• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Why does the iPad have a 4:3 screen?
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
Steveaustin316
05-01-2014
Seems a bit odd to me considering most other tablets are 16:9.
kidspud
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by Steveaustin316:
“Seems a bit odd to me considering most other tablets are 16:9.”

From my point of view, it provides a better web browsing experience. But the real answer is because it makes no difference and it is the format apple chose originally for the iPad 1 and had no good reason to change it.
flagpole
05-01-2014
4:3 is better IMHO for web browsing.

obviously 16:9 is better for watching films.
Stig
05-01-2014
This has been discussed many times before here.

It's a matter of personal preference. Personally, I prefer the 4:3. It is more 'book' shaped, and browsing in portrait on a 16:9 tablet (which I have also had) didn't feel right at all.
Anika Hanson
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“4:3 is better IMHO for web browsing.

obviously 16:9 is better for watching films.”

This is my opinion too.
alanwarwic
05-01-2014
Can anyone tell me their logic on 4:3 for the tablet web?

I have always seen 4:3 as a legacy thing for low resolution devices, especially on tablets.
We went towards 16:10 as standard (16:9 for TV) when HD came into play.
4:3 alleviated the problem with the iPad being so low resolution.

Surely with web sites usually a 'scroll down type' the more horizontal lines the better. And that is one area where portrait mode is useful.
I'll probably get into someone's 'black bars video book' for saying that.


And if it wasn't for Windows being limiting we would have had swivel monitors as standard years ago.
kidspud
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Can anyone tell me their logic on 4:3 for the tablet web?

I have always seen 4:3 as a legacy thing for low resolution devices, especially on tablets.
We went towards 16:10 as standard (16:9 for TV) when HD came into play.
4:3 alleviated the problem with the iPad being so low resolution.

Surely with web sites usually a 'scroll down type' the more horizontal lines the better. And that is one area where portrait mode is useful.
I'll probably get into someone's 'black bars video book' for saying that.


And if it wasn't for Windows being limiting we would have had swivel monitors as standard years ago.”

I can tell you the logic. Try using both and see which one you prefer. That is what everyone on here has done and are in agreement.

As for the resolution argument you have used. That doesn't seem to make any sense to me as there were many 16:10 aspect tablets brought out after the iPad which had a lower resolution so why would that of restricted apple?

As I've said before, I see no advantage of a 16:10 tablet over a 4:3 apart from it is slightly slimmer, but then they look a little "thin".
alanwarwic
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I can tell you the logic. Try using both and see which one you prefer. That is what everyone on here has done and are in agreement. ...”

All I can see is the tiring old emotional appeal of "its the best". You don't even have a reason yet.

What I like about the newer technology screens like on the Note and Tegra Note is that fine stylus control could reintroduce side bars.
That could makes a wider horizontal useful, but even there that might suit 16:10.
kidspud
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“All I can see is the tiring old emotional appeal of "its the best". You don't even have a reason yet.

What I like about the newer technology screens like on the Note and Tegra Note is that fine stylus control could reintroduce side bars.
That could makes a wider horizontal useful, but even there that might suit 16:10.”

So you think that people who have used (and in most cases own) both but prefer 4:3 are using an emotional appeal

I've told you many times. Prior to buying my iPad mini, I spent a lot of time comparing it with the nexus 7. The superior web browsing experience on the iPad was one of the reasons I chose it.

You've yet, over many threads to give me a reason why 16:10 would be better.

Newer technology & stylus it's like going back in time.
alanwarwic
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“...but prefer 4:3 are using an emotional appeal...”

When they are like you and don't yet know why yes. When you dont know why it is still an emotion, an instinct.
At least until it matures into some self knowledge that you can share.

Which as yet you are unable to share. (re - web browsing 4:3)
BTW Your appeal against using a Stylus for those occasions when fine control is necessary is an emotional thing too.
alanwarwic
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“...The superior web browsing experience on the iPad was one of the reasons I chose it....”

Yet another emotional appeal and little to do with the topic of 4:3.

I have given a good reason for preferring 16:10 time and time again, and I think in my very first reply again here.
In portrait its great for tall web sites, with the majority being tall. You can really choose to see more.

Maybe someone else has found the answer to the 4:3 web emotion, otherwise we have 'suits low resolution screens' as answered by me.
kidspud
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Yet another emotional appeal and little to do with the topic of 4:3.

I have given a good reason for preferring 16:10 time and time again, and I think in my very first reply again here.
In portrait its great for tall web sites, with the majority being tall. You can really choose to see more.

Maybe someone else has found the answer to the 4:3 web emotion, otherwise we have 'suits low resolution screens' as answered by me.”

With replies like that, I'll leave you in your little world.

Funny how it also suits the high resolution screen of the iPad.

I'm off to look for some tall web sites. . PMSL
alanwarwic
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“Funny how it also suits the high resolution screen of the iPad.”

No it is not. That is a legacy thing from that original 1024 x 768 choice. Apple used pixel doubling so that it simply displays at 1024 X 768 much of the time at a higher quality.

That made the updated IOS easy to do as it made coding easier.
You will probably get given 2048 x 1536 text depending on what a web site author wants.
It hasn't worked out too bad for Apple. 1080p is almost 2048 in width so the only noticeable big black bars for video on native iPad 1080p are the horizontal ones.
IanP
05-01-2014
The first PDA's and E-readers where designed in the era of 4:3 displays but had portrait 3:4 displays to allow them to be held like a small notepad in one hand (operating systems and display driver electronics all had a 4:3 legacy). When Apple introduced the iPad it was to a market used to 3:4 handheld devices, widescreen (large display) phones were still quite rare but the form factor of the phone handset dictates a wide/longscreen display when the keyboard is removed. Apple chose a form factor for the iPad that would appeal to business users, watching movies/videos and playing video games wasn't the priority (although the commercial did include a clip from the Star Trek movie reboot in glorious full screen 4:3).

