iPadThin due in march

[cheezy321]

Didn't apple patent paper margins?

Yeah they did. Samsung also already has a 130 page document on how to copy it.

 

[s44]

Why are we talking 16:9? Only irrelevant (j/k -- mostly) WinRT uses that. Pretty much all Android tablets are 16:10, including B&N and Amazon...

 

[cheezy321]

Why are we talking 16:9? Only irrelevant (j/k -- mostly) WinRT uses that. Pretty much all Android tablets are 16:10, including B&N and Amazon...

Arent they 16:9 when you take out the on screen buttons? I wouldn't consider the on screen buttons part of the usable aspect ratio

 

[s44]

When you hold them portrait (as when you read PDFs page-by-page), the buttons/bar(s) make 'em actually *squarer* than 16:10.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Where did 16:9 originate from? Movies?

Compromise between 4:3 and 2.36:1- it is also the IMAX standard.

Lets remove margins on web pages too. People don't normally read text that is to the very edge.

That is how I view web pages on all portable devices, why wouldn't you? Buy a bigger screen to leave it blank? Talk about making excuses for your purchase, yikes.

Android fanboys are everything they hate about apple fanboys

The discussion was about 16:9 vs 4:3, I'll link up one of the most hardcore Android fan sites around to get their take on what a new product should be-

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

I warned you in advance, lunatic Android fanboy site, but that is what they decided was the best aspect ratio.

 

[JavaMomma]

You get the dumbest thing I have read today award, by quite a bit too, grats

Ever checked the layout of a printed page excluding the margins? Give you a hint, it's a lot closer to 16:9 then 4:3. And then of course, gaming- I know, not something that you can really do on iOS so it doesn't matter...... right?

Try reading a financial report on a 16x9 tablet. Even cutting the margins off you have to scroll or its to small. Trust me, I've tried, its just not usable. Reading something in ePub or mobi works fine but PDFs have fixed formatting.

 

[openwheel]

LOL at those who think their iPads need margins. Try the almighty patented double tap from Apple.

I personally like the larger tablet/iPad to be 16:9 and the smaller one to be 4:3, but I'd take 16:9 if I must choose one. It makes more sense, and less compromise.

Also as far as Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 resale values. Yes they are extremely high. The Nexus 7 has been out for quite some time and still sell for almost msrp on eBay. The Nexus 4 is another story all together. The Galaxy Note and Note II are also great examples of extremely high resale value.

 

[MrX8503]

Compromise between 4:3 and 2.36:1- it is also the IMAX standard.

So for film/video.

That is how I view web pages on all portable devices, why wouldn't you? Buy a bigger screen to leave it blank? Talk about making excuses for your purchase, yikes.

If your text isn't touching the edge of your device, you have margins.

If you visit anandtech on an iPad you can read the left side article previews and use the right side news links column.

When you're reading ebooks is the text touching the edge if your device?

 

[JD50]

No one is debating where it originated. The issue is your ridiculous claim that it's ONLY good for watching movies.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So for film/video.

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/
http://www.apple.com/imac/
http://www.apple.com/displays/

Android lunatic site, or only used for videos/movies? Do you realize how utterly absurd arguing against 16:9 is when even Apple overwhelmingly uses that form factor?

When you're reading ebooks is the text touching the edge if your device?

Of course, why wouldn't it be?

Try reading a financial report on a 16x9 tablet.

I do all the time, never had a problem.

 

[MrX8503]

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/
http://www.apple.com/imac/
http://www.apple.com/displays/

Android lunatic site, or only used for videos/movies? Do you realize how utterly absurd arguing against 16:9 is when even Apple overwhelmingly uses that form factor?

MacBook Pro is 16:10. The others are 16:9 due to cost. TVs are 16:9 and so it's cheaper to cut other displays the same way. TVs are used for.....video. Most people prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for computer monitors because of the extra vertical space.

The N7 is 16:10, which is better than 16:9. However it's incredibly narrow because of the footer menu buttons and makes it pretty unusable in landscape except for videos.

No one is debating where it originated. The issue is your ridiculous claim that it's ONLY good for watching movies.

It's optimized for video. It'd be great for docs if you can fit two side by side or two web browsers. I do this on a 27" monitor.

 

[BenSkywalker]

MacBook Pro is 16:10. The others are 16:9 due to cost.

