All iPads Will Apple ever make 16:9 for iPad/Mini?


goobot

macrumors 603
Jun 26, 2009
5,545
1,898
long island NY
16:10 sounds more realistic, anyway i doubt the current ones will but if they were to do a 12inch+ iPad i can see it happening.
 

Rodster

macrumors 68040
May 15, 2007
3,178
6
The one thing that sets the iPad apart hardware wise is the 4:3 display. It's the best experience for web browsing.
 

s2mikey

macrumors 68020
Sep 23, 2013
2,462
2,520
Upstate, NY
The one thing that sets the iPad apart hardware wise is the 4:3 display. It's the best experience for web browsing.
It's the best experience for web browsing and a lot of other things. Widescreen tablets are weird to hold and just aren't right. The portrait position is messed up too.... Just isn't right. Tablets should be 4:3 aspect ration and that's that.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,498
3,095
I know iTunes movies come with SD/HD so why not iPad/Mini can have 16:9 screen for HD movies? :apple:
Hopefully not. Movies are one use case, but there are million other uses where a 16:9 screen is just awful.

And then there's Apple TV, which lets me display 16:9 movies on my 16:9 TV, which has a much bigger screen and much better speakers than my iPad.
 

Donka

macrumors 68030
May 3, 2011
2,739
1,371
Scotland
Hopefully never. 4:3 is one of the reasons I use an iPad, I prefer to use it in portrait for the majority of tasks and having that wider ratio makes things a better experience for me. 16:9 only makes sense for movies and even then you will still get black bars in some movies.
I do a whole lot more with my iPad than movies...
 

Charliebird

macrumors 6502a
Mar 10, 2010
838
90
16:10 \ 16:9 was the worst adaption by the technology industry. It's great for TV viewing and horrible for everything else.
 

sracer

macrumors G3
Apr 9, 2010
8,352
8,705
Prescott Valley, AZ
16:10 \ 16:9 was the worst adaption by the technology industry. It's great for TV viewing and horrible for everything else.
16:9 is not even great for TV viewing. For people like me who watch classic TV shows (or any show pre-1995) we end up with "pillarboxing". And there are many movies both old and new that are wider than 16:9 and so letterboxing exists for those too. Some classic films are in Academy AR (4:3) so pillarbox exists too.

16:9 tablets are more difficult to hold... too narrow in portrait, too wide in landscape. In portrait, the tablet is taller than a comparably sized 4:3 iPad but because it is taller, the weight of the tablet puts additional strain on the wrist.

I love the hardware capabilities of the Surface 2, but the 16:9 AR makes it awkward to use as a tablet.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Usability for tablets goes down with 16:9.

You get more screen content with 4:3, and it feels more ergonomic.

Apple got it right out the gate.
 

Shanghaichica

macrumors G4
Apr 8, 2013
11,111
7,507
UK
The day Apple makes 16:9 iPad, it is the death day of iPad. It will be just other tablet, similar with bunch of Android tablet.
I agree. I've had various android tablets but I've never really used them for much more than watching videos. The aspect ratio is crap for anything but watching videos. I'd even give Apple he upper hand for watching videos due to their ecosystem, wider selection of films and TV shows, Amazon instant prime etc.

I use my iPad mini everyday for everything from web browsing, to apps, gaming, videos, shopping, reading, reminders, calculator, organiser etc
 

xlii

macrumors 68000
Sep 19, 2006
1,854
64
Millis, Massachusetts
I agree... 4:3 is much better than 16:9 for the user. One is left to wonder why the other tablet makers are using 16:9? Did they ever compare user experience with screens of different dimensions?
 

dazz87

macrumors 65816
Sep 24, 2007
1,329
1,337
16:9 is not even great for TV viewing. For people like me who watch classic TV shows (or any show pre-1995) we end up with "pillarboxing". And there are many movies both old and new that are wider than 16:9 and so letterboxing exists for those too. Some classic films are in Academy AR (4:3) so pillarbox exists too.
then you should pick up a used CRT for your tv viewing.........
 

