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.
