Japanese Display Company Announces LCD with 651ppi
When the late Steve Jobs announced the iPhone 4, he heaped praise on the device's screen, which Apple was calling 'Retina Display.' Why? Because Steve said that its pixel density of 326ppi meant that holding the phone at a distance of 12 inches from your eyes would be unable to distinguish individual pixels. Since then, other companies are battling to produce displays that compete with the iPhone (and now iPad) display.
Today, another contender stepped up to the mark. Japan Display Inc has announced an LCD with a pixel density of 651ppi. If your jaw is on the floor, you might want to take a moment to pick it up, because this announcement is made a little less impressive by the size of the display in question: It measures just 2.3 inches. Still, that hasn't dampened JDI's spirits one bit.
"Although the screen size is only 2.3-inches, the resolution format of the display is 1,280 × 800 pixels (WXGA), which is comparable to those used in typical notebook PCs," the company said in a statement. "From another perspective, the resolution format of the newly-developed display is nearly twice the resolution of today’s high-resolution smart phone displays."
JDI's display is on show at the Society for Information Display’s (SID) Display Week 2012, which is taking place in Boston this week but hasn't provided details on what kind of devices, if any, we can expect to see packing this tiny but beautiful display. To put things in perspective, the iPhone 4S has a pixel density of 326ppi, while the iPad 3's Retina Display clocks in at 264ppi. Amazon's Kindle fire has 169ppi, HTC's One X has 312ppi, LG Optimus LTE has 329ppi, and Samsung's just released Galaxy S III packs a pixel density of 306ppi.

It has been done before:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-T221-9503-DG5-NOT-DGP-48-hz-Max-3840-x-2400-/200773326889
204 pixels per inch, came out around 2001.
BTW, for those curious about the Japanese text used, I think it says something about eagles and hawks dancing in the sky (might be part of a longer sentence, though)
It is about time that a company steps up to the place and brings us a decent resolution that does not break the bank.
I didn't say it was a good monitor, just that it qualified as a desktop monitor with >= 120 ppi. I like the idea of more pixels per inch on desktop monitors, but I think it's not so much "waiting for them to make" as "waiting for them to bring back" and provide better contrast and response time, though I'm also waiting for desktop-size OLED monitors to become affordable.
My thoughts exactly!
Sad thing is that my 10" netbook cannot run win8's metro apps naively because the res is too low (thank God for reg edits!)... then 3 years later comes this 2.3" display and it should be able to do it with no problem... granted a touch screen this size would be damn near impossible.
My phones screen is 2.6 inch with a touch screen.
Although I agree that the contrast ratio isn't good, but the response time is as expected, since as Toms pointed out in a 27" roundup that higher res monitors have a longer response time.
Oh, if only someone would give me the best of all monitor worlds! because even if it does come out, I'll only be able to dream about having it!
Trouble is it wouldn't make 326ppi look bad. It would be very hard to notice a difference during regular use. You could only tell if you brought it uncomfortably close.
From a technical standpoint its better, but if we can't see the difference is there a point? Its like buying monster branded cables for 200$ and thinking you hear the sound difference.