[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
On the other hand, if you actually agree that the 4% difference in advertised available memory versus post-format performance is a big deal, then go for it. But if you think it’s a pretty silly complaint, then dont encourage this nonsense by signing up. Dont be a sellout.
[/QUOTE]
You know, i’ve thought about that, and it is, in fact, one of the reasons that i’ve never signed up in the past for similar lawsuits.
But at the same time, i also dislike corporations getting away with shady advertising and marketing strategies. It’s less a matter of whether 4% is a “big deal” for me personally, or for other users, than a matter of principle about misleading business practices. And, in many similar lawsuits that i’ve seen, the real issue is not so much whether each individual consumer suffered very much, but the fact that these companies saw fit to play loose with the truth.
In fact, to the extent that such business practices are intentional and part of the business plan, i’m willing to bet that these companies rely on the fact that each individual consumer doesn’t suffer very much. After all, if every individual who buys a flash drive loses a few megabytes of capacity, then maybe no-one is going to care very much and the company might get away with it. But when you multiply each individual customer by thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions, it can really add up for the company.
After all, when i bought by first CF card three and a half years ago, the retail price of flash memory was about 50c per megabyte, so giving each consumer a few megabytes less than what they thought they were getting could have saved the company big bucks over a long period. Even now, with flash memory generally going for well under 10c per megabyte, the sheer vloume means that a few cents saved per unti can really add up.
If i steal $1 each from a million people, should i get off the hook? Or should i be treated the same as if i stole $1 million from one person?
Now, as i’ve said already, i don’t think the whole “definition of a megabyte” thing is really a very big deal, and there are certainly other class action lawsuits that, in my opinion, have more merit than this one. The Netflix “throttling” issue comes to mind.
But it’s not like the discrepancy was an accident on the part of these companies. As the FAQ said, the websites of these companies expressly said that they were defining one megabyte as 1,048,576 bytes.
Using this definition, a flash device labelled as 256Mb should have had
256 x 1,048,576 = 268,435,456 bytes.
But, a flash device labelled 256Mb actually had about 256,000,000 bytes, or about 244Mb (based on the 1,048,576 figure).
One of the documents on the class action website has exhibits, including copies of the manufacturers’ websites, where manufacturers such as PNY explcitly state that 1Mb = 1,048,576 bytes. If they explicitly state this on their website, why would they then market their flash products in a manner that equates 1Mb with 1,000,000 bytes? Not only that, according to the lawsuit the packaging of the devices contained no contrary information about the definition of a megabyte, nor did the packaging state that actual usable space might be less than advertised.
If i were in the business of selling Bags of Widgets (BoW), and i told you on my website that 1BoW contains 1,048 widgets, wouldn’t you be pissed if you went to the store, purchased a product called Mhendo’s BoW and only got 1,000 widgets?
By the way, i forgot to link to the class action lawsuit website in my OP. Here it is.