4 ms·

So that makes this deceitful ad by Microsoft okay?

by itg 13y ago

olegbl 13y ago
No, but this article was a bit of sensationalist hype (which, btw, I thought was against hacker news conduct?) This kind of stuff should be taken in context.
- CognitiveLens 13y ago
  sensationalist hype? It presents calculations of area, and states that the objective comparisons made by MS are objectively wrong. It doesn't even say that the ASUS tablet is worse or that the iPad is better. This is possibly the least sensationalist article I've ever seen that mentions both Apple and Microsoft.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    How is a diagonal length a calculation of area? There is no way to specifically determine area given a diagonal.
danbruc 13y ago
Which add is not deceitful because it highlights strengths and hides weaknesses? It makes absolutely no sense to attack a single add, they all do it, so if you want to complain, complain about all adds.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  This ad is not highlighting strengths and hiding weaknesses... it is straight up lying.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    There is no wrong fact in there. A 10.1" display is larger than a 9.7" display if you compare them by the length of the diagonal. This is common practice. It was the article that claimed that larger display means larger display area. The add leaves to used metric open but implies that it is the length of the diagonal. The same for the images. The add claims nowhere that they are to scale. The article just decides that they should be to scale. So they are trying to create favorable image of their product, but they are not lying more than a price of $9.99 is lying by pretending to be way below $10.00.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      The lie is in their graphic.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      What the fuck are you talking about? A longer diagonal does not imply a larger screen with variant aspect ratios. To compare two screens based on their diagonal is fine if they have the same aspect ratio and I have no problem with ads doing just that, but this here is utterly unacceptable. There is no weaseling out of this. You cannot redefine screen size as diagonal length, that makes no sense with variant aspect ratios. I’m also not really aware of such brain-dead comparisons being widespread in ads and official documents. Sure, it’s an easy enough mistake for consumers to make (especially since the diagonal is used so often in ads, even if not in comparisons), but if companies make that mistake, than that’s stepping over the line. By a mile. There is nothing acceptable about this. Nothing at all. (I can believe that this was a honest mistake, some intern screwed up or something. Shit happens. As I said, it’s easy to assume that the diagonal tells the whole story. So I would definitely not jump to the conclusion that this is some evil plot – but I cannot fathom how anyone can honestly belief that this is somehow defensible and might be in any way acceptable if it were not a honest mistake but intentional.)
      - danbruc 13y ago
        It is just the way it is (currently) done - displays are compared by the length of their diagonals, aspect ratio is ignored. Which consumer has an idea what 291 cm² vs 281 cm² of screen area means? Which customer distinguishes between 32" 16:9 and 32" 16:10? No one does that. Everybody has an idea of the size of his 10" tablet - nobody even cares if it is 10", 10.1" or 10.2" let alone the aspect ratio - his 17" notebook and his 42" TV and that is what they use for rough comparisons. As far as consumers are concerned display size is diagonal length. So by giving the two numbers 9.7" and 10.1" they gave away all information consumers will look at. What are the alternatives? Not giving the numbers? Not good, consumers want to know display sizes. Adding the aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9? Nobody cares to calculate what that implies. They could have left out the sentence saying that the 10.1" display is larger, but every consumer reading 10.1" and 9.7" already decided on their own that 10.1" is bigger. So yes, this is not scientifically accurate, but good enough for consumers. And the few percent that care about 10 cm² more or less and resolutions or pixel densities - both not given in the add - are able to figure out the details on their own.

So that makes this deceitful ad by Microsoft okay?

by itg 13y ago

So that makes this deceitful ad by Microsoft okay?

No, but this article was a bit of sensationalist hype (which, btw, I thought was against hacker news conduct?) This kind of stuff should be taken in context.

CognitiveLens 13y ago
sensationalist hype? It presents calculations of area, and states that the objective comparisons made by MS are objectively wrong. It doesn't even say that the ASUS tablet is worse or that the iPad is better. This is possibly the least sensationalist article I've ever seen that mentions both Apple and Microsoft.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  How is a diagonal length a calculation of area? There is no way to specifically determine area given a diagonal.

danbruc 13y ago

Which add is not deceitful because it highlights strengths and hides weaknesses? It makes absolutely no sense to attack a single add, they all do it, so if you want to complain, complain about all adds.

jlgreco 13y ago
This ad is not highlighting strengths and hiding weaknesses... it is straight up lying.
- danbruc 13y ago
  There is no wrong fact in there. A 10.1" display is larger than a 9.7" display if you compare them by the length of the diagonal. This is common practice. It was the article that claimed that larger display means larger display area. The add leaves to used metric open but implies that it is the length of the diagonal. The same for the images. The add claims nowhere that they are to scale. The article just decides that they should be to scale. So they are trying to create favorable image of their product, but they are not lying more than a price of $9.99 is lying by pretending to be way below $10.00.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The lie is in their graphic.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    What the fuck are you talking about? A longer diagonal does not imply a larger screen with variant aspect ratios. To compare two screens based on their diagonal is fine if they have the same aspect ratio and I have no problem with ads doing just that, but this here is utterly unacceptable. There is no weaseling out of this. You cannot redefine screen size as diagonal length, that makes no sense with variant aspect ratios. I’m also not really aware of such brain-dead comparisons being widespread in ads and official documents. Sure, it’s an easy enough mistake for consumers to make (especially since the diagonal is used so often in ads, even if not in comparisons), but if companies make that mistake, than that’s stepping over the line. By a mile. There is nothing acceptable about this. Nothing at all. (I can believe that this was a honest mistake, some intern screwed up or something. Shit happens. As I said, it’s easy to assume that the diagonal tells the whole story. So I would definitely not jump to the conclusion that this is some evil plot – but I cannot fathom how anyone can honestly belief that this is somehow defensible and might be in any way acceptable if it were not a honest mistake but intentional.)
    - danbruc 13y ago
      It is just the way it is (currently) done - displays are compared by the length of their diagonals, aspect ratio is ignored. Which consumer has an idea what 291 cm² vs 281 cm² of screen area means? Which customer distinguishes between 32" 16:9 and 32" 16:10? No one does that. Everybody has an idea of the size of his 10" tablet - nobody even cares if it is 10", 10.1" or 10.2" let alone the aspect ratio - his 17" notebook and his 42" TV and that is what they use for rough comparisons. As far as consumers are concerned display size is diagonal length. So by giving the two numbers 9.7" and 10.1" they gave away all information consumers will look at. What are the alternatives? Not giving the numbers? Not good, consumers want to know display sizes. Adding the aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9? Nobody cares to calculate what that implies. They could have left out the sentence saying that the 10.1" display is larger, but every consumer reading 10.1" and 9.7" already decided on their own that 10.1" is bigger. So yes, this is not scientifically accurate, but good enough for consumers. And the few percent that care about 10 cm² more or less and resolutions or pixel densities - both not given in the add - are able to figure out the details on their own.