A 16:9 mobile device isn't necessarily doomed to failure is it?
No particular size or particular aspect ratio is doomed to fail, and Jobs never once mentioned the weird usability of that aspect ratio in that size as a reason. His exact quote is, \“These are among the reasons that the current crop of 7-inch tablets are going to be DOA — dead on arrival."
Without Jobs saying "current crop" there could be discussion about a great many things but every one of the 7" tablets on the market did fail.
No particular size or particular aspect ratio is doomed to fail and Jobs never once mentioned the weird usability of that aspect ratio in that size as a reason. His exact quote is, "“These are among the reasons that the current crop of 7-inch tablets are going to be DOA — dead on arrival."
Without Jobs saying "current crop" there could be discussion about a great many things but every one of the 7" tablets on the market then did fail.
So 16:9 on a tablet =weird usability, but on a smartphone it's perfect? Yes I noticed you specified in that size but didn't bother explaining why. And yeah the first wave of Android tablets (and even the second IMO) sucked. I don't think it was because of the aspect ratio tho.
So 16:9 on a tablet =weird usability, but on a smartphone it's perfect? And yeah the first wave of Android tablets (and even the second IMO) sucked. I don't think it was because of the aspect ratio tho.
1) Not just for a tablet, but for that type of device in that size. At 7" it's only good for widescreen viewing which means it's mostly good for video playback. If you want to be able to read text in a more natural way on a 7" handheld device you need a smaller difference between your x- and y-axes.
2) They failed for many reasons. Aspect ratio is just one of the many, many strikes against them, and quite minimal when you consider the state of affairs for the OS, apps and ecosystem.
1) Not just for a tablet, but for that type of device in that size. At 7" it's only good for widescreen viewing which means it's mostly good for video playback. If you want to be able to read text in a more natural way on a 7" handheld device you need a smaller difference between your x- and y-axes..
But none of that would apply to a 4" 16:9 display. :???: How about a 4.5" display, would that be approaching weird? What about 5"? I'm thinking you must be convinced that if a rumored Apple "Phablet" phone is real and released it's going to go back to 4:3 then.
But none of that would apply to a 4" 16:9 display. :???: How about a 4.5" display, would that be approaching weird? What about 5"?
For a smartphone "weird usability" depends on ergonomics of being able to fit it in a hand. This isn't just about the screen aspect ratio, but the dimensions an entire device. Poor ergonomics can sink a device, but even if you have excellent, good, decent, or even sub-par ergonomics you still need an OS, apps, and ecosystem to carry it. One or the other isn't enough.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with aspect about a specific size. Like most things there are multiple factors. Apple didn't make a bigger iPhone when they made the 4" iPhone 5/5S. If they had made it 4" and kept the 3:2 aspect ratio is would have been a failure because it would have been weird to use. This is why they changed it when they were able to increase the display size whilst making the phone smaller.
Neither 3:2 nor 4:3 work in a 4" (or greater) smartphone. I've even called for 21:9(-ish) aspect ratio on the next Apple displays if they are over 27" so that we can have the benefit that comes how our eyes, head and neck are positions on our bodies. It's always been about multiple factors.
The LG G-Slate from back in early 2011 was 8" and sumthin. Think Sammy had one around 8" or so too. The first Android tablets came mid-late 2010 and weren't good. You're right tho that most were either 10" or 7".
Then too of course Jobs was a great salesman. You don't praise what you don't sell. He also said video on an iPod or small flash-based music players were ridiculous too. .. until Apple sold 'em. He also said the Kindle was doomed to fail because "people don't read anymore". That was only valid until Apple introduced iBooks. Guess people began reading again after that. http://www.engadget.com/2004/04/29/steve-jobs-says-it-again-no-video-ipod/
Thanks for moving back to ten inch rather than ten feet tablets!
There were no 8" tablets at the advent of the iPad. And re Steve Jobs's remark, which SolipsismX has helpfully quoted, I feel that he was absolutely right, and that the quote is still valid today.
If Apple bring out a bigger iPad this year, I’ll probably buy it, but I doubt it will be as perfect a form factor as the original iPad. As a pianist, it would be handy to have a larger iPad, as the current one is a wee bit small for reading music.
Comments
No particular size or particular aspect ratio is doomed to fail, and Jobs never once mentioned the weird usability of that aspect ratio in that size as a reason. His exact quote is, \“These are among the reasons that the current crop of 7-inch tablets are going to be DOA — dead on arrival."
Without Jobs saying "current crop" there could be discussion about a great many things but every one of the 7" tablets on the market did fail.
So 16:9 on a tablet =weird usability, but on a smartphone it's perfect? Yes I noticed you specified in that size but didn't bother explaining why. And yeah the first wave of Android tablets (and even the second IMO) sucked. I don't think it was because of the aspect ratio tho.
1) Not just for a tablet, but for that type of device in that size. At 7" it's only good for widescreen viewing which means it's mostly good for video playback. If you want to be able to read text in a more natural way on a 7" handheld device you need a smaller difference between your x- and y-axes.
2) They failed for many reasons. Aspect ratio is just one of the many, many strikes against them, and quite minimal when you consider the state of affairs for the OS, apps and ecosystem.
But none of that would apply to a 4" 16:9 display. :???: How about a 4.5" display, would that be approaching weird? What about 5"? I'm thinking you must be convinced that if a rumored Apple "Phablet" phone is real and released it's going to go back to 4:3 then.
For a smartphone "weird usability" depends on ergonomics of being able to fit it in a hand. This isn't just about the screen aspect ratio, but the dimensions an entire device. Poor ergonomics can sink a device, but even if you have excellent, good, decent, or even sub-par ergonomics you still need an OS, apps, and ecosystem to carry it. One or the other isn't enough.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with aspect about a specific size. Like most things there are multiple factors. Apple didn't make a bigger iPhone when they made the 4" iPhone 5/5S. If they had made it 4" and kept the 3:2 aspect ratio is would have been a failure because it would have been weird to use. This is why they changed it when they were able to increase the display size whilst making the phone smaller.
Neither 3:2 nor 4:3 work in a 4" (or greater) smartphone. I've even called for 21:9(-ish) aspect ratio on the next Apple displays if they are over 27" so that we can have the benefit that comes how our eyes, head and neck are positions on our bodies. It's always been about multiple factors.
Thanks for moving back to ten inch rather than ten feet tablets!
There were no 8" tablets at the advent of the iPad. And re Steve Jobs's remark, which SolipsismX has helpfully quoted, I feel that he was absolutely right, and that the quote is still valid today.
If Apple bring out a bigger iPad this year, I’ll probably buy it, but I doubt it will be as perfect a form factor as the original iPad. As a pianist, it would be handy to have a larger iPad, as the current one is a wee bit small for reading music.