Apple have so far resisted the trend for larger screens on phones but if they ever do make a phablet it could be a stepping stone to a 16:10 iPad. There are rumours of larger iPads in development, it wouldn't surprise me to see a 16:10 "iPad Pro" later this year.
kidspud
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by IanP:
“The first PDA's and E-readers where designed in the era of 4:3 displays but had portrait 3:4 displays to allow them to be held like a small notepad in one hand (operating systems and display driver electronics all had a 4:3 legacy). When Apple introduced the iPad it was to a market used to 3:4 handheld devices, widescreen (large display) phones were still quite rare but the form factor of the phone handset dictates a wide/longscreen display when the keyboard is removed. Apple chose a form factor for the iPad that would appeal to business users, watching movies/videos and playing video games wasn't the priority (although the commercial did include a clip from the Star Trek movie reboot in glorious full screen 4:3).

Apple have so far resisted the trend for larger screens on phones but if they ever do make a phablet it could be a stepping stone to a 16:10 iPad. There are rumours of larger iPads in development, it wouldn't surprise me to see a 16:10 "iPad Pro" later this year.”

If a device is primary to be used in landscape then 16:10 could be an option.

That would also suit all the really wide websites
psionic
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“4:3 is better IMHO for web browsing.

obviously 16:9 is better for watching films.”

This.
alanwarwic
05-01-2014
Originally Posted by psionic:
“This.”

Yes, we keep getting told 4:3 is better for web browsing.

I asserted it is possibly was an emotional thing whilst giving an actual valid reason why your typical 16:10 tablet can be better.
Some of us are still waiting for a reason to swing 4:3 away from being just a legacy commitment based on the original low resolution iPad screen.

Sadly, Kidspud tactic seems to be to be, obviously false tall story like, to go in support of 16:10 so as to cloud the topic.
flagpole
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Yes, we keep getting told 4:3 is better for web browsing.

I asserted it is possibly was an emotional thing whilst giving an actual valid reason why your typical 16:10 tablet can be better.
Some of us are still waiting for a reason to swing 4:3 away from being just a legacy commitment based on the original low resolution iPad screen.

Sadly, Kidspud tactic seems to be to be, obviously false tall story like, to go in support of 16:10 so as to cloud the topic.”

Use both.

See which you prefer. For browsing it will probably be 4:3. Look at how you, or most people, have their desktop browser set, is it 9:16? 16:9? Is it ****.

Once you have tried both you can tell us which you prefer. But there is little point trying to analyse it in theory.

It is pretty simple.
kidspud
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Yes, we keep getting told 4:3 is better for web browsing.

I asserted it is possibly was an emotional thing whilst giving an actual valid reason why your typical 16:10 tablet can be better.
Some of us are still waiting for a reason to swing 4:3 away from being just a legacy commitment based on the original low resolution iPad screen.

Sadly, Kidspud tactic seems to be to be, obviously false tall story like, to go in support of 16:10 so as to cloud the topic.”

I consider mine the most valid reason, it gives a better user experience. What I didn't do was speculate on a reason based on no accurate information, I leave that to others.

My tactic is simple. I used both and chose the one which I considered superior. You will have to tell me the false story I've told, otherwise I would ask that you do not call me a liar.

Meanwhile I'm still looking for these tall websites
akki007
06-01-2014
Is this really being discussed? Just use what you personally prefer. It's not a science.
IvanIV
06-01-2014
16:9 works very well for W8 tablets when you can have 2 apps on screen at the same time. 4:3 might be more convenient for browsing, but not much for anything else.
akki007
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“16:9 works very well for W8 tablets when you can have 2 apps on screen at the same time. 4:3 might be more convenient for browsing, but not much for anything else.”

Maybe not for you but for others it clearly is.
psionic
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Yes, we keep getting told 4:3 is better for web browsing.

I asserted it is possibly was an emotional thing whilst giving an actual valid reason why your typical 16:10 tablet can be better.
Some of us are still waiting for a reason to swing 4:3 away from being just a legacy commitment based on the original low resolution iPad screen. ”

Just try both types and take your pick. With 4:3 you see more of a website at once without scrolling and also quite usable in portrait mode. Not good for watching films but preferable for everything else. A lot if it is obviously down to personal preference. Depends what you primarily want to use your tablet for. Not sure how you can consider the iPad low resolution unless you're referring to earliest models.
kidspud
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“16:9 works very well for W8 tablets when you can have 2 apps on screen at the same time. 4:3 might be more convenient for browsing, but not much for anything else.”

I agree. If you want to only use your tablet in landscape and operate it like a PC.

I think for me, if that was the case I would just use my laptop.
IvanIV
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I agree. If you want to only use your tablet in landscape and operate it like a PC.

I think for me, if that was the case I would just use my laptop.”

I am not using it as a PC. Let's say I am in a mail app, tap on a link and the screen splits in two, in the second half I get a browser and I can use both apps. Or I play a music in an app snapped to one side, browse in the rest of the screen. I can change music without switching to another app. 16:9 means there's enough space for both. That's very convenient as it minimises amounts of gestures needed, which makes a landscape a preferred orientation. And it's nothing like PC either.
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map