• 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?
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
kidspud
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“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.”

I'm not disagreeing with you and can see the benefit. However once you stop using the whole screen for the app the aspect ratio just isn't important. You could do those things on a 4:3 screen.

My preference is based on my user experience of web browsing, reading books/magazines, using apps and watching tv/movies. I do not see a 4:3 screen ratio as an issue with any if them.

As has already been stated, it is just preference.
alanwarwic
06-01-2014
The supposed Apple Pro Ipad could be interesting.

It would seem logical to improve the screen beyond what the competitors like HDX and the 10 offer so it could be 4K 4:3.
Very legacy still but Apple does like to differentiate it products to better separate product lines.

However, Apple well and truly have the upper arm against Intel so they might negotiate an Intel chipset with a hybrid IOS OS/X type thing.

That would more likely mean plain 1080p 16:10 or 16:9 with a 4:3 Metro like Window for apps. If so it would certainly not be 4K. They would simply start off with a cheap screen.

Don't forget that 'all us kiddies' are waiting for Father Apple Xmas to tell us what 'something big' means.
IanP
06-01-2014
I can't see Apple using an Intel CPU on an iPad. They save a huge amount on the BOM by making their own CPUs.
Stig
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by IanP:
“I can't see Apple using an Intel CPU on an iPad. They save a huge amount on the BOM by making their own CPUs.”

Samsung makes the A7 chip for Apple.
IvanIV
06-01-2014
Atom is cheap and it could probably run OSX fine. But iOS apps being native could be a problem to run on an emulator. Although they are distributed via app store and it might be possible to translate them there.
alanwarwic
06-01-2014
Supposedly and a bit bizarrely Intel are already said to be in the process of producing 64 bit ARM chips for Altera.

Whilst I imagine Intel have spare FAB capacity, ensuring a long term agreement with Apple is the likely aim. Producing hybrid chips is certainly a way to control ARM competition.
IanP
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by Stig:
“Samsung makes the A7 chip for Apple.”

Well that only seems fair, after-all Apple are always claiming Samsung devices are full of Apple technology

It doesn't really matter who Fabs the chip though it's still an Apple chip and so much cheaper than buying in somebody else's design.
BKM
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by Stig:
“Samsung makes the A7 chip for Apple.”

They would only fabricate the chip if that is true. The design is Apple's - from ARM licensed basic specs.
flagpole
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by BKM:
“They would only fabricate the chip if that is true. The design is Apple's - from ARM licensed basic specs.”

that is correct.
RichmondBlue
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by psionic:
“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.”

I agree completely. Anyone with any sense would try both types and choose the tablet they find most comfortable to use for the majority of tasks they intend to undertake.
I chose 4:3 because most of my time would be spent web browsing and reading. Portrait mode seems much more natural than landscape for those tasks, and 4:3 was the most comfortable (to me) portrait orientation. I've made a small forfeit when it comes to watching movies etc, but it's no big deal as it's not something I do on a daily basis. Besides, whilst not perfect, I still find it perfectly acceptable for that task anyway.
I don't see what the argument is about to be quite honest, different people have different requirements, just choose whatever suits you best.
alanwarwic
06-01-2014
It sounds extremely impressive how does the 1024 X 768 iPads see more of a website than a 1280 x 800 16:10 standard.

The 'amazing IOS' is at it again. This time squeezing them there pixels into where no pixels have ever been.


corf
06-01-2014
I can only assume the pixels are not used the same way but watch this video it clearly shows more content on the 4:3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60-PDO7cJuU

In landscape view the soft buttons don't help, maybe it's the default browser zoom.
PrinceGaz
06-01-2014
If the app uses the whole of the tablet's screen, then 16:9 is obviously better for watching video, but 4:3 is preferable for viewing photos, websites, and working on any sort of document.

