and you can use the double-tap thing for remove the bars (ok, you lose some viewable area but it works very well).
I hope they never switch to 16/9. I think that is an overvalued aspect ratio and not much used as people think.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad What are the chances of a 16:9 iPad?
- Thread starter dingdongbubble
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and you can use the double-tap thing for remove the bars (ok, you lose some viewable area but it works very well).
I hope they never switch to 16/9. I think that is an overvalued aspect ratio and not much used as people think.
Do you feel the same way about your widescreen:
Mobile phone, Television, Computer Monitor and when you go to see a Movie?
Television and movie screens are fine because thats what the content is mostly formatted for, just like a 16:10 iPad is fine if you only watch videos on it.
Computer monitors are fine because the content is not full screen and scaled to fit the width, this is not the case with the current iOS.
Indeed, totally agree, Apple would of course, adjust iOS9 ? To take advantage of the new extra screen space to offer a enhanced experience to Games, Video watchers and productivity apps, most of which, are displayed in Landscape mode anyway.
Also allowing the side by side benefit of some apps.
I think we all know if there was a widescreen 16:10 model available, it would be selling very well, esp if, as I say, the OS had been enhanced to take advantage of the extra space/pixels.
Be interesting to see what happens in time
I have a Nook Tablet (rooted with CyanogenMod 10.1) and the 16:9 ratio is a killer (in a bad way). Every time I pick it up I realize why Apple chose 4:3 and that I will never (well, never is a strong word) choose a 16:9 tablet over my iPad for real use other than the tinkering I do with the Nook.
Yeah, I feel the same way about my Nexus 7. I didn't realize the aspect ratio even mattered that much until I compared my Nexus 7 to an iPad Mini. I'm never getting another tablet with that aspect ratio again. I think 4:3 is perfect.
You are making an error. We want a bigger iPad, but not a longer one.
Widescreen is lose lose lose.
You have not stated what the pixels would be, only the shape, not to mention the actual usage. The point is, nobody has ever added to the length, not even HDTV (I'll offer proof if you don't recognize it), when changing from 4:3 to 16:9. Perhaps someone will, but until I see it, 16:9 should stay in movies where it belongs.
What I'm noticing when you argue for 16:10, and since the iphone 5 is 16:10 the widescreen ipad would be 16:10 not 16:9, is that you never talk about how the OS would need to be modified. You just argue for it like it would be good on iOS 7.
That being said, how do you see Apple modifying the OS to all for it? After using quasar I think windowed apps are too clunky. I think maybe shrinking the app to half the width is far more useful than the 1/3 2/3 split that Microsoft does on 8; heck giving us the choice between 1/3 and 1/2 screen would be nice as well.
FWIW, when I first read about the iPad, I thought Apple would let a run four iPhone apps on one screen. If you think about it apple coul easily let an iPhone app take up half the landscape screen, this would require very little retooling on the developer's part.
16:9 is a similar aspect ratio to widescreen tv, or screen. 4:3 is similar aspect ratio to a piece of paper. Those who mostly use iPad as a small tv will want the iPad to be 16:9. Those who mainly read on the iPad will prefer 4:3. As a person who mainly reads on my iPad 16:9 would be awkward too long, and that is a problem with other tablets. I just doesn't look right unless you're watching video, and then it's perfect. But for me I want a tablet that looks right when I'm reading on it rather than when watching on it.
Well Apple could make an Ipad in 4:3 and a slightly larger iPad at 16:10
Tweak the OS to take advantage of the larger screen area and extra pixels.
In the same way the iPhone 4 vs the iPhone 5
Then we can sit back and watch no-one here, apart from me, buy the enhanced 16:10 model
I photoshopped a "what people say is worst case, that way round would look terrible photo" to show, how it would benefit in just one official app. Pages.
Also below some other's I did a while back in 16:9 vs the current 4:3
Thought I accept 16:10 would probably be a better compromise as in the photo above
Last edited:
I think its obvious that the benefits of a 16:10 iPad are highly dependent on your usage cases. All of the examples Piggie posted are content that shines on a widescreen device. Landscape webpages do not look better in the current iOS on a widescreen device.
Above is an example of how a magazine like Garden and Gun would work on the two screen sizes, I used a dark grey background so you could really see what the bars would look like as opposed to black blending with the bezel which might mislead people. Even when I had the larger screen iPad 2 I always read Zinio vertically, one page at a time which would make the bars very apparent. If you like to read your magazines as a spread, 16:10 works better for you. Now G&G is a little more square than say Time magazine, but not enough to change my example noticibly. It's also worth mentioning that comics are a but taller than magazines which means that there would be smaller bars when viewed vertically, but even larger bars when viewed horizontally as a spread.
When it comes to iWork and the like, if it at all needs to be printed the page would still need to be formatted for 4:3, except in the UK where A4 is a little taller. Only legal-page formatted documents would really fill up the taller screen. Now assuming you have a ltr-formatted document on your ipad, it would be centered vertically in the screen and then shift up to display the keyboard, and then move back down when the keyboard is hidden.
Also, if you watch SD formatted videos, like older TV shows, with 16:10 you would end up with black bars on the side as opposed to black bars on top of HD content on a 4:3 screen.
