I always take “2.5 times more” to mean “3.5 times as many”, just like with percentages. I don’t think I have ever considered that someone might intentionally write “2.5 times more” with the meaning “2.5 times as many”. That makes the word “more” redundant, and I don’t expect it to be redundant because it seems as though it is in an important position.
So, it looks like there is disagreement on the meaning. Therefore, “times more” is ambiguous.
(Edit: sorry, didn’t notice last post was 15 days ago. This comment is hardly important enough to bump the thread.)
Yes. There is disagreement (among native English speakers no less ) so that suggests a reword would be in order, @amosbatto. (Of course technically it is a Wiki and anyone can go in there and hack it around, right?)
However I would draw your attention to my comment above: as he gives the two numbers (1267 and “between 400 and 600”) there is no confusion or disagreement.
And my other comment: There isn’t really such a thing as “typical smartphones” so the figure of “2.5” is inherently an approximation, so perhaps it doesn’t matter whether it is “2.5” or “3.5”. An impression is conveyed either way. “2.5” is not, and is not intended to be, an exact number. You can work out for yourself the actual range for the ratio based on “between 400 and 600”.
In the wiki, I changed it to “2.5 times as many as a typical smartphone”, so that should clear up any potential confusion. “Times more than” sounds less awkward to my ears than "times as many as ", but It never occurred to me that anybody would interpret “2.5 times more” as 350%. Oh well, clarity is more important than a phrase that sounds nicer.
) so that suggests a reword would be in order,