On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:50:12 PM UTC-4, tlvp wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:25:39 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:



they had only 600MB of ROM



You expected to load apps into *ROM*? (LOL)

You didn't realize that ROM is ReadOnlyMemory, and you can't write to ROM?



HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

--

Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

They are incorrectly calling it ROM, but clearly it's Flash memory.
It's the internal Flash memory that every Smartphone has.
A cell phone would be useless without Flash to store apps, photos,
etc. Plus they say it has 4GB of ROM, expandable to 32GB with an
external card. Again, that's a Flash card, not ROM.

And if you want to claim that there is just 4 GB ROM and 1 GB, RAM,
then where are all the apps, photos, music etc stored so that they don't
disappear when the battery goes dead, you take the battery out,
reboot, etc?

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:31:17 AM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 04:38:49 -0500, VinnyB wrote:



No it's not. That's RAM.



I'm sorry if I've confused you with the terms, "ROM"

and "Total Internal Memory" but I don't know any better

way to refer to what we're talking about.



They call it "ROM" on this T-Mobile support document,

just like I do:

https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-5777



And, again, as I do, they call it "Total Internal Memory"

on this LG specification document:

http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-...specifications



So, you can refer to it any way you like, but I think we have

been extremely specifically clear about what we have been

talking about, all along.

It really isn't ROM and then should not be calling it that. It's
actually pretty bad, it seems they aren't the only company that's
gone wrong here. ROM is Read Only Memory. It's either programmed
by mask at the factory or field programmed one time. The latter isn't
used anymore, it's been replaced long ago by Flash. ROM can't be
changed. What these phones use are Flash and I believe like you do
that what they are calling ROM is really Flash Memory. It holds the
OS, apps, data, pics, etc. But they should either call it Flash
or else refer to it as internal storage.

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

It really isn't ROM and then should not be calling it that. It's
actually pretty bad, it seems they aren't the only company that's
gone wrong here. ROM is Read Only Memory. It's either programmed
by mask at the factory or field programmed one time. The latter isn't
used anymore, it's been replaced long ago by Flash. ROM can't be
changed. What these phones use are Flash and I believe like you do
that what they are calling ROM is really Flash Memory. It holds the
OS, apps, data, pics, etc. But they should either call it Flash
or else refer to it as internal storage.

+1

EPROM can be flashed. Things have changed over recent times.

OP could have bought a 32GB phone with internal memory and not need a
SD Card.

Solved

On 04/05/2014 01:28 PM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:41:56 -0500, K Wills wrote:

I think the 32 Gigs is for storage, not memory. I suppose Android
could use space on the card for virtual memory, but it wouldn't be
too efficient, IMO.

I'm not technically savvy, but, there (apparently) *are* ways to turn
the SD card into internal memory, and vice versa.

For example, googling, I find these, one of which which might swap
out the 4GB of internal memory for the 32 GB SD card (at the expense,
we presume, of speed):

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...edog.mounts2sd
"Mounts2SD is a customizable sd-ext control script that can be
used to move content to and from the second sdcard partition known
in Android as sd-ext."

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...obile.move.app
"Move app in the easiest way。
€¢ Move apps to SD card"

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...codlab.int2ext
"Ever wanted to swap your internal sdcard and your external sdcard?
Yes, you can ! ... fix this annoying thing which make your phone
using only few GB when you a full 64GB or even a 32GB one...
it works with every devices with external sdcards"

Every single one of these says "requires root" somewhere in the small
print. Even if it doesn't say so, it does. I know. I looked.

If I ever figure out how to turn the 32 GB SD card into internal
memory (from Android's standpoint), do you know what the drawbacks
might be?

Requires root :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ====
Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

On 04/06/2014 08:15 AM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:49 -0500, K Wills wrote:

Where is *that* information located?

Probably near the bottom of a print ad. Along the bottom of the
screen for TV.

It's not.

Nowhere in any T-Mobile document on the web is the truth told.

Also, I have *many* (documented) communications with T-Mobile
where they actually told me the wrong answer to the basic
question of how much USABLE memory there was.

The answer they give is 4GB.
The real answer is 600MB.

I'm not sure why I'm the only one (apparently) who feels
T-Mobile should tell the truth, but, that's the whole point
of solicitation opinions.

You're not. I feel cheated about the external sdcard thing too.

