The reason for the 4:3 is the device is primarily meant to be help in portrait. The main thing that suffers is movies.
Please do not fall for DH's 4:3 argument, this has been argued and reargued in previous discussions and should not be argued again. DH is on my ignore list so I did't see his/hers post. Also thanks for the change in your sig. And I agree with you on this one.
The reason for the 4:3 is the device is primarily meant to be help in portrait. The main thing that suffers is movies.
Movie viewing only 'suffers' if you assume that the iPad needs to be even wider. Would people have been happier if the iPad had been the same width, but shorter? That would have given 16:9, but resulting in the same viewing area.
The iPad can support 720 lines of horizontal resolution (1024x768), but to be considered true 720p capable, the resolution needs to be at least 1280×720.
The result of going with such an archaic screen aspect ration of 4:3 rather than widescreen.
Oh Well...
I will wait to pass judgement until I actually view one personally. If it is razor sharp - who cares? But I'm not holding my breath. 16:9 is the standard for film , videos and growing for still photography as video monitors all use that ratio and all these devices beit cameras, video camera, blu-ray players HDMI into them flawlessly. This could be an example where there 2nd gen iPad actually may change shape due to its lack of the universal standard.
16:9 for the device as a whole would have been stupid. Movie viewing is only one of many functions of the device. Its like saying that because there's an astronomical sky-viewing application, that the whole device should be circular.
16:9 would have made the device clumsy and tweeked for one orientation over the other.
Yes... In Your Opinion.
But any given trip to one's local electronics store will reveal that some 99% of all devices/monitors/laptops/netbooks/media players/et al. (including Apple's very own laptops etc.) are widescreen, and simply because Apple decided to go with 4:3 for their 'New Creation' will hardly reverse that trend.
Is the HD or XL designation necessary? Isn't there going to be section of the App Store specifically for the iPad-only apps or a way to filter out any non-iPad compatible and non-iPad-only apps, as well as a note on each app page indicating which OS versions and platforms it's designed for?
PS: Please ignore the trolls so useful discussions can occur. They know they are wrong, they are just trying to get you to respond to them. Their goal has nothing to do with logic, reason, understanding or learning. Please, please, please stop.
Is the HD or XL designation necessary? Isn't there going to be section of the App Store specifically for the iPad-only apps or a way to filter out any non-iPad compatible and non-iPad-only apps, as well as a note on each app page indicating which OS versions and platforms it's designed for?
Perhaps you don't own a monitor that is 16:9 but that answer seems quite obvious. Just as the iTunes movies need HD after them to differentiate between regular and HD version so too will these Apps. And don't think for a minute that Apple won't eventually charge more for the HD versions down the road- this gives them the option.
The iPad can support 720 lines of horizontal resolution (1024x768), but to be considered true 720p capable, the resolution needs to be at least 1280×720.
The result of going with such an archaic screen aspect ration of 4:3 rather than widescreen.
Oh Well...
All this quibbling over HD is stupid. It's just a label. Deal with it.
4:3 ISN'T archaic, because Apple chose to use if for a brand new device which has multiple purposes and uses, one of which is watching movies. It doesn't matter that a movie may not fill the whole screen. What matters it that it's both bigger than an iPhone/iPod Touch AND more portable than a laptop.
The 4:3 ratio makes it useful for many other purposes, too, including book reading and document viewing/composing.
It's not like Apple closed its eyes and pointed to a list of screen ratios. It was most likely carefully considered against the overall design and the array of potential uses for the machine.
The reason for the 4:3 is the device is primarily meant to be help in portrait. The main thing that suffers is movies.
Agreed 100%
Please don't anyone think my 1st posting (above) above was in any way an 'attack' on the iPad... It's not! As previously stated I'm buying two of them!
Apple never touted the iPad as an HD **ANYTHING** and I personally have no problem with it. However, other do and I can understand their point of view and can feel their pain since this product is 'SO CLOSE' to what their dream product is but falls just inches shy of the end-zone (figuratively AND actually).
