is the 24 inch imac really 23.5 inches? isn't that false advertising?

[SilasPal]

why couldn't they just say the m series imacs are 23.5 inches, they had no problems saying the intel imacs were 21.5 inches.
how is apple getting away with the false advertising, especially since all you need is a tape measure to confirm the screen size.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

Not really false advertising since it is advertised on their website as being 23.5 in diagonally. They do it with some of their iPads as well.

 

[SRQrws]

Go find a lawyer to initiate a class action suit. If you're really lucky, in about three years you'll get a check for $4.00.

 

[SilasPal]

i mean why couldnt they just advertise it as 23.5", it is not like anyone would have cared 0.5" was off for such a small screen

 

[mreg376]

i mean why couldnt they just advertise it as 23.5", it is not like anyone would have cared 0.5" was off for such a small screen

If you didn't care we wouldn't have this thread.

 

[SilasPal]

definitely false advertising:

 

[G5isAlive]

Do you understand significant digits? it would be false advertising to say 24.0 inches. 24 is 2 significant digits. 23.5 is three, but when you apply the rule of roundoff, 23.5 rounds it up to two sig digits, 24. is it sleazy? maybe. is it legally actionable? probably not.

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? It's a 2 % difference, probably not visually impactful.

 

[TSE]

Do not be mad. I trust Apple to make the product decisions, not you. And 23.5" is what they came out with for the iMac. I love my iMac.

 

[Teletypewriter]

Read the fine-print the Apple lawyers inserted in the iMac product page ... "Actual diagonal screen size is 23.5 in."

 

[subjonas]

it would be false advertising to say 24.0 inches.

This.

The 14” MacBook Pro is actually 14.2” in the specs. Is that false advertising too?

Most companies use whole numbers for cleaner marketing. And they round both up and down because the rule for rounding decimals is 5 or more rounds up, 4 or less rounds down.

If you still maintain that rounding is false advertising, then technically, you should say 23.5” is false advertising too because it’s not actually 23.5”. If one measures it more precisely it would be something like 23.4999”. And if you measure it even more precisely, then 23.4999” would be “false advertising” because it would actually be something like 23.4998528953125621”. And so on. All numbers would be “false advertising” without rounding because a measurement can always be more precise.

 

[IJustWannaTalk]

i mean why couldnt they just advertise it as 23.5", it is not like anyone would have cared 0.5" was off for such a small screen

I don't care that it's advertised as 24" while being 23.5", either.
Been rounding up irrelevant numbers like this for most of my life.

 

[2024]

I had a 22" HP TV that was really 21.5", and a Panasonic 50" that was actually 49.5". And have you ever measured a 2x4, or a 5x7 rug? None of them are really those sizes. Apple did not invent the idea of rounding lengths.

 

[bake]

You’re right that the 24-inch iMac actually measures closer to 23.5". But that’s pretty standard across the industry; screen sizes are almost always rounded up to the nearest whole number. Apple did the same with the 21.5" iMac (it wasn’t exactly 21.5 either). It’s more of a naming convention than an attempt to mislead, since most companies market displays this way.

 

[macpro2000]

I absolutely hate the size of the 23.5" iMac. The same as I did with then 21.5" Who really wants the small one?

 

[platinumaqua]

This.

The 14” MacBook Pro is actually 14.2” in the specs. Is that false advertising too?

Most companies use whole numbers for cleaner marketing. And they round both up and down because the rule for rounding decimals is 5 or more rounds up, 4 or less rounds down.

If you still maintain that rounding is false advertising, then technically, you should say 23.5” is false advertising too because it’s not actually 23.5”. If one measures it more precisely it would be something like 23.4999”. And if you measure it even more precisely, then 23.4999” would be “false advertising” because it would actually be something like 23.4998528953125621”. And so on. All numbers would be “false advertising” without rounding because a measurement can always be more precise.

The industry did get in trouble for this kind of advertising back in the CRT days. They were including the unusable parts hidden by the bezel as part of the marketing size.

Which is why now companies post the actual display size if it's smaller than the marketing size.

 

[eRondeau]

Better go after them for their colour names too. My 24” M3 iMac is yellow but according to colour reference tables it ain’t. Don’t even get me started on the blue and green ones. Not even close to master reference colours. Then again maybe it’s just marketing and was never intended to be picked-apart to this extent.

 

[theluggage]

The industry did get in trouble for this kind of advertising back in the CRT days. They were including the unusable parts hidden by the bezel as part of the marketing size.

They may have got into trouble but I don't recall that ever stopping them (except, ISTR Apple didn't do that) - and we're talking about an inch or two difference, not a measly 0.5".

I guess it was defensible on the grounds that a 24" TV really did have a 24" diameter cathode ray tube, and went far enough back to be considered 'established practice'...

It was very noticeable when LCDs started to come out that a 14" LCD was a lot bigger than a 14" CRT display. I do recall a few jokers trying to sell LCDs by their "CRT equivalent" size but fortunately that didn't catch on.

 

[JPack]

Because it's a descriptive name, not intended as an actual measurement.

Same as 4K TVs having only 3,840 pixels across.

In this case, the 4.5K Retina display only has 4,480 pixels across.

 

[alphaod]

It's one of those situations if you look for a loophole you'll probably find one.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe you need to be able prove damages which seems quite difficult without a lot of money.

 

[NT1440]

There’s no loophole here guys, every screen is sold this way. Monitors, TV’s, etc. in this case the iMac is a 24” *class* display.

This is an industry standard for marketing, not an Apple thing.

 

[BillyBurke]

why couldn't they just say the m series imacs are 23.5 inches, they had no problems saying the intel imacs were 21.5 inches.
how is apple getting away with the false advertising, especially since all you need is a tape measure to confirm the screen size.

Grow up, will you ?