Despite lawsuit, Apple's iOS 8 storage is actually far more efficient than Google's Android, Samsung

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 137
    The only thing that could possibly trip Apple up in a courtroom is the lack of a 32GB option (or not starting at 32GB in the first place).

    Some lawyer somewhere would find an easy way to say that the jump from 16GB to 64GB was on purpose/malicious (instead of offering 32,64,128 or 16,32,64,128). Being that Apple didn't have gaps like that before there was iCloud.

    Apple is just a ripe target for this kind of thing. Lots of cash laying around and some excuse to take a bite of it will make any lawyer jump at the chance.

    Its easy to see why the complainants are trying and easy to see how they will most likely fail. If they do win against Apple there will definitely be a few other suits that target the non-Apple "offenders" since if you've won against Apple the rest are now low hanging fruit.
  • Reply 122 of 137
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Great argument, with brilliant citations and relevant examples¡  

     

    PLEASE READ ARTICLES BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM.

     

    And here I was thinking you had grown out of that.

  • Reply 123 of 137
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,150member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    PLEASE READ ARTICLES BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM.

     

    And here I was thinking you had grown out of that.


    What are you jabbering about?  You started this conversation by replying to me.  Don't blame me for your own inability to present any evidence of legal precedent.  Now stop "harrassing" me, crybaby.

     

    Maybe I need to start using the formatting options too, to get through that thick skull of yours.

  • Reply 124 of 137
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Don't blame me for your own inability to present any evidence of legal precedent.

     

    PLEASE READ POSTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM.

  • Reply 125 of 137
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,150member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    PLEASE READ POSTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM.


    PLEASE FIND ANOTHER TRACK TO GET STUCK ON, THIS ONE STINKS.

  • Reply 126 of 137
    philboogie wrote: »
    That info I cannot find. They do state something about formatting:



    http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203252




    http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201402
    That I didn't know; thanks. Still, huge indeed. iWork is what, <600MB. For iOS it's 338+336+513?1.2GB (p/n/k)

    To be fair, iWork isnt anything like Office. Just give Me that!

    Other than than, bring on The new broadwells!
  • Reply 127 of 137
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

     

     

    Your idea that "Lollipop has corrected or greatly improved SD card support" really has little relevance. The fact that developers "can" now create apps that let users access SD Cards to save or access arbitrary files doesn't change the fact that adding an SD Card does not increase your storage in a way that users would expect. 

     

    Adding a 64GB SD Card doesn't make a 16GB phone into a 80GB phone. You can do some file system operations to save files, but you can't add more music, take more photos in your camera roll library or load a bunch more apps. SD Card storage on an Android device is nothing like adding more RAM to a PC. It's like adding a floppy drive. 

     

    Apple's solution is and has always been to add more actual storage for users. When iPhones arrived, typical "smartphones" had very little storage. The first Android phones (G1) had ~192MB of storage when Apple was selling 8/16GB iPhones.

     

    Today, Apple has leveraged its acquisition of Anobit to enable cost effective phones with 64/128GB of local storage, with a cheap 16GB option for entry level users. Android flagships have much less.

     

    * Nexus 6 has 32/64GB, with no SD Card slot. Note that Nexus is Google's "how to do Android" phone model. 

    * Nexus 9 tablet similarly has just 16GB, with no SD Card slot.

    * Galaxy S5 has 16/32GB options, with an SD Card slot that can only be used as a removable file system disk. Adding a 128GB card doesn't give you the equivalent to a 128GB iPhone 6, as explained above. 

    * Xiaomi Mi4 has 16GB, no card slot

    * HTC one has just 16GB, with its limited SD card slot

     

    So no, you & Gatorguy and the rest of the Android troll patrol are painfully wrong on every level. 

     

    And according to Google, 33% of its installed base has KitKat with pulled SD Card support, and Lollipop isn't even listed as having 1% yet. But Android 5 doesn't "restore" the 2006 era SD Card functions, and Nexus is clearly demonstrating that Google is following Apple, not working to make SD Cards the solution to putting weak amounts of storage on low end phones. 


    Of course, you are still wrong.



    The restrictions that you think were imposed in 4.4, were actually introduced in 3.0. Yes, about 4 years ago. It's that no one bothered to abide by the rules. Google then said you either abide by it or you don't get certified in 4.4. So Samsung finally did.

     

    Any Samsung phone or really, any phone with SD card storage can store music and photos quite easily on an SD card. In fact, Samsung phones ask if you want it to default to it. You would know that if, gasp, you used an android phone.

