Actually, what Apple said was (as others have sagely pointed out), 100ppi was the best compromise given 2004 technology.
Can we cut out the silly Apple-bashing on here, please? There are plenty of intelligent criticisms to be made.
Can we cut out the silly Apple-bashing on here, please? There are plenty of intelligent criticisms to be made.
Until today all the desktop monitors Apple sells hover around 100 ppi, whether they are Apple Cinema Displays or iMacs. The resolution of their MacBooks is a bit higher – the 13" and the 15" have 110 ppi, the 17" has 130 ppi – presumably because everyone sits a bit closer to Laptop screens.
Why did Apple pick that resolution and stick with it when it comes to Macs but why didn’t they have any qualms when increasing the iPhone’s resolution? And how does eyestrain figure into this whole discussion?
Solving this riddle will be easy if you don’t think so much about hardware but rather about software.
And here’s the answer: Gur evtug nafjre vf gung Nccyr jba’g trg gurve npg gbtrgure naq BF K vf fgvyy abg lrg erfbyhgvba vaqrcraqrag (hayvxr Jvaqbjf naq Yvahk). Pbafrdhragyl vagresnpr ryrzragf jvyy fuevax naq fuevax nf lbh vapernfr erfbyhgvba. Vg’f abg gur cvkry fvmr gung pnhfrf rlrfgenva, vg’f gur fvmr bs vagresnpr ryrzragf. Nccyr’f vBF vf erfbyhgvba vaqrcraqrag. Vagresnpr ryrzragf jvyy fgnl gur fnzr fvmr.
I realize they meant this and I realize they didn't say it because Apple marketing tries very hard to not confuse users with not-strictly-necessary detail (and to make sufficiently general statements to be as generous to Apple products as possible without being outright misleading, but I digress). But no, they did not say it was the best compromise they could get at the time -- they said it was the absolute best.
edit: can the two downvoters state why they don't feel this correction of a statement regarding what "Apple said" adds to this discussion?