Apple hit with class action lawsuit over the size of iOS on devices

[Mooshi]

But that would make sense and be good customer service, and that's apparently not how you do business, instead you're supposed to lie, pay marketing people, patent troll, and see just how much you can bilk the customer for.

 

"but that would require a removable battery or a little flappy thing stuff could get into!". At least that's how I've had apple fans respond to me when I suggested they include expandable storage.

 

New Nintendo 3DS tactic, have slot hidden under back cover to keep the design the same. It's like they have billions in the bank and they can't do one simple thing.

[Dabombinable]

But then how much space should be set aside? OSes are not a fixed size, they can increase or decrease exponentially at the will of the manufacturer/devloper.

say about 4GB-8GB, being unix based means that mobile OSs have a relatively small footprint.

[Trik'Stari]

New Nintendo 3DS tactic, have slot hidden under back cover to keep the design the same. It's like they have billions in the bank and they can't do one simple thing.

They're fucking stupid then, because the HTC One M8 does this with a non-removable battery and a SIM-slot-like tray.

Again, would require a removable back cover, which to my knowledge is verboten to apple. The idea of the customer changing something.

[Dabombinable]

Again, would require a removable back cover, which to my knowledge is verboten to apple. The idea of the customer changing something.

Classic apple: designing a screw for their products, then having all internal screws standard Philips head

[Victorious Secret]

Classic apple: designing a screw for their products, then having all internal screws standard Philips head

 

Last I cracked mine open, laptop at least, a fair amount were Torx heads. I don't mind Torx at all. Always felt like a better thing to use IMO. 

[Dabombinable]

Last I cracked mine open, laptop at least, a fair amount were Torx heads. I don't mind Torx at all. Always felt like a better thing to use IMO. 

Think iphones.... with batteries that don't last a decent span of years (any battery not lasting more than 3-5 years is BS to me, got 9 years constant use out of the one in my sony k750i, and even then I can still get 3-4 days out of it).

[TheGFactor]

Taken from the Apple website. This lawsuit won't go far.

[Analog]

So basically any other phone manufacturer with non-expandable storage can be sued too? Makes no sense to me... heck you can sue any storage maker as formatted space is always less!

 

I don't think that this is the case. In most cases phone manufacturers specify that a particular phone, for arguments' sake - phone A has a 16GB internal storage, but with a small-sized font says that the actual "user-available" storage is 12GB.

 

This is what the law suit is all about, apparently Apple doesn't do that kind of stuff. I don't like Apple and haven't been following any of their news, updates, what have you, so I cannot comment if that is actually true or not. However, if they are suing for that, it is obviously a fact.

[Misanthrope]

With flash memory cheap enough for 128gb chips for a few bucks it is an obvious way to push you into cloud services in my eyes

[SubTract]

Well this sounds familiar.

 

Microsoft was sued over the surface not have all the advertised space. OS takes up a large chunk (32GB had 16GB free space, 64 had 49GB)

Then every single storage manufacturer seems to have been sued over listing products storage capacity in correctly e.g. 1000 bytes = 1MB instead of 1024... etc.

 

I personally think that devices that are very memory limited MP3 players, phones even consoles these days should be advertised based on how much free space it has. 
These are the products that will mislead consumers to believe that they can fit more on a device then it actually will.

 

E.G:

16GB android phone has 12 GB free space: I would like this to be listed as 12 GB.

500GB Xbox One has ~360 GB free space: I would like to see this advertised at 360 GB (This kind of thing is only an issue because how large game installs are)

 

Maybe base it on percentage and usage scenarios. Because a 4 GB OS is almost not noticeable on a 128GB device.

 

Or maybe just make everything advertised as available space rather than total capacity. Then the only things being advertised like they are now would be empty non formatted storage.

[zacRupnow]

For all the companies, the OS should be on a separate storage space if they advertise a certain amount of storage.

[Geekazoid]

There's been at least two reposts about this. One got deleted, the other locked.

[Guest]

My 1TB HDD is actually 950GB eeeuhhh I'm gonna sue WD!

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

For all the companies, the OS should be on a separate storage space if they advertise a certain amount of storage.

That is not quite as easy to do as you are making it sound. Also, you have to keep in mind the formatting of the file systems. For example, desktop storage never has the advertised space equal to the free space, regardless of whether an OS is installed or not.

[NAP51DMustang]

Apple will win as even specs say "X GB capacity" not "you get to use X GB for storage"

 

 

That is not quite as easy to do as you are making it sound. Also, you have to keep in mind the formatting of the file systems. For example, desktop storage never has the advertised space equal to the free space, regardless of whether an OS is installed or not.

 

Thats even said on Apples web page

"1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less."

next to point 2 in the fine print above the FAQ at the bottom of the Buy Now page.

[Suika]

...

 

Go sue every other tech giant who has devices with non-upgradeable storage too, or else this lawsuit is meritless. I don't like Apple, but this is downright stupid. At the bottom of the purchase page, it is stated that the actual formatted capacity is less. If you don't want to read the fine print, deal with the lower capacity. As well, every update states the amount of space it consumes, and you have the option to do the update with a computer.

