Why do you think Apple chose NOT to go widescreen?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by strangeday, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. strangeday macrumors member

    Nov 2, 2009
    Even if it weren't 16:9, why do you think they didn't at least keep the iPhones aspect ratio??

    I still can't find a reason for this. Maybe you developer or tech guys can think of one.
  2. -Ryan- macrumors 68000

    Jan 28, 2009
    eBooks. This is going to be what they're pushing with the iPad, and it's the best screen format for them.
  3. dave1812dave macrumors 6502a

    May 15, 2009

    Slightly OT, but I'm still not happy with 16:10 monitors. I finally got a 16:9 and bought a swivel wall mount so I can put it into portrait mode for web browsing. That works much better than a widescreen in landscape mode, IMO.
  4. MRU Suspended


    Aug 23, 2005
    Simple. If you have a widescreen monitor that flips to portrait, its glaringly obvious why apple chose the resolution they did. Widescreen monitors in portrait mode just look aesthetically wrong and too elongated imho. They made the right decision.
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    Because after they sell millions then they will introduce widescreens. Its Apples way, allways handicap the new product your making in some fashion. Just look at Pods.
  6. dave1812dave macrumors 6502a

    May 15, 2009
    I agree widescreen is a PITA for many uses, so I've no quibble with apple on that aspect (pun intended) of the design.
  7. strangeday thread starter macrumors member

    Nov 2, 2009
    Hmm...But couldn't they have used the extra space to put in the title of the book at the top or, instead of that, simply have added a couple of rows of text to fill in the longer dimensions?? Then again, this would change the format of the book (pages would not be identical to other ebooks[?] or to the original paper copies). So all of the other ebooks, you're saying, use this same aspect ratio??
  8. Elzlaik macrumors regular

    Nov 1, 2008
    Being bored one day I made a mockup of a 10.1" tablet with a 16:9 ratio and found it to be too thin and long (that's what she said). At 16:9, a full-length keyboard in landscape mode would leave hardly any room above the keys to see what you are typing. Also, web pages would render too narrow in portrait. I think this ratio is better for web viewing, typing and photo viewing. Although I, like others, cringe at those massive borders it gives the videos.
  9. Anuba macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2005
    I dunno, widescreen and portrait mode would feel kinda weird... and it gets harder to adapt the graphics for rotation.
  10. strangeday thread starter macrumors member

    Nov 2, 2009
    I agree that 16:9 would be awkward. Too dramatic of a difference when rotating. I would have liked 16:10 or 16:11 :(
  11. Coroe macrumors member

    Mar 8, 2009
    Apple didn't go widescreen because they are likely to have cut a deal with a large display manufacturer. They use those old outdated 9.7" XGA production lines to hammer out slightly improved displays (i.e. IPS) at very low cost.

    I would have preferred a 16:10 ratio, which would be perfectly fine for ebooks as well. Nevertheless I'm gonna buy this sucker.
  12. calderone macrumors 68040


    Aug 28, 2009
    My guess, this was not a conscious decision to not go widescreen, but instead a decision to go with a quality display. If that was the most important aspect of picking the panel, the ratio probably did not play much of a role in the decision.

    9.7 was probably the best size available in IPS.
  13. strangeday thread starter macrumors member

    Nov 2, 2009
    Sam here to both points. 16:10 would have been great. I'm still considering buying this to put in the car. I just have to find a way to conceal it and easily mount/unmount. A 16:10 would have looked much nicer in the car, but oh well...Can't please everyone :(
  14. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Jun 9, 2009
    I dunno. I use a rotatable 16:10 external on my MBP and since I seem to read text on it more often than doing photo work or watching video, it lives in portrait mode most of the time.

    You can see so much more text in portrait mode, IMO I think it would be great for reading. Reading blogs and fora in portrait mode is a dream.

    Nevertheless, I can see where 16:10 would be a challenge too. Because of the virtual keyboard, using it in landscape mode would take up a significant amount of screen space, only leaving a little room at the top for the content. I already feel a little cramped on the iPT's landscape keyboard and its 3:2 screen. And in portrait mode the a 16:10 screen would be too narrow and the VKB would be pretty small. 4:3 gives a little extra width in portrait and a little extra height in landscape to help deal with this.

    Personally I wished they went for a higher res screen. But as we all know high resolution screens are definitely not the Apple way.

  15. coolbreeze macrumors 68000


    Jan 20, 2003
    But a backlight LED screen is FAR from the best display type.

    I'm sticking with my Air, X200, and Kindle 2. No thanks to reading for hours on a friggin' computer screen. Far from revolutionary.

    If the Pixel Qi panel made it onto this, I'd be all over it for reading.

