Here's an interesting chart comparing the rumored pixel density of the iPad 3 with previous Apple devices. Looks like it will be able to display HD video files at full resolution.
From what I understand, ios doesn't shrink everything like windows and android does at high resolutions.
With proper OS support for full asset scaling, above FullHD resolutions are a very exciting concept. I'd still rather Apple went with 16:10 or 3:2 (iPhone) for iPad, 4:3 isn't ideal IMO. 16:9 is just as bad on the opposite spectrum, but at least it's good for media. Not so for productivity, cause you know, someone who buys a tablet may actually do something meaningful on it one of these days. Maybe.
Think about it though...for a tablet device, 16x10 at it's current width would simply mean that a portion of the top/bottom screen would be removed. In other words, you get less screen real estate for other tasks (reading, web, apps, email, photos etc.) if you use those proportions for the overall device. There's no real advantage for the end user.
Macrumors has apparently confirmed that the iPad 3 will have a retina display quality screen (2048x1536).
That's awesome. In a span of 2 years, tablets have already exceeded the display resolution of laptops. Hell, even a majority of what us regular users at home on our desktops use.
Ur no, screen sizes are measured diagonally. A 10.1" 4:3 screen will be: H = 6.07" W = 8.07" Area = 48.98" A 10.1" 16:10 screen will be: H = 5.35" W = 8.56" Area = 45.8" So yes you lose height and area, obviously, but not as much as you claim, and you do gain width. Your example uses a smaller (9.52") screen for the 16:10 panel. 16:10 panels are far more usable for media, and with 16:9 media playback you get far better use of the screen real estate without having the drawbacks that a 16:9 screen bring. My vote goes to 16:10 or 3:2 ratio for tablets. Apple should adopt 3:2 like on their phones. Of course higher resolution is always welcome, I'm pretty excited about the 2560x1600 Android tablets. It would also be nice if MS support this res for Win8 mobile.
I specifically said "for the same device width", meaning the width of the overall device, not the diagonal measurement of it's screen. You're missing the point...using a 4:3 screen proportion will always give the user more screen real estate than a 16:10 proportion at ANY device width you choose. There's no advantage to 16:10 for a portable that has a greater range of uses than movies/games. It doesn't make anything better for the user.
Yes there is, it gives more (larger) viewing area for widescreen media content, rather than having it only use half of the available screen area. It gives the user more horizontal space which is very important for productive work, and when rotated, more vertical space which is very important for reading articles, or using an onscreen keyboard. It's just more adaptive, you have that extra space on either aspect when you need it with the only downfall being a slightly wider (but shorter) device and slightly less overall screen area. It's not all about screen area, but how you can actually make use of that area. On a slightly more off topic note, 16:10 is very close to the golden ratio. It makes use of our natural available viewing space near perfectly. 4:3 means there is unused space to either side of our vision, and 16:9 means there is either unused space on the top and bottom of our vision (letterbox effect) or the sides of the screen in our peripheral (meaning you have to move your head to focus on items), depending on viewing distance. Having screen real estate in our peripheral makes sense for movies as it increases the immersion, which is why movies are 1:2.53 format - and why 3 monitor gaming setups actually make some sense. But for productivity you really don't want to have to move your head when moving the cursor from one side of the screen to the other. Apple use all common formats, 16:9 for desktop Macs, 16:10 for laptops, 3:2 for phones and 4:3 for tablets. So am I to assume that you would argue that each aspect is ideal for each of those product segments? I personally think 16:10 and 3:2 are the best compromise formats that balance between media viewing and productive work/content creation, with 3:2 making more sense on hand held devices and 16:10 being better for laptops/desktops. However I think 16:10 is the best all round as it's close enough to 16:9 for media viewing but with the perfect use of our natural line of sight to have none of the drawbacks.
Just ordered my wife a 4S. We decided that she has pumped so much money into iTunes now and gotten so used to iOS that it was the easier option. The phone was free anyway on her existing contract (minus the unlimited data which O2 stopped doing) so its makes no difference. Android still hasn't caught up with iOS in the game department and both she and our daughter play a lot of games on her old 3GS so for the moment Android wasn't really an option.
4:3 will ALWAYS be larger proportionally at ANY device width than 16:10. Using your prior example, could you create a 16:10 tablet that had the same diagonal screen measurement as Apple's current 4:3? Yes, but it would require a wider physical device. Could you also make a 4:3 device of the same width? Yes, and it would be able to display widescreen content at exactly the same size as the 16:10. In regards to your claim that 16:10 is "more adaptive" for other uses vs. 4:3, I give you exhibit B: Notice how far off from the business/publishing standard size of 8.5 x 11 the 16:10 proportion is compared to 4:3. It's not even close. How could you claim that 16:10 is "more adaptive"?
Which translates to 8.3" x 11.4"... 4:3 is still much closer than 16:10. Really, 16:10 is fine for a portable device that is largely meant for movies or video games, but it's clearly not the best choice for content outside of that, which is why Apple chose 4:3. Also, 4:3 allows more interior space for the battery...
Why are you acting as if the length of the device is all that matters with regard to retaining portability? Please stop comparing screens of the same length and start using diagonal size as this is the industry standard. Of course a smaller screen is going to show much less, but a screen of the same diagonal size, less area, but more area used for the length is far better suited for multiple uses, not just reading A4/letter PDF documents and books.
I can make diagrams too! Based on actual diagonal screen sizes none the less, not some non-standard screen length made up to show widescreens in a bad light. Screen area is smaller with a 16:10 device, but so is device area. Why does device length matter so much in keeping size down and device height mean nothing? You can see the difference in the size of a 16:9 movie on either screen here, the 16:10 leaves just enough for media controls not to have to pop up over the movie itself, while the 4:3 screen wastes a hell of a lot of space which really cannot be used for anything. Now for viewing documents, Clearly the 4:3 screen is better suited to this one task. However, what if we want to create or edit documents? This is where the wider screen comes into use, when there are other vital objects on the screen. In portrait, the keyboard at 25% of the screens height leave a lot more room to work on the 16:10" screen. In landscape orientation you have space on either side for toolbars and the like. Your idea of the perfect tablet screen seems to be "the most screen area for any given device length". Clearly you should be demanding 1:1 square screens then, right? Yes screen and device length will increase with increasing aspect for any given diagonal size. This is the tradeoff. In return you get a less claustrophobic work space, where you can have tool bars in apps without sacrificing the size of the workspace too greatly. You can have multiple apps and widgets open on the same screen. You can view widescreen video files at a larger size... and a hell of a lot more. There's a reason we moved away from 4:3 on desktops and laptops 7-8 years ago and those reasons still apply to all modern devices today. I know 16:9 is pushing things too far towards media land and too far away from productivity, which is why the middle grounds of 16:10 and 3:2 were created. The uses that 4:3 is ideal for are far too few while the uses it is not ideal for are far too abundant.
I don't have to compare the same diagonal size. Your 8.5" wide iPad with a 16:10 screen could also be an 8.5" wide iPad with a 4:3 screen. The fact that the diagonal measurements don't match at 8.5" wide is a function of the proportional advantage for 4:3 when it comes to screen area, not some sort of "cheat" on my part. No, I'm simply pointing out that 4:3 is better suited for a device that is meant for a wide range of uses, including books, magazines, and professional/office communication. I think you already realize that considering your attempts at artificially limiting the argument to screen diagonals, which isn't even what the debate started with. Originally, we were discussing screen proportions, as in "why did Apple choose 4:3 instead of 16:10".