I guess I'm the only one who cares that the carriers not
lie to the consumer. Either that, or I'm the only one dumb
enough to (initially) believe the lie.

The manufacturers are complicit too.

Perhaps we SHOULD have been able to intuit that we couldn't put apps on
the external sdcard, but I really don't see where that information is
readily available to the ordinary non-technical user.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ====
Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

This is going into misc.legal too. Any hungry lawyers there who want to
start a class action suit? Each member sues for the cost of the phone
he was duped into buying plus the cost of apps he downloaded plus some
amount of pain and suffering. Come on, shysters, earn your keep!



On 04/06/2014 08:48 AM, Poutnik wrote:
Poutnik posted Sun, 6 Apr 2014 17:40:39 +0200
Danny D. posted Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:24:10 +0000 (UTC)

......Every time I call them,
they tell me it's a 4GB phone that can be added to with a
32GB sdcard (which is a bold-faced lie for apps).

Your cannot say it is the lie.
It does have 4GB and it CAN be added by 32GB card.

It is rather a kind of half truth,
hiding what you can do with them.


Well, we live in age of advertisement.
Lies became fully tolerated behaviour.
Vendors are used to say half truth at the best.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ====
Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

On 04/06/2014 02:30 PM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:11:55 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Different versions are going to take up different amounts
of space. You probably don't have an apples to apples comparison
of the same phone, same apps, with one version vs another, anyway,
which would be difficult to do.

True. T-Mobile told me the same thing. To which I answered that
they only had about a score of phones, and they all get the
same software, so, it's not all that difficult a task.

It would take a technician about an hour to compile, for
the twenty odd phones that T-Mobile owns, for example.

Anyway, what T-Mobile told me was that there are twice
as many of those specs as I would have thought, simply
because they said a pre-paid phone has different software
than a post-paid phone.

They sell only a few "pre-paid" phones. Low end. I put the pre-paid
T-Mobile SIM
from my previous Nokia flipphone into the unlocked BLU Dash 4.5
smartphone and it worked right off the bat. I'm willing to buy T-Mobile
$10/year prepaid service, but not a locked-in T-Mobile branded phone.

So, in toto, how many phones does T-Mobile sell at any
one time? I'm guessing about 20. So that's 40 numbers.

All in all, it's not all that onerous to tell the customer
the truth.

It takes one tech (or maybe his 8-year-old kid) to read off the storage
numbers for all the phones they sell. We have this nifty thing called
'communication' now. Sometimes paper, sometimes bits, but it really
works. They really have no excuse for not having that information
instantly available.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ====
Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:40:09 AM UTC-4, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/06/2014 02:30 PM, Danny D. wrote:



On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:11:55 -0700, trader_4 wrote:



Different versions are going to take up different amounts

of space. You probably don't have an apples to apples comparison

of the same phone, same apps, with one version vs another, anyway,

which would be difficult to do.



True. T-Mobile told me the same thing. To which I answered that

they only had about a score of phones, and they all get the

same software, so, it's not all that difficult a task.



It would take a technician about an hour to compile, for

the twenty odd phones that T-Mobile owns, for example.



Anyway, what T-Mobile told me was that there are twice

as many of those specs as I would have thought, simply

because they said a pre-paid phone has different software

than a post-paid phone.



They sell only a few "pre-paid" phones. Low end. I put the pre-paid

T-Mobile SIM

from my previous Nokia flipphone into the unlocked BLU Dash 4.5

smartphone and it worked right off the bat. I'm willing to buy T-Mobile

$10/year prepaid service, but not a locked-in T-Mobile branded phone.



So, in toto, how many phones does T-Mobile sell at any

one time? I'm guessing about 20. So that's 40 numbers.



All in all, it's not all that onerous to tell the customer

the truth.



It takes one tech (or maybe his 8-year-old kid) to read off the storage

numbers for all the phones they sell.

It's not just reading off numbers. It's that you have to then maintain
a current up to date list that has the actual memory available and
keep it updated each and every time the software gets changed. And
part of that change, they likely have no control over. For example,
they have a current load that includes many apps. That load probably
stays fixed for some number of months. But as soon as you buy the phone
and turn it on, any day there is a change to any of those apps, it could
and likely would change the amount of storage space the apps take.
It could go from the phone having the claimed 600MB of free space to
having 500MB of free space and then you'd have someone accusing them
of lying. It looks to me like they'd have to update that list of
free space for each phone every day to keep it accurate.



