Retina screens have been around for something like 8 years, but there’s seemingly only one non-Apple retina screen that exists.<p>Is there a technical reason for this? Or is it logistical? Surely there’s demand for it, not everyone is buying screens for gaming.
Retina is an Apple trademark for a Hi-DPI screen that supports a certain pixel density (PPI) that they dictate.<p>There are several third-party Hi-DPI displays that meet or exceed the lowest pixel density that Apple calls "Retina".<p>As another commenter mentioned, use <a href="https://www.sven.de/dpi/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sven.de/dpi/</a> and go find a monitor with that resolution and screen size. If you figure around 215 ppi or so, you should be golden.<p>Be aware that there's more difference than you'd think between relative minor pixel density differences, eg 180 PPI and 218 PPI.
There are. It is a branding and trademark issue.<p>The point of a retina display is to have a higher pixel density than the human eye can distinguish (at a certain distance).<p>There are many displays that have far higher pixel density than the iPhone.<p>According to the list here <a href="https://pixensity.com/list/phone/" rel="nofollow">https://pixensity.com/list/phone/</a> there are/were at least 40+ non-Apple phones with higher ppi than the iPhone X
Yeah. It’s been a long wait with no end in sight. It seems like all monitor manufacturers care about are gamers or media consumers with their high refresh rate low res displays :-(<p>I wish for an iMac display without the Mac… to be used as a dumb monitor. I’m going to pull the trigger on the studio display Apple released yesterday after reading initial reviews.
I had the same thought and used a 3440x1440 for my desktop until life forced me to have a smaller desk.<p>I'm now using a Arzopa 13.3" 2560x1600 13.3" (227 PPI) from amazon [0] that's been absolutely amazing. 60Hz, 99% sRGB (calibrated), has functional speakers, and gets plenty bright enough. Is also powered easily off of a spare USB port.<p>It's not full desktop size but I honestly think for the ~$150 I paid getting 2-3 of these is now my default answer. I should probably put two in portrait mode as the plugs are on the side to keep the screens very thin.<p>I know that's not the normal answer but I'm pretty sold on this.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Arzopa-2K-External-Speakers/dp/B099DKQS8C" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Arzopa-2K-External-Speakers/...</a>
There are quite a few if you know what to look for.<p>Ex: a 4k in 15 inch format: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-Consoles/dp/B098NHT123" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-Consol...</a><p>About 300 dpi, so about 33% better than Apple's retina brand.<p>Plug the numbers in <a href="https://www.sven.de/dpi/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sven.de/dpi/</a> and you get:<p>> Display size: 12.98" × 8.65" = 112.32in² (32.97cm × 21.98cm = 724.64cm²) at 295.84 PPI, 0.0859mm dot pitch, 87521 PPI²<p>Actually, it's far better than a retina display: OLED is something not available on macbooks<p>I have a few, they're a pleasure to use. And I love the integrated battery to travel with a dual screen setup with just a USB-C cable and my laptop!
My guess is that high-PPI monitor panels have lower yield (more pixels per panel that can be damaged) and need dedicated production lines, so it requires some economics of scale to be viable, and it’s just not quite there for desktop monitors. Limitations on the bandwidth of integrated CPU graphics and connection standards may also play a role, although those are improving.<p>I’d love to have (say) a 30" 6480 x 4320 (~260 PPI), but that would be almost twice the pixels of 5K and over three times the pixels of 4K.
I guess the non-gamer external monitor customers are really small in comparison. Maybe they just make do with their laptops.<p>I also am guessing the tech to support hi-res external monitors still isn't there in a $1000 consumer laptop. I use workstation grade laptops with an external gpu which can support at most 2 24" 4k monitors. I am however unable to find any 4k monitors in that size these days.<p>27" 5K support on windows is hit or miss, maybe Intel 12th Gen and thunderbolt standards normalize support.
I wonder the same, I can only speculate that Apple has bought all the LG 27 5K panels, or it has signed a contract to prevent LG from selling these panels to other brands.
Apple their 24" screens have a 4K resolution, their 27" screens have a 5K resolution and their 32" screens have a 6K resolution. That's really quite ideal, it's about 215-220 PPI.<p>Outside of those, I found the same as OP -- really no good retina screens, and I just don't know the reason. I've been trying some 4K screens at 32" which size-wise is perfect to me, but resolution-wise actually bad. You either set it to native 4K and everything is too small, you set it to "retina @2x" and it's too large, and anything in-between is blurry.<p>In the end, I gave up and found a 43" screen which I run at a native 4K, which means a PPI of about 102. It's better to get a 40" screen but these screens are old stock.<p>Here in The Netherlands, there's a great site to compare hardware. When selecting monitors, and filtering for PPI higher than 170, you get basically only Apple, or else the Dell UltraSharp UP3218K that has a ridiculous 280 PPI.
Yes, I also noticed that while modern monitors tend to become larger, they still have the same 0.3 or 0.2 mm pitch (80-120 dpi) as many years ago. Even on cheap smartphones the text looks better than on monitors.
It appears Dev and other such productivity users are a byproduct sales category for most display manufacturers. Gamers don't want 4K+ because their GPUs can only handle 1440 at ultra pro max quality, and TV customers are not interested in smaller displays because, you know, what she said.<p>Looks like we'll have to wait till GPUs can do 4K@120 to enjoy good monitors :)
I once found a big wiki like list of several thousand screens on the market. It was possible to sort by resolution, or price tag, an other metrics. Unfortunately I forgot the link. Maybe the HN crowd could help out.
My Lenovo X1 Carbon gen 9 has a 14" screen with a resolution of 3840x2400 (16:10 ratio). This comes to 323.45 PPI, way, way beyond retina. In fact it's more 'retina' than any of my Apple gear.
'retina' is also a function of how far you are from the screen and how good your eyesight is.<p>A cheap 4k screen on the wall behind my desk is retina enough for me.