Sue the money, not the offender. Apple has massive funds.

[LAwLz]

So basically any other phone manufacturer with non-expandable storage can be sued too?

Don't you remember when the Galaxy S 4 got flamed for having a low amount of free storage? Samsung never got sued but people were crying for it to be reclassified as a 10GB phone or whatever number it was.

It happened to the Microsoft Surface too.

It's really silly. It would be nice if Apple started listing "usable size is about ##GB with latest OS installed" on their website but they should definitely not be sued for not doing it.

 

My 1.5TB drive was actually 1.27TB after my NAS was done formatting it. 

#SpaceGate

Well a lot of people have already told you this but your 1.5TB HDD appears smaller because your OS is actually reporting the size in TiB, which is different from TB. Oh and yes, someone tried to sue WD for that too.

 

That is not quite as easy to do as you are making it sound. Also, you have to keep in mind the formatting of the file systems. For example, desktop storage never has the advertised space equal to the free space, regardless of whether an OS is installed or not.

Again, 1TB != 1TiB.

Your hard drive is in fact 1TB. It's your OS that is reporting it the wrong way. You can't blame HDD manufacturers for following the good old SI definitions.

 

say about 4GB-8GB, being unix based means that mobile OSs have a relatively small footprint.

Being "unix based" (which is really a stretch these days) does not have anything to do with a small footprint.

[TheProfosist]

Lawsuits I've this have happened for Microsoft as well for Windows phone and another for specifically the original surfaces. I believe it happened to at least one android smartphone company.

[Godlygamer23]

So they plan on suing every single harddrive, ssd, micro sd, phone manufacturer in the world? They all do this. 

What about Microsoft for using NTFS?

[TheProfosist]

What about Microsoft for using NTFS?

whats wrong with NTFS?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Again, 1TB != 1TiB.

Your hard drive is in fact 1TB. It's your OS that is reporting it the wrong way. You can't blame HDD manufacturers for following the good old SI definitions.

 

That is true, and that proves my point, but that is only part of the problem.

The hardware storage follow SI standards (base 10), but just about every OS out there measures digital space on base 2. That causes some discrepancies of space as is, and that is very confusing for the average consumer. The issue of file systems still plays a role though. Let me explain:

So you have a unit that has a stated storage of 2TB.

That 2 TB is equal to ~1.82TiB, which an OS would interpret as 1.82TB.

But that does not mean you have 1.82TB of storage free to use.

 

Storage is completely useless without a file system, which consists of sectors, cluster parameters, and tables, among other things. That consumes some space. As NTFS is notorious for the space overhead, we will use it here:

 

NTFS consumes 4MB for every 100MB partition, which means that it consumes a minimum of 4% of the data available (if not more), so that means the following:

 

1.82 * (1 - 0.04) = ~1.74TB

 

So at the end of the day, you have a brand new, empty 2TB external HDD under NTFS, without any user software in it. Any OS you have installed will display something like this:

 

1'746 GB / 1'818 GB space available.

 

whats wrong with NTFS?

Read above.

[LAwLz]

NTFS consumes 4MB for every 100MB partition, which means that it consumes a minimum of 4% of the data available (if not more), so that means the following:

 

1.82 * (1 - 0.04) = ~1.74TB

But that's wrong... Unless you take your 1.8TB drive and want to make 17000 partitions on it, each one being 100MB.

Some parts of the NTFS overhead is static, so the bigger the partition is, the less % the overhead will be. 

But yes there is some portion of the advertised space that will be unusable because of the file system. You're completely right in saying that. Sorry.

[TheProfosist]

That is true, and that proves my point, but that is only part of the problem.

The hardware storage follow SI standards (base 10), but just about every OS out there measures digital space on base 2. That causes some discrepancies of space as is, and that is very confusing for the average consumer. The issue of file systems still plays a role though. Let me explain:

So you have a unit that has a stated storage of 2TB.

That 2 TB is equal to ~1.82TiB, which an OS would interpret as 1.82TB.

But that does not mean you have 1.82TB of storage free to use.

Storage is completely useless without a file system, which consists of sectors, cluster parameters, and tables, among other things. That consumes some space. As NTFS is notorious for the space overhead, we will use it here:

NTFS consumes 4MB for every 100MB partition, which means that it consumes a minimum of 4% of the data available (if not more), so that means the following:

1.82 * (1 - 0.04) = ~1.74TB

So at the end of the day, you have a brand new, empty 2TB external HDD under NTFS, without any user software in it. Any OS you have installed will display something like this:

1'746 GB / 1'818 GB space available.

Read above.

If you're going to go that far you can even go into 512 byte sector drives vs 4KB sector ones.

Also Microsoft was going to switch to a new file system with Vista then 7 but dropped it. I wonder in barnacles would have any insight as to why.

Drive manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to label using base 10 since every pc uses base 2 since we'll that's what it's works in. Why should it go by the same thing that uses it. I think the drive manufacturers are more at fault here than the OS developers.

[Godlygamer23]

whats wrong with NTFS?

Nothing. The way it calculates space causes it to steal storage from users.

[Gofspar]

WAN SHOW!