We have this nifty thing called

'communication' now. Sometimes paper, sometimes bits, but it really

works. They really have no excuse for not having that information

instantly available.


Try calling up Dell or HP and asking how much space is avaiable on their
Model XPG-S hard drive after all the software is loaded. I'll bet
they don't have the number either.

I agree they should at least put a note on the literature, something like:

"The 4GB of internal storage is also used for the OS and all pre-installed
apps. This reduces the amount of memory available to the user."

They should also put in a disclaimer that says that additional memory
that is added cannot be used to store apps.

I think if they did that, it's enough to put people fairly on notice.

But I don't agree that it makes the phone "unuseable" as Danny claims.
Did you see that list of apps he expects an entry level, $150 Android
phone to support? He bought an entry level phone and expects it to
have the features of a $600 phone. This memory issue hits those entry
level phones the hardest. If you move up from say 4GB of memory to 8GB,
the phone would go from having 600MB free to having 4.6GB free.

Part of the problem here is also that apparently Tmobile has some
software load on there that takes up a lot more space than is necessary.
I have a similar 4GB Android. IDK how much free memory it originally
had, but I haven't taken any apps off, have added apps that total
maybe 100 - 200MB, and it still reports 1.3GB free.

On 4/5/2014 1:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:

Nobody told me that, after Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), apparently
you can't move any apps to the sd card, nor can you install apps onto the
SD card. If that is true (and I'm still confused whether that's the
case since it appears to be so for my phone but maybe not for others),
then I feel I was the victim of deceptive advertising.

It's not the phone maker's fault, nor the phone company's fault. It
was a decision made by the OS creator, and word is that Google did
that on account of copyright infringement and bug issues. Even before
they made that change, an app couldn't be moved to an SD card unless
the app developer had enabled that option within the app.

Android always has work-arounds, and there are work-arounds for this
issue, too. It generally requires rooting the phone, then installing a
third-party app that enables app transfers to the SD card. If you
don't want to screw around with that, you can uninstall the apps you
seldom use. They'll remain in your Google Play account, ready to be
reinstalled at any time. Install them when you need them, then
uninstall them again. Clunky, but it'll work.

The problem is, you bought a very basic and limited-storage phone.
Heck, OS upgrades and a single mapping app alone would probably fill
the available onboard free space within a year or so. In the future,
you'll know you need to make onboard storage a priority when selecting
a new phone.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:59:58 -0400, TJ wrote:

It would be much more accurate if you were to use the term "internal
storage," rather than "memory" or "ROM."

I understand what you're saying.

The LG site for that phone lists it as "Total Internal Memory":
http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-...specifications

The T-Mobile site for that phone lists it as "ROM":
https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-5777

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:22:59 -0700, The Other Guy wrote:

The LG Optimus L9 is scarcely available, but if you can get it, it's
the best MetroPCS smartphone that runs on T-Mobile's network right
now.

Apparently, OTHER PEOPLE don't agree with you.

I had read the reviews, and, what I *now* know is that they're
apparently mostly shills for the manufacturer, and not really
a detailed phone review.

That is, they're a "review" only in name, but not in function.

It was a rare review that even mentioned that they *downloaded*
a *single* app onto the phone. I suspect most didn't even create
a Google Play account, before they published the shill/review.

It seems, based on my read of the reviews, that they didn't
even *mention* how much usable memory was on the phone.

What kind of review, for a 4GB phone with only 600MB of memory,
doesn't tell the user that information? Especially when the 32GB
sdcard can't be used to store the apps that a user would want to
add.

That error of omission is, perhaps, excusable for a phone with
a lot of usable memory; but for a phone where the usable memory
is a paltry 600MB, it's a very important spec that, if a reviewer
omits it, I have to suspect the review as a mere shill.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 03:19:52 -0500, K Wills wrote:

It's still a 4GB phone.
It just has 600MB available for your use.

Indeed!

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:57:42 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

He's not talking about RAM. He's talking about what they call ROM.
And actually calling it ROM is wrong. It's not ROM, it's Flash memory.

Correct!

