Your comment here...is at odds with your comment here
Well that was a different user, but anyway the claims are not conflicting - they are in agreement. By "doesn't mean anything", I obviously don't mean "has no meaning in the English language," rather it has "no technical meaning". The thing is that TVs and monitors are typically characterized by their resolution. VGA monitor, SVGA, HD, FHD, 720p, 1080p; these terms all tell you something about resolution. In the case of TVs, the normal description is number of horizontal lines. But what's being called "4k" is actually 2160p, which logically should be "2K" since its resolution has two thousand lines. This would make sense and be consistent. "4K" sounds like a technical description, but doesn't actually describe capability of the display, and is only close to four thousand of something if you switch from counting horizontal lines to vertical ones, which is silly.
So by virtue of something being marketed it means something ... an argument over what to call it is nothing more than companies and businesses waving their penises at each other. If it's close enough to 4k it's good enough as long as the marketing people agree.
Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad. Saying that all marketing language imbues itself with sufficient meaning to justify its use totally obliterates the concept of false advertising. If Cadillac starts calling their 4-cylinder engine a V12 because it has 12 valves and claims it's better than BMW because they only have a V8, you'd be okay with that? Because the fact that they marketed it as a "V12" means that's what V12 means?
Why does this matter? Because companies misusing technical terms to imply capabilities their products don't have is a dishonest business practice, and hurts the consumer. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go attach some onions to my belt, as is the style, and yell at a cloud.