Will Apple ever abandon 4:3 aspect ratio?

[kierandill]

Virtually all tablets, notebooks, desktop monitors, and smartphones have gone to at least a 16:9 ratio, including Apple's own iPhone. Some might argue that a printed page is more square and thus a 4:3 in portrait mode makes sense, but I suspect most reading on an iPad is of web content, which can generally take any shape you want. 4:3 in portrait mode seems to assume an image akin to an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper.

 

[Skull One]

No. Too many apps are already written against the current coordinate systems to even think about changing that.

 

[AQ_OC]

I hope apple never changes their format. All the other tablets, monitors, etc, are stuuupiiiiddd.

 

[Seadog]

The only advantage of 16:9 is for HDTV viewing. Other than that, you get a smaller amount of area for the same aspect ratio size. Apple will never change to the 16:9 because it is wrong for the application.

 

[eKindom]

... i do not think so :ipad-case:
Wholesale Electronics - China Electronics Store - Drop Ship from China

 

[DoinicDenson]

I hope apple never changes their format

 

[Sleaka J]

I used to own an Acer Iconia A500 running Android, I never used it in portrait layout (the screen ended up being too skinny to use like that). Now that I own an iPad3, I still use it in landscape more than portrait, but there are things that I definitely use in portrait that I wouldn't have on Android.

 

[ajcgn]

I have owned an Olympus 4:3 camera for years. So by pure luck, the iPad is perfectly configured for me.

 

[whereweare]

Well I wouldn't say the 4:3 is the best but it is relatively nice. We as humans love the 4:3 because our vision is more wide than long.

 

[petermillard]

...smartphones have gone to at least a 16:9 ratio, including Apple's own iPhone.

Umm, no. iPhone is 2:3, pretty much the same as metric 'A' series (A4, A5 etc..) dimensions. I find 16:9 is too 'skinny' in portrait mode e.g. for reading; much happier with 4:3 personally, though I could live with 2:3...

 

[kierandill]

Umm, no. iPhone is 2:3, pretty much the same as metric 'A' series (A4, A5 etc..) dimensions. I find 16:9 is too 'skinny' in portrait mode e.g. for reading; much happier with 4:3 personally, though I could live with 2:3...

When held in landscape mode an iPhone 960x640= 1.5, yes.
16x9=1.777
4x3= 1.333
That is in terms of pixels, I have no idea if the retina display does not have "square" pixels.
All of Apple's other products with displays are widescreen, so I guess that makes them stuuuuupid....
If a 16x9 screen was wider in inches than a 4x3, in portrait mode, it would not matter that is was widescreen. It would be like holding a piece of "legal size" 8-1/2x14 paper and saying you prefer 8-1/2x11 because legal size is too skinny. Of course that would make the tablet a good bit taller. I guess I don't know what people are reading in portrait mode that can't word wrap slightly more in portrait mode without seeming intolerable.
Funny someone mentioned an A500 because I have that and the first iPad, and here is a side-by-side playing Avatar i shot awhile back that shows the screen in portrait modes would be negligibly different. Would the A500 be a little taller? Yes. But not skinnier in any significant way. Part of why that is possible the iPad's 9.7 diagonal versus the a500 10.1.

 

[AQ_OC]

the Acer is 1/2 inches less than the iPad in the narrow dimension and about 6/8-inches wider in the long dimension. That ratio is really only best for movies. Most other things just simply fit better in a more square screen. If everyone were only reading web pages you might have a point, but lots of people do more than that. Frankly, I still wish the industry for monitors would move back to 4:3 displays. Again, that 16x9 ratio is better for movies but little else. And frankly, I, and I suspect most people, have better devices to watch movies on. Why should everything adopt a movie format when that's not what these devices are used most for?

 

[s2mikey]

The only advantage of 16:9 is for HDTV viewing. Other than that, you get a smaller amount of area for the same aspect ratio size. Apple will never change to the 16:9 because it is wrong for the application.

Agreed. It's the exact opposite when discussing TVs where just about everything is widescreen theses days so that old tube TV really is useless at this point. The iPad works best as a 4:3 device, if for no other reason than how awkward it would be having a 16:9 tablet! Or, how about a 2.40:1 anamorphic iPad? It'd be shaped like a 1x4 piece of wood trim. Lol.