I do still think that if iOS supported split screen dual apps a 16:10 iPad would work better, and I probably would buy one, but not the way iOS currently is. If Apple went with a 1/3 2/3 split they could, for example, allow the iPhone Hulu to run beside the iPad browser. I also think that Retina is required for this to work well, other wise Safari shrunk to fit half the landscape with would be entirely too small; just saying keep the scaling at 100% and cutting the width in half doesn't work because the majority of sites do not reflow all the content so they would look bad.
If Apple releases a 16:10 iPad, hopefully they will do it in addition to the 4:3, as opposed to replacing it like the iPhone, because people view a lot of 4:3 formatted content on the iPad that they don't on the iPhone.
PS: Piggie, I'm not picking on you specifically. Its just that you're the most vocal supporter of 16:10 so I feel like I'm having a conversation with you.
Above is an example of how a magazine like Garden and Gun would work on the two screen sizes, I used a dark grey background so you could really see what the bars would look like as opposed to black blending with the bezel which might mislead people. Even when I had the larger screen iPad 2 I always read Zinio vertically, one page at a time which would make the bars very apparent. If you like to read your magazines as a spread, 16:10 works better for you. Now G&G is a little more square than say Time magazine, but not enough to change my example noticibly. It's also worth mentioning that comics are a but taller than magazines which means that there would be smaller bars when viewed vertically, but even larger bars when viewed horizontally as a spread.
When it comes to iWork and the like, if it at all needs to be printed the page would still need to be formatted for 4:3, except in the UK where A4 is a little taller. Only legal-page formatted documents would really fill up the taller screen. Now assuming you have a ltr-formatted document on your ipad, it would be centered vertically in the screen and then shift up to display the keyboard, and then move back down when the keyboard is hidden.
Also, if you watch SD formatted videos, like older TV shows, with 16:10 you would end up with black bars on the side as opposed to black bars on top of HD content on a 4:3 screen.
I do still think that if iOS supported split screen dual apps a 16:10 iPad would work better, and I probably would buy one, but not the way iOS currently is. If Apple went with a 1/3 2/3 split they could, for example, allow the iPhone Hulu to run beside the iPad browser. I also think that Retina is required for this to work well, other wise Safari shrunk to fit half the landscape with would be entirely too small; just saying keep the scaling at 100% and cutting the width in half doesn't work because the majority of sites do not reflow all the content so they would look bad.
If Apple releases a 16:10 iPad, hopefully they will do it in addition to the 4:3, as opposed to replacing it like the iPhone, because people view a lot of 4:3 formatted content on the iPad that they don't on the iPhone.
PS: Piggie, I'm not picking on you specifically. Its just that you're the most vocal supporter of 16:10 so I feel like I'm having a conversation with you.
Last edited:
Well Apple could make an Ipad in 4:3 and a slightly larger iPad at 16:10
Tweak the OS to take advantage of the larger screen area and extra pixels.
In the same way the iPhone 4 vs the iPhone 5
Then we can sit back and watch no-one here, apart from me, buy the enhanced 16:10 model
I photoshopped a "what people say is worst case, that way round would look terrible photo" to show, how it would benefit in just one official app. Pages.
[url=http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/Paul-rs/ipad-16-10.jpg]Image[/URL]
Also below some other's I did a while back in 16:9 vs the current 4:3
Thought I accept 16:10 would probably be a better compromise as in the photo above
[url=http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/Paul-rs/16x9ipadexamples4.jpg]Image[/URL]
Apart from the Pages image. (Which by the way I never use in portrait, so wouldn't use as you showed.) All of the images are of the sort which I accept look better on 16:9 or 16:10. This is not the way I use my iPad most of the time.
And as for your iPhone comparison, I actually prefer the 4 to the 5, and while I will check for information on the iPhone I rarely use it to read a lot. They are different devices for different uses.
We are talking about the iPad... but yes, i feel the same way. In a television has more sense to have a 16/9 screen, of course, cause is made for movies and shows, but in Computer or tablet a 5/4 or 16/10 are more convenient from my point of view.
Greetingss
What is the block that is stopping you from understanding this simple point?
In portrait it would not be too narrow as it would be the same as it is now, only have EXTRA NEW space top and bottom.
In Landscape it would not be too short as it would be the same as as it is now, only have a little EXTRA NEW space on either side.
If I gave you a bar of chocolate that was 4" tall and 3" wide, and another bar that was 4.5" tall and 3" wide, how would the latter, larger one be less?
I am saying I would rather have the 4.5" chocolate over the 4" bar and to keep the width 3"
Exactly. I find that the iPhone 4 is balanced better, and feels more comfortable in my hand. Apart from the question of which aspect ratio suits which type of content, I'd be worried that a 16:9 or 16:10 ratio on a tablet would mean that the balance problem I see with the iPhone 5 would be worse with tablets because of the bigger size.
Ok, well you see more screen space as a negative, I see it as a positive
We can agree to disagree with our views
That's not what he said, he said he doesn't want extra bulk. In other words, for him, the extra space doesn't offset the extra bulk. Doesn't mean that he thinks extra space is negative in and of itself.
