techconc

About seven years after it introduced Retina displays, Apple began using displays with even higher pixel densities, such as Super Retina on iPhone X with 458 ppi. However, the company didn't explain why it needed to increase resolution beyond what it thought the human eye could perceive.

Maybe it wanted to satisfy that small proportion of people who have vision better than 20/20. Maybe people were holding their iPhones closer to their eyes. Or perhaps it was simply to keep up with Samsung's Galaxy line (if you believe Samsung's marketing).

Overall, good article.  However, you seem to be missing why this pixel density increase was necessary.  This article assumes all pixels are created equal.  They are not. The original claims about Retina display and pixel density were based on standard pixels that each contain an RGB stripe.  When Apple switched to OLED screen with the iPhone X, they moved to a Samsung display which uses Pentile (or Diamond) based pixels.  Pentile pixels don't each contain an RGB color.  They use 1/3 fewer sub pixels.  Why?  It's cheaper to manufacture.  Also, they get to advertise a higher pixel density (higher is better, right?).  However, it was clear that Pentile based displays need a higher resolution.  I can go through the math to explain this, but suffice to say that a Pentile based display REQUIRES higher pixel density in order to achieve the same level of sharpness. 

Edit:  A Pentile display at 458ppi has an effective resolution of 374ppi.    sqrt(458x458x2/3)=374

AppleZulu said:

 ... Apple could either take the short-term hit of releasing a not-ready-for-primetime Apple Maps or hand over a large portion of their iPhone customer data and operating system to their chief rival. If they'd chosen the latter, much of their competitive edge - and their profitability - would now belong to Google.

Again... the Google Maps app that iPhone users had access to prior to Apple Maps was not a full featured turn-by-turn solution that we know today.  It was literally just a map and you could also get a listing of driving directions.  For Apple users, even an "not so perfect" day 1 solution was still better than what they were previously providing their customers.  Sure, they could have sacrificed their user's privacy for an app that was basically a front end for Google's mapping service.  Would that have been better on day 1 for the "new Maps"?  Sure.  Having said that, for all of the complaints, Apple Maps was certainly usable even in 2012 when it debuted.  Most of the complaints were for things like flyover that which showed warped bridges, etc. but that feature didn't even exist yet in Google Maps.   Within 3 to 4 years, Apple was generally on par with Google's Maps (better in some ways, worse in others) and now, there are many that prefer Apple Maps.  

I think Apple's efforts have paid off.  They have a great mapping solution in most parts of the world and they did so without sacrificing their user's privacy.  I respect them for that.  They're also not held hostage to Google's terms and conditions for that service. 

AppleZulu said:

It's pretty clear at this point that the decision to create Apple Maps was based on a lot more than a dispute over turn-by-turn directions. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but what was clear at that point was that mapping and location services were going to be a core function of iOS, not just a standalone app. GPS wasn't even included on iPhone until the 3G model was released. Fairly quickly for Google, location data was becoming one more data goldmine to sell to advertisers, and Apple didn't want iPhone to become an unrestrained sellout of its customers. More importantly, Apple couldn't cede what was rapidly becoming a central function of its device to its primary rival.  So a decision was abruptly made to take a hard turn off the previous course and it took a few iterations to get through the "recalculating" phase. 

I think you need to take history into context here.  Back in the day, it was very common to get directions as a series of instructions.  There were many services out there such as MapQuest, etc. to provide this information.  Yes, standalone GPS devices existed, but that typically wasn't what you had with computers.  Apple's first Maps app was just that, you could find things and get a list of directions on how to get there. 

Meanwhile, Google started putting real GPS based turn-by-turn directions onto their Android devices.  Apple wanted that feature as well. That's when Google laid out the demands to Apple to provide user data in exchange for that level of Maps services.  Apple was very privacy minded and unwilling to do that, so they created their own mapping service.  Whatever rift existed between Apple and Google at time from Google copying Apple was more of a sidebar than the driving decision for Apple to role their own maps service. 

dewme said:

I have not turned ADP on because I have a mix of devices, some with older versions of iOS, macOS, and iPadOS. I’m not sure how ADP handles backward compatibility so I’m not going to do anything that’ll cripple my older devices. 

Yeah, I suspect most of us are in that position... for now.

SHK said:

Yeah, I'm thinking this is not worth the trouble.

It's opt-in and not on by default.  That should eliminate the masses that don't know what they're doing.  This a great feature and I'm glad Apple finally made this move.

gatorguy said:

I expect a flood of problems from new iPhone users next month. IMO they should be strongly advised not to use Advanced Data Protection.  Even for the rest of us I believe overall it will be more of a problem with little to no real benefit if we engage it. An exception would be journalists, activists, high-profile individuals (public figures) and certain business people. For us more common folk it would be creating a headache. But a number of us will do it anyway.

Your phone, your choice.

Support becomes easy... "Hi Apple, I forgot my password.".  "Apple: Do you have ADP turned on?", "Customer: Yes".  "Apple: Sorry, wish I could help".

It's probably not for the average person that doesn't care about their data so much.  For those that do, this is a great thing. 

hmlongco said:

From my perspective, the primary reason that iPad sales are down is that once you have an iPad you're good for quite a few years. The things last forever and that's not much a new model can do that an earlier version can not.

So most people who think they need one, or have a use case for one, already have one and won't need another one for a long, long time.

I also think the M1/M2 Air has moved into the iPad's space as well. Small, lightweight, powerful, a long battery life... and the ability to run many iPad apps.

Agreed.  iPads are great and basically maintenance free.  They seem to last forever.  Honestly, of all 3 device categories (iPhone, iPad and Mac), I enjoy the iPad the most.  It's perfect for media consumption and even does well at gaming.  The iPad is a great class of device.  There are those who "get it" and those who don't.