I omitted ?on the go? for that very reason. It?s pointless filler. His implications being that the iPad is only useful as a stationary device is silly. For instance, which has a better battery life for reading, for WiFI, for video? If the iPad beats the Galaxy Tab in any single test his statement is blown to bits because running off the battery is something that I would think would be important for an ?on the go? test.
I focused on his aggrandized "far superior [?] in every way? comment as I don?t think there is a single thing I own that I could honestly say is "far superior [?] in every way? to something else, whether it?s "on the go" or not. For example, I love my iPhone and it?s by far the best choice for my needs, but saying that it?s "far superior [?] in every way? as a statement of fact would be asinine, at the very least, regardless of add some silly comment like ?on the go.?
As you obviously don't even own a Samsung Galaxy Tab (or any other 7 inch tablet for that matter), you're clearly speaking out of complete ignorance as to the portability/mobile (yes, 'on the go') usability of this form factor.
Note: Regarding your claims of 'omitting' anything for 'just that reason'... Sure Whatever
How is screen resolution a problem? You use whatever screen you want in the device, be it one pixel per inch or 300. The goal is to get the physical size down to a managable level.
From the standpoint of a stockholder I find it frustrating the Apple would give up so much market share. From the standpoint of a user, the lack of suppport for wide aspect ratios and a smaller screen leaves me frustrated.
In any event niether of these concerns are defensive. Rather it is an expression of desire for things to be seen in iPad 2.
By the way if iPad 2 comes out with all the features I'm expecting I might buy into the platform. But the issue with respect to size is real, iPad is just a bit to big to take with you every where you go.
I don't see it as much as giving up on market share. It's more so defining the market.
The iPad, as is, is far more useful than I expected when I bought it. Credit the keyboard for part of that. Credit the robustness of the apps due to the screen real estate.
A smaller iPad would lose both those things. While it would provide for people who want a smaller form factor, there are still so many people who don't really know what form is best for them because it's a new market.
People are used to laptops. They know whether they need a larger screen for a desktop replacement or a smaller screen for portability.
Countless consumers would assume that they'd prefer a smaller iPad. After a few weeks of using it, they would be satisfied but not surprised about their experience. It wouldnt integrate into their lives so much. I for one would still be dependent on my laptop.
The point is, it would allow people to cheapen their experience without ever knowing what they're missing out on. It would be good for stocks in the short run. But being that it's a brand new market, iPad wants to maintain its reputation rather than cater to every segment. From a stockholder perspective, I think that would pay off in the long run.
1) I didn't get in early enough (despite all my talk 10 years ago) nor did I buy enough to owe Jobs my allegiance for my retirement fund. I do thank him from the bottom of my heart for my emergency house fund...
This tells me all I need to know about you .... as they say in Texas ..... "All hat, no cattle"
So I'm supposed to have a (Android, I guess) smartphone that I carry at all times, a somewhat larger (Android, I guess) "tablet" that does exactly the same things as the smart phone and requires an additional cell phone contract that I also carry around for "on the go", and an iPad sized device at home because the somewhat larger on the go tablet actually isn't that pleasant for extended use.
Yes, I think many consumers will opt for that scenario.
It's interesting that the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" and therefore sharply limited in its appeal and capacities, but a literally (and only somewhat) bigger Android phone is perfect.
A smaller iPad would lose both those things. While it would provide for people who want a smaller form factor, there are still so many people who don't really know what form is best for them because it's a new
When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.
No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.
Apple has said stated many times to investors (Wall Street() that the iPad has (priced aggressively) lower margins.
FWIW, this is what they reported in their last 10-K statement:
Quote:
The gross margin percentage in 2010 was 39.4% compared to 40.1% in 2009. This decline in primarily attributable to new products that have higher cost structures, including iPad, partially offset by a more favorable sales mix of iPhone, which has a higher gross margin than the Company average.
Much as been read into it, but I'm not sure all of the inference is correct.
When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.
No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.
You have separate the marketing from the reality, and that takes a little thought on the part of the reader which is why these quotes get pushed around as if they were meant to be taken literally.
Let’s take Jobs’ comments on iPhone apps from 2007. He said they created a sweet solution.
