Lawyer sues Microsoft over Surface tablet storage | Hacker News Reader

Lawyer sues Microsoft over Surface tablet storage

seattletimes.com

25 pointsboh46 comments

> "Customers understand the operating system and pre-installed applications reside on the device's internal storage thereby reducing the total free space,"

I think there's a reasonable disagreement to be had over whether the Surface uses an unexpected quantity of internal storage. Even knowledgeable technical people are fairly uniformly shocked at just how much space the Surface OS and bundled apps occupies.

I'm not sure whether that translates into a good chance for this guy to win. But I can't say that I'm on board with laughing off or derisively dismissing such a complaint.

I agree that this sort of advertising (physical space vs. useful space) is deceptive. However, it's practically standard practice; and a sadly reasonable argument could be made that consumers shouldn't expect all of the advertised space to be available, as it rarely is. My 32GB iPad only ever lets me see 28. The Razr M is worse; it explicitly states it has 8GB, but the same screen[0] makes it clear you're only ever going to use half (with no good apparent reason). Nintendo even made a video to explain that you won't even be able to use half of the 8GB Wii U's storage[1].

[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/aldhpg4x6q7cbyp/2012-11-16%2013.38...

[1] http://kotaku.com/5960438/nintendo-explains-the-wii-us-stora...

That's true, but the numbers sorta matter. Comparable existing devices (basically iPads and Android tablets) have base OSes that are well under 1G. So comparing a 32G Surface to a 32G Nexus 10 is going to be surprising.

I don't honestly know the extent to which users might have been misinformed about their Wiis and Razrs. But a very reasonable argument here is that MS released a product and advertised it as having the same amount of useful storage as a popular competitor, which it clearly does not.

"useful storage"

Like the iPad and nearly every CE product, they advertised physical storage. This doesn't make Microsoft (or Apple, Motorola, Nintendo, etc.) any less in the wrong, but they still advertised by the same conventions everyone else has.

You missed the point. It's not about "conventions", it's about expectations. Apple Computer has a popular product called "iPad" which advertises "32G" of storage. Microsoft released a new product to directly compete with iPad (I assume you agree with this part) and also advertised "32G" of storage.

Yet the Surface has about half the space available. I think a very reasonable argument can be made that this was wrong in context in a way that it is not wrong for Apple to have done so.

I don't think this is an entirely trivial case, either. If the Surface is meant to compete more directly in the mobile space alongside iOS and Android devices, an argument could be made that it should be advertising something close to user-available storage capacity like those are understood to.

Indeed. OS and crapware taking a few GB's off a 2 TB hard disk is one thing. Taking 16 GB's off of advertised 32 GB flash storage is outrageous.

This is false advertising. I wouldn't laugh at this lawyer if I were Microsoft.

@at-fates-hands:

"You say it has 16GB and then once you turn it on and it says 32GB in the system screen, now people are pissed your OS and apps take up too much room."

That simply does not happen. The inverse, in which people expect to be able to store plenty of media and apps but can't, does. Most users won't even know that it's the OS that's taking up that much space, but they'll know to blame Microsoft.

I think they get screwed either way.

You say it has 16GB and then once you turn it on and it says 32GB in the system screen, now people are pissed your OS and apps take up too much room.

Tell people its got 32GB and then they find out they only have 16GB of actual storage and they get pissed for you misrepresenting the actual storage amount.

I'm sure this will be settled quietly out of court with a nice undisclosed amount for said lawyer.

This is a fine argument to make, but you don't make it with a lawsuit. You make it with publicity--negative publicity. Just telling Google and Apple should be enough; I'm sure they would be more than happy to spread the word. :-)

In a competitive market there is a tragedy of the commons effect: why waste advertising dollars disparaging a competitor if it will help your other competitors.

(With Apple's market share, this doesn't quite apply; it could still make sense for them to do)

It could still make sense even for Google to do, if more of MS's potential customers would be expected to switch to Android rather than Apple. But I agree that both Google and Apple would have to look at that aspect of it, and there is something of a trade-off, the better it looks for Google the worse it is likely to look for Apple, and vice versa. From the point of view of someone who doesn't like the Surface advertising, though, that's just another reason to make sure to tell both Google and Apple. :-)

Can you delete the bundled Office? It seems like an included app that can be deleted shouldn't count against MSFT.

