Some interesting data

For the inner nerd in all of us, I did a bit of figuring to see how the display area of the two devices compares – iPad and iPhone.

These are for the display, not the outer dimensions of the devices.

I made these measurements by printing a copy of the iPad’s picture from Apple’s web site for the iPad and measuring/computing, and by actual measurement of the display area on my iPhone.

Full display area

iPhone: 2.95″ x 1.95″ = 5.75 in^2 (native ratio is 1.51:1. 3.54″ display diagonal)
iPad: 7.86″ x 6.17″ = 48.5 in^2 (native ratio is 1.27:1. 10.0″ display diagonal)
Ratio iPad:iPhone = 8.4:1 area, 2.82 :1 diagonal)

Watching a widescreen 16:9 movie

iPhone: 2.95″ x 1.66″ = 4.90 in^2 (85% utilization. 3.39″ display diagonal)
iPad: 7.86″ x 4.42″ = 34.75 in^2 (72% utilization. 9.02″ display diagonal)
Ratio iPad:iPhone = 7.10:1 area, 2.66:1 diagonal)

Watching a 4:3 traditional movie

iPhone: 2.60″ x 1.95″ = 5.07 in^2 (88% utilization. 3.25″ display diagonal)
iPad: 7.86″ x 5.90″ = 46.37 in^2 (96% utilization. 9.83″ display diagonal)
Ratio iPad:iPhone = 9.15:1 area, 3.02:1 diagonal)

Looking at a Leica aspect ratio picture – 36mm x 24mm:

iPhone: 2.93″ x 1.95″ = 5.70 in^2 (99% utilization. 3.52″ display diagonal)
iPad: 7.86″ x 5.24″ = 41.19 in^2 (85% utilization. 9.45″ display diagonal)
Ratio iPad: iPhone = 7.23:1 area, 2.68:1 diagonal)

The iPad’s near 4:3 display area aspect ratio means it makes very efficient use of the available display area when playing a 4:3 movie or displaying a traditionally sized photo. On the other hand, the iPhone makes better use of available pixels when displaying a widescreen movie or a Leica aspect ratio (1.5:1) picture.

It would have been nice had the iPad adopted a slimmer aspect ratio for the screen rather than the traditional squarish 4:3. The use of 4:3 may reflect a compromise to accommodate newspapers, books and magazines better. On the other hand, the gain in screen area over the iPhone is very large in all instances profiled above.

For comparison, most netbooks use a 10.1″ diagonal widescreen, making them very efficient for watching movies but less so for many applications which require a squarer screen. Netbooks typically display 1024 x 576 pixels compared to 1024 x 768 for the iPad and 480 x 320 for the iPhone. The iPhone is the ‘sharpest’ in terms of pixel density (smartphones like the Motorola Droid are sharper still), as follows:

Pixels per square inch:

iPhone: 26,700
iPad: 16,215
Netbook: 13,085

Finally, the reason that the iPad employs such a seemingly broad inactive bezel area (0.65″ and 0.9″ on the long and short sides, respectively) around the display area would appear to be to satisfy the physical need of having something to hold onto when used in the hand; extending the touchscreen all the way to the edge would cause all sorts of unintended activation issues.

To read all my iPad ruminations just click here.

No, not the waistline.

Feeding Americans’ gluttony with supersized portions is nothing new. Three patty hamburgers, gallon sized drinks of sugared water, jumbo fries and so on. All readily visible in the waistlines of the world’s most obese nation.

But a supersized iPad is not a bad idea. Now I realize this is a bit premature given that the iPad does not hit the stores until April 3, but my thoughts along the lines of a much larger touch screen device were sharpened by my eight year old this weekend.

You see, Winston is now tall enough to ride in the front seat of the car and on the way back from the San Francisco Zoo his natural delight in pushing buttons meant that the interior of the car went through several cycles of Death Valley heat to Alaskan winter over the space of the journey, a smile of pure delight playing on his face as he pushed every button in sight. Like all kids’, his is a tactile world. And being a typical device designed by left brain guys for left brain guys, there are more buttons in the wretched car than you can shake a stick at. Sort of like modern home theater systems. In other words, an ergonomic nightmare.

But it’s no secret that kids love buttons. They have yet to unlearn that the simplest user interface is the one which requires least effort and which is most fun. A button meets those dictates. Later they are forced to use ridiculous keyboards and even dumber devices like the mouse, and the charm of the simple is obfuscated by decades-old designs which should never have seen the light of day. Once upon a time computer keyboards came with trackballs which allowed movement of the cursor without totally removing your hands from the keyboard but, for some reason, the separate mouse prevailed.

I look at the way I use Lightroom and it’s almost all mouse-based. The cursor is used to drag adjustment sliders, to rotate and crop, to apply localized adjustments and so on. About the only time I resort to the keyboard is when adding new keywords or exporting pictures. So a touch device would lend itself well to tailored software that replaces the mouse with the finger.

Those who think of a slate computer as an output device (to read, to watch, etc.) only just don’t get it. They are mired in the left brained world of keyboards and sequential thinking. That’s not how artists and photographers work. The ability to change things by touching and dragging controls is the way we see the world.

So a giant sized iPad – say 20″ diagonal – resting at a 15 degree angle on your desk may just be the ideal input tool for a creative thinker. Sure, man has been using vertical input devices from Cromagnon to Titian and later, but do you fancy holding out your hand to apply a tool to a vertical touchscreen all day?

Here’s wishing for a jumbo iPad in our future. Microsoft demonstrated the concept with its boringly named ‘Surface‘; the site is just comically awful, as you might expect from a company with no class. And who on earth is naming products at MSFT? Procter & Gamble detergent marketers? It’s a thrilling product from the ultimate in left brained companies but like all Microsoft concepts it has no chance of coming to the market at an affordable price for the right brained among us. Shame.

JumboPad, I’m waiting for you.

P.S. I’m delighted to add that Winston is left handed, like most right brained creative types.

Eminently fair.

If my experience with the Mk. 1 version of the iPhone is any guide, the like technology in the iPad will prove reliable, with the most likely cause of failure being the battery. In that light, Apple’s announcement regarding battery replacement seems eminently fair:

While you have to back everything up before taking it in, you get a new or refurbished iPad for some $110 or so. It’s a win-win. Apple fixes your original and resells it in the refurb store at 10-15% less than a new one with a full warranty. You get a new device with two more years – or whatever it is – of battery life far faster than if you had to wait for your original to be repaired. Apple probably earns less on the resale than on the sale of a new one (they have to ship it back to China and then back to the online store as well as pay for repair parts) but this does suggest they are confident in the longevity of the other components in the device. After all, absent a couple of small switches, there are no moving parts in the iPad. So for your money you get a new device. There’s no indication of what the policy will be with regard to obsolescence. After all, in two years Mk. 1 iPad will almost certainly be obsolete, but this is great support from a company with whose hardware I have had generally very poor experiences.