This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3.
In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet.
I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right".
So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.
Computer/laptop monitors didn't switch directly from 4:3 -> 16:9.
They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand.
From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market."
The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that 4:3 screens were easier for Apple to source for the iPad.
Or the claim that non-Apple tablet makers aren't simply choosing the cheaper and more common screen format. None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why?
They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand.
I do wonder if there was some consumer demand, or at least rising consumer acquiescence, because (I'm speculating) as laptops have become less expensive and more powerful the market consisted of relatively fewer developers and business people and more folks who see their computer as an entertainment system.
Definitely agree that widescreen has become common due to customer preference. But is 16:9 over 16:10 really a selling point (or even noticeable) to the average laptop buyer?
It probably has been used as a gimmick competitive advantage ("even more widescreen than before!") but I bet the 16:10->16:9 move was predominantly due to screen supply and cost.
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.
"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).
I think a 4:3 screen is much better than 16:9 for a tablet, especially if you're holding it in portrait mode, which is usually how I try and hold a tablet. It's like a piece of paper. 4:3 is simply a better form factor (see what I did there). To each their own.
For reference (everything else has been covered by the other poster replying to you) I was talking about the 16:10-16:9 move forced on consumers. 4:3-16:9 didn't happen directly, there was a brief stop off at 16:10.
"it presents a much better experience when viewing videos"
How? You hear this same claim all the time, never with any explanation. It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet. They're simply going unused.
Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience, because transport controls, captions, and data about the video can be presented above or below the image area, instead of over it.
It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet.
What? Of course you are. Have you never used Netflix on an iPad? Gigantic black bars above and below. I suppose you could grossly distort the image and vertically expand it, but no thanks.
Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience
Absolutely preposterous. So preposterous it merits no direct response.
If the black bars bother you then cover them with tape. You are not loosing anything because they are there - you are gaining height.
Just because the pixel exists doesn't mean you are required to use it.
Opinions like yours are apparently common, so what manufacturers do is remove those areas. You get less pixels, and like it better. Totally preposterous.
Taller screens are better - even when watching widescreen. The extra space is useful for playback controls, closed captions, etc.
You still don't say how you're LOSING pixels. If you had your way (a widescreen tablet) they'd simply chop off the extra pixels to change the aspect ratio. You gain NOTHING.
You also fail to say why putting controls, captions, and chapter indications in the empty space instead of OVER THE VIDEO IMAGE is "preposterous." How is having the video obscured with overlays BETTER?
In short: Your response fails utterly to support your claim.
In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet.
I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right".
So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.