I don't see anything wrong with that at all. They've created a branding term that allows consumers to get an idea of the sort of pixel density they can expect without having to actually check, should they not want to bother.
If your "visual acuity" is so good that you can see the pixels of a retina-branded display from the intended viewing distance, you might need to be studied for science.
It's not so impossible to spot flaws if you're using worst-case testing scenarios. Which are not worthless because such patterns do actually pop up in real world usage, albeit rarely.
Had one happen to me recently where I was scrolling Spotify, and they do the thing where if you try to scroll past max they will stretch the content.
One of the album covers being stretched had some kind of fine pattern on it that caused a clearly visible shifting/flashing Moiré pattern as it was being stretched.
Wish I could remember what album cover it was now.
Though really it's simple enough: As long as you can still spot a single dark pixel in the middle of an illuminated white screen, the pixels could benefit from being smaller. (Edit: swapped black and white)
The single pixel example is wrong I think, because that’s not how light and eyes work - you can always spot a single point of light, regardless of how small - if it’s bright enough.
Agreed. It is not high resolution as such, but high resolution that the user can relate to - like cannot see the pixel.
Still remember the hard time using Apple newton in a conference vs the palm freely on loan in a Gartner group conference. Palm solved a problem, even though not very Apple … user can input on a small device. I kept it, on top of my newly bought newton.
