iPhone 8/Plus Diagonal screen measurement somewhat useless

[tedley]

I read all these threads that reference screen/display size with reference to the diagonal. I see this as a fairly useless measurement. In my opinion, it would be more useful to refer to screen size with a width by height measurement.

My reasoning is that height and especially width are more meaningful than a diagonal measurement. For example I like wider phones for the ease of typing That's my personal preference. An iPhone 8plus has a 5.7 inch diagonal screen and an iPhone 12 has a 6.1 diagonal inch screen. The 12 is actually narrower than the 8 plus. But the diagonal measurement doesn't disclose how wide or long the display is and can be useless or even deceptive as in the case above. Disclosing that the display in a width/height measurement tells me exactly the measurements that actually mean something.

What makes it even more useless is that aspect ratios differ from model to model

What's the point of using such a measurement? Why not use something that is much more descriptive and useful?

Thoughts?

 

[now i see it]

Diagonal descriptions of screens are used as a marketing tactic to muddle the waters and create uncertainty. That’s its primary purpose

 

[tedley]

Diagonal descriptions of screens are used as a marketing tactic to muddle the waters and create uncertainty. That’s its primary purpose

Yeah. Kinda figured. ?

 

[wilberforce]

Buyers and sellers (of anything) want an easily-understood single number to quickly compare which is bigger or better. Two or more numbers make everyone think too hard and entail long explanations.
In this case, however, there are arguably better single numbers than diagonal measurement, for example area of the screen in square inches or millimeters.
People often use and accept areal or volumetric measurements to express overall size. We don't compare houses or refrigerators by diagonal measurement, after all.
Originally (think original TV screens, original PC monitors) all screens were 4:3 ratio, so diagonal measurement was as good as anything. I think by now it is too late to change.

 

[Mark Stone]

Yep . . . . Marketing. I think my 5.7" iPhone 8 Plus had a larger screen than my 6.1" iPhone 13. That's my perception, anyway.

 

[dontwalkhand]

Yeah. Kinda figured. ?

There is a big reason why the manufacturers of LCDs etc still use inches in countries where they are all metric with everything else. Ambiguity is what they thrive on!

 

[Orpheus33]

If you have the diagonal and the screen width to height ratio (e.g. 16:10), you can calculate the dimensions. But yes, as other people pointed out, it's a marketing trick.

 

[tedley]

If you have the diagonal and the screen width to height ratio (e.g. 16:10), you can calculate the dimensions. But yes, as other people pointed out, it's a marketing trick.

That's true. I understand the math, but the problem with that is that aspect ration between phones is not the same, so this becomes even a bigger issue. If you don't know that ratio, then the diagonal measurement becomes even more useless and comparing different phone models with different aspect ratios using that metric can be deceptive. I think others have hit the issue. It's marketing, pure and simple. It smacks of marketing BS.

 

[Zaft]

it’s the same way the iPhone 12/13 mini is 5.4 inches but feels nothing like that.

Also, the iPhone 8 Plus is 5.5 not 5.7

 

[LFC2020]

Couldn’t stand the narrow screen on my iPhone X compared to the wider screen on my 6S plus.

I was the first customer to get my XS Max at my local  store on launch day lol.

That extra width makes a huge difference.

 

[tedley]

it’s the same way the iPhone 12/13 mini is 5.4 inches but feels nothing like that.

Also, the iPhone 8 Plus is 5.5 not 5.7

Yup. Case in point. The 8+ and 13 mini are 1/10 inch different with respect to diagonal measurement but are completely different with respect to dimension and feel.

 

[JPack]

It’s a once in a generation change, not a big deal. We already went through this debate in 2017.

Is it annoying? A little bit, but everyone is used to it now unless you’re still using an old iPhone. You can easily calculate the display area using Apple’s provided specs.

 

[ChoiMinji]

very narrow and very long

 

[FreakinEurekan]

What's the point of using such a measurement?

I’m not sure it can be traced back to the width of a horse’s ass but it’s a pretty old tradition. Early TV sets were round, or truncated round (flat top/bottom with highly rounded sides). Looking at a variety of early TV ads, I see the “Diagonal” measurement certainly in 1968, probably around before then. Most ads for round-screen TVs don’t seem to show a measurement at all - but if it did, probably it’d be diameter - which would essentially be the same as a “Diagonal” measurement once the shape started squaring off.

I agree, it’s not the best solution - particularly with varying aspect ratios. But like so many things, saying “It’s not ideal” is easy. Deciding what to replace it with…. Well, there’s a conversation

 

[Jim Lahey]

The experience in your hand is really all that matters, but I agree the switch away from ~16:9 ratio displays has given a false sense of scale implied by the numbers attached to the newer devices. My 5.5" 8 Plus had a far more usable screen space than the X/XS/XR/11/12/13.

 

[Zaft]

The experience in your hand is really all that matters, but I agree the switch away from ~16:9 ratio displays has given a false sense of scale implied by the numbers attached to the newer devices. My 5.5" 8 Plus had a far more usable screen space than the X/XS/XR/11/12/13.

Due to the swipe gestures the overall space is even less. That’s why I only get the max sized iPhones.

 

[tedley]

The experience in your hand is really all that matters, but I agree the switch away from ~16:9 ratio displays has given a false sense of scale implied by the numbers attached to the newer devices. My 5.5" 8 Plus had a far more usable screen space than the X/XS/XR/11/12/13.

Couldn't agree more. That was my point. The diagonal measure doesn't really tell you anything.

 

[tedley]

I’m not sure it can be traced back to the width of a horse’s ass but it’s a pretty old tradition. Early TV sets were round, or truncated round (flat top/bottom with highly rounded sides). Looking at a variety of early TV ads, I see the “Diagonal” measurement certainly in 1968, probably around before then. Most ads for round-screen TVs don’t seem to show a measurement at all - but if it did, probably it’d be diameter - which would essentially be the same as a “Diagonal” measurement once the shape started squaring off.

I agree, it’s not the best solution - particularly with varying aspect ratios. But like so many things, saying “It’s not ideal” is easy. Deciding what to replace it with…. Well, there’s a conversation

Thanks for the historical perspective That adds clarity.

 

[usagora]

Well, since there's really not a huge spread of aspect ratios among most phones/tablets/laptops/etc., I think it does give you a good idea of the screen size. And most marketing includes pictures, so you can also get an idea of the aspect ratios. And then the tech-specs on the website let you know exactly.

So, no, I don't think it's "marketing BS" as it's not some totally inaccurate statistic. It does give you a good idea, especially combined with photos.