Posted on 01/01/2015 1:38:43 AM PST by Swordmaker
Kind of like the “quarter pound” beef patties at fast food restaurants? With the little asterisk that says “pre-cooked net weight”... Maybe that is the answer?
Still rather ignorant.
I was told this by my nephew who is an Apple fan and has everything they make.
I tried to order a 5s with the highest memory and it was no longer available. I believe it was 64GB at one time but now only 32GB.
That linked article doesn’t really clarify as much as hoped. It’s more like it makes reference to “standards”, but doesn’t actually specify which standards/products were the core of the case. How can a public case of this nature not have the evidence openly available?
Could Lowe’s be the ONLY retailer who followed similar marketing?
What other products are not “generally” considered wood products were part of the violation? The engineered wood that is sold as a substitute for real wood? Would it not makes sense to market/sell it in the same context/format as the wood products they are replacing?
Why are facts of this case so hard to find (at least any real details)?
I believe your understanding is based on a serous misunderstanding. For the normal market cycle, the full-range is available as they can produce them. The 5s is an example - Once the “year” cycle was up, and the 6/6+ introduced, Apple scales back the previous generation as a more “entry-level” offering - usually at a single storage size (the 5S, I believe, is 32GB, 5c is 16GB). This is typical and makes business sense - why stretch supplies and cost out to continue a full-line of the older product when you have new?
I had the 64GB 5s (purchased on the release day). I have the 128GB iPhone 6 (purchased this release day). I can go to most AT&T stores and the Apple Store and get any of the iPhone 6/6+ models, in any color and capacity today (OK - so the 6+ is still a bit hit-or-miss, as they are selling as fast as they can be produced). We are a few months out - supplies dipped after the first weekend - but that was simply the normal supply/demand.
Auto manufactures sometimes do the same - I recall when the “new” Chevrolet Malibu was released in the mid-2000’s, they sold a model called the Malibu “classic” with the old body style for another year - had a limited set of options - and was basically just a way of clearing out over-full parts bins. You could get a “Classic” Malibu for about 20% less than the “new” one offered at the time. Chevrolet does it with their Silverado pickups pretty regularly when a full redesign is produced.
The image is “Braveheart” (Gibson) leading a charge.
This idiotic case is bringing that up too. Since the courts have addressed it before, it is res judicata, already decided. The only difference is that the size is larger. They are claiming Apple is misrepresenting the storage capacity by using the industry wide standard 16 GigaByte meaning 16 Billion bytes when they should be using 16GiB, which they call a Gibibyte, representing the BINARY number and that's how they get to the 23.1%, specifically on an iPod. . .
"12. As noted above, although Defendant advertised based upon the decimal-basedEvery computer I have ever bought has set aside Hard Drive space for the system to use. . . and that set aside space was NOT available as space for the user to store his documents or data. The maker of the computer or hard drive did not EVER tell the buyer that the computer or hard drive memory or storage advertised would be reduced by that set-aside space, because it was THERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE USER, because if it was not there, the computer would simply NOT RUN. Ergo, it was for the benefit of the user.11 system of measurement, upon information and belief, the Devices display available capacity
12 based upon the binary definitions. This is confusing even to the technically savvy because it
13 prevents consumers from making the proverbial “apples to apples” comparison. Exacerbating
14 this confusion is the fact that rather than using the GiB representation, as suggested by the ISQ,
15 the graphic interface used on the Devices uses the abbreviation GB, even though it is apparently
16 referring to gibibytes and not gigabytes." — SOURCE: Paul Orshan and Christopher Endara, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Inc., Defendant
That is how idiotic this suit is. In fact, of the 2.7 to 3.1 GB or Gibibytes used by the OS, supposedly reducing available storage, the vast majority is still used by the Apple installed Apps for the benefit of the user.
The attorneys even point out in their suit that jailbreaking the iPhone, iPad, or iPod allows one to DELETE files and free up user space by reducing the size of the ROOT partition. . . supposedly as proof that Apple is arbitrarily, and deliberately. using this space to force users into buying iCloud space to store more apps, videos, and photos when you suddenly find you don't have enough room to take them in an emergency and your storage is full. Of course, they ignore that iCloud does not work that way.
Not true. . . from any perspective. The iPhones come in several sizes. The iPhone 5s came white, space gray, and gold, in the 16GB, 32GB, 64GB and Gold only in the larger 128GB memory sizes. . . and were available in all sizes from the day they were introduced.
There were times when the various sizes were out of stock because of demand in the early days, right after introduction, but it was usually the lowest ones that sold out first. But within a few weeks, ALL sizes were available on a walk in basis at all locations. If you wanted one with a particular color and memory size, you might have to wait up to a month for delivery early on, but not later. Later, after the initial demand had been satisfied, you could walk into an Apple store and walk out with the size you wanted.
From what I gather, Lowe's was selling non-Lumber building materials with the 2X4 designation. . . for example they were selling composite material lumber analogs as 2x4s when that is not permitted under the law. . . while selling LUMBER is. For example if you sell a Glue lam you have to give the exact measurements because it is not defined as lumber, but a manufactured product. Similarly a manufactured simulated piece of faux-lumber manufactured out of wood chips and glue is not lumber and has to be defined by its exact dimensions rather than the generic 2x4, even though it is meant to exactly replace the lumber 2x4. Similarly, they apparently were selling metric thickness plywood as 3/4" thickness but it really isn't, the closest it comes is 45/64" and not quite exact, Home Depot lists the sanded finish Oak veneer "3/4 inch" as .703" thick in the specs . . . but starts as 18mm before sanding. The regular "3/4 inch" plywood unsandeded plywood would be the 18mm (.708"). These discrepancies in thickness CAN make a big difference in cabinet making and planning. Most modern wood workers are aware of this slight difference these days and make allowances for the slight under sizing of the Chinese veneers, but to sell it as 3/4 inch is really not right when you need a tight fitting dado cut in a cabinet joint. Compounding this problem is that AMERICAN veneers are still .750" thick.
That's why I was of two minds about the ruling.
Goes back to the illogical nature of this industry...
Sell a “genuine” pine 2x4, the real dimensions all be around 1.5x3.5...
Sell an engineered substitute for that 2X4 pine - and it cannot be labeled as 2X4, even though it is intended as a direct substitute...
Hmmm... makes about as much sense as folks voting for Barack Obama after he already screwed things up royally in his first term....
The operative word in the industry should be “consistency”.
I’d rather get Dropbox, because it works across all platforms.
I've an old Amiga around here somewhere!
256 BYTES of ram. I've still got it here...
Somewhere.
I've got a couple of these; too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.