     

    And even though you were proven wrong, you still won't even admit it. All the api's necessary to access the SD card were even in 4.4, via the storage intents app. And you cited nothing otherwise to show that 5.0 makes it just like it was before.

     

    You know Daniel, if only you spent as much time researching android as you do apple. Maybe you would know the Nexus 9 is available in 32GB capacities, and even the Galaxy S5 is available with 64GB. So is the One Plus, Moto X 2013 and Moto X 2014.

     

    Oh and btw, how's the "Google is dropping Android" argument coming along since the Chromecast came out?

  • Reply 128 of 137
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    Wow, that first reply is over a decade old. @Eugene, the first person to reply, makes a good statement, but I'm saddened to see that even over a decade later people that I'd think are in-the-know still don't the different between 1000 and 1024. We need more Eugenes.

     

    It's not the difference between 1000 and 1024, it's the difference between 10^y and 2^y, still the general notion is part of the problem. However just as many people are ignorant to this distinction and will multiply a base 10 value by 1024 (e.g. saying 1TB is 1024GB) which is completely wrong. Regardless, this really isn't the issue that I believe is being levied by the lawsuit but it is relevant.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    I'm not looking for a footnote, I'm looking for something on their tech spec comparison page that shows how much space (approx.) is available for the user. This is for their Macs, too. But you're right, in a world where have people suing for this it's hard to be hopeful this would be useful to anyone that isn't already in the know.

     

    I'd view this as an onerous burden on Apple (or any vendor) as they would need to constantly change this "available user space" anytime they changed any software, such as with updates or new features. Do they then need to make a matrix of the various possible software states any given device could have to tell people how much space they will have to use? I agree, it would be nice to provide a very rudimentary estimate along with the foot note that *this is an estimate, actual available capacity will vary. However this still wouldn't keep ignorant people from finding us back in this exact same position, suing because actual useable space is less than actual physical space. Trying to think of an analogy of this; I think this would be akin to suing someone who sold you a furnished house because the available space is less than the actual square footage of the house. /s What do you mean that walls, cabinets, and other things take up space? 

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    That info I cannot find. They do state something about formatting:







    http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203252









    http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201402

    That I didn't know; thanks. Still, huge indeed. iWork is what, <600MB. For iOS it's 338+336+513?1.2GB (p/n/k)

     

    Some nice finds. Specifically this article, http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201402 does a nice job of explaining the various factors in this.

  • Reply 129 of 137
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    popinfresh wrote: »
    It's not the difference between 1000 and 1024, it's the difference between 10^y and 2^y, still the general notion is part of the problem. However just as many people are ignorant to this distinction and will multiply a base 10 value by 1024 (e.g. saying 1TB is 1024GB) which is completely wrong. Regardless, this really isn't the issue that I believe is being levied by the lawsuit but it is relevant.

    It sure is a difference between 1000 and 1024. Using decimal notation with binary, per your example, is still doing it wrong. it's 1024 * 1024 for mebi, 1024 * 1024 * 1024 for Gibi and 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 for Tebi. I don't even get why someone would start with BASE-2 and then jump to BASE-10.
  • Reply 130 of 137
    I still think having 16GB internal memory for personal and private files plus having an expandable external memory for g general files, e.g. music, books, movies, etc. is so much better for any phone, iPhone or otherwise. It's the same argument within Android between Google Nexus (non expandable) and other Android phones.
  • Reply 131 of 137
    Wish Apple will give additional expandable external storage to the iPhone. Not all files are private anyway. In fact, general files like movies and music take up the most space. In true Apple fashion, they can even make a proprietary memory card and make money off it.
  • Reply 132 of 137
    croprcropr Posts: 1,075member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by singularity View Post





    Has Google dropped support for SD cards? Has anyone told Google yet?



    What Google actually did, is to stop apps writing anywhere on the SD card.  From KitKat onwards apps can only write in one specific directory on the SD card, that is dedicated to that app only.  So apps can no longer delete or overwrite data from other apps.  Reading remains untouched.

     

    For pre Kitkat apps there can be some issues if they expect to write to other directories.   Apps can be adapted to work around the issue either by limiting the writing to their dedicated directory or by using intents (asking another app that has the write permission to actually perform the writing).  When Kitkat was just launched, the apps were not yet adapted and there were issues, but now all apps are up to date.

     

    However for file manager apps this new policy remains a bigger issue, because file manager want to be able to move around files on the SD card but they can't any longer unless you have a rooted device.

