HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why aren’t there more third party retina screens?

47 points by fideloper ↗ HN
Retina screens have been around for something like 8 years, but there’s seemingly only one non-Apple retina screen that exists.

Is there a technical reason for this? Or is it logistical? Surely there’s demand for it, not everyone is buying screens for gaming.

40 comments

[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] thread
giuliomagnifico
I wonder the same, I can only speculate that Apple has bought all the LG 27 5K panels, or it has signed a contract to prevent LG from selling these panels to other brands.
arunnanda
There are. It is a branding and trademark issue.

The point of a retina display is to have a higher pixel density than the human eye can distinguish (at a certain distance).

There are many displays that have far higher pixel density than the iPhone.

According to the list here https://pixensity.com/list/phone/ there are/were at least 40+ non-Apple phones with higher ppi than the iPhone X

heyhemp
I think OP was talking about desktop displays. AFAIK, there is currently only 1 non-Apple branded "Retina" (~218 PPI) desktop display on the market.
arunnanda
Check https://www.sven.de/dpi/

All of the 8K displays have a higher ppi than the Apple 5K display (215 ppi).

tragictrash
But it's not a retina display until apple signs off on it. I don't think most manufacturers are going to think the ROI on the time/effort/money is worth it.

Fun fact, apple gets a cut when you buy any MFI certified chargers or cables.

netizen-936824
Would you also say there are no other smartphones on the market if apple had to sign off on approvals? That's the same thing as you're saying here. The panels have a greater DPI than what apple calls "retina"

Just because apple doesn't call it something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that's patently absurd

Retina is just a trademark, nothing more

tragictrash
Correct, its a trademark owned by apple. Apple has to sign off on anything using it. And until apple does that, its not a retina display. That's how brands/trademarks work, right?. Its just a label. Isn't that what I said in my original post?

It seems like you are reading words I didn't write. That's patently absurd!

netizen-936824
So why is it the trademark that matters rather than the function/specs of the panel. Which part is actually important for how the product gets used?
tragictrash
It's not.

> AFAIK, there is currently only 1 non-Apple branded "Retina" (~218 PPI) desktop display on the market.

> Ask HN: Why aren’t there more third party retina screens?

That's what I was responding to. Great job.

finiteseries
I only see 1x 8k display listed there, and it’s also the sole 8k monitor commercially available right now AFAICT?
arunnanda
Yeah there are a couple of 8K ones. The one which is called a prototype (from Japan Display Inc) on that page was already released.

Check also the list here https://pixensity.com/list/desktop/

The 5K Apple display has around 215ppi. There are 5-6 displays with higher ppi than the one from Apple.

reacharavindh
Yeah. It’s been a long wait with no end in sight. It seems like all monitor manufacturers care about are gamers or media consumers with their high refresh rate low res displays :-(

I wish for an iMac display without the Mac… to be used as a dumb monitor. I’m going to pull the trigger on the studio display Apple released yesterday after reading initial reviews.

matthijs
I was hoping for a more affordable 6K 32 (or 30) inch monitor but I'm afraid that won't happen anytime soon.
martinald
I agree, I would really like an ultrawide monitor but they all seem to be 1440p max. The resolution to me looks pretty terrible after years of retina or 4k monitors.
dragonwriter
> I would really like an ultrawide monitor but they all seem to be 1440p max.

There are 2160p (5K rather than 4K, because aspect ratio) ultrawides, e.g.:

https://www.adorama.com/lot34wk95uw.html

bradknowles
At $1500, I think I'd prefer to buy the new 5K monitor that Apple just announced for that same price.
runjake
Retina is an Apple trademark for a Hi-DPI screen that supports a certain pixel density (PPI) that they dictate.

There are several third-party Hi-DPI displays that meet or exceed the lowest pixel density that Apple calls "Retina".

As another commenter mentioned, use https://www.sven.de/dpi/ and go find a monitor with that resolution and screen size. If you figure around 215 ppi or so, you should be golden.

Be aware that there's more difference than you'd think between relative minor pixel density differences, eg 180 PPI and 218 PPI.

layer8
> There are several third-party Hi-DPI displays

I believe there are only very few above ~185 PPI (24" 4K) like Apple’s 27" 5K, except for the LG one and Dell’s 32" 8K. (Oh, and there’s Microsoft’s Surface Studio with 28" 4500 x 3000 at 192 PPI.) So for PPI > 200 the question is justified.

dragonwriter
https://pixensity.com/list/desktop/

Apple’s got the biggest Hi-DPI monitors, but not the highest DPI.

layer8
Thanks for the link, but the only monitor in that list with higher DPI than Apple's offerings (218 PPI) is the Dell UP3218K (280 PPI) that I already mentioned. All of the 27" 5K (218 PPI) use the same panels from LG. Next (I'm ignoring the IBM and Viewsonic models from 2001/2002) there's the Microsoft Surface Studio at 192 DPI that I also mentioned, and next are 24" 4K models at 185 PPI. Next again are the models at 163 PPI. Again, above 200 PPI there's only the few 27" 5K models from LG and Apple, and the single Dell 24" 8K.
codedokode
Yes, I also noticed that while modern monitors tend to become larger, they still have the same 0.3 or 0.2 mm pitch (80-120 dpi) as many years ago. Even on cheap smartphones the text looks better than on monitors.
bartvk
Apple their 24" screens have a 4K resolution, their 27" screens have a 5K resolution and their 32" screens have a 6K resolution. That's really quite ideal, it's about 215-220 PPI.

