Andrew, Seems like the axe being ground through this "color" parsing is a discontentment that display marketing should implicitly agree with the reckoning that a color doesn't count unless it's defined as distinct under a dE reckoning. At the time the convention was established for counting colors in the sense of marketing speak, the ICC was just being formed. None of the tools you refer to existed, and it was still not uncommon for color computer graphic to offer purely indexed color. Ok, so you have a more specific definition of color based on ICC. Should the rest of the world be required to use your def? It's an absurd claim to say that color doesn't exist except under an ICC regime. I will repeat: The vendor claim means nothing more than a device data format, which happens to precisely define colors under a device regime where "color" is well understood to be a stimulus in context, not a sensation. 30 bit RGB data format is 1 billion colors in device context. It's not confusing unless you wish it were defined some other way. If you wish the vendor to add an asterix (*) (Andrew Rodney has approved and endorses this devices colors under an ICC tolerance of xyz) that's fair! But don't suggest there's some general principle of the use of the word based on your prefs. So where is your argument going? I might follow your thinking if it helped clarify matters for uninitiated users, but by your reasoning users should doubt a product which offers a useful feature such as 10 bpc datapath because ... Why? Instead they should choose a display that offers ... What? About 200K ARcolors(*) (*)Tell your dealer you want real color, AR approved color! Remember: With ARColor, you can settle for less colors. ARColor is a registered trademark of Andrew Rodney Color Inc.