Why 4:3? Why not wide-screen?

[mcbrew]

If you take the same height, then bring the width to 16:9 ratio (plus the border), the iPad would be about 12.25 inches wide, instead of the current 9.5 inches wide. Nearly three inches wider would make it a bit more cumbersome.

16:9 is only for movies/TV. Most of what people do with the iPad is web surfing. Like others have said, there is no reason to make a sacrifice for one application, when a 4:3 screen is much better for nearly all other applications and for aesthetics.

The same goes for a computer screen... bit the main reason for going with widescreen notebook is that it actually makes more sense due to the form factor. Now, if keyboards were more square than rectangle, it would make sense for the screen to match that shape. With a notebook, you can't really make the screen wider than the keyboard. The only variable is height. A widescreen notebook computer is actually more compact, because the screen is just shorter than it would be if it were 4:3.

 

[gentlefury]

If you take the same height, then bring the width to 16:9 ratio (plus the border), the iPad would be about 12.25 inches wide, instead of the current 9.5 inches wide. Nearly three inches wider would make it a bit more cumbersome.

16:9 is only for movies/TV. Most of what people do with the iPad is web surfing. Like others have said, there is no reason to make a sacrifice for one application, when a 4:3 screen is much better for nearly all other applications and for aesthetics.

The same goes for a computer screen... bit the main reason for going with widescreen notebook is that it actually makes more sense due to the form factor. Now, if keyboards were more square than rectangle, it would make sense for the screen to match that shape. With a notebook, you can't really make the screen wider than the keyboard. The only variable is height. A widescreen notebook computer is actually more compact, because the screen is just shorter than it would be if it were 4:3.

That was my other thought, keep the same width and you end up with a tiny device, keep the same height and it's too big. They thought it out and this is the perfect size!

 

[stever]

That was my other thought, keep the same width and you end up with a tiny device, keep the same height and it's too big. ...

Exactly.

I say Ironic, because if the competition came out with a "PAD" that was 4:3, it would be it's downfall. But sense we are talking Apple here, then it gets defended and praised. Sad, but true.

Sorry. But you can't play the fanboi card on this topic. Too many of us agree.

You can't even play the fanboi card on this forum.
If you haven't noticed from all the introductions and discussions, a LOT of us here on this forum are first time Apple product buyers. We are not just apple fanbois. (Go look at the 'Apple arrogance thread'. everyone was polite, and most people there agreed about that arrogance.)
I have both an Apple and a Windows desktop at work, but I have never had an Apple as my home machine. No one who knows me would ever say I am an Apple zealot.

And so far, I have hated the look and proportions of the HP slate.
Yes, for just one thing, watching trailers and some movies, that proportion is good. But for most uses, I just feel the proportion sux, and feels like I would have to keep scrolling around to view things.
It just feels clunky to me.

 

[Takenover83]

I replied in that thread, maybe you need to re-read it. First time buyer or not, that does not stop some from defending their purchase to the death Look at the Archos 9. It has a widescreen aspect, and does not look to long to me. Looks pretty good actually. But as always, opinions vary. That's why I included a poll.

 

[Kargurin]

My guess its that a landscape ipad would be awkward to handle.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[wot_fan]

I say Ironic, because if the competition came out with a "PAD" that was 4:3, it would be it's downfall. But sense we are talking Apple here, then it gets defended and praised. Sad, but true.

I guess the members that voted for the 4:3 aspect ratio are just Apple fanboys or "defending their purchase to the death" so we can ignore their opinion. Once we remove them from the poll, it looks like 100% of the members agree with you .

After looking at the picture of the Archos you posted, I am convinced that 4:3 is the best ratio for me. I want my device/apps to be functional in both landscape and portrait mode. IMHO, the Archos doesn't look like it would work well in portrait mode. (Of course this just me being an Apple fanatic defending my purchase ).

 

[mcbrew]

I replied in that thread, maybe you need to re-read it. First time buyer or not, that does not stop some from defending their purchase to the death Look at the Archos 9. It has a widescreen aspect, and does not look to long to me. Looks pretty good actually. But as always, opinions vary. That's why I included a poll.

It looks okaynlike that, but if you are viewing this on your pad, lock the screen and turn it 90 degrees. The Archos looks pretty odd in portrait mode.

 

[Brad Groux]

For everything else the iPad does, 4:3 is a much better choice. Video shouldn't override usability in other apps. You can get away with it in a full-sized computer because the screen is large enough.

Ebooks on a 9:16 screen would not be as nice.

Tom

How can this be true? PC applications on widescreen monitors (16:10) are twice as good as standard monitors (4:3), which is the very reason standard monitors are going the way of the floppy drive. Wider view is always better when working in 99% of applications, especially in landscape mode. The extra real estate would come in handy in far more applications than just movies. Mail, Websites, Video, Games, I can't think of any landscape application that wouldn't be better on a 16:10 screen.

The key reasons I think they avoided widescreen were price and so the iPhone apps look bigger on the iPad screen. An iPhone app at double size on a widescreen would look even more ridiculous than they do on the 4:3 iPad. Again, I think they took the easy way out so the iPhone developers could easily port their iPhone apps to a 4:3 device since the iPhone isn't true widescreen either.

 

[Takenover83]

I did not say all, some. I think even you can admit that. That is of-course, unless you are one of them, but I am keeping a open mind IMO, it just a little "off" to see 4:3 screens in a HD area (imagine a netbook with a 4:3 being released now), and then justify it with some of the reasons I see here. The person above me who brings up the iPhone compatibility, has a great point about it looking funny on a widescreen device.