For starters, that solution promoted the full WebKit engine in a phone, something that wasn’t common before the iPhone and one reason, IMO, why the iPhone was and is so popular in the first place. We know this true to some extent because sites were being rewritten specifically to accommodate the iPhone and WebKit has become the de facto browser engine for mobiles.
Secondly, the SDK was announced and demoed only a few months after the iPhone’s release. I don’t believe for a second that Apple never considered an SDK for iOS until after developers forced Apple’s hand, as some have speculated. A proper SDK takes time to build, just ask Google, Palm, Nokia, RiM and Microsoft.
Finally, just before the talk in January 2007 about how developers could make apps for the iPhone Jobs specifically stated that Maps was the best way to access Google Maps on the iPhone so the idea of dedicated apps that “blow away” a browser-based solution was obviously clear to Apple. If it wasn’t then YouTube, Stocks, Weather and every other native app on the iPhone that connects to the internet and could be rendered by an internet browser would have just been a shortcut to a Safari page or a dedicated page rendered in HTML/JS/CSS.
The idea that Apple is basically bone-headed and customer hating, but nevertheless ends up doing the right thing because they are "forced" by internet pundit outcry or competition to change course, is one of those Apple hatred fall back positions that will never die.
The iPhone actually sucks, you see, except for the stuff that they had to do after some fat sweaty geeks on the internet raised hell. Then, of course, Anybody-But-Apple shows them how to do it "right" by building on what Apple has already done and benefiting from Apple's trailblazing.
If Apple brings out a 7" iPad, it won't be because Apple looked at the market and designed something they would be willing to sell. It will be because all those other really smart tech companies that didn't seem to be able to build a tablet worth shit until Apple showed them how and Google gave them an OS were "innovating" so that Apple became obliged to "catch up."
...Besides there is a thought in the industry that Apple screwed up in two respects. One is the issue of aspect ratio and the other is that iPad is to damn big....
I think others have addressed size. But Aspect Ratio???
Who is saying that? People that think tablets are good only for viewing movies? I can't think of one application on the iPad, other than viewing a movie, where the aspect ratio should be any different. So what, so you get a black bar either side of the movie.
Sacrifice the usability of a tablet for one application? Sounds like what some other manufacturer would do when designing one of their lame tablets.
1024x768: normal VGA for presentation. Keynote? I use it all the time. Books? PDFs? Emails? Sound familiar? Photos and slideshows? Photos are not naturally widescreen format. Typing up pages of notes? I don't want to carry around something the size and shape of an envelope (third letter size): I want something that approximates a notebook that I would write in.
Turn the iPad to landscape position for a nice browsing experience. But, if it was wide screen ratio, you would barely get more than the browser bar and a quarter of a page. You'd be scrolling all the time just to finish a paragraph.
I guess those that are pushing tablets with different aspect ratios are trying to make their point of differentiation a "feature". Good luck with that. Apple has been testing this for years. But since thousands of developers have created thousands of iPad apps that utilize the full screen for all kinds of productive purposes, then I guess the industry has spoken. And since millions have happily bought iPads, I guess you are in a very small and blinkered minority.
So I'm supposed to have a (Android, I guess) smartphone that I carry at all times, a somewhat larger (Android, I guess) "tablet" that does exactly the same things as the smart phone and requires an additional cell phone contract that I also carry around for "on the go", and an iPad sized device at home because the somewhat larger on the go tablet actually isn't that pleasant for extended use.
Yes, I think many consumers will opt for that scenario.
It's interesting that the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" and therefore sharply limited in its appeal and capacities, but a literally (and only somewhat) bigger Android phone is perfect.
It's because apple proved there is a market for a big iPod touch.
When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.
No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.
I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.
To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.
I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.
To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.
The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.
Really though, Addabox is right. Before the iPad came out, detractors said there was no interest in a big iPod touch. Now that the interest is well established, the company that created the interest is said to be doing it wrong.
Before the iPad came out, detractors said there was no interest in a big iPod touch.
At this point with the iTunes ecosystem so entrenched, Apple could put a 30 pin dock connector on a bag of pretzels and there would be queue around the block.
The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.
I like that point.
So you know, I like many of the points you make. So I'm not looking to disagree with you as much as I am to hear more.
Would you say that the competition is moving pretty slowly compared to the general rate of technology these days? The ipad has outpaced the competition to the point that:
*the nearest competitor, android, still doesn't have an os that they feel is right for a tablet device, even as hardware manufacturers are trying to push into the market
*Other competitors like rim and hp/palm also don't even have an os ready for a tablet device.
