5 ms·

I remember a keynote a Steve Jobs where he did something very similar: he presented a 3D pie chart, where the Apple part was highly distorted. Picture: http://

I remember a keynote a Steve Jobs where he did something very similar: he presented a 3D pie chart, where the Apple part was highly distorted. Picture: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/Jobs_08_keynote_dsc_0143x.jpg http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/Jobs_08_keynote_dsc_0... Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/jan/21/liesdamnliesandstevejobs http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/jan/21/liesda...

tgcordell 13y ago
This isn't similar at all. Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section. What Windows is representing and outlining here has no basis in fact.
- sneak 13y ago
  > Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section Actually, the tablet _is_ bigger in the diagonal measurement as they claim, which is the standard measurement of screen sizes. They're both subterfuge. Don't raise one above the other.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    The diagonal is longer, the screen is not bigger. That is a flat out lie.
    - bastijn 13y ago
      Without rooting for one or the other. Bigger is not a measurement. Bigger is relative to the method of measurement/definition, and its comparison with a second one. If screen size is measured/defined by its diagonal, than the screen is bigger.
      - arrrg 13y ago
        What the fuck is wrong with you people? I mean, really. No, that is definitely not how it works. You can redefine screen size into some absurd bullshit, but that just means you are crazy, not that you are right. In some cases the screen diagonal is a good proxy for screen size and it’s reasonable to use it (for TVs, for example, they are practically always 16:9). However, when that proxy reaches the boundaries of its usefulness and you still use it, you are a fool.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        marshray 13y ago
        Here's an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission "Picture Tube Rule" (from 1966) on display size measurements, including discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirmationofRuleFRNotice.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirm... Suffice it to say, the discussion of how screen size is to be measured is as old as television itself. It does not imply one is crazy.
        arrrg 13y ago
        Sigh. This shit is frustrating. You don’t get it, do you? How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying. No one ever with a clear head could assume that display size = diagonal. That works if the aspect ratio is unchanging (nowadays 16:9 TV screens are competing with 16:9 TV screens) and there is no problem doing just that. It works less well with variant aspect ratios, though it still is a sort of reasonable proxy for screen size – but if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else. Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. (In general I also have no problem with the diagonal being used in advertising. It’s not ideal but I won’t get mad about it. I will get mad about it if someone defends outright lying in ads.
  - kemiller 13y ago
    That's about equivalent to saying that I did something first because I did it at 7:00 AM Pacific Time and you did it at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. I mean, clock time _is_ how we measure time, right? And 7 is clearly less than 9. Diagonal measures are a useful shorthand for size when aspect is the same, but they are deceptive when comparing two screens with different aspects.
    - brudgers 13y ago
      Diagonals are GMT.
kemiller 13y ago
A trick of perspective is a lesser lie than specifically claiming a smaller screen is bigger.
- aninhumer 13y ago
  Especially when combined with an accurate numerical reference.
- hexasquid 13y ago
  In face a trick of perspective is a 3% larger lie.
Steko 13y ago
So wait the complaint is that 19.5% is "highly distorted" to look bigger than 21.2% even though they are clearly labelled with the actual numbers? If I wanted to minimize other I'd leave it off the chart. I've seen plenty of graphs do this without being called "highly distorted". Apparently Jobs is a "snake oil salesman" because he puts the "other" category last instead of second even though "other" is probably a number of different companies that are presumably not broken out themselves because they are smaller.
FireBeyond 13y ago
Apple's iPhone advertising was also the subject of several lawsuits that resulted in the (now) wide-ranging disclaimer of "Sequences shortened, screen images simulated", when they spent ads talking about how quick and easy it was to do things on the iPhone, that in reality took much longer than the demonstration implied.

tgcordell 13y ago

This isn't similar at all. Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section. What Windows is representing and outlining here has no basis in fact.

sneak 13y ago
> Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section Actually, the tablet _is_ bigger in the diagonal measurement as they claim, which is the standard measurement of screen sizes. They're both subterfuge. Don't raise one above the other.
- arrrg 13y ago
  The diagonal is longer, the screen is not bigger. That is a flat out lie.
  - bastijn 13y ago
    Without rooting for one or the other. Bigger is not a measurement. Bigger is relative to the method of measurement/definition, and its comparison with a second one. If screen size is measured/defined by its diagonal, than the screen is bigger.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      What the fuck is wrong with you people? I mean, really. No, that is definitely not how it works. You can redefine screen size into some absurd bullshit, but that just means you are crazy, not that you are right. In some cases the screen diagonal is a good proxy for screen size and it’s reasonable to use it (for TVs, for example, they are practically always 16:9). However, when that proxy reaches the boundaries of its usefulness and you still use it, you are a fool.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - marshray 13y ago
        Here's an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission "Picture Tube Rule" (from 1966) on display size measurements, including discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirmationofRuleFRNotice.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirm... Suffice it to say, the discussion of how screen size is to be measured is as old as television itself. It does not imply one is crazy.
        arrrg 13y ago
        Sigh. This shit is frustrating. You don’t get it, do you? How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying. No one ever with a clear head could assume that display size = diagonal. That works if the aspect ratio is unchanging (nowadays 16:9 TV screens are competing with 16:9 TV screens) and there is no problem doing just that. It works less well with variant aspect ratios, though it still is a sort of reasonable proxy for screen size – but if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else. Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. (In general I also have no problem with the diagonal being used in advertising. It’s not ideal but I won’t get mad about it. I will get mad about it if someone defends outright lying in ads.
- kemiller 13y ago
  That's about equivalent to saying that I did something first because I did it at 7:00 AM Pacific Time and you did it at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. I mean, clock time _is_ how we measure time, right? And 7 is clearly less than 9. Diagonal measures are a useful shorthand for size when aspect is the same, but they are deceptive when comparing two screens with different aspects.
  - brudgers 13y ago
    Diagonals are GMT.

kemiller 13y ago

A trick of perspective is a lesser lie than specifically claiming a smaller screen is bigger.

aninhumer 13y ago
Especially when combined with an accurate numerical reference.
hexasquid 13y ago
In face a trick of perspective is a 3% larger lie.

Steko 13y ago

So wait the complaint is that 19.5% is "highly distorted" to look bigger than 21.2% even though they are clearly labelled with the actual numbers? If I wanted to minimize other I'd leave it off the chart. I've seen plenty of graphs do this without being called "highly distorted". Apparently Jobs is a "snake oil salesman" because he puts the "other" category last instead of second even though "other" is probably a number of different companies that are presumably not broken out themselves because they are smaller.

FireBeyond 13y ago

Apple's iPhone advertising was also the subject of several lawsuits that resulted in the (now) wide-ranging disclaimer of "Sequences shortened, screen images simulated", when they spent ads talking about how quick and easy it was to do things on the iPhone, that in reality took much longer than the demonstration implied.