I say Ironic, because if the competition came out with a "PAD" that was 4:3, it would be it's downfall. But sense we are talking Apple here, then it gets defended and praised. Sad, but true.

I guess the members that voted for the 4:3 aspect ratio are just Apple fanboys or "defending their purchase to the death" so we can ignore their opinion. Once we remove them from the poll, it looks like 100% of the members agree with you .

After looking at the picture of the Archos you posted, I am convinced that 4:3 is the best ratio for me. I want my device/apps to be functional in both landscape and portrait mode. IMHO, the Archos doesn't look like it would work well in portrait mode. (Of course this just me being an Apple fanatic defending my purchase ).

 

[mcbrew]

(imagine a netbook with a 4:3 being released now), and then justify it with some of the reasons I see here

Again... The reason most notebooks and netbooks are wide screen is that theybwant the screen to be SHORTER in order to make the overall size smaller. Think about it... When a notebook is closed, the screen covers the keyboard. A keyboard has to be a certain shape because we are allmused to a QWERTY keyboard. Since the computer part of a notebookmis so compact now, the screen basically just has to be the same size and shape as the keyboard.

Don't think about the iPad as a widescreen with the edges cut off... Think of it as a widescreen with MORE screen added to the top and bottom!

Movies are widescreen because that's roughly the shape of a 35mm film. Since people nowadays dpwatch a lot more movies than television, it makes sense for TV screens to be that size. Now TV has followed in their tracks and make just about everything wide. If black bars drive you nuts, then you'd better get fitted for a straight jacket, because not all movies are shot in 16:9, so there are going to be black bars on many movies even if they are cinematic.

 

[Kargurin]

I say Ironic, because if the competition came out with a "PAD" that was 4:3, it would be it's downfall. But sense we are talking Apple here, then it gets defended and praised. Sad, but true.

I guess the members that voted for the 4:3 aspect ratio are just Apple fanboys or "defending their purchase to the death" so we can ignore their opinion. Once we remove them from the poll, it looks like 100% of the members agree with you .

After looking at the picture of the Archos you posted, I am convinced that 4:3 is the best ratio for me. I want my device/apps to be functional in both landscape and portrait mode. IMHO, the Archos doesn't look like it would work well in portrait mode. (Of course this just me being an Apple fanatic defending my purchase ).

Right. I own a pc and a droid. And an iPad and itouch. I'm kind of a fanboy of everything.

 

[write-stuff]

I'm perfectly happy with the iPad physical dimensions. ABC high def programs are razor sharp and larger (apparently) than my big screen tv across the room.

In fact I'm even having second thoughts about buying a new large HD tv. From a simple viewing standpoint, I think an iPad viewed about 12-18inches away equates to a 60-inch tv across the room and probably looks better.

The fact that the aspect ratio of the device doesn't match that of HD tv and videos is irrelevant to me.

 

[lifevicarious]

Movies are widescreen because that's roughly the shape of a 35mm film. Since people nowadays dpwatch a lot more movies than television, it makes sense for TV screens to be that size. Now TV has followed in their tracks and make just about everything wide. If black bars drive you nuts, then you'd better get fitted for a straight jacket, because not all movies are shot in 16:9, so there are going to be black bars on many movies even if they are cinematic.

Movies are widescreen because movie studios wanted a reason to draw people to the theaters after TV was invented. Standard 35MM film is 6x4 AR.

 

[lifevicarious]

How can this be true? PC applications on widescreen monitors (16:10) are twice as good as standard monitors (4:3), which is the very reason standard monitors are going the way of the floppy drive. Wider view is always better when working in 99% of applications, especially in landscape mode. The extra real estate would come in handy in far more applications than just movies. Mail, Websites, Video, Games, I can't think of any landscape application that wouldn't be better on a 16:10 screen.

What websites would be better in 16:9?? The reason PC monitors are going widescreen is because they are multimedia and are now designed to play movies and television shows which are primarily shot in 16x9. Websites and documents are much closer to 4:3. I have a widescreen iMac but for documents and websites the reason I like it better is becasue I can have two windows open at the same time, it has nothing to do with the shape of the window. And if reading documents, they will look stupid in landscape on a 16:9 as I have to scroll to read one page.

If this was primarily a movie watching device I could agree, but given that websites and books which are a huge part of this device are not, it makes no sense to me to go 16:9.

 

[Brad Groux]

How can this be true? PC applications on widescreen monitors (16:10) are twice as good as standard monitors (4:3), which is the very reason standard monitors are going the way of the floppy drive. Wider view is always better when working in 99% of applications, especially in landscape mode. The extra real estate would come in handy in far more applications than just movies. Mail, Websites, Video, Games, I can't think of any landscape application that wouldn't be better on a 16:10 screen.

What websites would be better in 16:9?? The reason PC monitors are going widescreen is because they are multimedia and are now designed to play movies and television shows which are primarily shot in 16x9. Websites and documents are much closer to 4:3. I have a widescreen iMac but for documents and websites the reason I like it better is becasue I can have two windows open at the same time, it has nothing to do with the shape of the window. And if reading documents, they will look stupid in landscape on a 16:9 as I have to scroll to read one page.

If this was primarily a movie watching device I could agree, but given that websites and books which are a huge part of this device are not, it makes no sense to me to go 16:9.

I completely disagree. When viewing websites (end especially forums), the wider the display the more data you see, period. This forum is an example. Many web developers/designers are making their web page widths overall percentages of screen size, instead of fixed pixels... and even when they are fixed pixels they are usually 1200px +. Widescreen devices are hear to stay and the web as a whole is updating itself to that format.

Wider display means far less scrolling.