I seem to remember a lot of vitriol addressed at Samsung about how much user-addressable storage was in their phones not too long ago.
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
The lawsuit is a money grab. You want them to report user accessible space? Write your representatives and Change the law.
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
It's not misleading when they simply tell you how much storage is built into the phone.
A 16GB iPhone has 16GB worth of flash memory in it. Period. There's no reason lawyer-up over that.
They never say how much of your data it will hold... nor do they attempt to predict how much space a future OS upgrade will consume. So you can't sue them on that basis either.
OK... so let's say Apple starts reporting "user-accessible" capacity instead of "total" capacity. Fine.
A launch iPhone 6 shipping with iOS 8.0 would have 13 GB printed on the box instead of 16 GB.
But what happens a few months later when iPhones start shipping with iOS 8.2 and they only have 12.6 GB available? Do they print new boxes?
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
Exactly.
I think it would be a good idea for all manufacturers to be require by law to advertise both the traditional storage amount and also the amount usable by the user. That would then solve this quandary. Even if a new OS update changed those amounts, at least the user would know how the system works from the get go. Transparency.
It's not misleading when they simply tell you how much storage is built into the phone.
The point which you seem to have missed is that if they are telling you it, and advertising it, then there's a presumption that the information they're telling you is relevant to your usage. Not that they're telling you some esoteric technical information about the inside of the device that is unimportant. And if it's relevant then it should be accurate to the use case. So 16GB should be how much you can use, not merely some raw "truth" with a passing resemblance to the real experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
A 16GB iPhone has 16GB worth of flash memory in it. Period. There's no reason lawyer-up over that.
But why would a consumer care about the raw figure? The consumer cares about the user addressable storage. Advertise the relevant number, not the tech spec. Apple used to get thumbs up from Apple fans for telling customers about the product, not the tech specs. Whatever happened to that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
They never say how much of your data it will hold... nor do they attempt to predict how much space a future OS upgrade will consume. So you can't sue them on that basis either.
OK... so let's say Apple starts reporting "user-accessible" capacity instead of "total" capacity. Fine.
A launch iPhone 6 shipping with iOS 8.0 would have 13 GB printed on the box instead of 16 GB.
But what happens a few months later when iPhones start shipping with iOS 8.2 and they only have 12.6 GB available? Do they print new boxes?
Sure. What's so hard about printing new boxes, or stickers to go on the boxes?
Also, when a new update is released an install statement (not buried in the TOCs where no one will ever read it) on how it will affect storage would be nice. It's honest.
While I agree that this lawsuit is rather ridiculous, at the same time Apple could actually take steps to reduce the size of iOS. Things like making language support downloadable if we need it, removing some of the built in apps now that there are tons of options in the store. Even the Apple Watch app. Why was that baked in given that not everyone is going to get a watch
This site's authors and fans were among the most vocal critiquing Samsung for 'lying' and misrepresenting over this very issue. The same thing now, when applied to Apple, becomes ludicrous and frivolous....
You are partially right though, while Android itself can't be sued because it does not claim to take up 'zero space', if this lawsuit were to succeed these guys would be free to go after every phone manufacturer who uses Android or other OS' and claims the actual phones memory size instead of the actual size minus what the OS takes up.
In both Apple's and Android's cases I think the argument is without merit. As long as the memory size advertised is the actual physical size of the memory it is up to the user to figure out what portion of that is available to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
So in your view Apple is the worst offender? Their advertised 8gb phone was the worst on the market, or do we only count the phones that support what you wish was the truth?
The point which you seem to have missed is that if they are telling you it, and advertising it, then there's a presumption that the information they're telling you is relevant to your usage. Not that they're telling you some esoteric technical information about the inside of the device that is unimportant. And if it's relevant then it should be accurate to the use case. So 16GB should be how much you can use, not merely some raw "truth" with a passing resemblance to the real experience.
But why would a consumer care about the raw figure? The consumer cares about the user addressable storage. Advertise the relevant number, not the tech spec. Apple used to get thumbs up from Apple fans for telling customers about the product, not the tech specs. Whatever happened to that?
Sure. What's so hard about printing new boxes, or stickers to go on the boxes?
Also, when a new update is released an install statement (not buried in the TOCs where no one will ever read it) on how it will affect storage would be nice. It's honest.
Because of boxes? Really? I doubt it.
