4 ms·
I always thought it was a marketing thing, since the diagonal is always larger than the individual axes.
by junon 3y ago
I always thought it was a marketing thing, since the diagonal is always larger than the individual axes.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoThe 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 agoTVs 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 agoOf 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 agoHistorically 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 agoThis is interesting! So maybe it was mainly inertia that propelled diagonal measurement marketing and there is insufficient reason to change.