[citation][nom]army_ant7[/nom]Now, I'm no Apple fan but I'm no brand name hater either. The pixel density Apple has achieved was sufficient for most people as I've read, and when I see screens that boast this much DPI, I already wonder, to what purpose? Unless you're one of those people with super-acute vision that could still supposedly "see through" the Apple's Retina Display, then maybe screens like these with really high DPI would be for you, but if not, I feel like you'd just be using a phone that's unnecessarily doing extra processing for that resolution to no avail.Now, the question is, does it even need to be 720p or up? Maybe you could've complained that their screen isn't big enough (which would mean other products may better suit your needs), but having a higher resolution for the sake of having a higher resolution? Come on now...Here's an interesting read, BTW: www.blogs.discovermagazine.com/bad [...] esolution/[/citation]
First Apple didn't achieve any kind of pixel density because the display it's not theirs.They buy them from LG and Samsung. Also the iPhone was never the phone with the highest ppi. The iPhone 4 was launched in 2010 with a 326ppi display, LG in 2008 had the LU1400 with a 333 ppi display. Perhaps this is why Apple chose a LG display in the iPhone 4.
According to Jobs himself, the requirement for a phone display to be a retina display if for it to have a pixel density higher than 300ppi. In 2008 Sony Ericsson had the X1 with 311 ppi. Even earlier than that, and I think it was the first "retina display", in 2007 Toshiba had Portege G900 also with 311ppi.
The only thing Apple was first, is to name this kind of display successfully (Toshiba called it Print Quality display).