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).
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?