[Kyle Baxter takes exception to my stance that retina displays are *disruptive*, stating in a response on his site](http://tightwind.net/2012/12/brooks-retina/):
>I would prefer a retina iPad Mini obviously, but between a retina display and a small, lightweight form, I choose the smaller, lighter form. It contributes more to the device’s usability than does a brilliantly clear and beautiful screen.
This is missing the point.
[Shawn’s statement](http://shawnblanc.net/2012/11/levine-ipad-mini/), [which I represent as I quoted it last](http://brooksreview.net/2012/12/haters-gonna-hate/), was:
>As awesome as Retina displays are, they don’t fundamentally change the usability or use-case scenarios of the iPad.
The argument isn’t: which is more useful iPad with retina display, or iPad mini. The argument is that retina displays, by themselves, are not a disruptive technology — a notion which I firmly call bullshit on.
[The original post from Dana Levine which started it all culminates as follows](http://thetechblock.com/why-everyone-loves-ipad-mini/):
>There isn’t actually any new use case that a retina display enables, other than being prettier.
Levine, to be fair to Blanc and Baxter, has his entire article wrapped in the context of the iPad mini. The statement from Levine that I am arguing though, is the one quoted above.
I have no doubt that the iPad Mini is fantastic to read and hold — no doubt that in many ways it is better — but I very much doubt that retina displays are **not** a disruptive technology. It is my opinion that such a thought is short-sighted.
The argument is not that smaller is greater than sharper — the argument is that retina displays on their own *are* a disruptive technology. [I think retina displays are disruptive](http://brooksreview.net/2012/12/haters-gonna-hate/), Levine (for one) thinks that they are *not* disruptive.