xander0985

Based on our math, at a viewing distance of about 25 inches or more, this still would quality as a Retina display. It isn't labeled as such purely because Apple only leverages it for products it co-develops such as its line of LG UltraFine displays sold in Apple Stores or its own products.

Andrew, at what resolution are you running this monitor? Like other 4K displays, I suspect that this display can be run at a native 3840x2160 resolution, a native HiDPI (1080p @ 2x), or scaled HiDPI resolutions in between. I think referring to Retina as "purely a marketing term" misses the point that Apple's "Retina" displays run in @2x (or @3x for OLED iPhones) HiDPI modes of base resolutions. Your review concludes that the display "meets Retina standards" which I think is a disservice to your readers, who might purchase this display and wonder why it doesn't look like the Retina displays in their MacBook or iMac. Any display will have indiscernible pixels if you're far enough away from it; what is on the screen must also be legible. For a 32" 4k display, my guess is you're running at native 3840x2160 as the 1080p @2x HiDPI would be comically large on a desk. This can lead to some pretty tiny UI elements (as can bee seen in in the picture under the heading, "It's all about those ergonomics") and text rendering will absolutely not be as smooth as on the displays of current Macs.

For comparison, the 27" Retina iMac has a resolution of 5120x2880 pixels, or almost twice as many pixels (1.78x) as this LG display. And not only does this 32-inch display have fewer pixels, they are also distributed on on an area that is 40% larger. The iMac's is a "Retina" display. This is not. An even better comparison is Apple's Pro Display XDR, which, like this display, is 32-inches. It has a resolution of 6016x3384, or 2.45x as many pixels as this display. That is a "Retina" display. This is not.

AppleInsider said:

With its A14 Bionic processor, compared to the 11-inch iPad Pro's A12Z Bionic, there is more power in the new iPad Air.

That is likely not the case. The A12Z has four high-performance cores to the A14's two, and eight GPU cores to the A14's four. I'd expect better single-core performance from the Air, but the Pro is likely to be more performant in multi-core and GPU applications. This is the second comparison article from Apple Insider that failed to point out these differences. If I were in the market, I would certainly hold out for an iPad Pro update to A14-class chips, but I don't think one can presume that the Air is more powerful than the Pro given the information that we have.

"Most people, won't rightly care or notice this aspect." I disagree. An external power supply complicates on-wall installations, and adds significant clutter to an AV setup. While people may not use the power supply as a criterion when shopping for a new TV, they will notice it contributing to the cable rats nests and very well may care… but it will be too late. They also might care when they move and can't find the power supply. I may not be most people, but I strongly prefer electronics with internal power supplies.

That said, I wonder if external power supplies are effective in keeping TVs and monitors in service longer as it's much easier to replace an external power brick than to source and replace an internal power supply.

The YouTube embed in this article is incorrect and shows the iPhone 12 vs 11. The iPhone 12 mini video can be found at: https://youtu.be/90JIZCYa6Q4
Edit: The 12 mini video is now showing as private. Guess we'll have to wait a couple more weeks after all.

The iPhone event was called "Hi, Speed" not "It's Speed".