lewmur Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) That is corect, but you can double tap the video to zoom it to the top and bottom of the screen, which then crops the video along the left and right edges. Or, you can use the various output options to put the video on the TV. Adam Which means you can't see the whole picture. Face it. This is a major flaw in the iPad and no amount of making excuses is going to change it. The iPad is supposed to be a portable device, so saying you can watch its content on your TV doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Creating a portable media device with a 4x3 screen was a downright stupid choice. Period. edit: In a couple of weeks, I'll be able to use my $35 Rasberry Pi to watch media content on my TV. Makes a whole lot more sense than using an expensive iPad. :thumbsup: Edited March 16, 2012 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 OK I think there are mincing issues here. crp, you said that your MP977 OUTPUTs 16:9 (I assume the device itself on it's own screen does not do true 16:9, just that it outputs true 16:9. Is that a correct statement? If so, isn't that what Adam is saying too? If I read Adam's posts correctly, the iPad itself does not do 16:9 but it will do HDMI at 16:9 on OUTPUT. Or is that not the case Adam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 OK I think there are mincing issues here. crp, you said that your MP977 OUTPUTs 16:9 (I assume the device itself on it's own screen does not do true 16:9, just that it outputs true 16:9. Is that a correct statement? If so, isn't that what Adam is saying too? If I read Adam's posts correctly, the iPad itself does not do 16:9 but it will do HDMI at 16:9 on OUTPUT. Or is that not the case Adam? You are correct. You can *output 16:9 video to a TV via any of the various video output adapters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Which means you can't see the whole picture. Face it. This is a major flaw in the iPad and no amount of making excuses is going to change it. The iPad is supposed to be a portable device, so saying you can watch its content on your TV doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Creating a portable media device with a 4x3 screen was a downright stupid choice. Period. edit: In a couple of weeks, I'll be able to use my $35 Rasberry Pi to watch media content on my TV. Makes a whole lot more sense than using an expensive iPad. :thumbsup: Lewmur, let's be fair. It is not a flaw, but a design choice. Apple made this tablet to do much more than just watch movies, so a 16:9 aspect ratio is not going to be ideal in all situations. It was a design *choice*, not a flaw. The ability to use the tablet successfully in portrait mode is much more important to me than having edge to edge 16:9 video. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Lewmur, let's be fair. It is not a flaw, but a design choice. Apple made this tablet to do much more than just watch movies, so a 16:9 aspect ratio is not going to be ideal in all situations. It was a design *choice*, not a flaw. The ability to use the tablet successfully in portrait mode is much more important to me than having edge to edge 16:9 video. Adam BS. It's a design flaw. Pure and simple. There are no real advantages in having a 4x3 screen on a pad. I read books in portrait mode on both my HP TP and my 7" Android pad. You are just making excuses. And the vast majority of Web pages are designed to be viewed on a widescreen. It goes without saying that it was a "choice" made by Apple. That doesn't make it a good choice. Despite the rumors to the contrary, Steve Jobs did NOT walk on water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Let's be respectful of each other's opinions as Highlanders. Take issue with the item, but not another's opinion. There are better ways to address an issue, or a perceived issue without being in someone's face about their opinion. Being totally inflexible does no one any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I also do not think there is anyone here, even among those that appreciate Apple products that thinks Steve Jobs was some sort of Holy person. He was a shrewd business man with an eye for design. I personally do not like many things Apple does, or Steve Jobs did. But I can say the same thing about Bill Gates and Microsoft, or any other combo for a huge company that has basically lost touch with anything about their users/buyers except how to draw them to the buying table and be happy about it despite their better judgment. This really is not unique to Apple. I have lived through it with IBM, Intel, Sony, Microsoft, and now Apple. There are a few more too but I can't think of them at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I personally do not like many things Apple does, or Steve Jobs did. But I can say the same thing about Bill Gates and Microsoft, or any other combo for a huge company that has basically lost touch with anything about their users/buyers except how to draw them to the buying table and be happy about it despite their better judgment. This really is not unique to Apple. I have lived through it with IBM, Intel, Sony, Microsoft, and now Apple. There are a few more too but I can't think of them at the moment. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 BTW: I am one of those that appreciates Apple products; just not their pricing structure LOL! I also love Android, WebOS, and KDE Sparkle too and so much else in technology! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I am also one that would buy an iPad if I could. I would also buy an Amazon Fire, HP Slate (if they were still available), Kindle, Nook (already have one of those - thanks Josh!) and Transformer, and that really cool $100 tablet that Josh just got. I just love technology! But I have to say, Apple made it beautiful and although I bristle at their 'borders' and 'boundaries' I am not locked into ONLY having Apple products if I could afford others as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 OK I think there are mincing issues here. crp, you said that your MP977 OUTPUTs 16:9 (I assume the device itself on it's own screen does not do true 16:9, just that it outputs true 16:9. Is that a correct statement? If so, isn't that what Adam is saying too? If I read Adam's posts correctly, the iPad itself does not do 16:9 but it will do HDMI at 16:9 on OUTPUT. Or is that not the case Adam? No, the MP977 will output to its on device screen in 4*3 or 16*9 , you can choose. There are in additions other options about fitting the screen-to-video or video-to-screen (much like in msWindows with WMP, etc.) . In addition, the MP977 has output options - analog and HDMI, with the same video frame options. The MP977 also has eBook capabilities. Saying that the new iPad had to be 4*3 because it does "more than just video" is just jabberwocky to me. But hey, if someone thinks that is a legitimate reason, cest la vie. But do consider that the inexpensive, stupid MP977 can manage 4*3 and 16*9 just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Cool. Nice to know there are so many nice alternatives to choose from. I still