I’m super nearsighted and I often use my devices with my glasses off, with my face basically inches from the screen. So you are arguing there is literally no point of diminishing returns on PPI, we need 800+ PPI displays because that’s necessary. The plus devices I use have 401 PPI and even with my face super wedged up in there because I am blind as a fucking bat without my glasses, I really can’t see pixels.
I 100% agree that
for VR you need 800+ PPI because you’re magnifying the screen from directly in front of your eye, literally strapped to your face.
a brand new OLED screen is going to outclass the best LCDs, but it took a few years for OLEDs to get to where they needed to be.
Also hey look Google Pixel, those prices sure do look similar to the iPhone, except for 1/2 to 1/3 the internal SoC performance.
In fact, it does, on the web. Let’s look at some webpage load times for CNN:
Yes, this. The whole thing is an affront to the history of computing, where we expect devices to get faster and cheaper every year – and smartphones are the last exciting frontier where we actually get huge gains every year. Qualcomm is taking a giant stinky monopoly style dump on what was our last fun hurrah party in computing:
Mainframes → Minicomputers → Microcomputers → Laptops → Smartphones
(I guess maybe watches could be next? Hard to get excited about watches for me personally, though.)
Yes, there are clearly points of diminishing return, as we’ve seen on desktop, and it is likely Apple is starting to hit them. But Qualcomm is so far behind, and Android is in trillions of devices. We need more competition here, something that can actually innovate and keep up on the CPU side.