> 6.7" 1600x720

It's probably usable, but dips down below what even extra-cheap Xiaomis and such offer. I really want to see a Linux phone's specsheet that's even a little competitive.

▲

Aachen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've always considered it a benefit if they don't spend needless money and waste my battery life on rendering more pixels than I'll ever see.

My eyesight hasn't gotten better and as a teenager the 720p pixel density of the phablet called Galaxy Note 2 was already smaller than I can make out during normal use (i.e. not if I'm actively trying to see if I can make them out)

But sure, higher number sells better, no matter if this actually makes any difference to anyone

	▲	zamadatix an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If it were just that "higher number sells better" reasoning then it wouldn't make sense the density increases had a pretty hard stop after ~2014. Same with why 8k TV hype died down but 4k TV became mainstream - it's about the genuine limit for a typical person at typical TV viewing distance unless they have an absolutely massive TV. I always thought Samsung had a clever approach with a toggle to just render at the lower resolution if you wanted the lower rendering load. Then you still only need to develop 1 cutting edge screen with all of the latest improvements but it will please both use cases well as the cost overhead of shipping models 2 separate screens would.

▲

nine_k an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is approximately 240 dpi, on par with MacBook retina display's DPI. Should be fine, unless you want to use a magnifying glass.

▲

zamadatix an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree it won't be awful by any means, but it's relatively meaningless to directly compare DPIs of screens which have different typical viewing distances.

	▲	nine_k an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How much different? To me it's approximately the same, a the length of a semi-stretched arm.