What was in Apples mind it settled on the final specs and HD didn't make the cut?
Only the Steve and the hardware engineers know for sure, but we can guess that PERHAPS screen cost? or battery life? or aspect ratio conflicting with the main 'touted' feature of the iPad (reading book & magazine content with the best possible experience)? May have been issues... or maybe not... perhaps Apple/Steve never gave the idea of consuming HD content on an iPad any serious consideration (seems quite unlikely tho)...
Whatever it was... the end result is what we have... a device that was clearly NOT engineered to play HD content.
Is this something that can be offered in a v2.0 or v3.0 iPad? Off the top of my head I can't think of any reason why not... The developers (if I'm not mistaken) aren't designing to any exact dimensions when they do their iPad APP development. They rely on the APIs to map out the actual dimensions. So provided the APIs can be written to support an HD screen with some 'future dimension' then existing iPad (and even iPhone) APPS should continue to work, just like iPhone Apps previously compiled will 'resize' to the iPad, the iPad apps could 'size up' to a new future iPad HD model.
What concerns me is this.... Apple seems to be the ones attaching (or strongly suggesting to developers that they) put an HD at the end of (some?) iPad apps... This is all a complete unknown so a TON of this is pure speculation on shaky grounds... But HD at the end of each APP title will obviously cause a certain degree of confusion and MANY/MOST buyers WILL see HD and associate it High Definition. Apple if they aren't SUPER careful could easily have a future legal case on their hands (nothing new here) claiming Apple knowing misrepresented the iPad as a High Definition device when it clearly wasn't. To anyone ready to reply with 'Apple can't help what developers call their APPS' we can simply agree to disagree but we both know Apple must make the final approval prior to an App making it into the store.
But to get back on the track... the suggestion to OR even simply the APPROVAL OF a ton of iPad apps all with an HD tacked onto the end will clearly cause a great degree of confusion, I don't see how it couldn't!
Really far out speculation mode: Does this some how indicate that Apple has NO PLANS EVER to make an iPad HD so developers will not need to worry about name conflicts that might arise when an ACUTAL iPad HD does get release since its simply NEVER going to happen? (this seems really unlikely tho).
But how else can things be interpreted?
- Lists of iPad APPS all/most ending in HD is not a convenient coincidences...
- Apple can't really try and defend the idea that HD doesn't stand for high definition (can they?) when its been so deeply ingrained in us all? and if it was intended to mean something else then couldn't they come up with a less confusion causing abbreviation?
Super conspiracy hat on... Could the final iPad actually contain an HD screen and is being kept secret until the day the device ships in an attempt to deceive the other companies who will roll out iPad wannabes? Yea this one is off the charts when it comes to long shots but it would explain why the devices that are in use now by a very select few are kept on such a short leash. Yea I know even Mulder would say .... "YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS?!!??!"
Okay.. well this appearance of HD is certainly unexpected that much I'm sure of....
All this quibbling over HD is stupid. It's just a label. Deal with it.
No-one's 'quibbling' over anything, we're merely discussing the subject, and HD is far more than just a label, it's an Industry Standard, and what doesn't matter to you is not the least bit reflective of the entire world's consumers..
On the other hand, what if I was just casually browsing the top lists and saw a game that a friend had mentioned before, say "Plants vs Zombies" and without realizing there was an iPad-specific version, went ahead and bought the iPhone/iPod Touch version? And more importantly, if I already have that game/app on my iPhone, am I basically going to have to re-purchase it again just for use on the iPad? I'm sure arguments can be made both ways as far as developers needing to get paid for the extra time invested, but on the other hand, the two platforms share the same basic OS and therefore, most of the underlying code is already written.
It seemed to me during the unveiling of the iPad that Apple would allow for (perhaps even encourage?) developers to create a universal app that contained the necessary files and content for both devices in a single app. While arguably, this would make the apps larger in overall storage footprint, it would greatly alleviate confusion. Now I will have to double-check before I buy apps just to make sure there is no iPad version.