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 23:25:49 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

Perhaps we SHOULD have been able to intuit that we couldn't put apps on
the external sdcard, but I really don't see where that information is
readily available to the ordinary non-technical user.

I agree with you.
That's the fundamental problem.

I am, I agree, an uninformed consumer.
Sure, I had read the reviews; but I had not known, at the time, that
the reviewers hadn't actually *used* the phone to store any apps!

Thinking back, I don't think a single reviewer knew (or even tried)
that you couldn't use the SD card to store apps.

Realizing the reviewers failed on the most basic of specs, I am
tentatively concluding they're all just shills for advertising.

Even after having realized that sad fact, and, after learning
(the hard way) that there was only 600MB of usable storage for
apps on the hone, I *still* couldn't get T-Mobile to admit that,
until *after* I told them that I filed a complaint against them
(and, more importantly, that I included their employee ID numbers!)

So, in the end, you *can* get T-Mobile to tell the truth!
(it just takes reporting their employee ID to the FCC/FTC first).

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:54:30 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:22:59 -0700, The Other Guy wrote:



The LG Optimus L9 is scarcely available, but if you can get it, it's

the best MetroPCS smartphone that runs on T-Mobile's network right

now.



Apparently, OTHER PEOPLE don't agree with you.



I had read the reviews, and, what I *now* know is that they're

apparently mostly shills for the manufacturer, and not really

a detailed phone review.



That is, they're a "review" only in name, but not in function.



It was a rare review that even mentioned that they *downloaded*

a *single* app onto the phone. I suspect most didn't even create

a Google Play account, before they published the shill/review.



It seems, based on my read of the reviews, that they didn't

even *mention* how much usable memory was on the phone.



What kind of review, for a 4GB phone with only 600MB of memory,

doesn't tell the user that information?

Did the reviewers actually test the Tmobile version of
the phone? IMO, it's very possible that Tmobile's software load is the
problem, that for some reason their software load is unusually large.
My similar 4GB Android still has 1.3GB free. If they tested the phone
from a carrier other than Tmobile, the memory might be a lot more.


Especially when the 32GB

sdcard can't be used to store the apps that a user would want to

add.



That error of omission is, perhaps, excusable for a phone with

a lot of usable memory; but for a phone where the usable memory

is a paltry 600MB, it's a very important spec that, if a reviewer

omits it, I have to suspect the review as a mere shill.

I don't know if that makes them a shill or not, but I agree you
would think including how much usable memory the phone had and
that a Flash card can't be used for apps would be in the review.

Moe DeLoughan wrote in :

The problem is, you bought a very basic and limited-storage phone.
Heck, OS upgrades and a single mapping app alone would probably fill
the available onboard free space within a year or so. In the future,
you'll know you need to make onboard storage a priority when selecting
a new phone.


Exactly. He had a list of 48+ apps that he wanted to install, which is way
to many for the cheap piece of junk device that he purchased. What he
needs to do is man-up to the fact that he jumpted on a low price
that was too good to be true without doing his homework on what he was
buying. He bought a Vega and is ****ed that it doesn't perform like a
Corvette, so he wants to blame the manufacturer.

On 04/08/2014 01:32 PM, Danny D. wrote:


I am, I agree, an uninformed consumer.
Sure, I had read the reviews; but I had not known, at the time, that
the reviewers hadn't actually *used* the phone to store any apps!

Thinking back, I don't think a single reviewer knew (or even tried)
that you couldn't use the SD card to store apps.

More likely they, as experienced smartphone users, know but don't
consider it as important as you do.

Realizing the reviewers failed on the most basic of specs, I am
tentatively concluding they're all just shills for advertising.

I doubt it. I expect reviewers are more interested in comparing how well
a phone runs apps compared to similarly-specked models, not how many you
can install before filling it up.

TJ

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:58:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Sure, but again on my similar phone the total of all apps removable
or not, is 670MB, with 1.3GB still free.

I suspect that you do NOT have 1.3 "still free".

Depending on your Android operating system version,
see the details why I suspect that you probably
have only about half that 1.3 GB as available ...

How do we get Android to spit out the true memory & storage
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...id/e6svmGS1M-E[1-25-false]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:43:34 -0700, Oren wrote:

OP could have bought a 32GB phone with internal memory and not need a
SD Card.