*the iPad seems to be succeedIng to the point where they can manage better pricing through more volume. Entry devices are looking to compete by going smaller.
I think others have addressed size. But Aspect Ratio???
Who is saying that?
Well obviously I just did! Aspect ratio is very important if one of your primary use cases is the delivery of video and movies. Obviously there is no perfect aspect ratio, but the point is wider would have been smarter on the iPad.
Quote:
People that think tablets are good only for viewing movies? I can't think of one application on the iPad, other than viewing a movie, where the aspect ratio should be any different. So what, so you get a black bar either side of the movie.
Actually a wider aspect ratio is good for a number of things including viewing of pics, reading a column of text, certain types of games, apps that leverage a wide screen (IDEs) and others. There is really very little to defend with respect to the 4:3 ratio.
Quote:
Sacrifice the usability of a tablet for one application? Sounds like what some other manufacturer would do when designing one of their lame tablets.
Don't be dense you would actually be increasing usability especially as the screen becomes smaller. For example grab an iPhone and type in text into this very dialog box. You get constant scrolling in horizontal orientation. The easiest way to improve iPhone, without blowing it up size wise is to give it a wider screen.
The same physical realities are at work when you are dealing with sub seven inch displays. You need one orientation that is much wider than the other to realize effective UI elements like keyboards.
Quote:
1024x768: normal VGA for presentation. Keynote? I use it all the time. Books? PDFs? Emails? Sound familiar?
Yep and everyone of those text delivery formats works better on a taller screen. Especially on a small device. Think about newspapers and their centuries of experience with columns of text. Papers are arrainged the way they are because it enhances readability as would a wide screen display offer up text in vertical mode. The science here is very clear. Just because Apple effectively markets it's choice of aspect ratios doesn't mean that that ratio is a good solution from the human factors perspective.
Quote:
Photos and slideshows? Photos are not naturally widescreen format.
Again I have to question if you really know what you are talking about. Have you looked at a 35mm negative? The closest format to paper size is or was the 6x7 cm format, other formats are far from 4:3 and some where square. Pics are often printed on common paper sizes but even those vary a bit in aspect ratios
Quote:
Typing up pages of notes?
Exactly! How would you type up notes on a sub seven in device without it being wide screen? The keyboard would still be a compromise but would be significantly wider, in horizontal mode, than a keyboard on a 4:3 ratio device.
Quote:
I don't want to carry around something the size and shape of an envelope (third letter size): I want something that approximates a notebook that I would write in.
Like a steno pad? If you want something bigger then you have more options, but as devices get smaller usability goes out the window with 4:3 aspect ratios. Besides ask yourself this; in a notebook what is the aspect ratio of the working surface?
Quote:
Turn the iPad to landscape position for a nice browsing experience. But, if it was wide screen ratio, you would barely get more than the browser bar and a quarter of a page. You'd be scrolling all the time just to finish a paragraph.
Or turn it vertically and user reader mode to read the text like you would in a newspaper. I'm not sure why you are struggling so much here, it is pretty simple really.
Quote:
I guess those that are pushing tablets with different aspect ratios are trying to make their point of differentiation a "feature". Good luck with that.
Nope not at all, what we are looking at is the human factors issues that have been with us for thousands of years now when it comes to reading text. Plus the smarter media delivery that comes with a wide screen.
Quote:
Apple has been testing this for years. But since thousands of developers have created thousands of iPad apps that utilize the full screen for all kinds of productive purposes, then I guess the industry has spoken. And since millions have happily bought iPads, I guess you are in a very small and blinkered minority.
You mis a couple of important points. First there are billions of people on the planet. Second there are millions of those that buy whatever Apple feeds them. Some even bought AppleTVs. Beyound that we really don't know what Apple tested or what they intend to deliver on other devices. Apple could deliver a wide screen device and simply call it a video iPod.
As for developers and apps, they have been fitting apps to the available tech since the start of the computer age. In a very literal sense you work with what you have be that a TTY, an 80x20 text display or an OpenGL driven display. In this case developers see a platform that they can make lots of money on so they optimize for the device, which should surprise no one.
I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.
To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.