Agreed, I'm not going to pay full price for a game just to have to beat it again to play the special games on the iPad when I can just run the iPhone version full size.
Plants vs Zombies may be one of my favourite iPhone games, but I had hoped they would make a universal App. No, I will not buy your iPad version.
The point here they are using the term HD, and the iPad is "exactly" HD. You could argue it sort of is being that it has over 720 vertical lines, but it isn't in the correct HD ratio, or over it. That's what's being argued here.
It seemed to me during the unveiling of the iPad that Apple would allow for (perhaps even encourage?) developers to create a universal app that contained the necessary files and content for both devices in a single app. While arguably, this would make the apps larger in overall storage footprint, it would greatly alleviate confusion. Now I will have to double-check before I buy apps just to make sure there is no iPad version.
It is possible to create a universal app that runs the native resolution of both the iPad and iPhone, so I had originally assumed a lot of developers would go with this method, especially on brand new apps. For existing apps, however, I guess I can see why they would try to make an entirely new app and profit from it rather than offering iPhone users a free upgrade with higher resolution iPad graphics.
I will wait to pass judgement until I actually view one personally. If it is razor sharp - who cares? But I'm not holding my breath. 16:9 is the standard for film , videos and growing for still photography as video monitors all use that ratio and all these devices beit cameras, video camera, blu-ray players HDMI into them flawlessly. This could be an example where there 2nd gen iPad actually may change shape due to its lack of the universal standard.
You don't see the iPhone changing shape. I don't see it happening with the iPad. It's a reading, web-consuming device which is primarily meant to be used in portrait - which is why it's 4:3. Whether you agree or disagree with the screen ratio I don't see it changing.
Comments
The reason for the 4:3 is the device is primarily meant to be help in portrait. The main thing that suffers is movies.
Please do not fall for DH's 4:3 argument, this has been argued and reargued in previous discussions and should not be argued again. DH is on my ignore list so I did't see his/hers post. Also thanks for the change in your sig. And I agree with you on this one.
The reason for the 4:3 is the device is primarily meant to be help in portrait. The main thing that suffers is movies.
Movie viewing only 'suffers' if you assume that the iPad needs to be even wider. Would people have been happier if the iPad had been the same width, but shorter? That would have given 16:9, but resulting in the same viewing area.
I don't understand the griping about that.
Correct...
The iPad can support 720 lines of horizontal resolution (1024x768), but to be considered true 720p capable, the resolution needs to be at least 1280×720.
The result of going with such an archaic screen aspect ration of 4:3 rather than widescreen.
Oh Well...
I will wait to pass judgement until I actually view one personally. If it is razor sharp - who cares? But I'm not holding my breath. 16:9 is the standard for film , videos and growing for still photography as video monitors all use that ratio and all these devices beit cameras, video camera, blu-ray players HDMI into them flawlessly. This could be an example where there 2nd gen iPad actually may change shape due to its lack of the universal standard.
4:3 is not archaic.
16:9 for the device as a whole would have been stupid. Movie viewing is only one of many functions of the device. Its like saying that because there's an astronomical sky-viewing application, that the whole device should be circular.
16:9 would have made the device clumsy and tweeked for one orientation over the other.
Yes... In Your Opinion.
But any given trip to one's local electronics store will reveal that some 99% of all devices/monitors/laptops/netbooks/media players/et al. (including Apple's very own laptops etc.) are widescreen, and simply because Apple decided to go with 4:3 for their 'New Creation' will hardly reverse that trend.
I'll be on line at my closes apple store in NYC
Hey New Yorkers. Why do you say "wait on line" when everyone else in the country says "wait in line"?
4:3 is not archaic.
Yeah if you like the old Acadamy ratio from 1945 and like black and white movies or TV from 10 years ago.
