Everybody and their mother is writing about Apple's panel. I think Gruber's thoughts and his links to other places on the topic are most relevant reading.
While some others are much more populistic and techy-minded, there's one good thought intermixed in the wishful thinking – the screen resolution.
Apple already has existing and in-use own video format called iFrame, which could easily be the name of the device as well...
What's interesting about that format is how neatly it fits in the different Apple screens:
- iPhone 320x480 ("a half" of iFrame, in width), approx 3.5 inches screen, 160 dpi
- iFrame 960x540
- iMac (smaller) 1920x1080 ("twice" iFrame, both in width and height), 21.5-inch screen, 100 dpi
At 10 inch physical screen size, the "native" iFrame would calculate to approx 110 dpi screen with 960x540, which would be much more "widescreen" form than iPhone is.
With iPhone form, the numbers could end up as: 960x640, ending up as approx 115 dpi for a 10 inch screen. Which does feel sensible, unless it's not high-enough-DPI for Apple as a touchscreen.
High-DPI version would be 1920x1080, which would be approx 220dpi for a 10 inch screen. Quite likely enough for Apple, even if Nokia N900 does 265dpi (800x480 at approx 3.5inches) :)
iFrame resolution, or some multiple of that resolution seems like quite likely to end up playing a significant role, in at least one of the dimensions of the Apple panel (...or Apple tablet :).
...
Update: It's 9.7 inches,1024x768 pixels at 132 dpi. Oh well, there goes the iFrame theory out of the window...
...
Update 2: Another view on the 4:3 resolution.
Update 3: Pro 4:3 arguments: It's not super-optimized for video watching, instead it's books, web, iWork. Plus, at 9.7 inches, it's physically much more comfortable to use when the device has 4:3 dimensions (landscape and portrait).
