It depends how you define "bigger". There is arguably some good-faith definition of "bigger" for which it's true. (like diagonal measurement)

I'm sure that their lawyers would argue that. I think that a reasonable person comparing screen sizes would be interested in area, not diagonal length.

I disagree. Screen sizes are always quoted in diagonal length.

edit: Not to say that it is unreasonable to think of screen size as area, but I think it is also reasonable to think in diagonal length, since that is the way monitors and TVs are generally advertised.

The fact screen sizes are quoted in diagonal length does not contradict the assertion that reasonable people are more concerned with screen area.

I disagree. I think people SHOULD be more concerned with screen area, but generally aren't.

No one really reports screen area. I can tell you the diagonal off the top of my head of most hero phones, but I couldn't tell you the screen area. In general the same could be said for TVs and Monitors.

It's a hard explanation to give to most people: "Yes, our diagonal is larger, but due to the aspect ratio, the total area available for the screen is actually smaller." We get this on HN, but I guarantee that this would not make things substantially less complex for most people.

That said, they should have asterisk'ed it.

You didn't disagree with the comment that you replied to, which said that the fact screen sizes are quoted in diagonal length does not contradict the assertion that reasonable people are more concerned with screen area. You're just making a different assertion.

Well, no one has asserted facts, only that "reasonable people" care about area, despite no screens being marketed that way. Nonetheless, MS has changed their imagery and copy, and reasonable people will buy these products no more or less than the previous revision -- probably more.

People are irrational, especially with their favorite brands. However, it is the de facto to measure screen size by the diagonal length. Apple does, too, or they use height and not area -- you'll have to compute that and "no one" does. Should we go on and on about how Apple has deceiving marketing, where their height-width ratio is not "good?"

Only if they claim that their 10.1" tablet is bigger than the 9.7" competitor. It's clearly disingenuous to make that claim when the area of the screen is smaller.

Yes - but TV screen sizes are advertised in diagonal length because it is assumed an aspect ratio of 16/9. For a given aspect ratio, larger diagonals imply larger area.

There is a host of aspect ratios for pc displays, 16:10 and 16:9 are both quite popular. Guess what? Nobody runs around looking up screen area. I have a 16:10 display, which is 'bigger' (visually) than a 16:9 of the same diagonal length when working/playing and bloody 'tiny' when watching videos.

All of you are forgetting 'depth', which gives volume. It might well be that they have measured their screen's depth (whatever that means) and it comes out 'bigger' than the one of the iPad.

You never know, with Microsoft.

Man, they are silly adverts but funny anyway.

comparison of diagonal dimension is only reasonable if the aspect ratios are similar.

period.

"Common people" falling for that is a real problem with elementary school level education, far more than false advertising is. And arguing that it is a problem of neither makes one part of it (you didn't quite argue this but some people itt do).

(I was going to jokingly point out that the "best" diagonal length would be that of a thin one-pixel strip, equal to its width, but at least on HN we're all clever people and saw that coming a mile away)

Screen sizes are always, ALWAYS, given in diagonal length. Maybe people assume that a bigger diagonal length gives bigger area too, but that doesn't make the statement "bigger touchscreen" dishonest.

The unambiguously correct term they could have used if they were truly trying to tout their product in good faith is "wider". Calling it "bigger" when only one dimension is bigger and the other dimension and the area and resolution are lower is stretching the limits of good-faith. It looks like a deliberate use of an ambiguity to imply something untrue, and no, the marketing people don't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they might not have understood the difference between diagonal measurement and area measurement.

> It depends how you define "bigger"

Hmm, it has bigger pixels ... :]

So an 8 foot ladder which has rungs 24 inches wide is bigger than a 12 foot ladder which has rungs 15 inches wide?

If ladders were commonly advertised by their width (as TVs are by the diagonal)? Yes, absolutely.

My point may have been too subtle. The GP made the claim that it is false that the ASUS tablet is bigger. I used the same logic to show that an 8 foot ladder can be "bigger" than a 12 foot ladder. By reductio ad absurdum, the claim that bigger only applies to area is shown to be false as you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says "No, no... the 8 foot ladder is bigger than the 12 foot one". This is a concept of "bigger" which can be applied to tablets as well. Whether measured diagonally or by height while standing in portrait mode, the ASUS tablet is bigger in that particular dimension than the iPad.

I'm sure that their marketing department steered well clear of the word "larger" because larger implies an overall size advantage whereas "bigger" can be construed as greater in one dimension.

No, I'd still go with Hanlon's razor, I'd guess whoever wrote it though it was true.