PS: Please ignore the trolls so useful discussions can occur. They know they are wrong, they are just trying to get you to respond to them. Their goal has nothing to do with logic, reason, understanding or learning. Please, please, please stop.
Is the HD or XL designation necessary? Isn't there going to be section of the App Store specifically for the iPad-only apps or a way to filter out any non-iPad compatible and non-iPad-only apps, as well as a note on each app page indicating which OS versions and platforms it's designed for?
Perhaps you don't own a monitor that is 16:9 but that answer seems quite obvious. Just as the iTunes movies need HD after them to differentiate between regular and HD version so too will these Apps. And don't think for a minute that Apple won't eventually charge more for the HD versions down the road- this gives them the option.
Correct...
The iPad can support 720 lines of horizontal resolution (1024x768), but to be considered true 720p capable, the resolution needs to be at least 1280×720.
The result of going with such an archaic screen aspect ration of 4:3 rather than widescreen.
Oh Well...
All this quibbling over HD is stupid. It's just a label. Deal with it.
4:3 ISN'T archaic, because Apple chose to use if for a brand new device which has multiple purposes and uses, one of which is watching movies. It doesn't matter that a movie may not fill the whole screen. What matters it that it's both bigger than an iPhone/iPod Touch AND more portable than a laptop.
The 4:3 ratio makes it useful for many other purposes, too, including book reading and document viewing/composing.
It's not like Apple closed its eyes and pointed to a list of screen ratios. It was most likely carefully considered against the overall design and the array of potential uses for the machine.
NO- it has an HD radio in it.
That's a TS not an.
What goes around...
The reason for the 4:3 is the device is primarily meant to be help in portrait. The main thing that suffers is movies.
Agreed 100%
Please don't anyone think my 1st posting (above) above was in any way an 'attack' on the iPad... It's not! As previously stated I'm buying two of them!
Apple never touted the iPad as an HD **ANYTHING** and I personally have no problem with it. However, other do and I can understand their point of view and can feel their pain since this product is 'SO CLOSE' to what their dream product is but falls just inches shy of the end-zone (figuratively AND actually).
What was in Apples mind it settled on the final specs and HD didn't make the cut?
Only the Steve and the hardware engineers know for sure, but we can guess that PERHAPS screen cost? or battery life? or aspect ratio conflicting with the main 'touted' feature of the iPad (reading book & magazine content with the best possible experience)? May have been issues... or maybe not... perhaps Apple/Steve never gave the idea of consuming HD content on an iPad any serious consideration (seems quite unlikely tho)...
Whatever it was... the end result is what we have... a device that was clearly NOT engineered to play HD content.
Is this something that can be offered in a v2.0 or v3.0 iPad? Off the top of my head I can't think of any reason why not... The developers (if I'm not mistaken) aren't designing to any exact dimensions when they do their iPad APP development. They rely on the APIs to map out the actual dimensions. So provided the APIs can be written to support an HD screen with some 'future dimension' then existing iPad (and even iPhone) APPS should continue to work, just like iPhone Apps previously compiled will 'resize' to the iPad, the iPad apps could 'size up' to a new future iPad HD model.
What concerns me is this.... Apple seems to be the ones attaching (or strongly suggesting to developers that they) put an HD at the end of (some?) iPad apps... This is all a complete unknown so a TON of this is pure speculation on shaky grounds... But HD at the end of each APP title will obviously cause a certain degree of confusion and MANY/MOST buyers WILL see HD and associate it High Definition. Apple if they aren't SUPER careful could easily have a future legal case on their hands (nothing new here) claiming Apple knowing misrepresented the iPad as a High Definition device when it clearly wasn't. To anyone ready to reply with 'Apple can't help what developers call their APPS' we can simply agree to disagree but we both know Apple must make the final approval prior to an App making it into the store.
But to get back on the track... the suggestion to OR even simply the APPROVAL OF a ton of iPad apps all with an HD tacked onto the end will clearly cause a great degree of confusion, I don't see how it couldn't!