The market has changed focus -- the action is in the mobile tablet market! IMO, 2011 is the year of the tablet -- you're (mfgrs) either in the market with a big-time commitment -- or you'll have missed it.
Comments
I omitted ?on the go? for that very reason. It?s pointless filler. His implications being that the iPad is only useful as a stationary device is silly. For instance, which has a better battery life for reading, for WiFI, for video? If the iPad beats the Galaxy Tab in any single test his statement is blown to bits because running off the battery is something that I would think would be important for an ?on the go? test.
I focused on his aggrandized "far superior [?] in every way? comment as I don?t think there is a single thing I own that I could honestly say is "far superior [?] in every way? to something else, whether it?s "on the go" or not. For example, I love my iPhone and it?s by far the best choice for my needs, but saying that it?s "far superior [?] in every way? as a statement of fact would be asinine, at the very least, regardless of add some silly comment like ?on the go.?
As you obviously don't even own a Samsung Galaxy Tab (or any other 7 inch tablet for that matter), you're clearly speaking out of complete ignorance as to the portability/mobile (yes, 'on the go') usability of this form factor.
Note: Regarding your claims of 'omitting' anything for 'just that reason'... Sure Whatever
How is screen resolution a problem? You use whatever screen you want in the device, be it one pixel per inch or 300. The goal is to get the physical size down to a managable level.
From the standpoint of a stockholder I find it frustrating the Apple would give up so much market share. From the standpoint of a user, the lack of suppport for wide aspect ratios and a smaller screen leaves me frustrated.
In any event niether of these concerns are defensive. Rather it is an expression of desire for things to be seen in iPad 2.
By the way if iPad 2 comes out with all the features I'm expecting I might buy into the platform. But the issue with respect to size is real, iPad is just a bit to big to take with you every where you go.
I don't see it as much as giving up on market share. It's more so defining the market.
The iPad, as is, is far more useful than I expected when I bought it. Credit the keyboard for part of that. Credit the robustness of the apps due to the screen real estate.
A smaller iPad would lose both those things. While it would provide for people who want a smaller form factor, there are still so many people who don't really know what form is best for them because it's a new market.
People are used to laptops. They know whether they need a larger screen for a desktop replacement or a smaller screen for portability.
Countless consumers would assume that they'd prefer a smaller iPad. After a few weeks of using it, they would be satisfied but not surprised about their experience. It wouldnt integrate into their lives so much. I for one would still be dependent on my laptop.
The point is, it would allow people to cheapen their experience without ever knowing what they're missing out on. It would be good for stocks in the short run. But being that it's a brand new market, iPad wants to maintain its reputation rather than cater to every segment. From a stockholder perspective, I think that would pay off in the long run.
1) I didn't get in early enough (despite all my talk 10 years ago) nor did I buy enough to owe Jobs my allegiance for my retirement fund. I do thank him from the bottom of my heart for my emergency house fund...
This tells me all I need to know about you .... as they say in Texas ..... "All hat, no cattle"
Yes, I think many consumers will opt for that scenario.
It's interesting that the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" and therefore sharply limited in its appeal and capacities, but a literally (and only somewhat) bigger Android phone is perfect.
A smaller iPad would lose both those things. While it would provide for people who want a smaller form factor, there are still so many people who don't really know what form is best for them because it's a new
When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.
No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.
Apple has said stated many times to investors (Wall Street() that the iPad has (priced aggressively) lower margins.
FWIW, this is what they reported in their last 10-K statement:
The gross margin percentage in 2010 was 39.4% compared to 40.1% in 2009. This decline in primarily attributable to new products that have higher cost structures, including iPad, partially offset by a more favorable sales mix of iPhone, which has a higher gross margin than the Company average.
Much as been read into it, but I'm not sure all of the inference is correct.
When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.
No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.
You have separate the marketing from the reality, and that takes a little thought on the part of the reader which is why these quotes get pushed around as if they were meant to be taken literally.
Let’s take Jobs’ comments on iPhone apps from 2007. He said they created a sweet solution.
For starters, that solution promoted the full WebKit engine in a phone, something that wasn’t common before the iPhone and one reason, IMO, why the iPhone was and is so popular in the first place. We know this true to some extent because sites were being rewritten specifically to accommodate the iPhone and WebKit has become the de facto browser engine for mobiles.