Which? warns over mobile phone memory on Tuesday 08 April 2014

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

14 Comments

A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data
storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.

The worst offender was the Samsung Galaxy S4 was found to have just 9GB
instead of the 16GB claimed on the box.

Next to bottom was the Sony XperialZ which had 10GB, followed by the
Blackberry Z10 with 11GB. The Google Nexus4 had 13GB while the best of the
bunch was HTC Windows 8X with 15GB.

Rory Boland, Which? deputy tech editor and digital producer, said that
every smartphone has an operating system - such as Google's Android or iOS
for iPhone - and this takes up a certain amount of storage.

The phone therefore has much less space for actual storage.
"Throw in some built in apps - and most manufacturers do - and your
storage size can be reduced to a shoebox.

"We found some are far worse than others in hogging storage space - put
your hand up the Samsung Galaxy S4,¡ he said.

Mr Boland said all phones have lower storage than advertised.

"It's a poor performance from the Samsung Galaxy S4 but all phones are
guilty of advertising more space than is actually available.

"An operating system needs to take up some of the storage space on your
phone - a better, more powerful operating system may - may - need to take
up a little more room.

"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much
space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a
lottery.¡

Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make
better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may
be hard to find.

According to online forums the Apple iPhone 16GB phone has only 13.5GB
storage space.

"Essentially, any phone you purchase will have less space available than
the amount advertised. And there is a lot of variation. You might be buying
a 16GB phone but in reality you could be getting anything from 15GB of free
storage with the HTC Windows 8X to just 9GB with the S4.

" There is not even uniformity across operating systems. So the Google
Nexus 4 has 13GB of available storage while the Samsung Galaxy S4 has just
9GB - yet both phones run on Android. Samsung has stuffed the device with
extra apps.

"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and
you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone
to phone."

All the mobile phone companies insisted storage for operating systems and
updates is necessary and is explained in the small print.

Samsung said:"The Samsung GALAXY S4 uses part of its internal memory to
bring our customers its innovative and unique features. A portion of memory
is reserved for future software upgrades, such as potentially new platform
updates or premium suite updates. By doing so, we are able to provide added
value for GALAXY S4 owners throughout the deviceÿs entire lifespan."

16GB Phones: What do you really get?

HTC Windows 8X 15GB

The Google Nexus4 13GB

Blackberry Z10 11GB

Sony XperialZ 10GB

Samsung Galaxy S4 9GB

Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:57:42 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

I agree with him that Tmobile should add something that says that
4GB includes the OS, pre-loaded apps, etc and that expansion memory
card can't be used for app storage.

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data
storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.

"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much
space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a
lottery.¡

Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make
better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may
be hard to find.

"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and
you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone
to phone."

Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:24:49 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Part of the problem here is also that apparently Tmobile has some
software load on there that takes up a lot more space than is necessary.

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data
storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.

"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much
space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a
lottery.¡

Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make
better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may
be hard to find.

"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and
you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone
to phone."

Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 04:38:49 -0500, VinnyB wrote:

Looks like the real problem is the OP didn't do his homework before he
bought the phones, so now he is trying to blame the seller.

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data
storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.

"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much
space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a
lottery.¡

Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make
better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may
be hard to find.

"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and
you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone
to phone."

Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:12:44 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

The complaint is that the mobile carrier *knows* that the
usable memory is only 600MB, but yet they persist in telling
the user that the phone is 4GB with a 32GB flash card

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data
storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.

"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much
space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a
lottery.¡

Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make
better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may
be hard to find.

"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and
you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone
to phone."

Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:43:00 PM UTC-4, Danny DiAmico wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:58:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



Sure, but again on my similar phone the total of all apps removable

or not, is 670MB, with 1.3GB still free.



I suspect that you do NOT have 1.3 "still free".



Depending on your Android operating system version,

see the details why I suspect that you probably

have only about half that 1.3 GB as available ...


Maybe it's time to ask what your 600MB number is based on. I think
most of us here are assuming it's what shows up when you look at it
in the system settings, where the phone reports the free storage space.
What does the phone show? And if it's based on that, then why shouldn't
I believe my 1.3GB?