Sure... there should be a sticker on the box that says:
"this phone will have somewhere between 11GB and 13GB of available storage depending on which month a future iOS 8 update is installed... or when iOS 9 and iOS 10 are installed in the following years"
Or maybe they just need to write this in big letters on the box:
"You know operating systems have always taken up space, right?"
iOS 8.2 now consumes more space than prior versions with the forced installation of the Apple Watch app on the iPhone, and the inability to delete the app. There are other Apple apps that are optional installations and can be deleted. The Apple Watch app should not be a forced installation on an iPhone if the consumer has no interest in an Apple Watch. The app should have been optional, or at least have the ability to delete it and recover the disk space. Thankfully, it was not installed on the iPad since the iPad cannot pair to the watch. Currently, the app is a useless advertisement. Never imagined Apple would resort to this kind of advertising.
The Apple Watch app should have been made available in the App Store for anyone that purchases a watch. Then it could be updated as often as any other app, and could be deleted easily if the person decides they don't like the watch. Pretty simple, but now many will have to hide an app they will never use.
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
But it is not misleading advertising because they (all mobile phone makers) never advertised the HD or flash memory size as how much space is available for user data. But that info is not impossible to find out. I'm sure it's stated in the mobile phone makers web site ……in small print …. right next to the info about loss space due to formatting.
If stating the size of the HD or flash memory that is installed in a device misleading, then all computers makers, from day one, would be guilty of misleading advertising. Even if a computer came with a blank HD, just formatting it so it can be used will take away several percentage of that space. One would think that after over 30 years of selling devices (with HD or flash storage) and just stating the size of the HD or flash memory that is installed in it, that some consumer group would have sued and won a case based on "misleading advertising" by now.
I can see a consumer advocate group bringing this matter up with a trade commission and winning a change to this practice industry wide. But not some lawyers suing for monetary damages against just one of hundreds of companies that has been using this same method (of stating the size of the storage space device instead of the actual space available for user data ) for the past 30 years, because their plaintiffs didn't know any better, when the info they needed to know is readily available.
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
But it is not misleading advertising because they (all mobile phone makers) never advertised the HD or flash memory size as how much space is available for user data. But that info is not impossible to find out. I'm sure it's stated in the mobile phone makers web site ……in small print …. right next to the info about loss space due to formatting.
If stating the size of the HD or flash memory that is installed in a device misleading, then all computers makers, from day one, would be guilty of misleading advertising. Even if a computer came with a blank HD, just formatting it so it can be used will take away several percentage of that space. One would think that after over 30 years of selling devices (with HD or flash storage) and just stating the size of the HD or flash memory that is installed in it, that some consumer group would have sued and won a case based on "misleading advertising" by now.
I can see a consumer advocate group bringing this matter up with a trade commission and winning a change to this practice industry wide. But not some lawyers suing for monetary damages against just one of hundreds of companies that has been using this same method (of stating the size of the storage space device instead of the actual space available for user data ) for the past 30 years, because their plaintiffs didn't know any better, when the info they needed to know is readily available.
But by the same token, if anyone instigates a change, Apple would seem the most likely.
The fact that one always has less space than advertised is a throwback to tech's techy days when computers were not owned by the mass market. Now they are, in the form of phones and tablets, it makes sense for Apple to introduce more clarity. iPhones and iPads are "computers for the rest of us."
Sure... there should be a sticker on the box that says:
"this phone will have somewhere between 11GB and 13GB of available storage depending on which month a future iOS 8 update is installed... or when iOS 9 and iOS 10 are installed in the following years"
Or maybe they just need to write this in big letters on the box:
"You know operating systems have always taken up space, right?"
You're being facetious. I get it.
A clear note (doesn't even need to be on the box, just the advertising speel) that user accessible storage will be [insert range here]. Maybe even not include 16, 32 and 64GB at all. Why not small, medium and large? Or something equally untied to a value that has only a general relationship to the user experience, while being presented as something very specific.
Samsung's S4 and S5 both had only 8 GB of their 16 GB phones available. Windows always used more available storage, and available RAM than Apple. Computing devices have always been described by their actual storage spaces. How much you need for your purposes, and whether each device available is capable of that , is up to you to determine before your purchase, and before you upgrade software. I usually buy larger capacity devices for future upgrades as future software always gets larger (OSes and Apps). When I buy lower capacity devices I avoid upgrades and larger Apps or storing larger files locally. Buyer be aware.
I wouldn't start a lawsuit over it, but wouldn't say Apple has done the best communication job either. And the size of iOS does seem to be creeping up quite a bit.
Exactly. While this is a frivolous lawsuit, it has no true bearing on the customer. OSes will grow over time that's a given. Where I see this as a problem is when a device is sold that instantly limits a customer. The average user doesn't know from GB, or what that translates into vis a vis file sizes. All they know is their brand new 16GB iphone runs out of space just taking pictures and listening to music (oh and saving texts, which is a massive source of hidden storage). And this is where I think Apple creates their own problem. They have always maintained a premium on RAM prices well above industry practice, and as such, the 8GB and 16GB base storage has remained unchanged since the original iPhone, despite ever increasing OS needs, and the exponentially increasing number of apps, not to mention quality of photos, and ability to record HD video. The base storage configuration on the iPhone 6 should have been 32Gb, and they should have dropped 8GB long ago, even on the free models, which are already sufficiently constrained by dated technology.