Secondly, the SDK was announced and demoed only a few months after the iPhone’s release. I don’t believe for a second that Apple never considered an SDK for iOS until after developers forced Apple’s hand, as some have speculated. A proper SDK takes time to build, just ask Google, Palm, Nokia, RiM and Microsoft.
Finally, just before the talk in January 2007 about how developers could make apps for the iPhone Jobs specifically stated that Maps was the best way to access Google Maps on the iPhone so the idea of dedicated apps that “blow away” a browser-based solution was obviously clear to Apple. If it wasn’t then YouTube, Stocks, Weather and every other native app on the iPhone that connects to the internet and could be rendered by an internet browser would have just been a shortcut to a Safari page or a dedicated page rendered in HTML/JS/CSS.
The iPhone actually sucks, you see, except for the stuff that they had to do after some fat sweaty geeks on the internet raised hell. Then, of course, Anybody-But-Apple shows them how to do it "right" by building on what Apple has already done and benefiting from Apple's trailblazing.
If Apple brings out a 7" iPad, it won't be because Apple looked at the market and designed something they would be willing to sell. It will be because all those other really smart tech companies that didn't seem to be able to build a tablet worth shit until Apple showed them how and Google gave them an OS were "innovating" so that Apple became obliged to "catch up."
It's a shameless business, Apple bashing.
...Besides there is a thought in the industry that Apple screwed up in two respects. One is the issue of aspect ratio and the other is that iPad is to damn big....
I think others have addressed size. But Aspect Ratio???
Who is saying that? People that think tablets are good only for viewing movies? I can't think of one application on the iPad, other than viewing a movie, where the aspect ratio should be any different. So what, so you get a black bar either side of the movie.
Sacrifice the usability of a tablet for one application? Sounds like what some other manufacturer would do when designing one of their lame tablets.
1024x768: normal VGA for presentation. Keynote? I use it all the time. Books? PDFs? Emails? Sound familiar? Photos and slideshows? Photos are not naturally widescreen format. Typing up pages of notes? I don't want to carry around something the size and shape of an envelope (third letter size): I want something that approximates a notebook that I would write in.
Turn the iPad to landscape position for a nice browsing experience. But, if it was wide screen ratio, you would barely get more than the browser bar and a quarter of a page. You'd be scrolling all the time just to finish a paragraph.
I guess those that are pushing tablets with different aspect ratios are trying to make their point of differentiation a "feature". Good luck with that. Apple has been testing this for years. But since thousands of developers have created thousands of iPad apps that utilize the full screen for all kinds of productive purposes, then I guess the industry has spoken. And since millions have happily bought iPads, I guess you are in a very small and blinkered minority.
So I'm supposed to have a (Android, I guess) smartphone that I carry at all times, a somewhat larger (Android, I guess) "tablet" that does exactly the same things as the smart phone and requires an additional cell phone contract that I also carry around for "on the go", and an iPad sized device at home because the somewhat larger on the go tablet actually isn't that pleasant for extended use.
Yes, I think many consumers will opt for that scenario.
It's interesting that the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" and therefore sharply limited in its appeal and capacities, but a literally (and only somewhat) bigger Android phone is perfect.
It's because apple proved there is a market for a big iPod touch.
It's because apple proved there is a market for a big iPod touch.
When?
When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.
No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.
I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.
To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.
I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.
To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.
The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.
When?
August 14 I think?
Really though, Addabox is right. Before the iPad came out, detractors said there was no interest in a big iPod touch. Now that the interest is well established, the company that created the interest is said to be doing it wrong.
Just looking to accent his point.
Before the iPad came out, detractors said there was no interest in a big iPod touch.
At this point with the iTunes ecosystem so entrenched, Apple could put a 30 pin dock connector on a bag of pretzels and there would be queue around the block.
The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.
I like that point.
So you know, I like many of the points you make. So I'm not looking to disagree with you as much as I am to hear more.
Would you say that the competition is moving pretty slowly compared to the general rate of technology these days? The ipad has outpaced the competition to the point that:
*the nearest competitor, android, still doesn't have an os that they feel is right for a tablet device, even as hardware manufacturers are trying to push into the market
*Other competitors like rim and hp/palm also don't even have an os ready for a tablet device.
*the iPad seems to be succeedIng to the point where they can manage better pricing through more volume. Entry devices are looking to compete by going smaller.
I like that point.
