Apple → Lawsuit against Apple for storage capacity claims

»www.courthousenews.com/2 ··· ices.htm

Class Claims Apple Exaggerates Storage Capacity of iOS 8 Devices
By ARVIN TEMKAR

SAN JOSE (CN) - Apple doesn't tell consumers that its iOS 8 operating system can take up nearly a quarter of the storage space on their iPhones, iPads and iPods, a class action claims in Federal Court.
Lead plaintiff Paul Orshan claims that Apple touted its latest mobile operating system is "the biggest iOS release ever," but "fail(ed) to disclose to consumers that as much as 23.1 percent of the advertised storage capacity of the devices will be consumed by iOS 8 and unavailable for consumers."
Orshan claims the statistics apply to 8 gigabyte and 16 gigabyte iPhones, iPads and iPods. He claims that a reasonable consumer does not expect that much discrepancy between the advertised storage capacity of a device and its available capacity.
He says that an iPhone 6+ marketed as 16 gigabytes actually only has 12.7 gigabytes available to the user. For an iPod of the same size, there's only 12.3 gigabytes available.
In addition, Orshan says, Apple "aggressively markets" its cloud-based storage system iCloud, which costs a monthly fee.
"Using these sharp business tactics, defendant gives less storage capacity than advertised, only to offer to sell that capacity in a desperate moment, e.g., when a consumer is trying to record or take photos at a child or grandchild's recital, basketball game or wedding," according to the complaint.
To put this in context, each gigabyte of storage Apple shortchanges its customers amounts to approximately 400-500 high resolution photographs," the complaint states.
Orshan et al. seek class certification, an injunction and damages for unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer law violations.
Their lead counsel is Jonas Mann with Audet & Partners, of San Francisco.

Issue on non-Apple phones-"meh"
Same issue on iPhones-"story and lawsuit!"

Non-Apple phones need to actually have updates for this to be an issue.

The suit isn't even talking about updates: it's claim is that a newly installed 8 or 16 GB device doesn't even come close to having 8 or 16 GB of user accessible storage. (And that's true)

Point in fact, a 16GB iPhone 6 or 6+ with iOS 8 installed is next to useless storage wise -- especially if you like to take pictures (higher resolution means more space per pic).

I just checked my 16 GB iPhone 5 (iOS 8.1.2)- it says that I have 11.3 GB remaining- quite a decent amount.

But not 16GB.

Just like any other computer purchase we have made for decades. Buying a computer with a 16GB hard drive and then complaining there is not 16GB left after the OS is loaded, is inconsistent with the way we have always purchased computers. No?

If you buy an HP laptop with a small HD, you can't very well complain about the space the OS takes up. Haven't we always purchased the capacity we need, and hasn't that disk capacity always been the size of the drive itself not what's left after the OS is installed? Or am I missing something here?

My 16GB 5s was perfectly fine as long as I didn't want to store my entire music and photo libraries on it. For that, I got a 128GB 6+. My GF got my 5s and it is perfect for her email, social media, address book, and navigation needs.

True, but I can put any of a number of OS on it -- totally my choice. With the Apple device I have no choice.

Here are some actual numbers:

»arstechnica.com/apple/20 ··· #install

I've never bought an HP that where I could not replace the drive with a larger one or add another drive for storage.

Since the "blank" memory capacity is 16 GB, I would not expect to see 16 after the operating system and some apps are installed.

But you can't buy one "blank" -- the OS is part of the appliance.

Really? You might install Linux or freebsd (not "any number of OSs"), and you might get most of the hardware working, but today, computers come with an OS installed which is near impossible to replace if you want everything to actually work. Some hardware is so tied to proprietary OSs that they won't function with anything else.

Buy practically any computer, or tablet, or (smart)phone today, and you are pretty much stuck with the OS designed for that platform, and the free space left after the OS is installed.

Smart phones are nothing more than pocket computers.

Dell used to sell a blank computer once. What can you buy blank today?

With a computer, you can attach an external storage. Also, I don't think it's very fair to compare the two.

A smartphone is always on the "go" with us -- and we're constantly taking pictures and want to keep those memories with us whenever we are out.

To top it off, Apple only gives the user 5Gb of free data. The free data should be equivalent to the size of the phone. Therefore, a 64GB phone would have 64GB of free iCloud backup space.

I would disagree. Smart phones are indeed computers with a phone attached. They are far more computer devices than phones. Computers do things like e-mail, GPS navigation, word processing and spread sheets, photo editing, network management ..... These devices are computers, comparison asside. I recently traded my iPad --a computer-- for an iPhone 6+ which functionally replaced it in every respect.

True, you can't attach an external drive to them (yet?). Although you can sort of by using apps like USB Disk Pro. I transfered season 2 of The Fall to my iPhone for subway viewing (underground --no Internet)

I don't get the main complaint however, if you need more storage simply buy an iPhone with enough storage. Getting a 16GB model, then complaining it's too small, seems a bit absurd to me.

As far as iCloud is concerned --nothing is free beyond the come-on. If you don't spend for memory in the device, you will pay for it by having to use the cloud. Either way you pay. Don't we all know this going in?

This lawsuit seems frivolous to me.

Point in fact, someone interested in taking lots of hd pics will not be buying a 16GB device. Right? Someone wanting to use it as a navigation aid aboard a boat/car/plane may.

I have the 64GB iPhone and thankfully have another 30GB in Dropbox that I use.

I think the whole premises behind 16GB is a fraud. They shouldn't even offer 16GB. They eliminated the 32GB. They should have eliminated the 16GB, kept the 32GB as their base.

Point in fact, if someone made do with at 16GB iOS 7 device previously, they're in for rude awakening with iOS 8 and might not know any better.

True enough. Buyer/Upgrader beware. I don't see consumer ignorance as a basis for a tort however.

But that's the point -- where exactly is the consumer accessible storage amount documented by Apple?

Great, so they put some fine print on the box no one will read. Big fuckin deal.

Right. They should. They haven't.

The same place "consumer accessible storage" is documented on any computer. Nowhere. Have you ever seen a computer advertised with a guaranteed storage amount?

My problem with the tort is not that XGB is enough or not, or that an OS takes up too much space, but that this situation has existed with all digital devices since the digital age began, and is well understood and accepted.

Perhaps every computer manufacturer should spec out "user available storage". But till now, to my knowledge, no one does. It just seems odd to me to rail against Apple for doing what has always been done, is accepted practice, and is generally well understood.

»www.microsoft.com/surfac ··· /storage

And, all Windows phones have this footnote in their technical specifications.

quote:

---

[1] Available storage is less due to phone software.

---

Lawyers are a different breed . . .

Yes. This is what I think is behind this tort. Some ambulance chaser wants to get his 15 minutes of "I sued Apple" fame.

What I see as the difference is that Apple controls the entire ecosystem. With most other manufacturers, they bundle and install a third party OS which they have little to no control over. Apple has complete control both manufacturing the device and writing the code and does not give the buyer any choice.

That's cool. Never saw that before. Of course I am a Micro$hit bigot and never look at their stuff

That's a distinction without a difference. Microsoft works intimataly with hardware manufactures to interoperate specifically with their windows OS. That's why there are computers which will only function properly with windows installed. Others, like Apple, will only function properly with OS X installed. No big difference really, only semantically.

But yeah, it would be nice to see a user-available spec on every computer sold. If only to prevent more ambulance chasers from filing more frivolous law suits.