Why does iPad not have a wide screen ratio?

[Piggie]

++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.

Well that is your fault for buying the wrong monitors then.

You should of bought 1920x1200 screens which are easy to find and you would of had the same vertical space as you did on your old screen, but more width.

Why blame monitors for you selecting the wrong model to buy

Here is just one company selling 15 screens with this resolution:
http://www.ebuyer.com/search?page=1...=5&cat=12&filterca149=1920+x+1200&subcat=2097

Not exactly hard to find after all, are they?

 

[Rodster]

All of my monitors are either 4:3/5:4/16:10. I would never consider buying a 16:9 monitor.

 

[kemperman]

21:9 cinema ratio iPad FTW!

Seriously, I'd rather have a 4:3 iPad and chose how I hold it than a 16:9 one and be limited to just portrait for everything bar movies. I mainly use my iPad in landscape and I love it, if it were 16:9 I think it would be too 'short' to see enough of the web page/book/app effectively.

I have no problem at all with black bars, after a little while watching my brain tends to filter them out anyway

 

[Piggie]

21:9 cinema ratio iPad FTW!

Seriously, I'd rather have a 4:3 iPad and chose how I hold it than a 16:9 one and be limited to just portrait for everything bar movies. I mainly use my iPad in landscape and I love it, if it were 16:9 I think it would be too 'short' to see enough of the web page/book/app effectively.

I have no problem at all with black bars, after a little while watching my brain tends to filter them out anyway

Ah, you see, you are looking at this as a glass half empty as opposed to a glass half full point of view:

You say "if it were 16:9 I think it would be too 'short' to see enough of the web page/book/app effectively."

But you are making the mistake of thinking 16:9 slices the top and bottom off the current screen.

Don't look at is this way. Consider the more positive viewpoint that, the height of the screen stays exactly as it is, but the 16:9 adds more screen space to either side of your current screen.

 

[Night Spring]

Don't look at is this way. Consider the more positive viewpoint that, the height of the screen stays exactly as it is, but the 16:9 adds more screen space to either side of your current screen.

That extra space would then become wasted space when you are trying to use the iPad to read text in landscape, because if a line is too long, it makes text hard to read, so you'd have to set up a wide margin to keep the lines at an appropriate length.

Plus, having a tablet in 16:9 makes it more awkward to hold, as others have already pointed out.

 

[Piggie]

That extra space would then become wasted space when you are trying to use the iPad to read text in landscape, because if a line is too long, it makes text hard to read, so you'd have to set up a wide margin to keep the lines at an appropriate length.

Plus, having a tablet in 16:9 makes it more awkward to hold, as others have already pointed out.

I think we can all accept that 16:9 or 16:10 is the wrong format for a tablet device.

Until Apple make one with that aspect ratio.

Then I think you will find it will be fine

You my think that is a little sarcastic, but the fact is, as dispute this is you will, that "IF" the iPad had been launched in say a 16:10 ratio, and we all have 16:10 ratio iPads now, then this conversation would not be happening as we would all think 16:10 was the right aspect ratio.

 

[Carouser]

You my think that is a little sarcastic, but the fact is, as dispute this is you will, that "IF" the iPad had been launched in say a 16:10 ratio, and we all have 16:10 ratio iPads now, then this conversation would not be happening as we would all think 16:10 was the right aspect ratio.

Will you ever stop posting this?

It boils down to "I can ignore arguments I don't like because really people just approve of whatever Apple does because it's Apple."

It doesn't address any specific claims or any specific posters. It's totally useless.

You can't even provide evidence in support of it because it's about how people would act in an alternate universe where Apple did something other than what they did.

And people you know who approve of all kinds of things Apple are irrelevant, because they aren't the people in this thread trying to have a conversation. Unless you have the nerve to name them and show how they are simply clapping for everything Apple instead of making arguments? Shameful.

 

[TyroneShoes2]

Actually, most laptops are 16:10. This is equivalent to the 5:8 "Golden Rectangle" ratio which is from the Greek, IIRC, and was decided to be the most pleasing ratio for paintings and whatnot eons ago. That still has some bearing on human psychology today, regarding what humans are unconsciously comfortable with.

16:9 is a legitimate screen ratio. The Grand Alliance spent millions in the 1980's studying what screen size made the most sense globally in terms of what would be the best new screen ratio (assuming we throw all old ratios out) for HDTV, and this was it. There was little compromise, and little dissension. The long and firm legacy of the Golden Rectangle ratio was just one of the issues contributing to the 16:9 decision.

But with tablet and computer screens more has to be taken into account; no denying that. The screen size also has to work for more than just HD video. But HD video is still a very important part of that decision. So both will drive what people want, and what will be offered.

