When I look at my iPhone 5s (64GB), I see my actual usable capacity is 56.0, 8GB less than the advertised capacity, because of formatting and maybe some for the OS. Since it is not broken down, I do not know what is due to each thing. This is not made clear which opens up the door to a lawsuit. This 12% discrepancy from formatted capacity to actual usable storage capacity is very close to the 10% discrepancy that won the monitor class action suit.
This does irk me somewhat when I noticed this a few months back, and I figured it was only a matter of time before a class action suit was filed. It doesn't matter what logic and reason say: I know and you know the technical reasons, but all the plaintiffs have to show is that an average (read "non-technical") person would expect a 16GB phone to have 16GB of available storage even if the OS were included in that tally.
This is not about slamming Apple nor defending Apple, it is about advertising claims that are not representative of actual capabilities. If this case wins, I expect the entire industry to start advertising actual capacities...
Actual capacity... or user-accessible capacity?
Apple says "16GB" because the iPhone has 16GB of flash storage in it. There are flash memory chips that total 16GB. I don't see the deception.
It's the same for computers. A laptop says "500GB" because it has a 500GB hard drive in it. Again... I don't see the deception.
You're right though... a person cannot get the full 500GB from that hard drive. They never could. Because of formatting, the operating system, recovery partitions, pre-installed software, etc.... you will not be able to store 500GB of your own files on that hard drive.
But the laptop still comes with a 500GB hard drive... and that's what they said.
And the 16GB iPhone comes with 16GB of flash memory.
But you're suggesting that companies should say how much user-accessible storage there is... instead of the total installed storage.
Sure... why not? Apple should simply say that the 16GB iPhone can store about 12GB of user data. That sounds easy enough.
And Dell should also have to say the 500GB hard drive in a laptop can store about 420GB of user data.
This isn't an Apple problem... it's an industry problem. It's funny that this lawsuit targets Apple and not EVERYONE else.
For years companies advertised the total amount of storage in the device... not the amount of user-accessible storage. Maybe that needs to change.
his is not made clear which opens up the door to a lawsuit. This 12% discrepancy from formatted capacity to actual usable storage capacity is very close to the 10% discrepancy that won the monitor class action suit
How much do you think formatting a drive takes up? Did you say less than 0.02%?
Regardless of what foolishness you attempt to argue Apple and everyone else sells you the billions of bits is advertises.
What is surprising is that it took so long for a lawsuit on this matter to occur. More surprising is that only Apple is targeted. Maybe easier to go after the big dog.
What is surprising is that it took so long for a lawsuit on this matter to occur. More surprising is that only Apple is targeted. Maybe easier to go after the big dog.
It's that pile of extra cash that's so large it can be seen from the space station that's causing it. It's a lawyer's magnet and attracts them like flies to a steaming fresh cow pie.
The iCloud is OPTIONAL storage for BACKUP! 99% of the time it is simply the iCloud feature, not the phone storage that is full. Simply just turn the backup feature off and plug it into your computer EVERY night instead of using this wonderful FEATURE. OR shell out the $.99 for 4xs more storage.
The greatest source of the delta between the supposedly "unformatted" capacity and "formatted" capacity has nothing at all to do with formatting. It is due to the unfortunate differences in the scaling CONVENTIONS adopted by the computer industry. Long before digital computers existed the electrical and electronics industry used shortcut names like kilo, mega, milli, and micro to indicate scaling units in a base 10 numerical convention. In other words kilo (k) indicated 10^3 or one thousand (1000). A 4k resistor was 4000 ohms. This convention was clear and simple and widely accepted.
When digital electronics came around they unfortunately morphed the long accepted scaling conventions into the binary world. A kilo was no longer 1000 it was 1024 which is something that can be exactly represented in binary form. With digital computers you have a mix of components, some that follow the long standing electrical convention and some of which follow binary and digital conventions. Storage devices like disk drives follow the electrical convention at the component level but when their capacity is reported within the scope of the operating system of a digital computer it's most often reported in binary convention. This has nothing to do with formatting. It's purely an artifact of the different conventions where one sees "k" as 1000 while the other sees "k" as 1024. When you get up into mega, giga, and tera this subtle difference makes the size or capacity of something sound dramatically different. In reality the size is constant and the only difference is in the conventions that unfortunately use the same names without qualification. This is no different than US convention for gallon versus the Canadian convention for gallon (or more exactly Imperial gallon).