Knowing how MS works, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the space taken up by "Office" is actually taken up by libraries that have to be there for any app to work, so even if the Office apps could be deleted, it wouldn't reclaim much space.

What I haven't seen anyone mention is the fact that it's NOT expectations that come from mobile/tablet (we're used to most of the space being available, because OS is usually tiny, but Windows 8 is not) vs expectations that come from the desktop (where we're used to the OS taking up 10+ GB).

It's simply a question of percentages. An iOS installation uses anywhere from 1.5% to 6% of available space (1 GB out of 16 to 64). A desktop OS might take up 16GB, but your HD is anywhere from 256-2,048 GB, so still in the range of 1-6%.

So, when consumers everywhere are pretty much used to all smartphones and computers both leaving more than 90% of advertised space still available for use, when Microsoft's Surface comes along and leaves only 50%, it really is qualitatively different, and you really have to give weight to the idea that this is deceptive and misleading to customers.

Translation: Lawyer fails to read fine print, then is naive enough to publicly admit same.

Or, Lawyer did read the fine print, then is savvy enough to sue and publicly drum up clients.

But don't you have to actually win the lawsuit for this strategy to work?

This. I just got some major deja-vu, since I don't think this is the first time someone's tried to troll a major corporation over "storage size claims" (and really, what kind of consumer would ever do his or her own research on a product worth hundreds of dollars before purchasing one? Oh wait, everyone with even the slightest bit of common sense...).

Someone should inform this lawyer that he could just format the internal storage. Sure, you lose your entire tablet's operating system, but who needs that when you get MOAR GB's!

(Aside: In my teenage years, I used to work for Future Shop. I recall one customer, who came in and insisted that he needed a computer "with the most possible gee-bee's". When I informed him that it was a "gigabyte", he then said "yeah whatever, I just need one with XX many jigas, do you have one?")

To be fair, just because it's in the fine print doesn't mean it's actually binding. I could put "if you use this device on Friday we get to kill you" but that wouldn't mean we could kill you.

True, but in this case the "fine print" is simply the technical details of how much of the 32 GB is actually available to the user, which MS does not make obvious, but which is available if you look for it. Lawyers, of course, are supposed to be experts at finding those kinds of details in documents, which is why I thought it amusing that this lawyer is basically admitting that he didn't bother to look below the surface.

*Conditions Apply.

Whatever happened to just returning the device? Seems like a much simpler solution. If enough people return the device if it doesn't fit their needs, then companies will get the message.

> Whatever happened to just returning the device?

That wouldn't protect future customers who fall for this false advertisement and never realized they paid for 32 GB of storage but got only 16... False advertising is serious. We HN'ers can see if a device we bought has half the storage we expected it to have, but most people can't.

The appropriate "protection" for future customers is to publicly ridicule Microsoft for their bad marketing, and for those potential future customers to not become actual customers by not buying the device. It is not a lawsuit.

They could similarly just return it. False advertising cases usually focus on the fact that you can't return something with impunity.

Now, of course there is a gray area -- if you've had the device for a year, banged it up and only THEN noticed you have 16 GB, then yeah. You wouldn't be able to return it. But a grace period in which you can return stuff is normal in the USA.

Yes, I'm sure this lawyer (cough) is merely unsatisfied with the product he purchased.

I don't believe for a second that this lawyer was simply a naive consumer who was misled by Microsoft, but having said that it isn't always as easy as people think to return things. The majority of retailers out there have pretty hostile return policies these days, and it can be difficult to actually return something like this without a significant "restocking" fee or such.

tl;dr -- always buy expensive electronics from a retail whom you know has a reasonable return policy and/or use a credit card with strong consumer protection.

"They make you search and dig for it specifically"

Although I also hate it when companies bury details, but I don't agree with this lawsuit. If hard-drive space is an important consideration for you, you should do a little more homework than this guy obviously did. I could see a case being made for him returning his Surface and getting a refund, but I don't see a case being made that Microsoft should have overtly printed, "WARNING: Our device only leaves you with 16 GB of usable space. Additional SD card not included."

