If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 10/18/2007 8:59:16 PM PDT by Swordmaker
It's no secret that Apple gets hit with lawsuits on a regular basis. Everyone and his brother seems to be filing a class action suit against Apple, but sometimes the plaintiffs go a bit too crazy with the complaints. There's no better example than a recently-filed Canadian suit, which alleges that Apple misrepresented the amount of storage space on the iPod nano.
In the complaint seen by Ars and dug up by the Montreal Gazette, Canadian law student David Bilton alleges that Apple misled him by saying that the iPod nano has 8GB of space, when his only has 7.45GB after formatting. What about about the fact that Apple does mention that iPods will have less space when formatted, and even talks about how capacities are measured differently? That's not enough for Bilton, who claims that most iPod buyers just don't know any better.
Since his iPod nano has 7.5 percent less storage than advertised, he's hoping to get either a full refund, or at least get 7.5 percent of his money back. Since the 8GB iPod nano currently goes for CAD$219, that means Mr. Bilton would like his CAD$16.43 back from Apple, please.
To me, this suit looks like a good example of what happens when law students get bored. The claim is a bit silly, especially given that Apple already notes that the usable space will be less than advertised. We'll probably see Bilton suing his favorite hard drive manufacturer next, though
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Then this idiot had better get busy filing lawsuits against the entire computer industry, because all hard drives, thumb drives, memory cards, etc. are measured with this same "misleading" method (which I agree is dishonest).
But where is his lawsuit against EVERY OTHER mp3 player on the market? They all use the same system. So why pick out Apple's iPod? Because they are the big name market leader with deep pockets.
Stupid people have stupid ways....
At least he isn’t being greedy, he only wants back 7.5%.
It isn't dishonest. The pre-formatted capacity is the only accurate measurement of the drive's actual size. The formatted capacity varies based on the format used and the block size selected. While these criteria are less relevant today than even 10 years ago, any manufacturer that sells drives is better off citing the unformatted capacity since that at least is a known quantity.
I wish a judge would "bitch-slap" this guy with a contempt charge... What he's saying here is that although Apple made it clear that the formatted capacity would be less, and explained why that is, it doesn't matter, because he's just too stupid to understand what they're talking about.
Mark
Actually - it is dishonest. Here is why:
Hard drives are measured in GB.
The actual measurement of a GB = 1024MB
Marketing use of GB - 1000MB
And while the 1000MB definition has become the default, it is much like the old CRT monitor marketing - a 15” monitor actually had an actual viewable measurement of around 13”. This became the acceptable method of marketing for CRTs.
So - the GB advertisement commonly in use today is misleading, but because it is the “common” form now, anyone paying attention knows the truth.
And, actually, many companies, Apple included, note somewhere in their disclaimer text that they are defining GB as 1000mb, and MB as 1000kb.
Anyone running an advance copy of Leopard, yet?
How is “64-bit” any different from what I’m running now? Sure, the price is right, but I might just wait a few weeks. Conditioned Win-switcher and all that.
Apple misled him by saying that the iPod nano has 8GB of space, when his only has 7.45GB after formatting. What about about the fact that Apple does mention that iPods will have less space when formatted, and even talks about how capacities are measured differently? That's not enough for Bilton, who claims that most iPod buyers just don't know any better.Too stupid to live.
EVERY computer I’ve ever owned loses some hard drive space due to formatting, same with flash drives, memory cards for cameras and iPods. ANYONE who didn’t know this is an idiot.
Marketing use of GB - 1000MB
Where Did Kilo, Mega, Giga and All Those Other Prefixes Come From?They have entered our language. Everyone uses them. The terms, particularly with "byte", are almost commonplace. Kilobyte, Megabyte and Gigabyte are part of our lexicon.Therefore the technical usage of "kilo" and the rest to be integer powers of 210 is conventional computerese technical jargon. In the context of a suit over the fact that consumers don't understand technical jargon, it comes as ill grace to complain that a marketer was not using jargon when defining the size of the memory!But do you know where they came from?
First, let's show the terms:
Kilo 10001 103 1,000
Mega 10002 106 1,000,000
Giga 10003 109 1,000,000,000
Tera 10004 1012 1,000,000,000,000
Peta 10005 1015 1,000,000,000,000,000
Exa 10006 1018 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
Zetta 10007 1021 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Yotta 10008 1024 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000Ok. So where did they come from?