This is old hat to computer savvy people but the average layperson will fall into this trap all of the time. Laypeople who are lawyers will of course sue whomever has the deepest pockets for allegedly using these inconsistencies in conventions to get more money from unwary consumers.
The greatest source of the delta between the supposedly "unformatted" capacity and "formatted" capacity....
This is old hat to computer savvy people....
Hasn't the difference between GB and GiB been extensively covered in the 9 pages of this thread already? By the computer savvy people who read the comments on a technical website?
Well I suppose if you have a bit of canned explanation from your classroom notes that you could post it, but it does seem a bit redundantly repetitive.
This p***es me off, and I just returned a 16GB iPhone 6 as well. Out of the box, only 12GB were available. After installing my apps (no games, no music, no Pages/Keynote, etc.), there were only 4GB remaining.
How can one be involved in this lawsuit? I want to add my name.
This p***es me off, and I just returned a 16GB iPhone 6 as well. Out of the box, only 12GB were available. After installing my apps (no games, no music, no Pages/Keynote, etc.), there were only 4GB remaining.
How can one be involved in this lawsuit? I want to add my name.
This p***es me off, and I just returned a 16GB iPhone 6 as well. Out of the box, only 12GB were available. After installing my apps (no games, no music, no Pages/Keynote, etc.), there were only 4GB remaining.
How can one be involved in this lawsuit? I want to add my name.
Since you returned it, you don't qualify. Oh and I smell BS.
So his post, which is BLATANT HIT AND RUN TROLLING gets to be left up
It sounds more like someone mistaking this for a valid problem to have a lawsuit about. The iPhone return might not have been because of storage reasons considering they had 4GB free, that just seems to have been mentioned as evidence they owned a 16GB model.
It sounds more like someone mistaking this for a valid problem to have a lawsuit about. The iPhone return might not have been because of storage reasons considering they had 4GB free, that just seems to have been mentioned as evidence they owned a 16GB model.
iCloud storage is seriously cheap. only 99 cents for 20 GB a month.
Pretty shortsighted, I must say.
I think he means just what he writes: iCloud storage is 99 cents for 20GB/m. Not including any possible extra cost or accessing Internet data. "Fees may apply' come to mind.
If that is the case, then his argument is irrelevant and misleading as well. It's like an auto salesman implying the 2015 Lexus is inexpensive to own "because pine-tree air-fresheners are seriously cheap. only 99 cents for a month-long supply".
iCloud storage is seriously cheap. only 99 cents for 20 GB a month.</div>
Pretty shortsighted, I must say.</div>
If that is the case, then his argument is irrelevant and misleading as well. It's like an auto salesman implying the 2015 Lexus is inexpensive to own "because pine-tree air-fresheners are seriously cheap. only 99 cents for a month-long supply".
How is it misleading? He merely states what the price for iCloud storage is. It's unrelated to the lawsuit, but related to "iPhone Storage" as a whole. And it is indeed $0.99 a month for 20GB.
How is it misleading? He merely states what the price for iCloud storage is. It's unrelated to the lawsuit, but related to "iPhone Storage" as a whole. And it is indeed $0.99 a month for 20GB.
Also, air freshener is an absurdly inappropriate comparison to cloud service. One can Fully enjoy the Lexus without it. The iPnone without the cloud? Not so much.
Comments
Actual capacity... or user-accessible capacity?
Apple says "16GB" because the iPhone has 16GB of flash storage in it. There are flash memory chips that total 16GB. I don't see the deception.
It's the same for computers. A laptop says "500GB" because it has a 500GB hard drive in it. Again... I don't see the deception.