I firmly expect a 16:9 iPad to be sold alongside the current 4:3 iPad, and possibly this year. And why not? Staples sells 8.5x14 legal pads directly next to 8.5x11 letter-sized pads. Both ratios are valid and can coexist. It will be more attractive to those who buy an iPad for viewing HD video, for one thing. The new iPhone is also rumored to be 16:9, so it would have the same synergy with a 16:9 iPad as the current iPhone and iPad have today (and in that same vein, that the iPhone is 4:3 somewhat answers the original question of why the iPad is 4:3).

But, universality would of course become complicated as far as apps are concerned if we are dealing with two slightly-different aspect ratios. Not troublingly so, just a bit more complicated. Apps would have to compromise, either with pan and scan to view/hide buttons or extending the edges of 4:3 apps just to fill the real estate (with useless filler). A small compromise; not all that problematic in the end.

It'll happen. Hide and watch.

 

[Piggie]

Will you ever stop posting this?

It boils down to "I can ignore arguments I don't like because really people just approve of whatever Apple does because it's Apple."

Only because for people who follow and are loyal to the brand act this way.

If Apple release a new product and all the Apple fans go, omg, that's horrible, they made a mistake with this one, I won't buy this, don't like it.

Then I will be more than happy to say I was wrong and they are not just liking it because it's make and designed by Apple.

It's only a temporary thing, as if you take Apple items of the past, and show them to a current day Apple consumer, they may well say, OMG that's hideous. However, if you look back at the launch of this hideous product, you will see it being cheered and raved about as the best ever item when it was current.

 

[Carouser]

snip

People are making specific responses to the benefits of various aspect ratios, could you carry on that conversation instead of carrying on a smear against hypothetical fanboys? Edit: The fact that tastes change over time has nothing to do with Apple or people being disingenuous, you can't be for real.

Here's an example:
I wonder what TyroneShoes2 would say about the fact that tablets are used in multiple orientations (contra movie and laptop screens) and why he seems to not think it's relevant.

 

[NewbieCanada]

I think we can all accept that 16:9 or 16:10 is the wrong format for a tablet device.

Until Apple make one with that aspect ratio.

Then I think you will find it will be fine

Or until someone makes one that outsells the iPad.

 

[Night Spring]

If Apple release a new product and all the Apple fans go, omg, that's horrible, they made a mistake with this one, I won't buy this, don't like it.

You could try going into the Lion / Mountain Lion threads to see all the people unhappy and complaining about the changes Apple is making. I believe I even saw some comments to the effect of "I'm gong back to Windows" and "Linux here I come!"

And the very existence of this thread is because someone questioned Apple's decision to make the iPad 4:3 instead of 16:9.

It just so happens that lots of people are happy with the iPad's current aspect ratio and saying so. Doesnt mean that they have never disagreed with something Apple did, or won't disagree with something Apple might fo in the future.

 

[taipan61]

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

ergonomic
adj
designed to minimize physical effort and discomfort, and hence maximize efficiency

also something to do with tv commercial for a bed in the u.s....lol
(playful sarcasm)

 

[BFizzzle]

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.

i know but wouldnt the ipad still be held the same way and navigated the same way regardless of it being slightly longer? its not like its the iphone and designed for you to hold it in one hand and a screen size that is meant for your thumb to reach across the entire screen..

 

[Renzatic]

All of my monitors are either 4:3/5:4/16:10. I would never consider buying a 16:9 monitor.

I wouldn't go that far. 16:9 monitors are the best choice for applications that are built with a left to right oriented interface. This includes 3DS Max, Photoshop, Modo, Zbrush, Blender. I'll give you an example to illustrate my point...

This is Modo on my 16:9 monitor

Same goes for Photoshop

16:10 works about as well here, but I tend to prefer the bit of extra room 16:9 gives you.

Though what about tablets? Well, for everything the iPad is good at, 4:3 is just about perfect. Reading and jotting down documents is a perfect fit for portrait orientation. You've got tons of vertical space to work with, something the wider screen aspect ratios don't give you. And it's comfortable to hold, being about the size and shape of a book. The only downside are letterboxed movies, but that isn't exactly the worst thing in the world.

But...

Tablets are going to be capable of doing more and more here in the near future. Soon, we'll have a real version of Photoshop to play with, full featured 3D modellers, movie editors, hell, all kinds of programs that need a goodly bit of extra room. For them, you need more screen than what a 4:3 screen can provide. You want enough so your work space is still square, but still have some breathing space for all your interface elements. 16:10 is your best bet for this.

So what's the answer here? I guess it depends on what you intend on doing with your tablet. Office work and reading works best for taller screens, editing and creating wider. There is no one size fits all solution.

But for right now, considering what tablets are currently best at, 4:3 is the way to go.

 

[JMG]

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Think of the iPad as providing a little more height in landscape mode for all the other functions rather than less width.

 

[drjsway]

Only watch old tv shows and movies made before 1954. Problem solved.