prefer an iPad, HP WebOS Slate, or an Android ICS (Ice Cream Sandwich) tablet personally. Since they all can do so much more than a high-definition video, music, photos, and text device. I wouldn't mind a 7" screen though. That MP977 does have some decent specs though: Features Experience high-definition video, music, photos, and text on a gorgeous 7" LCD screen Advanced processing supports 1080p video in a wide range of popular formats Connect and enjoy in Full 1080p on your HDTV* Includes 4 GB or 8 GB of internal flash memory Expandable memory with optional microSDHC card Convenient remote control included Calendar App included Integrated stereo speakers and 3.5 mm headphone jack USB 2.0 Hi-speed for fast file transfers Rechargeable lithium-polymer battery (2200 mAH) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 Saying that the new iPad had to be 4*3 because it does "more than just video" is just jabberwocky to me. But hey, if someone thinks that is a legitimate reason, cest la vie. But do consider that the inexpensive, stupid MP977 can manage 4*3 and 16*9 just fine. Exactly. It is consumer preference. Apple thought consumers would not mind a 4:3 screen all that much. It seems that many do not, judging by the sales numbers. There are no real advantages in having a 4x3 screen on a pad. And that is your opinion. I disagree with it, but it does not make it either of us wrong. It is preference, and if you prefer 16:9, that's fine. I just don't think I would like reading books or do other page-based tasks on a 16:9 screen in portrait mode. i think the 4:3 ratio works better. Also, calling it a flaw is not fair at all. It was a choice by Apple. A flaw would be the screen not working as designed. For what it is worth, I don't expect everyone to like the iPad. There are times when I don't like it either. However, my opinion is that APple did a fantastic job designing the hardware, and the build quality is second to non. No one else even comes close. Also, I do not plan to upgrade to the new iPad, because the improved screen is the only upgrade that really matters to me, and I do not think it is worth the 200.00 or so that it would cost to upgrade (which includes selling the iPad 2 for a good price, which may not be possible anymore.) Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) And that is your opinion. I disagree with it, but it does not make it either of us wrong. Saying that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" is stating the obvious. But equating that with "everyone's opinions are equally valid", is a logical fallacy. Your only argument in favor of 4x3 is you find it "easier to read" in that format. Now that is a "personal choice". I prefer to read in 16x9 landscape. But that "personal preference" just doesn't stand up to all the reasons why a "portable media platform" should have a "widescreen" when the vast amount of the media for the device is created to be viewed in that format. And the fact that there are a gazillion lemmings willing to follow wherever Apple leads, doesn't negate that fact. Edited March 17, 2012 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I think you both have adequately stated your opinions. Please move on. Nothing further can be gained from continuing that part of the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urmas Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Apple offers refund to Australian buyers of new iPad --(Reuters) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken legal action to ensure Apple makes consumers aware its third-generation iPad cannot connect to a 4G mobile data network in Australia due to technical incompatibility. Apple agreed to post warnings that its new iPad "is not compatible with current Australian 4G LTE networks and WiMAX networks" over the next week. In documents lodged with the court, the ACCC says Apple advertised that "iPad with WiFi can with a SIM card, connect to a 4G mobile data network in Australia, which it cannot do". Australia, Europe... in fact, that "technical incompatibility"... Grrr. Let me rephrase this: iPad's built-in mobile broadband modem is "technically compatible" with U.S. and Canadian (and possibly Japanese) 4G networks ONLY. Why? Because it only works with 700 & 2100 MHz frequencies (reserved for 4G mobile data in North America) and NOT with 800, 1800 & 2600 MHz (in use pretty much everywhere else.) OK, fine, 4G is a new thing, and there are no modems out there (yet) capable of dealing with BOTH frequency sets... but how difficult would it have been to equip devices to be sold in Europe/Australia/etc. with a right kind of modem? Worse, yet: they (Apple) advertised that feature. Not only in Australia. They did it here as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 Is LTE that widespread in Europe? I don't think it had much of a start in Austrailia yet, from what I've read..... Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urmas Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Is LTE that widespread in Europe? Define Europe. Here in Finland, 4G networks (three nationwide operators) currently cover the largest cities, and -- according to operators -- 60 % of the population will be within 4G coverage by the end of this year. That coverage is based on 2600 MHz band, because 800 MHz "part" of the networks (needed for rural coverage) will be built from 2013 onwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think I read an article recently that said that about 90% of Europe doesn't work with LTE. Any carrier's 4G LTE isn't compatible with many rural areas in the USA too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 LTE radios (the transceiver in the iPad, for example) are not really fully developed like 3G. Apple including the 4G radio in the iPad is an interesting move, considering the radio is only configured for North American LTE bands. The iPad is global 3G compatible. It may be until the next iPad before we see global compatibility of LTE. It is not only the radio that must be properly engineered, but also the antenna system. So why did Apple release a product that was not globally compatible? Hmmm...... Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolanaj Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 http://www.apple.com/ipad/ Apple came out and showed off the new iPad..... Key features are the Retina display, 5 megapixel rear camera, Dual core A5X chip with quad-core graphics, and "4G" LTE cellular data on both AT&T and Verizon Wireless. What do you think? DO you plan on getting one? Adam Back to the original question If I had tons of money to throw around I would get an iPad just for the cool factor. However I can't justify the cost as I really don't need an iPad. I have a PC which I use a lot, a laptop that I use rarely, and a kindle that I love (and absolutely wouldn't replace with an iPad). If I was to get anything it would be the new kindle fire so I would have colour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I would definitely buy an iPad if I had the funds to throw around. It's a great tool. And after all, that is what it's really all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.