Kilo comes from the Greek khiloi and means, curiously enough, 1000. It is interesting enough, the only prefix with a direct numerical meaning.
The next three come from Greek and Latin and are either descriptive or mythological.
Mega comes from the Greek mega meaning "great", as in "Alexandros O Megas" or "Megas Alexandros" (Alexander the Great) . . .
Let it go, Mr. Bilton.
That's why there's a disclaimer about size on almost every manufacturer's web site. Apple's for the nano:
Capacity
* 4GB or 8GB flash drive 1
...
1 1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less.
Depending on what you're doing, 64-bit software can be a lot faster than 32-bit software for a variety of reasons.
I'm facing the same question. The old PCs had a limit of 64KB, which is actually 216. IOW, two bytes were required to address a memory location uniquely. Until recently, we have had 32 bit computers and 32 bit operating systems. And lately, 64bit computers have been on offer, even tho the OS has been only 32 bit.Available computer memory has been expanding geometrically just like computer speed and computer bit size, so it is natural that the ability of the OS to address the available memory has to keep up. Since computers with 2GB of memory are now commonplace, and since 232 is only 4*210*210*210 or 4GB, to settle for a 32 bit OS is to settle for a limit to the expansion of your memory in the future.
Basically it took a (human) generation, about 25 years, to expand RAM from 64KB almost to 4GB - that is, to expand the number of bits required to address RAM by 16. Since a linear increase in the number of bits maps to a geometric increase in the size of the address space just as a linear increase in time has historically, an increase from 32 to 64 bits provides enough address space to accomodate geometric memory growth at the same average rate experienced from the time of the 64K limit to the present time, for approximately another half century. Perhaps more practically WRT the life expectancy of a new computer, it would allow for direct addressing of more virtual memory than a personal computer is likely in the next two decades to have disk space to support.
So I would think that it would be a very questionable decision to buy a new computer today with a 32 bit OS, since software limited to 32 bits might very well become markedly dated in the immediate future. JMHO.
Every aspect of this capacity definition problem had been settled in the disk drive biz at least a decade ago. His lawyer should be disbarred.
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong when discussing computer storage.
Storage capacity uses the definition of gigabyte as 1000 megabytes.
Computer memory, on the other hand, (Random Access Memory or RAM), uses the value of 1024 MB = 1 GB.
Dishonest implies motive to deceive, whereas in the case of Apple and other computer and disk drive manufacturers, the motive isn’t to deceive but rather it is the use of an industry standard definition.
It also can’t be dishonest or a case of misrepresentation just because you disagree with the industry standard definitions. What it is is confusing, and that isn’t Apple’s fault at all.
I didn’t blame Apple for the misleading practice (even if, as the poster just prior to you pointed out that it has pretty much been settled for a decade).
Yes - computer memory (RAM) is still measured at 1024MB per GB.
But the practice of measuring drives of various types as 1000MB per GB has been discussed ad-nauseum on most PC message boards for many years. It started out as a very intentional “rounding” that did deceive consumers.
But it has become the industry standard, just as the old CRT standard that I mentioned in my original reply.
Because something is a “standard practice” does not automatically make it right any more than telling a lie enough times makes it the truth.
When I go buy a hard drive, I know full well that it isn’t “really” the capacity it advertises - both because of the rounded calculation (1000MB per GB), but also because of the formatting which takes up space as well. And I believe that a lot of consumers either understand that fact, or are ignorant of the fact (and if it doesn’t bother them...then I guess that is their problem).
As far as Apple selling an iPod at X Gigs - I know they sell it based on the capacity of the drive they put in it, which I also know is based on the rounded figure. For that matter, it states as much in the documentation that they use the figure. No secret.
Either way you look at it - the case that started this thread should be thrown out because Apple’s “GB” claim is based on the industry standard (even if inaccurate and misleading).
I guess it is somewhat akin to buying a motorcycle or ATV - many of them are labeled as 400cc, when in fact, it might be 382 cc. Again - it tends to be a case of marketing - and no-one gets sued because all you have to do is look at the information included with the item.
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.