is their main model?) has a "retina" resolution of 2560x1600 with a 13.3' display, whereas the framework has a resolution of 2256x1504 with a 13.5' display. So they are about the same, except that one is marketed as "Retina" and one is not.
From your claim, the MacBook Air has simultaneously a smaller display and a significanly higher pixel count: over 20% more pixels than Framework's display in a smaller area.
You might try to argue that the difference is not meaningful or important to you personaly, but they are far from "being the same".
For a 24" 1080p monitor in typical desktop configuration I get screen-door-effect. I can clearly see the black grid lines between pixels.
Also, if you can see aliasing/stair-stepping on this test then your eyes could benefit from higher resolution:
https://www.testufo.com/aliasing-visibility#foreground=fffff...
> I have pretty good vision
My vision is terrible. Maybe the relationship works the other way around?
Edit: If I was an artist or something I might care about resolution or color accuracy.
Color accuracy is super important to me whenever I need to design something on the frontend side of things. High resolution is important too because I'm working with my screens. That means that I stare many hours per day in the display. Life is too short for shitty hardware and most professionals in our industry or their companies can definitely afford it.