The rumours are old news. A million sites have been shown to have been liars. And the hype has given way to reality. The iPad doesn’t walk on water, hover like a board, or sing you sweet songs while you sleep. No, wait. It can do that last one.
For all the cries of ‘haters’ and ‘fanboys’, it’s hard to shake the thought that something about the iPad isn’t quite… perfection. Whatever you think of Apple and its products, it does a better job on the aesthetics of industrial design than anyone in the business. Keeping devices clean, simple and on target is their speciality. But the iPad seems a bit wrong for some reason.
For mine, that problem is the screen. There’s a few other niggles people are harping about (no multitasking, for one) but in the long game the screen is the most likely ‘miss’ to cause long term grief.
On the question of tasking, power, ports, services, software, or whatever else, these are easy adds. A firmware update here, a new app there, even a 2nd or 3rd gen product, and you have everything you need on almost every front.
But in the iPad context, the screen must remain a constant. Unlike a real laptop, Apple Apps are designed to suit a specific device resolution. Even moreso than resolution, the Apps are most specifically built to match a screen ratio. And the iPad’s 4:3 ratio feels like anything but ‘the future’.
In a world of HD, and on a device centred on content, it’s hard to understand why the iPad has chosen the path of traditional CRT screen ratio.
It even seems to be the main point of why the device seems to look kind of overweight.
The killer moment for this screen comes during the launch demo when a clip from the Star Trek movie was played. The device, already heavy on the black border, sends a 2.35:1 cinema ratio movie down into a very limited frame in the centre of the screen. In reality, this clip would have been playing at a resolution of 1024 x 435. That leaves 43.4% of the screen real estate unused when viewing cinema wide HD content. And isn’t watching HD content something this device was meant to excel at?
Had Apple opted for a 1280 x 720 screen, the iPad would have been looking svelte and the video content would have presented with dramatic impact. A classic LCD widescreen of 16:10 may have also been preferred, which would shift that frame to 1280 x 800 — even more appropriate for viewing web pages in portrait. That said, minimal scaling would have been required to fit any site into a comfortable portrait view at true 720p resolutions.
This feels like a serious missed opportunity. iPad resolution must now be fixed long into the future. To change resolution from here would be to change the game for those already investing in App development for the new platform. So in this new decade, Apple’s landmark tablet is running an LCD ratio most thought disappeared with the 12-inch PowerBook. (I’m not knocking that little wonder, of course. I still run one at home.)
It may seem like a less critical complaint than some, but as already noted, almost anything else can be upgraded. This screen is the iPad’s screen forever. And it isn’t the kind of screen that suggest the iPad is anyone’s perfect content device. For a company that sells a lot of stock thanks to its mastery of aesthetics, Apple seems to have settled for a screen solution that is less than exemplary.

Subscribe
I don't think 4:3 is the issue here. A wide-screen display would completely ruin the form factor of the device, and essentially negatively affect the usability. A wider landscape area would cause difficulty when typing, considering many people will be using their thumbs where possible. It also makes it an awkward shape to hold and read from (eBooks).
What they did wrong was the technology. IPS is not a suitable panel for a portable device. What Apple should have done is offered a high resolution OLED display. It'd allow for a larger amount of real-estate for apps. Of course, this would require a powerful processor, which is where a Tegra chipset would be a strong choice. If a Zune HD can do it with a first gen Tegra, the iPad can do it too.
In addition to this OLED is a stunning technology. No need for back lights, the pixels are self eliminated. There's no view angle, and the pixels are denser.
My main gripe is the lack of Flash. Use Flashblock with Firefox and see how long you can bare its absence. It kills the device as an Internet device, which could have been its major attraction. They need to work with Adobe to get this working, ASAP.
I could go on with the bad aspects – there's a lot of them. But, to its credit, it's a very polished unit. Is it worth the $700 or so AUD for one? I personally don't think so. There's too many holes in its usability to justify the cost. Is it a failure? Probably not. Just like the iPhone, it'll improve with time and revisions.
What would I like to see? Apart from the obvious (multitasking, camera, OLED, Flash etc.) it'd have to be both capacitive and resistive. Why? Well we know it'll be at least capacitive, but what about people who want to handwrite with a stylus? You can't do that accurately with a capacitive screen. I'm sure there's many uni students who want to a tablet to be able to do this. Typing is all good and all, but you can't type equations and diagrams.
Essentially, it needs to be more than an iPod Touch to grab my attention, or money.
I've long been a detractor when it comes to Apple products. Editing the uni rag on a G3 back in the day is what did it to me. I swear, if I ever see that little bomb icon again I will… ahem… I digress.
This all changed for me upon receipt of the iPhone. I've played with many different phone/PDA gadgets in the past and touch screen has never really 'worked'. It either required the use of a stylus making things too cumbersome or the interface simply didn't have the intuitive nature a touch screen device should have. The iPhone on the other hand was almost perfect (Jailbreaking made it perfect though
).
So the iPad had me excited about an Apple product before I'd had a chance to use it for the first time ever. Words can't explain my shock at seeing what has been unveiled.
I have the same reservations as most when it comes to issues like mulitasking, DRM, etc but I have to agree; it is the screen that is the big deal breaker for me.
4:3? 4:3?!?!? I had thought the iPhone's rotational screen was a genius way of getting widescreen content on to a handheld with minimal loss of screen real estate. Now I'm starting to suspect it was all just serendipity "because phones are meant to be that shape".
It defeats the whole purpose of the device. It is, as you say, a step backwards, not a bold step towards the future of computing. I wonder if the Apple loyalists out there will buy enough to make this a success. I hope not… I'd like Apple to do a proper job on a device such as this, not just keep pumping out iterative advances for the iPad.