Isn't using Petabit instead of Petabyte a bit misleading given that the average user is accustomed to Terabytes, Gigabytes, and Megabytes?
Don't get me wrong, 125 - 128 Terabytes (depending on who you ask, apparently) is still massive in terms of consumer-level storage. But this is like saying that something is 10,000,000 cm long when it's just 100 km long in a more sane level of representation at this point. Would still be amazing, just without the needless shock value.