3 ms·

None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why? Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3

None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why? Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3 tablets (which were actually 4:3, and still dirt cheap, before Apple unveiled the mighty iPad), they don't because it isn't a benefit. Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point. Regarding the cost-cutting, it absolutely was cost-cutting to move from 16:10 to 16:9, and few complained because really is it different enough for many to care? It was not cost cutting to move from 4:3 to 16:10 beyond that users demanded a wide screen overwhelmingly, not least because playing video on our desktop became so common.

gareim 15y ago
"Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point." Like how your opinion that 16:9 is better somehow isn't a questionable starting point? Sure, you might like 16:9 more, but most people seem to prefer 4:3 to 16:9. I myself have a 4:3 Android tablet (a mongrel: the HP TouchPad) and I have to say, between using this and a Transformer, I much prefer 4:3 on a tablet. It's easy to hold portrait or landscape, whereas with a 16:9 display, holding it portrait is awkward. Not only that, but 4:3 portrait mimics a book page much better than 16:9 does and so I feel more comfortable with PDFs on 4:3 than 16:9. I think monitors should go back 16:10 (compromise between screen real estate and widescreen appeal) and tablets stay at 4:3 (only because of the use cases for a tablet).