Now I'm smart enough to realize even if Apple did offer a better value with the aim of mitigating some of these storage issues, there would likely still be a lawsuit. But I think there would be a lot less upset and confused consumers willing to give this lawsuit a voice.
Exactly. While this is a frivolous lawsuit, it has no true bearing on the customer. OSes will grow over time that's a given. Where I see this as a problem is when a device is sold that instantly limits a customer. The average user doesn't know from GB, or what that translates into vis a vis file sizes. All they know is their brand new 16GB iphone runs out of space just taking pictures and listening to music (oh and saving texts, which is a massive source of hidden storage). And this is where I think Apple creates their own problem. They have always maintained a premium on RAM prices well above industry practice, and as such, the 8GB and 16GB base storage has remained unchanged since the original iPhone, despite ever increasing OS needs, and the exponentially increasing number of apps, not to mention quality of photos, and ability to record HD video. The base storage configuration on the iPhone 6 should have been 32Gb, and they should have dropped 8GB long ago, even on the free models, which are already sufficiently constrained by dated technology.
Now I'm smart enough to realize even if Apple did offer a better value with the aim of mitigating some of these storage issues, there would likely still be a lawsuit. But I think there would be a lot less upset and confused consumers willing to give this lawsuit a voice.
Apple can charge whatever they want for RAM and if people are willing to pay it, 'standard industry' pricing (whatever that means) is irrelevant.
Comments
But as long as the chips are in the case it doesn't matter if the user can use it, right?
Anyone who says that is a noob, right?
I seem to remember a lot of vitriol addressed at Samsung about how much user-addressable storage was in their phones not too long ago.
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
http://blogs.which.co.uk/technology/phones-3/phone-storage-compared-samsung-s4-still-in-last-place/
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
It's not misleading when they simply tell you how much storage is built into the phone.
A 16GB iPhone has 16GB worth of flash memory in it. Period. There's no reason lawyer-up over that.
They never say how much of your data it will hold... nor do they attempt to predict how much space a future OS upgrade will consume. So you can't sue them on that basis either.
OK... so let's say Apple starts reporting "user-accessible" capacity instead of "total" capacity. Fine.
A launch iPhone 6 shipping with iOS 8.0 would have 13 GB printed on the box instead of 16 GB.
But what happens a few months later when iPhones start shipping with iOS 8.2 and they only have 12.6 GB available? Do they print new boxes?
This is precisely why they don't do that.
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
Exactly.
I think it would be a good idea for all manufacturers to be require by law to advertise both the traditional storage amount and also the amount usable by the user. That would then solve this quandary. Even if a new OS update changed those amounts, at least the user would know how the system works from the get go. Transparency.
It's not misleading when they simply tell you how much storage is built into the phone.
The point which you seem to have missed is that if they are telling you it, and advertising it, then there's a presumption that the information they're telling you is relevant to your usage. Not that they're telling you some esoteric technical information about the inside of the device that is unimportant. And if it's relevant then it should be accurate to the use case. So 16GB should be how much you can use, not merely some raw "truth" with a passing resemblance to the real experience.
A 16GB iPhone has 16GB worth of flash memory in it. Period. There's no reason lawyer-up over that.
But why would a consumer care about the raw figure? The consumer cares about the user addressable storage. Advertise the relevant number, not the tech spec. Apple used to get thumbs up from Apple fans for telling customers about the product, not the tech specs. Whatever happened to that?
They never say how much of your data it will hold... nor do they attempt to predict how much space a future OS upgrade will consume. So you can't sue them on that basis either.
OK... so let's say Apple starts reporting "user-accessible" capacity instead of "total" capacity. Fine.
A launch iPhone 6 shipping with iOS 8.0 would have 13 GB printed on the box instead of 16 GB.
But what happens a few months later when iPhones start shipping with iOS 8.2 and they only have 12.6 GB available? Do they print new boxes?
Sure. What's so hard about printing new boxes, or stickers to go on the boxes?
Also, when a new update is released an install statement (not buried in the TOCs where no one will ever read it) on how it will affect storage would be nice. It's honest.
This is precisely why they don't do that.
Because of boxes? Really? I doubt it.
The lawsuit is a money grab. You want them to report user accessible space? Write your representatives and Change the law.
I think I'll let this lawsuit press the case for me thanks. Writing to my MP wouldn't have much effect, and there's far more important issues.