Charliebird

macrumors 6502a
Mar 10, 2010
838
90
I love the hardware capabilities of the Surface 2, but the 16:9 AR makes it awkward to use as a tablet.
I totally agree. It's a very nice piece of hardware with the totally wrong aspect ratio. Microsoft frustrates me to no end!
 

threelions

macrumors regular
Nov 7, 2013
140
1
Hopefully not. The aspect ratio is one of the major reasons I pick Ipads over Android tablets.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,286
2,471
16:10 \ 16:9 was the worst adaption by the technology industry. It's great for TV viewing and horrible for everything else.
You hate the iPhone then?

----------

I agree... 4:3 is much better than 16:9 for the user. One is left to wonder why the other tablet makers are using 16:9? Did they ever compare user experience with screens of different dimensions?
It's because 4:3 is useless for allowing anything other than full screen apps.
It's Apple's biggest problem
Others are making tablets with various OS's that allow one full app and a narrow app, or some reduced view, perhaps a chat client and a web browser, or chatting and viewing photo's and then you can with your finger drag something from one pane to the other pane.

Realistically you are screwed from doing this is you stick to 4:3 and it's stopping Apple from advancing iOS any further.

If they did go 16:10 for example, then they could start to implement all manner of new exciting ways to use a touch based screen OS.

How long before they offer this, who knows.
 

Charliebird

macrumors 6502a
Mar 10, 2010
838
90
You hate the iPhone then?

----------

Oh snap, you got me there because it's nice having a thin iPhone that fits in my pocket. However for tablets, laptops, and monitors I'm not a fan of 16:9. To much scrolling and having to look side to side.
 

Night Spring

macrumors G5
Jul 17, 2008
13,064
5,084
You hate the iPhone then?
I don't hate it, but the 16:9 ratio does feel awkward at times. It's tolerable because the iPhone is small. If iPhone 6 is going to be bigger, do you think it could go back to the aspect ratio of earlier iPhones?
 

sracer

macrumors G3
Apr 9, 2010
8,352
8,705
Prescott Valley, AZ
You hate the iPhone then?
The iPhone serves a different purpose and is used in a different manner than a tablet. Unless you are in the, "the iPad is nothing more than an oversized iPhone" camp.


It's because 4:3 is useless for allowing anything other than full screen apps.
It's Apple's biggest problem
Others are making tablets with various OS's that allow one full app and a narrow app, or some reduced view, perhaps a chat client and a web browser, or chatting and viewing photo's and then you can with your finger drag something from one pane to the other pane.

Realistically you are screwed from doing this is you stick to 4:3 and it's stopping Apple from advancing iOS any further.

If they did go 16:10 for example, then they could start to implement all manner of new exciting ways to use a touch based screen OS.

How long before they offer this, who knows.
iOS is not designed for full multitasking. Fundamental changes to the core of iOS are required to enable multi-window/app in the manner that you describe. That is a much larger issue than the aspect ratio.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,286
2,471
The iPhone serves a different purpose and is used in a different manner than a tablet. Unless you are in the, "the iPad is nothing more than an oversized iPhone" camp.



iOS is not designed for full multitasking. Fundamental changes to the core of iOS are required to enable multi-window/app in the manner that you describe. That is a much larger issue than the aspect ratio.
Indeed, but it has to be accepted that it's probably not possible for Apple to advance iOS to benefit from improvements like that, which Android and Windows tablets can do (two apps side by side to some degree) without a shift in aspect ratio.

Either Apple are never going to move iOS on in this manner (and as CPU's get faster it's going to be more and more restrictive, when you have the power to do it) or you are going to have to alter the screen to allow for this.

As always, I see 16:10 as giving you MORE screen (but some still can't see it this way and feel it's taking screen away from 4:3)