Well, in the US, anyway. In much of the world, A3/A4, etc is the standard. Not to mention that the US sizes are not exactly 4:3, either (8.5 x 11 is 3.87:3 and 11 x 17 is 4.6:3).
No one really knows. I've heard the argument that reading a book in 16:9 looks like you're reading off a scroll, but that's probably just rationalization.
Bottom line is that it's 4:3. If you don't like it, don't buy one. Or go out and design and build your own slate product.
Any longer and it would possibly be awkward to hold (and look weird). I did this and found the current shape to be much easier to hold and it felt much lighter although it was only slightly so.
They could have adjusted the width of the bezel to both have a wider screen for videos and still be close to the current outside dimensions.
I thought Apple had the slickest design engineers in the biz?
I'm getting one; and I work in video (and print) and I'm more than happy with it as it is. Lots of people will buy it. Many won't. That's life. Not everybody runs out and buys a MacPro, or a Zune.
Personally, I've been waiting for a cool Media Internet Device for YEARS.
The (presumed) lack of codec support and the lack of widescreen kills the Media device aspect for me. The lack of access to lots of popular websites kills the Internet device aspect for me.
So I'm still waiting. I'm hoping someone gets it right using Android. Now THAT would be killer.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.
That design decision is reasonable for the iPhone. I'm not sure that its reasonable for the iPad. That just makes the pad a larger iPhone/Touch. That may be good enough for many but it seems like it ignores the possibilities that the more robust cpu and larger screen make possible.
And the Palm Pre shows that multitasking CAN be done properly on a hand held device. I'm not totally negative on the pad. I like it for the most part. But there are limitations to the device and this is one that seems unnecessary and isn't outweighed by the benefits IMO.
Personally, I've been waiting for a cool Media Internet Device for YEARS.
The (presumed) lack of codec support and the lack of widescreen kills the Media device aspect for me. The lack of access to lots of popular websites kills the Internet device aspect for me.
So I'm still waiting. I'm hoping someone gets it right using Android. Now THAT would be killer.
As far as Im concerned, there's a 99% chance the iPad will be jailbroken within a week of it's release, and all of us that use Backgrounder on our iPhones will immediately begin using it on the iPad.
The dumb public remains unaffected. Power users have a tried and true option.
Wow, you managed to roll class, ethnicity and religion into one bigoted sentence there. Congrats.
I guess in your world African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, Indians, rich people, middle class folks, etc don't like to read or surf the web, huh? Nice place.
[CENTER]Well...
I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.[/CENTER]
Last I checked, the NYT will have an app for the iPad. I am assuming it is flash-free.
Yeah, but that is silly. When using Google News, if I want to go to a story on the NYT site, I don't want to quit the damn browser to do it. And when I go to the site, I don't want a blank space where the video or slideshow should have been.
Maybe you like it better that way, or like being relegated to apps instead of the regular 'web.
But for the rest of us, we don't want to worry about which websites might or might not work. We want the damn thing to Just Work. And it don't.
The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.
So most websites are dropping Flash or providing alternatives. YouTube and Vimeo already offer h264 playback.
HTML5 will render vector animation without draining your battery.
Flash-only is like Explorer-only websites. If you want to attract the largest possible audience, you'll have to move to using web standards.
C.
I don't have any stats to back it up, but anecdotally the consensus among the dev community is that Flash is indeed on the way out... but certainly not in the next few months.
Maybe in 5 years time the usage of Flash will have reduced to a point where Apple will be able to release the Gen4 iPad without all of the gimped browser criticism.
Either that or they just get flash support and make everyone happy.
The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.
But in the meantime, the inability to display popular or interesting or valuable web sites is a deal-killer for me. I was told by iSteve himself this device would be "the best way to surf the internet". But it is not.
But in the meantime, the inability to display popular or interesting or valuable web sites is a deal-killer for me. I was told by iSteve himself this device would be "the best way to surf the internet". But it is not.
You could make the same argument for Internet Explorer-only websites.
There used to be plenty of sites that would not work on Firefox and Safari. Now they all work.
Yesterday, I installed ClickToFlash. To see what a flashless world is like.
So far, the biggest difference is that a lot of annoying advertising disappears.
Comments
4:3 is the shape of a sheet of paper.
Always has been - always will be.
C.
Well, in the US, anyway. In much of the world, A3/A4, etc is the standard. Not to mention that the US sizes are not exactly 4:3, either (8.5 x 11 is 3.87:3 and 11 x 17 is 4.6:3).
No one really knows. I've heard the argument that reading a book in 16:9 looks like you're reading off a scroll, but that's probably just rationalization.
Bottom line is that it's 4:3. If you don't like it, don't buy one. Or go out and design and build your own slate product.
