I am speaking of the state-of-the-art of 2001 versus today. IBM's 2001-era T220 was pushing 3,840 horizontal pixels for something around $7,000. A massive investment to be sure. But had computer monitor R&D continued unhindered by the taint of "HD", T220-class monitors would have eventually became mainstream and the state-of-the-art would have marched forward still. I would have bought a "T220" in say 2002 or 2003 at $2,000. But the advance of technology seemed to halt and that never became an option for me.
Yes, prices have (mostly) come down. Yes, we have IPS versus TN. Thank goodness. But in terms of the top-tier specification of displays—resolution—we've stagnated and regressed. As others in this thread have pointed out, laptop resolutions in 2001 were higher than they were in ~2011. I don't own Apple products, but I give them credit for ending the tyranny of HD. Thank you, Apple!
Also, prices are not uniformly better, or at least they were not until very recently when some Korean manufacturers decided to shake up the monitor cartel. The consumer high-end in particular had been stuck with 2560x1600 30" monitors at ~$1,100 for about seven years.
Yes, prices have (mostly) come down. Yes, we have IPS versus TN. Thank goodness. But in terms of the top-tier specification of displays—resolution—we've stagnated and regressed. As others in this thread have pointed out, laptop resolutions in 2001 were higher than they were in ~2011. I don't own Apple products, but I give them credit for ending the tyranny of HD. Thank you, Apple!
Also, prices are not uniformly better, or at least they were not until very recently when some Korean manufacturers decided to shake up the monitor cartel. The consumer high-end in particular had been stuck with 2560x1600 30" monitors at ~$1,100 for about seven years.
Related rant: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks