Yeah, that's what led me to start that thread. I've seen too many favorable, in-depth blog posts talking about the screen size being 4.7" - and like you, it seemed to me that there must be a story there.
I was expecting to find that it was 4.65" and maybe the bloggers had an imprecise ruler.
I was expecting a pretty warped aspect ratio or maybe not as much real real-estate (if you get my meaning) compared to a 4.3" phone with hard buttons and maybe there was just something that marketing was covering up the way marketing always seems to do, if that makes sense.
So, I don't get it - talking Google here -
- Did some focus group object to 4.7" so 4.65 is better, like 4.99 isn't 5 bucks to (some) people?
- And what's up with the screen being spec'd in inches in the UK? We've had a playful us vs. the metric system thread with our cousins in the Lounge - I'm think it's pretty clear it's metric or nothing for those cats.
- Did they have some spec translation error along the way?
- Did they have some production thing where they were happy with 4.7" displays but already committed the promotions?
Based on the phone width alone, I did some math and expected to uncover some lies somewhere, probably with aspect ratio - because I saw a movie being shown with the soft buttons in one vid. But with soft buttons, the aspect ratio is 1.64 - think 16.4:10 - pretty close to 16:9, closer than I'd expected when using 4.65" as a reference.
It's a mystery to me.