Any longer and it would possibly be awkward to hold (and look weird). I did this and found the current shape to be much easier to hold and it felt much lighter although it was only slightly so.
They could have adjusted the width of the bezel to both have a wider screen for videos and still be close to the current outside dimensions.
I thought Apple had the slickest design engineers in the biz?
I'm getting one; and I work in video (and print) and I'm more than happy with it as it is. Lots of people will buy it. Many won't. That's life. Not everybody runs out and buys a MacPro, or a Zune.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Canned answer No. 543: My way or the highway.
Personally, I've been waiting for a cool Media Internet Device for YEARS.
The (presumed) lack of codec support and the lack of widescreen kills the Media device aspect for me. The lack of access to lots of popular websites kills the Internet device aspect for me.
So I'm still waiting. I'm hoping someone gets it right using Android. Now THAT would be killer.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.
That design decision is reasonable for the iPhone. I'm not sure that its reasonable for the iPad. That just makes the pad a larger iPhone/Touch. That may be good enough for many but it seems like it ignores the possibilities that the more robust cpu and larger screen make possible.
And the Palm Pre shows that multitasking CAN be done properly on a hand held device. I'm not totally negative on the pad. I like it for the most part. But there are limitations to the device and this is one that seems unnecessary and isn't outweighed by the benefits IMO.
Canned answer No. 543: My way or the highway.
Personally, I've been waiting for a cool Media Internet Device for YEARS.
The (presumed) lack of codec support and the lack of widescreen kills the Media device aspect for me. The lack of access to lots of popular websites kills the Internet device aspect for me.
So I'm still waiting. I'm hoping someone gets it right using Android. Now THAT would be killer.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Use Skype while browsing the web.
How do you do that??
The dumb public remains unaffected. Power users have a tried and true option.
Solved.
Wow, you managed to roll class, ethnicity and religion into one bigoted sentence there. Congrats.
I guess in your world African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, Indians, rich people, middle class folks, etc don't like to read or surf the web, huh? Nice place.
[CENTER]Well...
I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Well...
I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.[/CENTER]
Can you link to some sites, other than porn, low-quality free tv shows, and games for 13 year olds, which won't function without flash?
Can you link to some sites, other than porn, low-quality free tv shows, and games for 13 year olds, which won't function without flash?
How about The New York Times? Oops!
How about The New York Times? Oops!
Last I checked, the NYT will have an app for the iPad. I am assuming it is flash-free.
Last I checked, the NYT will have an app for the iPad. I am assuming it is flash-free.
Yeah, but that is silly. When using Google News, if I want to go to a story on the NYT site, I don't want to quit the damn browser to do it. And when I go to the site, I don't want a blank space where the video or slideshow should have been.
Maybe you like it better that way, or like being relegated to apps instead of the regular 'web.
But for the rest of us, we don't want to worry about which websites might or might not work. We want the damn thing to Just Work. And it don't.
I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.
The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.
So most websites are dropping Flash or providing alternatives. YouTube and Vimeo already offer h264 playback.
HTML5 will render vector animation without draining your battery.
Flash-only is like Explorer-only websites. If you want to attract the largest possible audience, you'll have to move to using web standards.
C.
The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.
So most websites are dropping Flash or providing alternatives. YouTube and Vimeo already offer h264 playback.
HTML5 will render vector animation without draining your battery.
Flash-only is like Explorer-only websites. If you want to attract the largest possible audience, you'll have to move to using web standards.
C.
I don't have any stats to back it up, but anecdotally the consensus among the dev community is that Flash is indeed on the way out... but certainly not in the next few months.
Maybe in 5 years time the usage of Flash will have reduced to a point where Apple will be able to release the Gen4 iPad without all of the gimped browser criticism.
Either that or they just get flash support and make everyone happy.
The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.
But in the meantime, the inability to display popular or interesting or valuable web sites is a deal-killer for me. I was told by iSteve himself this device would be "the best way to surf the internet". But it is not.
But in the meantime, the inability to display popular or interesting or valuable web sites is a deal-killer for me. I was told by iSteve himself this device would be "the best way to surf the internet". But it is not.
You could make the same argument for Internet Explorer-only websites.
There used to be plenty of sites that would not work on Firefox and Safari. Now they all work.
Yesterday, I installed ClickToFlash. To see what a flashless world is like.
So far, the biggest difference is that a lot of annoying advertising disappears.
C.
Yesterday, I installed ClickToFlash. To see what a flashless world is like.
So far, the biggest difference is that a lot of annoying advertising disappears.
That's great for you. But what about the rest of us?
That's great for you. But what about the rest of us?
Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.
I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?
C.
Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.
I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?
C.
"Simply can...not live without" is way too high a standard. "would like to access" is perhaps more appropriate.
I could live without any flash websites whatsoever. I could even live without the internet as a whole. But that is irrelevant.