How do we get Android to spit out the true memory & storage

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...id/e6svmGS1M-E[1-25-false]

I glanced at that thread before. There is a lot of discussion, allegations,
back and forth, but I don't see anything settled or resolved and I'm not
interested in wading through all of it.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:47:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Did the reviewers actually test the Tmobile version of
the phone? IMO, it's very possible that Tmobile's software load is the
problem, that for some reason their software load is unusually large.

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data
storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.

"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much
space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a
lottery.¡

Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make
better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may
be hard to find.

"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and
you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone
to phone."

Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:41:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Why can't the consumer turn on the phone when they first take
possession and see how much free memory it has?

The only way to know the answer is to get out a
calculator and add up the scores of apps that take
up the free space since most (but not all) Android
operating system versions don't tell the true story
on how much memory is actually in the phone in the
first place.

Gory details he
How do we get Android to spit out the true memory & storage
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...id/e6svmGS1M-E[1-25-false]

On 08/04/14 20:47, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:43:34 -0700, Oren wrote:

OP could have bought a 32GB phone with internal memory and not need a
SD Card.

Which? warns over mobile phone memory on Tuesday 08 April 2014


"Which" magazine UK is an appalling collection of generalisations,
intended to help the mostly elderly and clueless make "informed
decisions" through dumbed down top 10 lists, and the non-display of
specifications. It is debatable whether subscribers can learn much from
the articles to make their own minds how the the important features of
the products actually relate to them. The guidance of sheep....

--
Adrian C

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 18:45:02 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

If you feel like complaining about your cell phone, you get 1,000 characters
on the online FCC complaint form & 3,000 characters on the online FTC form:

FCC 888-225-5322
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/f...orm_type=2000A

FTC 877-382-4357
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/Details

Join the crowd!

False advertising? Samsung Galaxy S4 16GB version actually only has 8GB
usable
http://dottech.org/107633/false-adve...JuiFlhymxaA.99

52GB Memory? Sony India using deceptive advertising for their Xperia Tipo
smartphone in India
http://techwhack.co/52gb-memory-sony...ne-india-5084/

Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer
watchdogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html

Microsoft faces class action lawsuit over the Surface¢s lack of usable
memory
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...-space/#!DfFvd

False Advertising? Samsung Responds to Galaxy S4 Gigabyte Scandal
http://www.androidpit.com/samsung-re...gabyte-scandal

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:47:48 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:43:34 -0700, Oren wrote:



OP could have bought a 32GB phone with internal memory and not need a

SD Card.



Which? warns over mobile phone memory on Tuesday 08 April 2014



Mobile phones have much less storage than advertised, according to consumer

watchdogs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ne-memory.html



14 Comments



A Which? study found that mobile phones claiming to provide 16GB of data

storage actually had memory as low as 9GB.


The article just conflated "data storage" with "storage" or more correctly
"internal storage". In this whole thread so far, I haven't seen anyone
claim that the phone manufacturer, carrier, etc ever said that it has
4GB of "data storage". So, whoever is writing this isn't much better in
the accuracy dept.





The worst offender was the Samsung Galaxy S4 was found to have just 9GB

instead of the 16GB claimed on the box.


I'll take bets that Samsung never put on the box or anywhere else that
the phone had 16GB of data storage.




Next to bottom was the Sony XperialZ which had 10GB, followed by the

Blackberry Z10 with 11GB. The Google Nexus4 had 13GB while the best of the

bunch was HTC Windows 8X with 15GB.



Rory Boland, Which? deputy tech editor and digital producer, said that

every smartphone has an operating system - such as Google's Android or iOS

for iPhone - and this takes up a certain amount of storage.



The phone therefore has much less space for actual storage.

"Throw in some built in apps - and most manufacturers do - and your

storage size can be reduced to a shoebox.



"We found some are far worse than others in hogging storage space - put

your hand up the Samsung Galaxy S4," he said.



Mr Boland said all phones have lower storage than advertised.



"It's a poor performance from the Samsung Galaxy S4 but all phones are

guilty of advertising more space than is actually available.



"An operating system needs to take up some of the storage space on your

phone - a better, more powerful operating system may - may - need to take

up a little more room.



What I don't understand is if it's the OS, why does the Android OS apparently
vary so much from one phone to the next? Or maybe from one carrier to the
next. I have it on my entry level
4GB phone and I have 1.3GB free space showing. And that is after I
loaded 100 - 200MB of my own apps.