So you know, I like many of the points you make. So I'm not looking to disagree with you as much as I am to hear more.
Would you say[...]?
I don't know jack. I'm just making this stuff up as I go.
I don't know jack. I'm just making this stuff up as I go.
Aren't we all
I think others have addressed size. But Aspect Ratio???
Who is saying that?
Well obviously I just did! Aspect ratio is very important if one of your primary use cases is the delivery of video and movies. Obviously there is no perfect aspect ratio, but the point is wider would have been smarter on the iPad.
People that think tablets are good only for viewing movies? I can't think of one application on the iPad, other than viewing a movie, where the aspect ratio should be any different. So what, so you get a black bar either side of the movie.
Actually a wider aspect ratio is good for a number of things including viewing of pics, reading a column of text, certain types of games, apps that leverage a wide screen (IDEs) and others. There is really very little to defend with respect to the 4:3 ratio.
Sacrifice the usability of a tablet for one application? Sounds like what some other manufacturer would do when designing one of their lame tablets.
Don't be dense you would actually be increasing usability especially as the screen becomes smaller. For example grab an iPhone and type in text into this very dialog box. You get constant scrolling in horizontal orientation. The easiest way to improve iPhone, without blowing it up size wise is to give it a wider screen.
The same physical realities are at work when you are dealing with sub seven inch displays. You need one orientation that is much wider than the other to realize effective UI elements like keyboards.
1024x768: normal VGA for presentation. Keynote? I use it all the time. Books? PDFs? Emails? Sound familiar?
Yep and everyone of those text delivery formats works better on a taller screen. Especially on a small device. Think about newspapers and their centuries of experience with columns of text. Papers are arrainged the way they are because it enhances readability as would a wide screen display offer up text in vertical mode. The science here is very clear. Just because Apple effectively markets it's choice of aspect ratios doesn't mean that that ratio is a good solution from the human factors perspective.
Photos and slideshows? Photos are not naturally widescreen format.
Again I have to question if you really know what you are talking about. Have you looked at a 35mm negative? The closest format to paper size is or was the 6x7 cm format, other formats are far from 4:3 and some where square. Pics are often printed on common paper sizes but even those vary a bit in aspect ratios
Typing up pages of notes?
Exactly! How would you type up notes on a sub seven in device without it being wide screen? The keyboard would still be a compromise but would be significantly wider, in horizontal mode, than a keyboard on a 4:3 ratio device.
I don't want to carry around something the size and shape of an envelope (third letter size): I want something that approximates a notebook that I would write in.
Like a steno pad? If you want something bigger then you have more options, but as devices get smaller usability goes out the window with 4:3 aspect ratios. Besides ask yourself this; in a notebook what is the aspect ratio of the working surface?
Turn the iPad to landscape position for a nice browsing experience. But, if it was wide screen ratio, you would barely get more than the browser bar and a quarter of a page. You'd be scrolling all the time just to finish a paragraph.
Or turn it vertically and user reader mode to read the text like you would in a newspaper. I'm not sure why you are struggling so much here, it is pretty simple really.
I guess those that are pushing tablets with different aspect ratios are trying to make their point of differentiation a "feature". Good luck with that.
Nope not at all, what we are looking at is the human factors issues that have been with us for thousands of years now when it comes to reading text. Plus the smarter media delivery that comes with a wide screen.
Apple has been testing this for years. But since thousands of developers have created thousands of iPad apps that utilize the full screen for all kinds of productive purposes, then I guess the industry has spoken. And since millions have happily bought iPads, I guess you are in a very small and blinkered minority.
You mis a couple of important points. First there are billions of people on the planet. Second there are millions of those that buy whatever Apple feeds them. Some even bought AppleTVs. Beyound that we really don't know what Apple tested or what they intend to deliver on other devices. Apple could deliver a wide screen device and simply call it a video iPod.
As for developers and apps, they have been fitting apps to the available tech since the start of the computer age. In a very literal sense you work with what you have be that a TTY, an 80x20 text display or an OpenGL driven display. In this case developers see a platform that they can make lots of money on so they optimize for the device, which should surprise no one.
I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.
To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.
The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.
The market has changed focus -- the action is in the mobile tablet market! IMO, 2011 is the year of the tablet -- you're (mfgrs) either in the market with a big-time commitment -- or you'll have missed it.