Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me.
If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me.
If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
I agree with the usefulness of 4:3 for a tablet. I've noticed that I probably split my time evenly between portrait and landscape modes. Has anyone noticed that all non-iPad tablets except for the Kindle Fire are usually shown in landscape mode? I'm talking about the way the tablets are held in TV ads, for example. Playbook, TouchPad, all the Honeycomb and the Windows 8 tablets. I know they support portrait mode, but it doesn't seem to really get used. Even the few Xooms I've seen in the wild are held in landscape mode. I don't know what that means, but its an interesting observation. To me, the iPad looks more normal when it is held in portrait mode.
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me.
If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
For the iPad, sure, 4:3 is fine because it doesn't matter that the devise is the shape it is. But for the iPhone, I very much disagree. I think 3:2 is really beginning to be a limiting factor for the iPhone now.
As already said, the vertical screen size has to be kept within certain constraints because it's the biggest defining factor in the width of the phone. Therefore, only the horizontal size is flexible. To increase screen area, you have to add horizontally. At 16:9, that's 20% extra screen area to play with without making the phone any more cumbersome. Even if you don't use the extra space for every use-case, it's extra space that you wouldn't otherwise have got. It's all gravy!
I understand why they chose 3:2, and I understand all the benefits of sticking with past decisions, but I still think it's a legacy issue that's always going to make the iPhone look a bit behind the curve compared to the Android phones. And that's why I still think 'shackled' is an entirely appropriate word to use. Although I think 'dogmatic' might be a good word to use as well.
I understand why they chose 3:2, and I understand all the benefits of sticking with past decisions, but I still think it's a legacy issue that's always going to make the iPhone look a bit behind the curve compared to the Android phones. And that's why I still think 'shackled' is an entirely appropriate word to use. Although I think 'dogmatic' might be a good word to use as well.
For 16:9, I would use the words awkward, ugly, graceless, juvenile and certainly dogmatic, because the only reason it exists is because of cinema. So you shape something you hold in your hands to fit what Hollywood and later the TV industry decided was the desired shape for big screens? In a handheld device, 16:9 is a tactile nightmare. Android people of course don't see it that way, but they are not known as arbiters of taste.
For 16:9, I would use the words awkward, ugly, graceless, juvenile and certainly dogmatic, because the only reason it exists is because of cinema. So you shape something you hold in your hands to fit what Hollywood and later the TV industry decided was the desired shape for big screens? In a handheld device, 16:9 is a tactile nightmare. Android people of course don't see it that way, but they are not known as arbiters of taste.
Comments
Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me.
If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me.
If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
I agree with the usefulness of 4:3 for a tablet. I've noticed that I probably split my time evenly between portrait and landscape modes. Has anyone noticed that all non-iPad tablets except for the Kindle Fire are usually shown in landscape mode? I'm talking about the way the tablets are held in TV ads, for example. Playbook, TouchPad, all the Honeycomb and the Windows 8 tablets. I know they support portrait mode, but it doesn't seem to really get used. Even the few Xooms I've seen in the wild are held in landscape mode. I don't know what that means, but its an interesting observation. To me, the iPad looks more normal when it is held in portrait mode.
bullshit stock manipulating rumours, nothing more.
what?
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me.
If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
For the iPad, sure, 4:3 is fine because it doesn't matter that the devise is the shape it is. But for the iPhone, I very much disagree. I think 3:2 is really beginning to be a limiting factor for the iPhone now.
As already said, the vertical screen size has to be kept within certain constraints because it's the biggest defining factor in the width of the phone. Therefore, only the horizontal size is flexible. To increase screen area, you have to add horizontally. At 16:9, that's 20% extra screen area to play with without making the phone any more cumbersome. Even if you don't use the extra space for every use-case, it's extra space that you wouldn't otherwise have got. It's all gravy!
I understand why they chose 3:2, and I understand all the benefits of sticking with past decisions, but I still think it's a legacy issue that's always going to make the iPhone look a bit behind the curve compared to the Android phones. And that's why I still think 'shackled' is an entirely appropriate word to use. Although I think 'dogmatic' might be a good word to use as well.
I understand why they chose 3:2, and I understand all the benefits of sticking with past decisions, but I still think it's a legacy issue that's always going to make the iPhone look a bit behind the curve compared to the Android phones. And that's why I still think 'shackled' is an entirely appropriate word to use. Although I think 'dogmatic' might be a good word to use as well.
For 16:9, I would use the words awkward, ugly, graceless, juvenile and certainly dogmatic, because the only reason it exists is because of cinema. So you shape something you hold in your hands to fit what Hollywood and later the TV industry decided was the desired shape for big screens? In a handheld device, 16:9 is a tactile nightmare. Android people of course don't see it that way, but they are not known as arbiters of taste.
For 16:9, I would use the words awkward, ugly, graceless, juvenile and certainly dogmatic, because the only reason it exists is because of cinema. So you shape something you hold in your hands to fit what Hollywood and later the TV industry decided was the desired shape for big screens? In a handheld device, 16:9 is a tactile nightmare. Android people of course don't see it that way, but they are not known as arbiters of taste.
Explain further please.