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.
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.
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.
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)
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.