I'm trying to figure out if you are in denial, delusional, or just being obtuse. Can you link me up a review for *any* 4:3 PC display in the last couple of years?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6482/lg-29ea93-ultrawide-display-missing-its-target

I know that is far from mainstream, but people want widescreen displays, they don't like 4:3 except for the Apple loyalists defending iPads now- while Macs, MacBooks and even iPhones have moved to a widescreen format.

Most people prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for computer monitors because of the extra vertical space.

Reality called, wants you to look at sales numbers You can certainly find some people who do like the 16:10 format, but the masses certainly don't agree.

It'd be great for docs if you can fit two side by side or two web browsers.

http://icdn7.digitaltrends.com/image/galaxy-note-10-1-tablet-review-split-screen-625x415-c

http://androiduiux.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/onskreen-cornerstone.png

So now you are saying it's great? Some day you need to do something truly outrageous like try one of these devices out, amazing how much they can do

 

[thecapsaicinkid]

If you didn't watch videos or play games, why on earth would you want a16:9 display? People are weird when it comes to wide-screen displays, we had 4:3 for so long that wide-screen is seemingly seen as an always superior evolution regardless of content. Look at most satnavs being moved over to wide-screen displays, what the hell?? I've seen users demand their replacement monitor be a wide-screen and then demand they have the 'old type' back because it's hard to read spreadsheets. I write code on a 4:3 with a vertical 16:10 as a secondary, it's great.

 

[JavaMomma]

No one is debating where it originated. The issue is your ridiculous claim that it's ONLY good for watching movies.

It's not that it isn't good for anything else it's that it isn't usable to display a PDF properly. If it can't do that I don't want it.

 

[MrX8503]

I'm trying to figure out if you are in denial, delusional, or just being obtuse. Can you link me up a review for *any* 4:3 PC display in the last couple of years?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6482/lg-29ea93-ultrawide-display-missing-its-target

I know that is far from mainstream, but people want widescreen displays, they don't like 4:3 except for the Apple loyalists defending iPads now- while Macs, MacBooks and even iPhones have moved to a widescreen format.

Are you obtuse? Since when is a laptop/monitor used the same way as a mobile device? The lower the 1:1 pixel res the narrower the mobile display is.

iPhones are widescreen which is fine because most people hold their phones in portrait, whereas tablets are held both ways.

Since you like to bring up sales. Reality is people do like 4:3 on a tablet considering the iPad is #1 selling tablet.

Reality called, wants you to look at sales numbers You can certainly find some people who do like the 16:10 format, but the masses certainly don't agree.

Because 16:9 is cheaper and the fact that display manufacturers forced 16:10 displays out due to cost. Look at the history.

So now you are saying it's great? Some day you need to do something truly outrageous like try one of these devices out, amazing how much they can do

It's great if you have the res, as I've stated in my comment about using a 27".

Dual screen on an N10 is cool, but how does it render it? To fit two websites it has to render 1:1 pixels, at which point text would be too small. If its rendering by some other factor other than 2x then it'll have some quality loss.

I've tried many android devices and a checklist doesn't impress me, if it did I would have kept my WinMo smartphone.

If you didn't watch videos or play games, why on earth would you want a16:9 display? People are weird when it comes to wide-screen displays, we had 4:3 for so long that wide-screen is seemingly seen as an always superior evolution regardless of content. Look at most satnavs being moved over to wide-screen displays, what the hell?? I've seen users demand their replacement monitor be a wide-screen and then demand they have the 'old type' back because it's hard to read spreadsheets. I write code on a 4:3 with a vertical 16:10 as a secondary, it's great.

I code on a 16:10 vertical. If I can't fit two websites side by side (less than 1200p), I turn it vertical when in a dual display setup.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Sadly, in tablets, each aspect ratio has its pros and cons. I had a Nexus 7 and loved the size and weight of the tablet and found that it made a good e-reader (although the Kindle app and others should really stretch the text edge to edge in portrait mode. The bezels already make up the margins.

However, I found Web surfing to be seriously lacking on the Nexus 7. The ipad, meanwhile is a fantastic Web surfer, e-reader (a bit heavy though), magazine reader, etc. It also has better tablet optimized apps.

Video watching on the ipad is annoying though - sadly the aspect ratio wastes a lot of space for 16:9 content.

I'm sure a 16:10 iPad would be great too (though Apple has already made its choice with fixed resolutions). It's primarily the ecosystem, including the apps and ease of use that make it ipad such a hot seller, and the fantastic build quality. Why people are so dogmatic about aspect ratio ill never know.


