No, because as I said, probably 95% of all of the screens worldwide are now 16:9. It's the default aspect ratio.

Simpletons rule the world, but you're splitting hairs here. Human eyesight stretches much farther horizontally than vertically, so yes, 18:9 has something added to the sides compared to 16:9. These strange aspect ratios don't exist in a vacuum but in a world with other aspect ratios, so being able to compare them at a glance is much more beneficial than wanting to write less numbers for a reason that's still unclear to me.

4:3
13:9
14:9
5:3
16:9
17:9
2:1
19:9
20:9
7:3
22:9
23:9
8:3
24:9
25:9
3:1

All of the fractions in this list make sense when you take them out of context. They don't make any sense if you reinstate their context.

"Is 8:3 narrower than 23:9?" "Well, first we have to multiply both sides by three, which results in 24:9, which is wider than 23:9, so 8:3, which is equal to 24:9, is wider than 23:9, and not narrower."

"Is 24:9 narrower than 23:9?" "No."

For completeness' sake, I have actually seen several ads that mention a "2:1" screen ratio, so what all this has to do with a marketing con(spiracy) beats me.

Edit: for the record, I realise I only put ratios that end in :9 in that list. You could of course make an infinite list of ratios like 53:31, but that only strengthens my point. Without a point of reference, or as lantern said a common denominator, they're all meaningless.