What would be VERY interesting would of been if they had offered a 4:3 screen or for another $100 a 16:9 screen.
I bet well over 50% here would have gone for the larger screen option.
If we are honest of course 🙂
I feel as if I have tried to articulate this point before.
You are essentially advocating a larger device that is in 16x9, correct?
Sure it might be better for watching video, but the rest of your points have some fundamental flaws.
First, on the hardware side. If you make the device with a larger screen, it's going to be bigger in all aspects - actual dimensions and the weight. At the moment, the iPad pushes the limits of reasonable weight for this category of device. Bigger screen also means more power consumption. More power consumption means bigger battery, thus more weight, or shorter battery life.
Second, on the software side. Yes, if all you are doing is watching video, the dimensions you want are better. For everything else, even what you point to, the dimension is poor. It's laughable that you even suggest typing in Portrait mode in Pages. If you are typing that way, you are using a physical keyboard, thus the additional room is not that essential. The built-in keyboard is just too cramped. For printed media that is presented electronically, the 4x3 makes better sense. For the email client, calendar, etc. it all makes more sense given the current iteration.
Third, we don't have to imagine what a 16x9 iPad would look like. In this thread there is a photo of a device sitting next to an iPad with your proposed dimensions. One looks awkward and it's not the iPad.
And no offense, if I was looking for a device that handles the web well, plays video, has an email client, works as an ebook reader, and is a reasonable canvas for app developers, all while maintaining all-day battery life and around 1.5 lbs in weight, I would trust Apple to make pretty good compromises more than almost any other person/firm.