 

[tmarks11]

Well that is your fault for buying the wrong monitors then. You should of bought 1920x1200 screens which are easy to find and you would of had the same vertical space as you did on your old screen

I know, I shopped around quite a bit (real tough...click...click...click). I really wanted the 1200 vertical resolution, but not at the price premium. It is a good step up in price to get a good 24" model with an extra 120 pixels... About 50-100% higher prices.

Looking at 23" displays and above: Newegg sells 19 different models with 1920x120, priced from $300-$2400, and 130 models with 1920x1080, priced from $129-$500.

I think I paid $150 each for two good asus displays with 1080 vertical pixels... The equivalent asus display with 1200 vertical pixels was $300 per display.

Your link shows the same story: 15 higher priced monitors with 1200 pixels, and 85 lower priced monitors with 1080 pixels. So, yes, easy to find if you don't mind shilling out a lot more money. There are even (very few) 1600x1200 resolution monitors available, for 2-3x the price of their inferior 16:9 brothers.

 

[Carouser]

i know but wouldnt the ipad still be held the same way and navigated the same way regardless of it being slightly longer? its not like its the iphone and designed for you to hold it in one hand and a screen size that is meant for your thumb to reach across the entire screen..

It won't be exactly the same, no, because as the proportions change, so will the mass of the object and/or the distribution of that mass, which will affect how the device feels and how people interact with it. It will change how it feels lifting it off of a table, rotating it, flipping it over, handing it to another person, and so on. It may be subconscious, but it is nonetheless worth considering for a designer. What else changes? The arc across which you have to move your arms/hands/fingers; the range your eyes have to scan, either up and down or left and right; and more.

If someone doesn't think this merits consideration, they are wrong, plain and simple. People are very sensitive to relative differences, especially when manually interacting with a product. Apple doesn't fund its design team to just make general decisions, as though Ive's biggest problem is picking an aluminum back over a carbon fiber one because it looks cool.

There may still be merit to other ratios, the only point is that what appears an insignificant change on paper is consequential in use.

 

[Zcott]

Great to see some portrait mode love here. I use my iPad 99% of the time in portrait mode.

 

[Rodster]

Great to see some portrait mode love here. I use my iPad 99% of the time in portrait mode.

Portrait mode 99.999% of the time for me.

 

[The New iPad]

I wouldn't want to carry a super rectangle, though. The iPad is like paper ratio which we all have been conditioned to be used to since grade school. 16:9 is a wide rectangular fail.

 

[Beta Particle]

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

16:9 is really only beneficial for video. Films are almost universally 2.37:1 these days (“21:9”) so they will not fill the screen of a 16:9 tablet anyway, and I do far more reading on my iPad (web, forums, rss, books) than I watch YouTube videos.

The 16:9 aspect ratio really forces tablets into landscape-only use. They’re horrible to use in the portrait orientation, which is primarily how the iPad was designed to be used. 4:3 works well in either orientation.

But what about photos, web browsing, PDFs?

Digital cameras almost universally have 3:2 aspect ratio sensors. This is closer to 4:3, and is the aspect ratio of the iPhone display. A lot of people seem to be cropping their images to be square these days, which is also much closer to 4:3.

Almost no websites are designed with 16:9 in mind, most are still a thin column of text, so any extra width is unnecessary. Even if you have the iPad in landscape mode, Safari’s reading mode won't fill the width of the display.

Paper documents (PDFs) and books, magazines etc. are all much closer to the 4:3 aspect ratio.

...most laptops are 16:9

Most laptops are 16:10, and most people don’t fill the entire screen with the browser window.

16:9 is a legitimate screen ratio. The Grand Alliance spent millions in the 1980's studying what screen size made the most sense globally in terms of what would be the best new screen ratio (assuming we throw all old ratios out) for HDTV, and this was it. There was little compromise, and little dissension. The long and firm legacy of the Golden Rectangle ratio was just one of the issues contributing to the 16:9 decision.

Actually 16:9 is about as wide as you could physically make a CRT (even then, most 16:9 CRTs had problems with focus, convergence & distortion in the corners) and happened to be a nice intermediate between the current home displays (4:3) and cinema (21:9) which has people buying new TVs, but not cannibalising cinema tickets. (Well they got that part wrong)

4:3 +33% ≈ 16:9
16:9 +33% ≈ 21:9

16:10 works about as well here, but I tend to prefer the bit of extra room 16:9 gives you.

When we are talking displays, 16:9 is shorter than 16:10, not wider. The most common example would be 1920×1080 for 16:9 displays vs 1920×1200 for 16:10 displays.

 

[Thomas P.]

Well my vote goes for a variable screen that can somehow support both the 4:3 and the 16:9.

 

[Json81]

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Neither, it's the wrong size!

I have the acer iconia which is 16:10 (or 16:9 usable).

Using it in landscape is annoying because you have to scroll alot.
In portrait it's not wide enough.