Outside of those, I found the same as OP -- really no good retina screens, and I just don't know the reason. I've been trying some 4K screens at 32" which size-wise is perfect to me, but resolution-wise actually bad. You either set it to native 4K and everything is too small, you set it to "retina @2x" and it's too large, and anything in-between is blurry.

In the end, I gave up and found a 43" screen which I run at a native 4K, which means a PPI of about 102. It's better to get a 40" screen but these screens are old stock.

Here in The Netherlands, there's a great site to compare hardware. When selecting monitors, and filtering for PPI higher than 170, you get basically only Apple, or else the Dell UltraSharp UP3218K that has a ridiculous 280 PPI.

MonaroVXR
Tweakers.net and Hardware.info don't show all the available hardware.
bartvk
It would really help if you pointed to the missing monitor(s) in question.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
endisneigh
LG makes 24” 4K monitors and 27” 5K. What are you looking for?
krnlpnc
Another brand
copperx
Dell has a 24" 4k display. I have it. It's decent, but the anti reflection coating can be seen on white background as a moire pattern. I hate that, although nobody else that I've showed the monitor to can see it.

Acer also sells a 24" 4k.

adrianmsmith
Do LG make a 27” 5K? They used to, but I thought they’d discontinued it.
teatree
AFAIK, LG's 5K monitors are their UltraFine series which have very bad reviews from actual buyers.
layer8
My guess is that high-PPI monitor panels have lower yield (more pixels per panel that can be damaged) and need dedicated production lines, so it requires some economics of scale to be viable, and it’s just not quite there for desktop monitors. Limitations on the bandwidth of integrated CPU graphics and connection standards may also play a role, although those are improving.

I’d love to have (say) a 30" 6480 x 4320 (~260 PPI), but that would be almost twice the pixels of 5K and over three times the pixels of 4K.

csdvrx
There are quite a few if you know what to look for.

Ex: a 4k in 15 inch format: https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-Consol...

About 300 dpi, so about 33% better than Apple's retina brand.

Plug the numbers in https://www.sven.de/dpi/ and you get:

> Display size: 12.98" × 8.65" = 112.32in² (32.97cm × 21.98cm = 724.64cm²) at 295.84 PPI, 0.0859mm dot pitch, 87521 PPI²

Actually, it's far better than a retina display: OLED is something not available on macbooks

I have a few, they're a pleasure to use. And I love the integrated battery to travel with a dual screen setup with just a USB-C cable and my laptop!

vsskanth
I guess the non-gamer external monitor customers are really small in comparison. Maybe they just make do with their laptops.

I also am guessing the tech to support hi-res external monitors still isn't there in a $1000 consumer laptop. I use workstation grade laptops with an external gpu which can support at most 2 24" 4k monitors. I am however unable to find any 4k monitors in that size these days.

27" 5K support on windows is hit or miss, maybe Intel 12th Gen and thunderbolt standards normalize support.

monkeycantype
'retina' is also a function of how far you are from the screen and how good your eyesight is.

A cheap 4k screen on the wall behind my desk is retina enough for me.

CobaltFire
I had the same thought and used a 3440x1440 for my desktop until life forced me to have a smaller desk.

I'm now using a Arzopa 13.3" 2560x1600 13.3" (227 PPI) from amazon [0] that's been absolutely amazing. 60Hz, 99% sRGB (calibrated), has functional speakers, and gets plenty bright enough. Is also powered easily off of a spare USB port.

It's not full desktop size but I honestly think for the ~$150 I paid getting 2-3 of these is now my default answer. I should probably put two in portrait mode as the plugs are on the side to keep the screens very thin.

I know that's not the normal answer but I'm pretty sold on this.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Arzopa-2K-External-Speakers/...

wellthisisgreat
Any High PPI screens with 75-120hz refresh rate?

I would love a 4K 24” 144hz screen

der-manu
I once found a big wiki like list of several thousand screens on the market. It was possible to sort by resolution, or price tag, an other metrics. Unfortunately I forgot the link. Maybe the HN crowd could help out.
dexterlagan
My Lenovo X1 Carbon gen 9 has a 14" screen with a resolution of 3840x2400 (16:10 ratio). This comes to 323.45 PPI, way, way beyond retina. In fact it's more 'retina' than any of my Apple gear.
swiftcoder
An awful lot of PC laptop manufacturers have accomplished this by slamming a standard 4K panel into a 14"-16" laptop. While it does exceed the ppi of Apple displays, I've never found it very satisfying - between the short aspect ratio and the questionable handling of high-DPI displays in a lot of Windows applications, it's a bit of a mess.

In practice, Hauwei seems to be about the only manufacturer shipping 3:2 aspect high-DPI displays (which are really, really nice panels).

teatree
It appears Dev and other such productivity users are a byproduct sales category for most display manufacturers. Gamers don't want 4K+ because their GPUs can only handle 1440 at ultra pro max quality, and TV customers are not interested in smaller displays because, you know, what she said.

Looks like we'll have to wait till GPUs can do 4K@120 to enjoy good monitors :)