     

    The author is not giving a correct picture but we live in world of free speech, so he is entitled to have his errorneous opinion.

  • Reply 133 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    It sure is a difference between 1000 and 1024. Using decimal notation with binary, per your example, is still doing it wrong. it's 1024 * 1024 for mebi, 1024 * 1024 * 1024 for Gibi and 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 for Tebi. I don't even get why someone would start with BASE-2 and then jump to BASE-10.



    Oh, so you mean its 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, 2^40... vs 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, 10^12... ;) It's not that people start with base 2 and jump to base 10. Also it's not wrong (in the sense of being incorrect) to use GB to mean 2^30. This is how it was originally (from a software standpoint) but due to there being no standard some (mostly storage manufactures) used the decimal connotation of kilo, mega, giga to be thousand, million, billion, etc. and this is where the problems came in. Yes I agree that it wasn't the smartest idea to use a prefix that was long rooted in a different base number system. As such it became that GB could either mean 2^30 or 10^9, which is obviously less than ideal. This is why the IEC binary system was made and I would agree that it is 'more correct' to say 1TiB is 1024GiB. The issue is people often start with a base 10 number and, because of ignorance and having been told it's the difference between 1000 and 1024, will multiply 1,000,000 * 1024 to get 1,024,000,000 which is obviously neither a GB or a GiB.

     

    I agree that it would be ideal if everyone making computer storage systems (all types of memory, from CPU cache to memory to disk space) would all use the binary values (and notation). The problem with this is that it's going to be very hard for a company, such as Seagate, to come out with a 3TiB hard drive which is more space than a 3TB hard drive and compete with others still selling a 3TB hard drive, because most people are ignorant of the difference and would opt for the cheaper disk. Obviously the longer this goes on the more difficult this becomes because the difference between the two is exponentially different. The alternative is to get all software to do what Apple has done with 10.6+ and report using the decimal values to match the decimal notation. However this still leaves the problem that we currently have, and that is GB can either mean 10^9 or 2^30. Because some hardware is still actually 2^30 (such as most RAM) and called GB and some hardware is 10^9 and is called GB. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was on the same page? :)

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 134 of 137
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    popinfresh wrote: »
    Also it's not wrong (in the sense of being incorrect) to use GB to mean 2^30. This is how it was originally (from a software standpoint)

    I say it's wrong because the terms were already used for different measurements.

    nd having been told it's the difference between 1000 and 1024, will multiply 1,000,000 * 1024 to get 1,024,000,000 which is obviously neither a GB or a GiB.

    You lost me. It's's still (and always will be) a difference between 1000 and 1024. Who tells people to multiply 1024 by a million to get a Gibibyte?
  • Reply 135 of 137
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    popinfresh wrote: »
    Some nice finds. Specifically this article, http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201402 does a nice job of explaining the various factors in this.

    Ooh that's also a good find; thanks for posting.
  • Reply 136 of 137
    FIRST OFF, the Samsung Galaxy S4 only comes with so little storage because the SERVICE PROVIDER loads it up with junk. A world phone purchased from Samsung does NOT come with just 8.5GB free, it comes with about 13GB free. ALSO, These phones come with the full version of Google Apps installed -- which you can actually remove most components of and restore a few hundred MB of space, unlike iPhones which have a bunch of useless apps that you have no way to remove at all.

    Additionally, don't forget that every single phone on this list can have a memory card installed supporting up to 256GB of additional storage, EXCEPT for the iPhones.
  • Reply 137 of 137

    Apple's IOS uses HFSX, and Android uses EXT4. EXT4 is faster and more efficient, in fact. This article is deceptive. In FACT, Google also has a lot of bloat in their own Nexus phone, but unlike Apple's bloatware, it can be mostly removed, giving an additional few hundred MBs of space. The Galaxy S4 they used is OBVIOUSLY a vendor-supplied phone, which is LOADED with garbage. An S4 bought straight from Samsung  has far more available space by default. My S4 by the way, running Cyanogenmod's release of Android, has 13.5GB of free space by itself.

     

    Lest you forget, EVERY phone on this list, EXCEPT the iPhones -- can add up to an additional 256GB of storage just by installing a memory card. A 64GB memory card costs just $25. How much more does it cost to get the 64GB iPhone over the 8GB or even 16GB?

     

    I hold almost 2000 shares of AAPL, but it's not because I think their products are better -- it's because I know idiots like you guys [and the author of this drivel] keep buying them.

Sign In or Register to comment.