• Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

Jackintosh

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 21, 2009
572
4
Illinois
Compared to all the competition (including Nexus 7), Apple seems to insist on keeping the old style, square 4:3 screen ratio instead of going with a wide screen 16:9.

Considering the advantages in viewing movies/videos with wide screen, why does Apple continue to stay with the old 4:3 for iPad?
 
Last edited:

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,410
1
Compared to all the competition (including Nexus 7), Apple seems to insist on keeping the old style, square 4:3 screen ratio instead of going with a wide screen 10:9.

Considering the advantages in viewing movies/videos with wide screen, why does Apple continue to stay with the old 4:3 for iPad?

Are you serious?

Because they currently don't want developers to have to work with a new screen ratio; because the iPad is used for more than viewing movies and videos, and thus one has to consider the ergonomics of it; and because there aren't any advantages to it at all, besides catering to a few dweebs who worry about black bars on their screen.
 
Comment

Rodster

macrumors 68040
May 15, 2007
3,177
6
Thank god Apple is one of the few mfg's that still uses 4:3/5:4/16:10. The x:9 format sucks and it needs to go the way of Flash.
 
Comment

BFizzzle

macrumors 68020
May 31, 2010
2,443
0
Austin TX
Are you serious?

Because they currently don't want developers to have to work with a new screen ratio; because the iPad is used for more than viewing movies and videos, and thus one has to consider the ergonomics of it; and because there aren't any advantages to it at all, besides catering to a few dweebs who worry about black bars on their screen.

ergonomics?
i didnt know it had anything to do with the interaction and safety of my work environment
;)
 
Comment

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,410
1
ergonomics?

It's a device used in portrait and landscape mode, with either hand holding and touching potentially any edge and face of it, at multiple angles. It's crucial to consider the effect of the dimensions, proportions, and balance of such a device given how people interact with it physically. Aspect ratio, in this case, affects more than how it looks, it affects how it's handled.
 
Comment

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,120
3,790
Look at the position of the camera and home button. Unlike most tablets, the iPad was designed first around the portrait orientation. 16:9 is an awkward ratio for portrait. Those black letterbox bars end up on magazines, PDF documents, and most photos. And of course makes everything more narrow.
 
Last edited:
Comment

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,240
5
ipad ≠ video only device

really its as simple as that. its designed around having a lot of uses and not just for playing movies or other video content.
 
Comment

ThatsMeRight

macrumors 68020
Sep 12, 2009
2,257
134
Compared to all the competition (including Nexus 7), Apple seems to insist on keeping the old style, square 4:3 screen ratio instead of going with a wide screen 10:9.

Considering the advantages in viewing movies/videos with wide screen, why does Apple continue to stay with the old 4:3 for iPad?
Because the onliest advantage of a 16:9 display is watching widescreen movies. For everything else - browsing, reading, photos, etc. - a 4:3 display has a clear advantage over a 16:9 display. ;)

----------

The iPad was actually designed to be a portrait-held device, not landscape.
When they first announced the iPad, they advertised a lot with "You can hold it any way you want."
 
Comment

Phil A.

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 2, 2006
5,671
2,778
Shropshire, UK
The aspect ratio of the iPad is, IMO, one of its strengths - widescreen tablets are hopeless in portrait mode whereas the iPad works equally well in portrait and landscape
 
Comment

darngooddesign

macrumors G4
Jul 4, 2007
10,349
1,061
Atlanta, GA
...most laptops are 16:9

Yes, but on those laptops not only can you reduce the width of your browser window, but they don't force the site to scale up to the width which magnifies everything and reduces the amount of things you see vertically. 16:9 would be ok only if sites didn't rescale to fill the width of the screen.
 
Comment

tmarks11

macrumors 6502a
May 3, 2010
509
32
"4:3 is about Apple being stubborn"?

4:3 ratio rocks.

One of the reason that I have never considered seriously any of the competition is that I don't want what is obviously a portable media player; something designed primarily for playing HD movies, that can do a couple of other things,just not well.

Ever notice the ratio of an 8.5x11 piece of paper, or a hard bound or paperback book? Yep, not 16x9. Because that would just be annoying.

16x9 works great on a 24" screen because you can lay two screens side by side. Not so much on a 9" screen.
 
Last edited:
Comment

SteveAbootman

macrumors 6502a
May 12, 2008
603
67
Compared to all the competition (including Nexus 7), Apple seems to insist on keeping the old style, square 4:3 screen ratio instead of going with a wide screen 16:9.

Consider for a moment that the competition went 16:9 as a way to differentiate from the iPad. For them it's a selling point and one they'll potentially try to market as an advantage over iPad.

The reality is that Apple considered a lot of factors when designing the product and went with the one they thought best for users. They did not design a product to be one that was merely different than a competitors product.
 
Comment

Virgo

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2011
513
28
Los Angeles, CA
To me, the iPad and its apps replace a lot of things we used to do on normal paper. That's why it's shaped like a PAD of paper.. and this gives it way more uses than if it were to be shaped like an awkward skinny rectangle.
 
Comment

barjam

macrumors 6502
Jul 4, 2010
385
185
That's true and when is the last time you saw a computer LCD that was a 4:3 ratio? And i'd say most pcs aren't used for watching movies. This is just Apple being stubborn and doing things their way IMO.

I would much prefer if they quit tying computer monitor ratio to movie ratio. 16:9 is awful productivity tasks such as programming. The average monitor from 10 years ago offered more vertical pixels than the average monitor of today.

Tablets that are 16x9 do not fit a standard tablet or "notepad" form factor.

Kudos to apple for doing this right.
 
Comment

tmarks11

macrumors 6502a
May 3, 2010
509
32
:9 is awful productivity tasks such as programming. The average monitor from 10 years ago offered more vertical pixels than the average monitor of today..
++1. I replaced my 4:3 20" 1600x1200 5 year old monitor with two 24" 1920x1068 16:9 monitors. This is progress? Lower resolution?

Only a few monitors are offered with 1200 vical pixels, and this are expensive, as are the very few 4:3 monitors produced today. Manufacturers embraced the 16:9 format because it was both a marketing and manufacturing cost reduction ploy.
 
Comment

barjam

macrumors 6502
Jul 4, 2010
385
185
++1. I replaced my 4:3 20" 1600x1200 5 year old monitor with two 24" 1920x1068 16:9 monitors. This is progress? Lower resolution?

Only a few monitors are offered with 1200 vical pixels, and this are expensive, as are the very few 4:3 monitors produced today. Manufacturers embraced the 16:9 format because it was both a marketing and manufacturing cost reduction ploy.

You could also flip that 1600x1200 on its side and have a usable screen you can't do that with 1080p.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.