This site's authors and fans were among the most vocal critiquing Samsung for 'lying' and misrepresenting over this very issue. The same thing now, when applied to Apple, becomes ludicrous and frivolous....
You are partially right though, while Android itself can't be sued because it does not claim to take up 'zero space', if this lawsuit were to succeed these guys would be free to go after every phone manufacturer who uses Android or other OS' and claims the actual phones memory size instead of the actual size minus what the OS takes up.
In both Apple's and Android's cases I think the argument is without merit. As long as the memory size advertised is the actual physical size of the memory it is up to the user to figure out what portion of that is available to them.
...because user-available memory on Samsung Android phones was waaaay less than on iOS or Windows mobile.
OS's have always (and will always) take some space. Let's not pretend an OS taking up a maximum of 21.3% of space on a 16 GB smartphone is the same as one taking up over twice as much (45%).
So in your view Apple is the worst offender? Their advertised 8gb phone was the worst on the market, or do we only count the phones that support what you wish was the truth?
Sure... there should be a sticker on the box that says:
Or maybe they just need to write this in big letters on the box:
iOS 8.2 now consumes more space than prior versions with the forced installation of the Apple Watch app on the iPhone, and the inability to delete the app. There are other Apple apps that are optional installations and can be deleted. The Apple Watch app should not be a forced installation on an iPhone if the consumer has no interest in an Apple Watch. The app should have been optional, or at least have the ability to delete it and recover the disk space. Thankfully, it was not installed on the iPad since the iPad cannot pair to the watch. Currently, the app is a useless advertisement. Never imagined Apple would resort to this kind of advertising.
The Apple Watch app should have been made available in the App Store for anyone that purchases a watch. Then it could be updated as often as any other app, and could be deleted easily if the person decides they don't like the watch. Pretty simple, but now many will have to hide an app they will never use.
So misleading advertising is ok when it's only misleading by 20%, but unacceptable when it's misleadibg by 40%? So it's a principle of scale? When exactly does it become too much?
Alternatively, if Apple/Samsung/whoever were more upfront about the likely footprint of the OS, then it wouldn't be an issue. Which is what this lawsuit is pressing for really.
But it is not misleading advertising because they (all mobile phone makers) never advertised the HD or flash memory size as how much space is available for user data. But that info is not impossible to find out. I'm sure it's stated in the mobile phone makers web site ……in small print …. right next to the info about loss space due to formatting.
If stating the size of the HD or flash memory that is installed in a device misleading, then all computers makers, from day one, would be guilty of misleading advertising. Even if a computer came with a blank HD, just formatting it so it can be used will take away several percentage of that space. One would think that after over 30 years of selling devices (with HD or flash storage) and just stating the size of the HD or flash memory that is installed in it, that some consumer group would have sued and won a case based on "misleading advertising" by now.
I can see a consumer advocate group bringing this matter up with a trade commission and winning a change to this practice industry wide. But not some lawyers suing for monetary damages against just one of hundreds of companies that has been using this same method (of stating the size of the storage space device instead of the actual space available for user data ) for the past 30 years, because their plaintiffs didn't know any better, when the info they needed to know is readily available.
But by the same token, if anyone instigates a change, Apple would seem the most likely.
The fact that one always has less space than advertised is a throwback to tech's techy days when computers were not owned by the mass market. Now they are, in the form of phones and tablets, it makes sense for Apple to introduce more clarity. iPhones and iPads are "computers for the rest of us."
A clear note (doesn't even need to be on the box, just the advertising speel) that user accessible storage will be [insert range here]. Maybe even not include 16, 32 and 64GB at all. Why not small, medium and large? Or something equally untied to a value that has only a general relationship to the user experience, while being presented as something very specific.
Samsung's S4 and S5 both had only 8 GB of their 16 GB phones available. Windows always used more available storage, and available RAM than Apple. Computing devices have always been described by their actual storage spaces. How much you need for your purposes, and whether each device available is capable of that , is up to you to determine before your purchase, and before you upgrade software. I usually buy larger capacity devices for future upgrades as future software always gets larger (OSes and Apps). When I buy lower capacity devices I avoid upgrades and larger Apps or storing larger files locally. Buyer be aware.
Now I'm smart enough to realize even if Apple did offer a better value with the aim of mitigating some of these storage issues, there would likely still be a lawsuit. But I think there would be a lot less upset and confused consumers willing to give this lawsuit a voice.
Apple can charge whatever they want for RAM and if people are willing to pay it, 'standard industry' pricing (whatever that means) is irrelevant.
^ You mean storage, not RAM.
And people complaining about it is a good sign that people are not willing (or at least not happy) to pay it, so that's a pretty vacuous remark.