Q: When is a 7" tablet not a 7" tablet? A: When Apple fanatics say it isn't
 

http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/this_ipad_mini_thing

Now, as far as I know, a 6.5" knife can be typically referred to as having a 6" blade. A 37.3" TV screen is referred to as a 37" screen. But a 7.85" Apple tablet (rumored) is, according to one of the biggest Apple fanatics of all time, not a 7" tablet.

Huh? Apparently the legacy of Steve Jobs is stronger than logic or common sense... ?

Yes, yes, it has more area than something that may be 7.0", but that doesn't change reality of how these things are referred to by everyone else.

But, then, maybe it's just me. What do the Apple fans on this board think?

I always thought that 13.3" = 13", 15.4" = 15" AND 17.3" = 17" (in the laptop world) because they were mathematically rounding (n.R = n+1, R>=5 and n.R = n, R<5)

So if you round 7.85" , you get 8"

A 7.85" tablet has 25.8% more surface area than a 7" tablet. That seems like a substantial difference to me.

Credibility bypass at "For another thing, I and others have heard from Cupertino-area little birdies that what Apple has been working on in the lab is a smaller iPad, not a bigger iPod."

Because you know, the iPad is a giant iPod touch.

Reality Distortion in full effect

You can round up, sure. But it's also not wrong to round down.

But the standard is to round using the previously mentioned convention.

I'll take that extra .85 inch any day :manches:

A: When it's an 8" tablet.

Rounding to the nearest integer makes a lot of sense to me. Rounding up is also pretty common (My 32" TV has a 31.5" panel, for example).

I wouldn't call a 7.85" tablet a 7" tablet (it would be noticeably larger), just as I don't call my phone's 4.65" screen a 4" screen.

That blog entry is also trying to emphasize the fact that it's a tablet class device and not one that's comparable to a phone sized handheld, so it makes sense that they've picked rounding up (it also makes sense because it is mathematically more accurate).

If I was going to pick something in that article to complain about, it would definitely be the rumored 1024x768 resolution. 4:3 and low res for an 8" (or 7") screen is a lackluster resolution after all the touted benefits of "retina" displays and the competing sized devices that are at least 720p.

Anyways, rounding to the nearest whole number makes a lot of sense to me, it's what I was taught was rounding (unless to 5s, 10s, etc) in elementary school.

Guess I'm the only one that doesn't like rounding off important features - especially rounding up to make them sound better (which is a typical sales gimmick), especially when the person/company doing the selling is picking how things are rounded and to what degree.

So I guess if Apple made a car with 175hp and they decided to round up to 200hp it'd be ok? After all, they've decided to round to the nearest 100 to make it easy to understand, just like fans are getting people to round 7.85" to 8" (rather than, say, 7.9" - which would be a step in the right direction because it still conveys that it is less than 8" but also bigger than most 7" screens, though it's still also technically a 7" screen since the number starts with a 7).

Go Apple!

I'll go back to my cave now and let the math rainbows continue.

You're always going to lose accuracy by rounding. Better to lose that .15" than .85" especially for marketing. The result of their rounding is closer to the truth than yours.

No, because nobody does that :lol:

No matter what, the current convention is way better than the old CRT convention of including the bezel. That #$%#%$ pissed me off.

Ok, finally took the time to skim the link and concluded that Victor is just Trolling. What the blogger said is completely reasonable and in no way obfuscates the facts.

This appears to be the offending script.

I don't really understand the contraversy here... the iPad isn't a 10" tablet, it's a 9.7" tablet... I've never thought of it as a 9" tablet or a 10" tablet, only a 9.7" tablet... rounding in this instance doesn't make much sense... My 42" TV isn't considered a 40" TV because it's closer to 40 than it is to 50...

You don't round whole number double digit display sizes because it would be a very gross inaccuracy...

Of course not, it's magic. The iPod Touch isn't. :bleh:

You don't round any display sizes.

I don't, but manufacturers do. 31.5" displays get rounded to 32". I don't think there are any true 32" displays. 17.3" and 15.4" displays get rounded to 17 and 15 respectively. There are tons of examples.

I think its a marketing rule to keep people's brains from overheating :bleh2:

Any time I've looked at laptops the exact size was listed...

Hmm, I recall the same for laptops, but I've seen sites that just list them as whole numbers.

Normally when I see this, it is people talking about the class of laptop not the manufacturer.

Sometimes I will see a ad using language similar to "14" class laptop" or "smallest 14 class laptop" etc. In this case I think it makes enough sense, because they are just trying to give people a general idea of what sort of product it is.

wow, what a pointless and stupid thread. facepalm.jpg