Why are you comparing phones from 2015 and 2013 to Apple marketing from 2010? The competition absolutely did catch up eventually. And if the Sharp ISO3 is the best example you can come up with from 2010, then I disagree with your claim entirely. A single, low volume halo device is not comparable to a mainstream device that sold in the millions.
The 2010 Galaxy S had a 233 PPI display compared to the 326 PPI that Apple marketed as "Retina". The 2011 Galaxy II actually regressed slightly to a 217 PPI display. These were both PenTile displays, so their effective PPI was definitely noticeably lower than the paper specs would suggest.
Even in 2012 with the Galaxy III, Samsung's mainstream flagship reached 306 PPI, which is still less than 326, but it would be roughly comparable if not for the compromised PenTile subpixel arrangement that means it didn't even have 306 PPI of clarity, nowhere near as good as a 306 PPI traditional LCD in terms of clarity.
By 2013 with the Galaxy S4, Samsung finally exceeded 326PPI with their 441 PPI display... on paper, but this was still a SAMOLED screen with a PenTile arrangement, but it was probably comparable with the 326 PPI of the iPhone 4.
The 2013 HTC One (M7) actually did have a 468 PPI Super LCD screen, which was impressively sharp, but still years later than the iPhone 4.
It took several years for the mainstream competition to catch up to Apple's retina displays. Apple was miles ahead of everything else. And I say this as someone who was an Android user until the iPhone X! I was not an iPhone user, but I could easily see how much better the pixel density was on iPhone 4 and for several years after that. As with most things, there are diminishing returns, and having a 20,000 PPI display next to a 500 PPI display is going to be completely unnoticeable. 326 "real" PPI is an excellent level of clarity, and I don't see much (if any) advantage to going past the ~450 PenTile PPI (whatever that works out to in real PPI) that we have on a lot of mainstream smartphones today.
Maybe you fell for the marketing hype of PenTile displays that were claiming higher PPIs than they actually had?
I remember getting my iPhone 4 and just sitting there on the couch staring at the home screen for a good 20 minutes, in awe of just how sharp the image was.
I compare apples to oranges. At the time apple came up with this marketing term, other manufacturers started increasing the display size of the devices making them more usable for their users. When apple decided to do that 2-3 years later, the high dpi offering started making sense but it had already convinced you of the "retina milea ahead" technology kn a 3.5 inch device
So, yes new tech is extremely cool, doesn’t always mean it makes sense/provides any benefit in practice.
It was night and day difference compared to similar 2010 smartphones. Maybe you don’t care about PPI, and that’s fine, but it absolutely did provide benefits to the users in practice.
That is a pointless question. Why do you call them Apple iPhones when they’re made by Foxconn?
Apple has not made displays in decades, if ever. They still contract the design to meet their specifications, and then market and sell those displays that they were involved with. That makes them Apple displays for marketing purposes.
These days, Apple sources displays from multiple manufacturers, but they end up being nearly indistinguishable because Apple was deeply involved in the design and manufacture.
It's not when you're talking about a technological lead. They didn't even make these displays or come up with the technology for them, they just paid for the exclusive right for them for a certain period of time.
It’s a distinction without difference as far as the market is concerned. Your question was just flamebait. If other manufacturers saw how important this would be, and if Apple had zero involvement with the display development as you claim, then those other manufacturers should have bought exclusivity first.
Instead, I’m sure Apple was involved in the design and development. It’s not a coincidence that the display just happened to exactly quadruple the resolution of the iPhone’s previous display while maintaining the exact same size.
Either way, nothing useful can come from this topic diversion.
The 2010 Galaxy S had a 233 PPI display compared to the 326 PPI that Apple marketed as "Retina". The 2011 Galaxy II actually regressed slightly to a 217 PPI display. These were both PenTile displays, so their effective PPI was definitely noticeably lower than the paper specs would suggest.
Even in 2012 with the Galaxy III, Samsung's mainstream flagship reached 306 PPI, which is still less than 326, but it would be roughly comparable if not for the compromised PenTile subpixel arrangement that means it didn't even have 306 PPI of clarity, nowhere near as good as a 306 PPI traditional LCD in terms of clarity.
By 2013 with the Galaxy S4, Samsung finally exceeded 326PPI with their 441 PPI display... on paper, but this was still a SAMOLED screen with a PenTile arrangement, but it was probably comparable with the 326 PPI of the iPhone 4.
The 2013 HTC One (M7) actually did have a 468 PPI Super LCD screen, which was impressively sharp, but still years later than the iPhone 4.
It took several years for the mainstream competition to catch up to Apple's retina displays. Apple was miles ahead of everything else. And I say this as someone who was an Android user until the iPhone X! I was not an iPhone user, but I could easily see how much better the pixel density was on iPhone 4 and for several years after that. As with most things, there are diminishing returns, and having a 20,000 PPI display next to a 500 PPI display is going to be completely unnoticeable. 326 "real" PPI is an excellent level of clarity, and I don't see much (if any) advantage to going past the ~450 PenTile PPI (whatever that works out to in real PPI) that we have on a lot of mainstream smartphones today.
Maybe you fell for the marketing hype of PenTile displays that were claiming higher PPIs than they actually had?