kinggo | # 121 | 2018-09-29, 14:26 | Report

I'm hoping more that it will be ultra......spec wised it's almost the same

Jedibeeftrix | # 122 | 2018-09-29, 17:01 | Report

aren't they already selling SFOS?

pichlo | # 123 | 2018-09-29, 17:41 | Report

What's this with 18:9? Not that I have anything against the format, but why 18:9? Why not 2:1?

Heik | # 124 | 2018-09-29, 18:06 | Report

Could this have been started from photography:
Professional cameras had negative sizes such as 6 cm x 6 cm, 9 cm x 6 cm at least. Often they were shortened to 6x6 and 6x9. In negative sizes it makes sense. Even if it does not make sense in screen form factor, they seem to use that same format also there.

Other theories are welcome...

kinggo | # 125 | 2018-09-29, 18:15 | Report

what he meant was that 18:9 is the same as 2:1 and since we all know and use term 4:3, the question is why in this case 2:1 is called 18:9 and not 36:18

Saturn | # 126 | 2018-09-29, 20:30 | Report

I don't know the real reason, but for me it makes more sense to use the 18:9 than 1:2, since there are already the standard 16:10 & 16:9.

e.g. [Company X announcement]:
'the next model will switch from 16:9 to 18:9 display'
makes it very easy to visualise the change than:
'the next model will switch from 16:9 to 2:1 display'

mscion | # 127 | 2018-09-29, 20:59 | Report

I really wish the dimensions were simply given in cm. Like my current phone screen is 13cm by 7cm. That's it. Don't even need to know diagonal which is meaningless unless you know the aspect ratio.

pichlo | # 128 | 2018-09-29, 21:28 | Report

Yeah... 16:10 is also weird. It's 8:5, FFS.

16:9 makes sense. It cannot be shortened. But 16:10, 18:9 or my suggestion, 16:12, are nothing more than a marketing trick. The fact that "it makes more sense" to some people indicates that it works.

gerbick | # 129 | 2018-09-30, 04:06 | Report

And here I thought my reductionist tendencies were unique. 18:9 bothered me as well...

Jedibeeftrix | # 130 | 2018-09-30, 13:10 | Report

Nothing so complicated as suggested below, re photography.

I simply want the absolute maximum screen space that I can use one handed. that makes elongated aspect ratios more useful than square ones.

unlike tablets, which are two handed devices so the importance goes back to the viewing utility which favours square screens.

i'm a big fan of the new breed of 6" 18:9 screens, where previously i've said 5.2" was as big as i could comfortably use one handed.