    Oh, and wouldn't widescreen make sense for newspapers?
  16. muskratboy macrumors 6502

    Jun 7, 2007
    because widescreen is way too skinny when you hold it upright. that's it. :D

    more real estate is BETTER. this gives more real estate in a limited space.

    higher density would be nice... but yes, apple. it's probably low on ram too.
  17. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601


    Feb 10, 2004
    Hm, are books 4:3? I suppose a book opened up for a 2 page spread is around there, but that's more a result of the overall design of a bound book rather than that being the best way to look at written material. I actually like the one page at a time layout of eReaders, and so a taller device is a little more fuctional, imo. I think they should have kept the 3:2 ratio of the iPhone. myself, but it really doesn't matter that much at the end of the day.
  18. t22design macrumors regular

    Nov 10, 2007
    This is reason.
  19. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    The right ratio for this device would be 1:√2
  20. chris7777 macrumors 6502

    Nov 27, 2008
    To be honest, Considering even wide screen is not even standardized, Its not that big a deal, it might be different if their was a standard, but I know my parents were pretty ticked off about shelling out for an HD set and still having stinking letter box on it.

    I know as an artist , have had problems illustrating on my laptop which is wide screen, vs using someone elses standard definition laptop, yes mine is higher resolution, but other than movie it is nice to be able to look at something taller.

    I kind of balked at apples keyboard attachment (mainly because it is quite honestly ridiculous for a portable keyboard, I do not see any net book users with a brain using this to type in their lap) But for a workstation, typing text, its not a bad idea, I know I certainly like typing on a SD laptop, over an a HD one.
  21. kzin macrumors 6502

    Jul 20, 2005
    I initially posted this in another forum, but I think it's relevant here, so I'm posting it with some extra notes/thoughts:

    My initial reaction to "1024x768 resolution" was actually a bit negative, but that's because we associate that resolution with "non-widescreen" XGA monitors. We assume that *x768, in the widescreen/HD world, means that it has to have a 1280/1360/1366 in front of it (1280x720, 1280x768, 1280x800, 1360x768, and 1366x768 all being variations of WXGA).

    But, I don't think Apple's mindset here was "we're going to give them the non-HD version of *x768 displays". This isn't them attempting to give us an SD XGA screen.

    The standard widescreen resolution for devices this size (netbooks and other tablets) is: 1024x600 (WSVGA). That's the widescreen/HD version of 800x600 (SVGA).

    I think Apple's mindset is "we're giving them the same 1024x600 everyone else gives them, plus 25% more pixels". Certainly, the iPad will display everything that a 1024x600 tablet/netbook will display. Plus a little more. In portrait mode, you can display wider images/web-pages/etc. In landscape mode, you can have a WSVGA based app, image, movie, or webpage open, and still have room at the bottom for a control panel. It's just as good as having a 1024x600 display, like every other mid-size tablet or netbook ... plus a little more.

    (also note that if you quadruple an iPhone's display, so that each iPhone pixel is 2x2 pixels, perhaps with anti-aliasing, then you get 960x640 ... that's too tall to display on 1024x600, so they couldn't really go with WSVGA ... in order to "run standard iPhone apps in 4x size", they had to do more than 1024x600)

    It's still disappointing that they didn't go with a WXVGA and/or 720p format, but I don't think this is a case of "we're giving you an SD screen", I think it's a case of "we're giving you the standard HD/widescreen everyone else is giving you, plus 25% more". Still, that said, they should have gone with WXVGA. The only reason not to is "would it have made the device prohibitively expensive?" (more than $600 for the base non-3G unit)

    Unfortunately, that's probably doomed to be a PR nightmare. Everyone will associate this with SD XGA displays, and say the resolution is so "6-10 years out of date". To some extent they're right ... I just suspect that Apple was trying to do something better than the netbook competition, not lagging behind the 720p/WXVGA world (which is not very widely embraced, if embraced at all, in the mid-size netbook/tablet market).
  22. dgree03 macrumors 65816


    Jan 8, 2009

    10in Netbooks have 1366 x 768.... why not ipad?

    The funny thing is then SJ goes on to say you can watch HD videos and Youtube.. did anyone tell him that HD is no 4:3 aspect ratio?
  23. bozzykid macrumors 68020

    Aug 11, 2009
    HD doesn't have anything to do with the aspect ratio.

    Btw, most likely the real reason is the cost of these screens was cheap so that is the size they went with.
  24. mooblie macrumors 6502


    Apr 23, 2009
    The Highlands, Scotland
    True. However it is also true that there is NO variant of HD that is 4:3. So any HD playback will either have black bars, or be cropped: neither of which is good.
  25. kzin macrumors 6502

    Jul 20, 2005
    Which ones? The 10in netbooks and tablets I'm familiar with are all 1024x600.

    Youtube HD has 3 resolutions:

    1280x720 ("720p")

    Further, 1280x720, being a standard HD resolution (720p/720i), should be able to be down-converted to another standard resolution: 480p (which is 720x480, though technically it's ED (enhanced definion), not HD). The iPad should be able to display 480p in both portrait and landscape. If they had made the iPad with 1024x600, it couldn't display 480p in portrait mode.

    So, it can display the first two Youtube HD resolutions natively, and it should be able to down-convert 720p to 480p, and display those as well. All 3 should be displayable in both portrait and landscape orientations.

    Plus, it should be able to display the lower 2 Youtube HD resolutions in pixel-quadrupled mode (896x672 and 960x720), but only in landscape orientation.

    So, I don't see any reason why his claim that the iPad can show Youtube HD movies isn't valid.

Share This Page