As to the argument that the iPhone 5 is a 16:9 device like most android phones - smartphones can't be too wide because of how people hold them. While I mostly type on my GS3 with 2 hands, there's many times where I want to do something quickly with 1 hands. Smartphones are held differently than tablets and so have a different set of aspect ratio criteria (small width is important).

 

[BenSkywalker]

Because 16:9 is cheaper and the fact that display manufacturers forced 16:10 displays out due to cost.

That some lie Apple is feeding their people now?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&srchInDesc=

I see a plethora of 16:10 monitors to choose from, you might always miss them because none of them show up on the best seller list. Now the cost you brought up is a great point, let's look at how the price point on 4:3 monitors looks-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&srchInDesc=

Yeah, whole bunch of validity to the cost being an issue in the form factor from one market to the next. That must be why the iPad costs $5500, right?

 

[lopri]

@jiffylube: I used to share the same opinion but I now wonder if the opposite way is better. It's crazy how one's mind could change! Now that there are many browsers and web sites designed to support mobile devices, I find a 7" tablet feels perfect for web browsing because I don't need both hands to hold it. If text is too small, simple double-tapping miraculously makes it a perfect size for my eyes while wrapping text around the screen.

On the other hand, when I watch video on a 7" tablet, I can't seem to avoid touching the active screen while holding it. Bezels are not wide enough for my thumbs so I have to develop a way to hold it around the edges which I haven't been too successful yet. I feel more comfortable with black bars and/or wider bezels of a large tablet when watching video.

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it. XD

 

[jiffylube1024]

That some lie Apple is feeding their people now?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&srchInDesc=

I see a plethora of 16:10 monitors to choose from, you might always miss them because none of them show up on the best seller list. Now the cost you brought up is a great point, let's look at how the price point on 4:3 monitors looks-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&srchInDesc=

Your links show the benefits of mass production. The first 24" 1920x1200 screen costs $400, and they generally range in the $339-$500 range; much more than their mass produced 16:9 brethren.

The 16:10 screens aren't best sellers because most consumers care about price above quality. The 4:3 screens are so ridiculously expensive because so few are made. Obviously the ipad doesn't cost $5k because the panel is produced on a massive volume.

 

[waggy]

whats left to add once theyve made it thinner and lighter?

that's when they introduce the new "robust" Ipad. its thicker and heavier so if it falls it won't break. its made for those with a "active" lifestyle.

:awe:

 

[Crono]

Sadly, in tablets, each aspect ratio has its pros and cons. I had a Nexus 7 and loved the size and weight of the tablet and found that it made a good e-reader (although the Kindle app and others should really stretch the text edge to edge in portrait mode. The bezels already make up the margins.

I agree with this, and not just for mobile devices but for monitors and televisions, as well. And it doesn't bother me too much that there are different aspect ratios, but I prefer that content providers and manufacturers hold to a certain standard, i.e. I like video to be 16:9, and desktop content (books, web pages, etc) to be formatted ideally for 4:3 or 16:10.

Like many of you, I use a dual monitor setup with 16:9 (16:10 at work) and 4:3 screens. Best of both worlds.
Surface is great for video with 16:9, but iPad is better for books with 4:3 aspect ratio.

Until we have on-the-fly adjustable, flexible OLED scrolls instead of tablets D), you have to take whatever the manufacturer gives you.

 

[MrX8503]

That some lie Apple is feeding their people now?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&srchInDesc=

I see a plethora of 16:10 monitors to choose from, you might always miss them because none of them show up on the best seller list. Now the cost you brought up is a great point, let's look at how the price point on 4:3 monitors looks-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&srchInDesc=

Yeah, whole bunch of validity to the cost being an issue in the form factor from one market to the next. That must be why the iPad costs $5500, right?

That's the result of mass production.

You must have not followed the display market during the transition to 16:9 from 16:10.

Manufacturers chose 16:9 because they could get more display cuts out of a large panel. It was cheaper to have the same cut as HDTVs. 16:9 transition wasn't from consumer demand, it was forced by display manufacturers.

Call it an apple lie if it satisfies you.

 

[djgandy]

....

 

[Red Storm]

....

Because as has already been said, in this specific situation the iPad 4 will only have been out for a few months and it's monetary value will instantly drop when the next one launches. Normally this is an annual process, but in this particular case it's only a few months.

 

[djgandy]

Well maybe you should invest in something that will increase your return if all you are worried about is resale value?

Most people are buying the product because it will enhance their productivity or lifestyle. If you are buying it because you want a good resale value perhaps you should buy gold or something else instead?

And anyway, I bet any iPad will hold its value better than any android tablet.