[kenneth]

It's not confusing or ambiguous, it's just incorrect. 125% increase means 2.25x multiple. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. It never means 1.25x.

The fact that the article seems to use it to mean a 25% increase just highlights that TechCrunch has bad writers and no editors.

[jhanschoo]

I wish that were true; for example, https://www.apple.com/iphone-14-pro/

> A display that’s up to 2x brighter in the sun.

if you click the arrow to look more, it elaborates

> For those bright, sunshiny days, the Super Retina XDR display now reaches a peak of 2000 nits outdoors — that’s twice as bright as before

whereas "up to 2x brighter" ought to mean (according to you, and my wishes) thrice as bright. If you look through the rest of the marketing copy, Apple consistently uses such language.

[gizmo]

- This car goes twice as fast as the other one == 100% faster.

- My stock went up 100% == I doubled my money.

It’s not ambiguous. Apple uses correct grammar.

[sokoloff]

> Apple uses correct grammar.

“2x as bright” or “twice as bright” is correct. “2x brighter” is not the same. Apple uses both.

[Terretta]

People reading along should ask themselves: How bright is 1x brighter?

[kenneth]

1x brighter is an oxymoron, it cannot be 1x as bright and also be described as brighter. 1x as bright means same brightness.

#x implies multiplication (from the mathematical notation of multiplication, ×, which looks like the letter X). 1×a = a.

[BenjiWiebe]

IMO, the 'x' changes it. 1x is 1 x the other number, x meaning multiplication.

[fsckboy]

> The fact that the article seems to use it to mean a 25% increase just highlights

that from the reader's point of view it's always confusing and ambiguous.

[nonethewiser]

It’s the inconsistency that makes the real revenue change unclear. 125% increase can only mean 1 thing.