Really far out speculation mode: Does this some how indicate that Apple has NO PLANS EVER to make an iPad HD so developers will not need to worry about name conflicts that might arise when an ACUTAL iPad HD does get release since its simply NEVER going to happen? (this seems really unlikely tho).
But how else can things be interpreted?
- Lists of iPad APPS all/most ending in HD is not a convenient coincidences...
- Apple can't really try and defend the idea that HD doesn't stand for high definition (can they?) when its been so deeply ingrained in us all? and if it was intended to mean something else then couldn't they come up with a less confusion causing abbreviation?
Super conspiracy hat on... Could the final iPad actually contain an HD screen and is being kept secret until the day the device ships in an attempt to deceive the other companies who will roll out iPad wannabes? Yea this one is off the charts when it comes to long shots but it would explain why the devices that are in use now by a very select few are kept on such a short leash. Yea I know even Mulder would say .... "YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS?!!??!"
Okay.. well this appearance of HD is certainly unexpected that much I'm sure of....
How about just calling the app "Fieldrunners iPad" or something?
Apple has in the past rejected almost any app that has "iPhone" in its name, so presumably it will also reject most apps with "iPad" in it.
All this quibbling over HD is stupid. It's just a label. Deal with it.
No-one's 'quibbling' over anything, we're merely discussing the subject, and HD is far more than just a label, it's an Industry Standard, and what doesn't matter to you is not the least bit reflective of the entire world's consumers..
Deal With It -
On the other hand, what if I was just casually browsing the top lists and saw a game that a friend had mentioned before, say "Plants vs Zombies" and without realizing there was an iPad-specific version, went ahead and bought the iPhone/iPod Touch version? And more importantly, if I already have that game/app on my iPhone, am I basically going to have to re-purchase it again just for use on the iPad? I'm sure arguments can be made both ways as far as developers needing to get paid for the extra time invested, but on the other hand, the two platforms share the same basic OS and therefore, most of the underlying code is already written.
It seemed to me during the unveiling of the iPad that Apple would allow for (perhaps even encourage?) developers to create a universal app that contained the necessary files and content for both devices in a single app. While arguably, this would make the apps larger in overall storage footprint, it would greatly alleviate confusion. Now I will have to double-check before I buy apps just to make sure there is no iPad version.
Agreed, I'm not going to pay full price for a game just to have to beat it again to play the special games on the iPad when I can just run the iPhone version full size.
Plants vs Zombies may be one of my favourite iPhone games, but I had hoped they would make a universal App. No, I will not buy your iPad version.
It seemed to me during the unveiling of the iPad that Apple would allow for (perhaps even encourage?) developers to create a universal app that contained the necessary files and content for both devices in a single app. While arguably, this would make the apps larger in overall storage footprint, it would greatly alleviate confusion. Now I will have to double-check before I buy apps just to make sure there is no iPad version.
It is possible to create a universal app that runs the native resolution of both the iPad and iPhone, so I had originally assumed a lot of developers would go with this method, especially on brand new apps. For existing apps, however, I guess I can see why they would try to make an entirely new app and profit from it rather than offering iPhone users a free upgrade with higher resolution iPad graphics.
If it is razor sharp - who cares?
Gotta agree with Tech...
I will wait to pass judgement until I actually view one personally. If it is razor sharp - who cares? But I'm not holding my breath. 16:9 is the standard for film , videos and growing for still photography as video monitors all use that ratio and all these devices beit cameras, video camera, blu-ray players HDMI into them flawlessly. This could be an example where there 2nd gen iPad actually may change shape due to its lack of the universal standard.
You don't see the iPhone changing shape. I don't see it happening with the iPad. It's a reading, web-consuming device which is primarily meant to be used in portrait - which is why it's 4:3. Whether you agree or disagree with the screen ratio I don't see it changing.