Who thought that this was a good idea? The eye's retina is an input device, not an output one. Shame advertising 'creatives' don't know their own biology. Even if it's a touch screen, the display bit is output. And before a certain company's lawyers shriek, note that I have written two English words in lower case; that's not a trade mark, folks.
Raw is not a file format, it's a description. Always 'raw', not 'Raw' (except at the beginning of a sentence) and certainly never, ever, 'RAW'. Editors of photography books and writers of camera manuals kindly note.
Manufacturers who call their sensors '1 inch' or '1/1.7 inch' (yes, that's you Nikon, as well as others) should remember that most of their customers don't know what a 1 inch vidicon tube looks like, nor what the image size was on one. They probably don't want to know, either.
It's misleading because nothing on a '1 inch' sensor measures 1 inch. The conclusion is that the maker doesn't want to admit how tiny the sensor is nor how microscopically small each photosite is. The 'four-thirds' designation is only marginally better.
Why not just give the dimensions in mm? Even in not-yet-metricated countries, this would be no more baffling and would give an accurate basis for comparison of sensor sizes. Even the TV cheat of giving the size of the diagonal would be better than what we get now.