3 ms·

>The diagonal only made sense for TVs because the aspect ratio was fixed at 4:3 (and later 16:9). I'm not entirely sure it made sense even then. I completely u

>The diagonal only made sense for TVs because the aspect ratio was fixed at 4:3 (and later 16:9). I'm not entirely sure it made sense even then. I completely understand the point (knowing the AR allows one metric to consistently compare and derive the other dimensions) but in my opinion, diagonals became ubiquitous because when looking at TVs, bigger was typically better in the consumer mind and the diagonal is of course one of the largest justifiable dimensions they could plaster over the product and cheaper to print/advertise (less text to put on boxes and flyers). I think we were handed diagonals in the same way prices are often advertised at near complete fractions of dollars ($9.99): it projects more value to the average consumer's perceived value than it actually provides.

junon 3y ago
I always thought it was a marketing thing, since the diagonal is always larger than the individual axes.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The area would be an even bigger number. Wonder if marketers determined the concept of area was too complicated compared to the concept of a linear diagonal measurement. Or a 2 digit number is easier to remember and digest than 3 or 4 digits, and 1 digit is too small, such as measuring in squared feet or meters.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    TVs are large enough now that square feet would work, for markets where that unit is used anyway. For other markets ... Uhhh, would anyone understand deci square meters?
    - two_handfuls 3y ago
      Of course yes, though more natural would be square decimeter (dm^2) or even square centimeter (cm^2). Though understanding it isn’t the same as being familiar with it.
- zczc 3y ago
  Historically the diagonal was a natural metric because it corresponds to the diameter of the early round CRTs (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:7JP4 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:7JP4)
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    This is interesting! So maybe it was mainly inertia that propelled diagonal measurement marketing and there is insufficient reason to change.
ridgered4 3y ago
True, but diagonal measurements were broadly comparable since for most of TVs existence non 4:3 aspect ratios were really uncommon. It wasn't until HDTV and the broad adoption of LCD monitors that this became really deceptive.
two_handfuls 3y ago
Yes. Same reason some companies tout the “combined resolution” of their VR headsets, which really is the sum of the horizontal resolution of each eye. That make it easy to claim “4K resolution*” for a device that, perceptually, is nowhere near the quality you’d get from a 4K monitor.

junon 3y ago

I always thought it was a marketing thing, since the diagonal is always larger than the individual axes.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The area would be an even bigger number. Wonder if marketers determined the concept of area was too complicated compared to the concept of a linear diagonal measurement. Or a 2 digit number is easier to remember and digest than 3 or 4 digits, and 1 digit is too small, such as measuring in squared feet or meters.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  TVs are large enough now that square feet would work, for markets where that unit is used anyway. For other markets ... Uhhh, would anyone understand deci square meters?
  - two_handfuls 3y ago
    Of course yes, though more natural would be square decimeter (dm^2) or even square centimeter (cm^2). Though understanding it isn’t the same as being familiar with it.
zczc 3y ago
Historically the diagonal was a natural metric because it corresponds to the diameter of the early round CRTs (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:7JP4 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:7JP4)
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  This is interesting! So maybe it was mainly inertia that propelled diagonal measurement marketing and there is insufficient reason to change.

ridgered4 3y ago

True, but diagonal measurements were broadly comparable since for most of TVs existence non 4:3 aspect ratios were really uncommon. It wasn't until HDTV and the broad adoption of LCD monitors that this became really deceptive.

two_handfuls 3y ago

Yes. Same reason some companies tout the “combined resolution” of their VR headsets, which really is the sum of the horizontal resolution of each eye. That make it easy to claim “4K resolution*” for a device that, perceptually, is nowhere near the quality you’d get from a 4K monitor.