Well, most practical applications nowadays are better with 16:9, but if one bothers to see the extra effort of cropping (I dont when its 200 pics of my daughter), then I guess 4:3 is better :P
16:9 for most outdoor or inanimate object type shots, 4:3 for pics of the kids playing around and doing things. Do not like 16:9 for situations when I want to take a shot vertically.
16:9 here too! :) The resulting photos fit your monitors and TVs properly nowadays, and well, real life is seen in a more widescreen aspect, so why not our photos?!! :)
The problem with these images as the lone example, is they are just one type of shot.
Scenery, which generally favors a horizontal layout rather than vertical can benefit from the 16:9, by getting that extra side to side detail (like the sun above), vs the extra sky or ground (which usually does not add much more to the image.)
4:3 has its benefits, like a few others have said, for kids or vertically oriented objects where you want more vertical detail and less horizontal focus.
I shoot in 16:9 the majority of the time, but when it comes to indoor shooting with the kids and family, it is always 4:3.
In my experience 4:3 has been easier to handle and I've always used it for most of the photography I do, I'll elaborate on this.
4:3 images can be later made into 16:9 and from my testing I can see pretty much the same whether in 16:9 or 4:3, I choose 4:3 for the extra detail.
But then again I've never had the opportunity to photograph using a 41 Megapixel camera.
In the phones I've owned, the Sony Xperia S, Lumia 520 and the Nexus 5 there is quite a gap between the megapixels you get when you switch between 16:9 and 4:3, plus I've always found it better to frame my shots in 4:3.
For example, here's a landscape I took at 16:9(6 Megapixels):
And here's the same scene that I possibly framed better on 4:3(8 megapixels):
In short, from the phones I've owned and my own personal preference has always been 4:3, I hear it's better for those that print their images as well.