I really don't understand this, if you're not happy with a device you buy, return it for a full refund and don't buy another. How is it even possible to sue over an issue like this?

False advertising.

Most jurisdictions have laws against it. Microsoft may believe that it has an out with respect to their "fine print", but that also can only go so far, since they actively advertise a 32GB Surface as having 32GB storage (implying that it's user-available, because all of the Surface's competitors explicitly state user-available storage). None of my iPhones, my iPads, nor my Nexus 7 have provided half the advertised storage the way that the 32GB Surface does.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that Microsoft is going to be changing some labelling so that we see user-available storage clearly. It'll work better for Microsoft in the end, too.

From a technical perspective, I can't believe that Microsoft couldn't figure out a way to make this work without exposing this to users.

Good point, he would have to demonstrate that the store doesn't accept returns, for example. If it does, without a restocking fee, then I don't think he would have a case.

Pointing out how much the operating system takes up is a marketing and PR issue. Not a legal one.

I can solve his problem for $21.64 on Amazon: http://amzn.to/XhLWTY

This guys is a fool. Let's be glad his target is MS and not some startup that didn't live up to his "expectations".

Here's an ars technica article going into details about why "STFU and buy an SD card" isn't necessarily a solution.

"As such, even the 16GB that Microsoft promises on the 32GB Surface may not be readily available to end-users. Surface does, at least, have a way of adding storage that Windows itself will never use for its own needs; it has a microSD slot that works with 64GB cards.

There are wrinkles to this support, however. Due to the sandboxing and security used in Windows RT, apps need special permission to use this removable storage. Apps that just have permission to access your music, picture, or document libraries can't use the SD card. Worse, it's not possible to add removable storage to the existing libraries; Windows requires that all library locations be indexed. As a result, it won't index removable storage, presumably on the basis that it might get removed, which would cause the index to include information about files that no longer existed.

There is a trick involving Junction Points to make Windows not realize that the SD card is an SD card, but that is hardly what one would call elegant or easy-to-use."

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk-space-a-...

That's interesting. You can certainly mount the microSD to a directory off your C drive and relocate your libraries there, but it is involved...

I wonder if it can be automated somehow so the steps get down to: 1) install card 2) run setup program

I'm going to see if I can do this from a autorun program (or otherwise) on the inserted microSD card. Then I'll sell microSD cards with the program on them and make a fortune...Muhhhaahhahhha

I imagine you'd also be happy to buy a car advertised as "seats 5", then you have to spend more money to buy a 5th seat?

EDIT: Let me update my analogy a little - let's say the car is advertised as "seats 5", and when you get it, you can only put a small child in the 5th seat (1/2 a person). To seat a 5th adult, you have to buy an extra seat.

Still happy?

A 32GB iPad doesn't have 32GB of free space either, nor does any computer or device have the advertised space free when pre-loaded with an OS.

So, I'm not sure your analogy works. It's standard for space to be taken for the OS.

50% is more than usual. What is the cut off for being able to sue?

Have you bought any electronic with storage at all in the past 10 years? Not even hard drives come with the advertised storage -- they've had to repurpose what 'GB' means (base-10 instead of base-2).

That's not false advertising. The drives are measured in SI bytes, which is a decimal system.

Did you read my comment?

Yes. Hard drives do in fact come with the advertised storage. Manufacturers rate hard drives in using SI prefixes. Operating systems measure hard drives in binary bytes. It's not false advertising if the measurement system is valid.

That analogy is kind of flawed. If Microsoft specifically advertised 16/32GB of usable space then these arguments would have made sense. This just seems like buying 5 pound ribs at the meat section and then complaining about all the bones. Also how is this different from what other manufacturers are doing? I have Nexus 7 16GB which came with a usable space of ~ 11GB and heck it doesn't even have an expandable memory slot like surface.

Well that does not solves the problem actually. Windows library does not index files stored in the SD card and apps also needs a special permission to access to the SD card. See here http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk-space-a-....

Do the Surface package and main website homepage tell you exactly how much usable memory it includes?

Anyone know how much he's suing for?

Something tells me it's more than 16 more gigs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com