You're right though... a person cannot get the full 500GB from that hard drive. They never could. Because of formatting, the operating system, recovery partitions, pre-installed software, etc.... you will not be able to store 500GB of your own files on that hard drive.
But the laptop still comes with a 500GB hard drive... and that's what they said.
And the 16GB iPhone comes with 16GB of flash memory.
But you're suggesting that companies should say how much user-accessible storage there is... instead of the total installed storage.
Sure... why not? Apple should simply say that the 16GB iPhone can store about 12GB of user data. That sounds easy enough.
And Dell should also have to say the 500GB hard drive in a laptop can store about 420GB of user data.
This isn't an Apple problem... it's an industry problem. It's funny that this lawsuit targets Apple and not EVERYONE else.
For years companies advertised the total amount of storage in the device... not the amount of user-accessible storage. Maybe that needs to change.
They do. Lawsuit: thrown out immediately.
Again, they don’t work like that.
Glad to see you recognize the meaninglessness of your position.
Enjoy your gibsmedats.
How much do you think formatting a drive takes up? Did you say less than 0.02%?
Regardless of what foolishness you attempt to argue Apple and everyone else sells you the billions of bits is advertises.
It's that pile of extra cash that's so large it can be seen from the space station that's causing it. It's a lawyer's magnet and attracts them like flies to a steaming fresh cow pie.
When digital electronics came around they unfortunately morphed the long accepted scaling conventions into the binary world. A kilo was no longer 1000 it was 1024 which is something that can be exactly represented in binary form. With digital computers you have a mix of components, some that follow the long standing electrical convention and some of which follow binary and digital conventions. Storage devices like disk drives follow the electrical convention at the component level but when their capacity is reported within the scope of the operating system of a digital computer it's most often reported in binary convention. This has nothing to do with formatting. It's purely an artifact of the different conventions where one sees "k" as 1000 while the other sees "k" as 1024. When you get up into mega, giga, and tera this subtle difference makes the size or capacity of something sound dramatically different. In reality the size is constant and the only difference is in the conventions that unfortunately use the same names without qualification. This is no different than US convention for gallon versus the Canadian convention for gallon (or more exactly Imperial gallon).
This is old hat to computer savvy people but the average layperson will fall into this trap all of the time. Laypeople who are lawyers will of course sue whomever has the deepest pockets for allegedly using these inconsistencies in conventions to get more money from unwary consumers.
The greatest source of the delta between the supposedly "unformatted" capacity and "formatted" capacity....
This is old hat to computer savvy people....
Hasn't the difference between GB and GiB been extensively covered in the 9 pages of this thread already? By the computer savvy people who read the comments on a technical website?
Well I suppose if you have a bit of canned explanation from your classroom notes that you could post it, but it does seem a bit redundantly repetitive.
How can one be involved in this lawsuit? I want to add my name.
Sure it does¡ :rolleyes:
Shut up and go away.
Since you returned it, you don't qualify. Oh and I smell BS.
So his post, which is BLATANT HIT AND RUN TROLLING gets to be left up, but mine, denouncing it in the same way I always have, is deleted?
That’s nice. Glad to know where AI stands on common sense and logic.
It sounds more like someone mistaking this for a valid problem to have a lawsuit about. The iPhone return might not have been because of storage reasons considering they had 4GB free, that just seems to have been mentioned as evidence they owned a 16GB model.
It didn't read like a reasonable concern to me.
That's probably the odor coming from your unwashed testicles.
I see. Well you might want to look into some serious psychotherapy since you seem to know what everyone is thinking.
iCloud storage is seriously cheap. only 99 cents for 20 GB a month.
Pretty shortsighted, I must say.
If that is the case, then his argument is irrelevant and misleading as well. It's like an auto salesman implying the 2015 Lexus is inexpensive to own "because pine-tree air-fresheners are seriously cheap. only 99 cents for a month-long supply".
How is it misleading? He merely states what the price for iCloud storage is. It's unrelated to the lawsuit, but related to "iPhone Storage" as a whole. And it is indeed $0.99 a month for 20GB.