Lots of professionals use portrait for coding and CAD. All of my drafters and engineers have at least one 16:10 or 16:9 in portrait. That's at least 15 in my building.
Shrug, my drafters that I work with have dual 24s in landscape. With that said, I still feel that presentations are best shown on 4:3 screens. This includes websites. But 16:10 is meant for productivity so you can have side by side. Same with portrait. It's meant so you can do a splitscreen view. That's not saying you can't do it otherwise, but text/graphics content is typically oriented for a more square layout.
The exception is video as others pointed out. If you watch video ALL the time, then without a doubt you want a 16:10 or even 16:9 tablet.
What I've been arguing is that while such a population exists, people use tablets for general tasks like reading, emailing, surfing, chatting AND video. So having a 4:3 screen IMO is a good balance. It's not like you get horrendous video either or you can't watch video. It just depends for everyone what they need.
Which one do you think is better for reading?
SNIP
Zero relevance to the discussions regarding aspect ratio. I know you consistently push the ppi aspect of things and whatever you want to make Apple look bad, but sure. No one's arguing that higher ppi = BAD. I'm saying aspect ratio makes a difference too. I'm pretty sure all Apple supporters would like to have a retina iPad mini, so I really don't see what you're trying to prove here.
Yes we all get it, the new Nexus 7 is a huge upgrade over the iPad Mini, but what's the point of parading that around? We know there's a generation gap. Whoever hits the upgrade cycle first will obviously have an advantage.