Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by MichaelThomas, Jan 29, 2010.
In my personal opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion
Woof, Woof - Dawg
You're wrong. The bezel should be thick as in LG Infinia (or less, given that it's a small screen).
I think it should have been 1/64" bigger than you've shown, but that's just my opinion.
Look for any photos or videos of people holding the iPad. What you'll notice is that to hold it most will put their thumb on top to leverage their fingers on the back. If the bezel is too thin then that thumb lays on the glass, both obscuring a little bit of the view and leaving a little bit of a thumb-print. I'll bet they have prototypes with very little bezel and about 1/2 the current bezel width. Simple ergonomic studies would demonstrate why the bezel is exactly what it is. My archos 9 also has a wide area on left and right of the screen, but a thin bezel top and bottom. It doesn't have a g-sensor though and isn't intended to be rotated. The wide bezel is only on the sides that needed it for holding.
The bezel only serves to hold the iPad with the thumb in an unnatural position.
I don't care that my thumb is on the screen. I want a compact device.
I find any and all excuses for the width of the bezel to be bogus. First of all, the only REAL reason it's that large is due to the inclusion of whatever innards are needed to make the thing function (ie electronics and battery). they take up "x" amount of room and that room needed some "breathing room" around the size of the screen picked by Jobs. We all (at least those of us with a brain) KNOW we could hold an item like that without obscuring hardly any image area and if we did, OUR HANDS CAN MOVE AS NECESSARY to uncover what's being blocked. BESIDES, Jobs made it clear there will be docks for this thing, and it can be laid down on a blue-jeans covered lap, or placed in a variety of positions not requiring that one place their hands all over the screen. All of the excuses are missing the point. Apple didn't put "dead air" under the bezel--you can bank on that.
Maybe for a HUGE battery. Have you seen the thickness of the Kindles? Yeah, I know the iPad has a 1 GHz CPU.
the first teardown, shown on line,will tell the tale.
where is my rainbow i wanted??
The bezel is as big as it needs to be to hold the device comfortably.
Pure and simple.
I guess I agree with you. That leaves your excuse just as bogus, whether you think it's real or not. You should realize that the iPod Touch manages 99% of the same functionality, and does it in a much smaller package. There is nothing inside the iPad that demands the external dimensions. They picked a screen, added a way to hold onto it, then arranged the battery and other components in the available space.
I re-read your post, and I we are in agreement. The iPad requires a bezel.
Does that mean you are declaring that under the bezel is just THIN AIR???
Plus should have been silver instead of black!
Really? On a multi-touch device?
With a bezel that thin... how would you hold the device without accidentally touching the screen?
Where are you going to put your fingers when you hold it? Not on the touch screen! And if it has do with a hardware reason, I would much rather have .5 cm more of bezel then have a 5 hour battery.
I disagree, personally i think the silver aluminum would look odd with the glass over it. The black gives it a nice contrast and keeps it inline with other multi-touch enabled devices. They could provide a white option however?
Nice inclusion of a camera
This is where the "magic" is stored
You know... rainbows and unicorns!
Given their video focused on how you can hold it however you want, the camera may have been a problem on the real thing. Or that was Apple's way of saying "F off".
In any case, I actually had to go back to the Apple website to look at the real thing in order to tell if there was a difference. Minimal. IMO, this is just splitting hairs.
There are many shades of silver. I'd prefer an off-white-silver bezel.
Really. You want constant input to the screen? Do you even own an iPhone? I can't imagine you do, because if you did, you would see the idiocy in your statement. If you do own one, then do what you said. Hold your thumb on the screen and then begin using it with the other finger. Slide around the home screens, oh, what, you can't? Yeah, that's because your THUMB is on the screen.
Again, it's not about obscuring anything, it's about whether or not you are inputting a touch signal or not to the device with your thumb. Read the explanation above and if you have a well thought out response, I'd love to hear it, but honestly, I can't imagine you will come up with one.
Yeah this is true, however, i was basing my opinion on the shade of silver aluminum that is consistent to the rest of the device, which i would assume is the same as the MBP colour?
If it were going to be silver, it would have to remain the same material (if not just colour) as the rest of the device (If it were a different shade again it would look choppy and inconsistent IMO). Therefore when covered with glass it would look less than impressive. If the colour/shade of the aluminum be replicated and done in the same material as the black to achieve the exact same colour would be incredibly hard i would think?
I would love to be proven wrong though. Who wants to jump back in photo shop?