Why? Because you get more height, so you can see more of what you are looking at. A website in 16:9 is like looking through a letter box at just a small vertical section of it. 4:3 lets you see a lot more of it to give a much better experience. Take this forum: the extra vertical room 4:3 (or 16:12 if you prefer) provides compared with 16:9, makes it much easier to refer to previous and following posts whilst reading it.
alanwarwic
06-01-2014
err in Chrome it now goes full screen plus there is real, not pseudo 'webkit only' browser choice in the Android app store.
And those soft keys if still there leave 1280 x 768

So having gone a bit 'soft' I still do not understand how 1280 x 768 versus 1068 X 768 can show more, unless a web master says so.
kidspud
06-01-2014
I have an iPad Air and an iPad 1 in front of me, one has double the resolution of the other, however, I cannot see twice as much on the iPad air browser. I wonder why
alanwarwic
06-01-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“.. I wonder why ”

You would probably not even know if it was put in front of your eyes.

Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“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.
...”

See.
corf
06-01-2014
Those pixels aren't being used 1:1, if they were we would see one of the tablets stretching or squashing the content. The aspect ratio of the content needs to be maintained.

The increased screen depth of 1024x768 4:3 compared to 1280x768 16:9 or 1280x800 16:10 will come at a cost of a lower pixel per inch and lower quality.
rosetech
06-01-2014
Interesting discussion, I never browse in portrait mode on android devices.

Out of interest, quick query to the portrait browsers, when you are on the web and come across a video do you stick with portrait to view an embedded video or do you switch to landscape?
paulbrock
07-01-2014
Originally Posted by PrinceGaz:
“Why? Because you get more height, so you can see more of what you are looking at. A website in 16:9 is like looking through a letter box at just a small vertical section of it.”

That's not a fair comparison. You could equally say a 16:9 screen is like a 4:3 but with extra bits on the side (or top and bottom in portrait)
paulbrock
07-01-2014
Originally Posted by rosetech:
“Interesting discussion, I never browse in portrait mode on android devices.

Out of interest, quick query to the portrait browsers, when you are on the web and come across a video do you stick with portrait to view an embedded video or do you switch to landscape?”

depending on the site, browse in portrait, but any vids watch full screen and rotate.
RichmondBlue
07-01-2014
Originally Posted by rosetech:
“Interesting discussion, I never browse in portrait mode on android devices.

Out of interest, quick query to the portrait browsers, when you are on the web and come across a video do you stick with portrait to view an embedded video or do you switch to landscape?”

For me, it depends what it is. If its just a link to a quickie on YouTube I'll just view it in portrait. Something more important or interesting and I'll switch to landscape. I've never found it much hassle to be honest. But then again, for me it's not a daily occurrence.
kidspud
07-01-2014
Originally Posted by rosetech:
“Interesting discussion, I never browse in portrait mode on android devices.

Out of interest, quick query to the portrait browsers, when you are on the web and come across a video do you stick with portrait to view an embedded video or do you switch to landscape?”

Originally Posted by RichmondBlue:
“For me, it depends what it is. If its just a link to a quickie on YouTube I'll just view it in portrait. Something more important or interesting and I'll switch to landscape. I've never found it much hassle to be honest. But then again, for me it's not a daily occurrence.”

Same here. For the vast majority of the time, if I'm looking at news sites,forums etc and it has an embedded video I would just stick with portrait.
alanwarwic
07-01-2014
Originally Posted by rosetech:
“Interesting discussion, I never browse in portrait mode on android devices.”

Depends on size. Low resolution phones it is a waste of time.
Its almost the exact same with 768 width. Occasionally works but loandscape is best at low res.
800 width is better but not perfect, that being an old popular standard for screen width.
psionic
07-01-2014
Originally Posted by IanP:
“I can't see Apple using an Intel CPU on an iPad. They save a huge amount on the BOM by making their own CPUs.”

I can't see that happening either. Especially now they've moved on to 64bit implementations of their custom ARM chips. I reckon it's more likely they'll use ARM for some of their laptops/desktops eventually.
IanP
07-01-2014
Chromebooks have shown there's a market for cheap laptops that don't run on windows or have the full range of applications of a traditional desktop OS. Offering iOS on 12" to 14" laptops could be a popular move for Apple as long as they don't mess it up like Microsoft did with Surface by having two incompatible operating systems on devices with very similar branding.
<<
<
2 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