"The problem is that manufacturers aren't making people aware of how much

space they're really getting when they buy the phone. And it's a bit of a

lottery."



Not if you look at the phone, turn it on, before you buy it. I think the
best the manufacturer can do is say that the phone has X GB of internal
storage and point out that the OS and pre-installed apps can take a
significant amount of it. Otherwise, to give an actual number, they would
have to track every phone they make and update the number every day,
because apps are constantly being updated with new versions and can grow.



Mr Boland urged manufacturers to be more honest so that consumers can make

better choices. The actual storage is sometimes in the small print but may

be hard to find.



According to online forums the Apple iPhone 16GB phone has only 13.5GB

storage space.


Only 13.5GB? instead of 16GB? Now you're getting silly. When you
buy a PC from Dell or
HP, how much free space is on a 1TB drive? It isn't 1TB. It isn't even
1TB on a bare drive after it's formatted.





"Essentially, any phone you purchase will have less space available than

the amount advertised. And there is a lot of variation. You might be buying

a 16GB phone but in reality you could be getting anything from 15GB of free

storage with the HTC Windows 8X to just 9GB with the S4.



" There is not even uniformity across operating systems. So the Google

Nexus 4 has 13GB of available storage while the Samsung Galaxy S4 has just

9GB - yet both phones run on Android. Samsung has stuffed the device with

extra apps.


I'd love to know what those apps are. It would seem that would make
the most sense, that it's being loaded with extra apps. But I'm left
wondering what the apps are that Samsung wants to stuff a phone with
that total on the order of 4GB. That's one hell of a lot of something.





"Ultimately, it's not fair. You aren't getting the space you expected and

you have no easy way of knowing how much you will actually get from phone

to phone."



All the mobile phone companies insisted storage for operating systems and

updates is necessary and is explained in the small print.



Samsung said:"The Samsung GALAXY S4 uses part of its internal memory to

bring our customers its innovative and unique features. A portion of memory

is reserved for future software upgrades, such as potentially new platform

updates or premium suite updates. By doing so, we are able to provide added

value for GALAXY S4 owners throughout the device's entire lifespan."


The future updates thing is interesting. I wonder if that's a big part of
it. That some manufacturers are reserving a lot of extra space so that
if a future version on Android comes out, they can support it.





16GB Phones: What do you really get?



HTC Windows 8X 15GB



The Google Nexus4 13GB



Blackberry Z10 11GB



Sony XperialZ 10GB



Samsung Galaxy S4 9GB



Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

Yes, I do.

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:59:25 PM UTC-4, Danny DiAmico wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:41:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



Why can't the consumer turn on the phone when they first take

possession and see how much free memory it has?



The only way to know the answer is to get out a

calculator and add up the scores of apps that take

up the free space since most (but not all) Android

operating system versions don't tell the true story

on how much memory is actually in the phone in the

first place.



So you claim.



Gory details he

How do we get Android to spit out the true memory & storage

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...id/e6svmGS1M-E[1-25-false]

As if anyone is going to wade through all that or gives a damn.

On 4/8/2014 1:32 PM, Zaky Waky wrote:
Moe DeLoughan wrote in :

The problem is, you bought a very basic and limited-storage phone.
Heck, OS upgrades and a single mapping app alone would probably fill
the available onboard free space within a year or so. In the future,
you'll know you need to make onboard storage a priority when selecting
a new phone.


Exactly. He had a list of 48+ apps that he wanted to install, which is way
to many for the cheap piece of junk device that he purchased. What he
needs to do is man-up to the fact that he jumpted on a low price
that was too good to be true without doing his homework on what he was
buying. He bought a Vega and is ****ed that it doesn't perform like a
Corvette, so he wants to blame the manufacturer.


It was like he expected a Smart Car to have the same cargo space as a
Ford Expedition. Nope. Not even with a rooftop carrier attached to the
Smart Car - and nope, you can't access stuff in the carrier while
you're driving, either.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 18:45:02 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

FCC 888-225-5322
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/f...orm_type=2000A

FTC 877-382-4357
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/Details

Even CNET was fooled!

Notice how DECEPTIVE Samsung was when they answered CNET's question
as to why there was so little memory left on the Samsung Galaxy S4:
http://dottech.org/107633/false-adve...has-8gb-usable

Samsung said (and I quote):
´For the Galaxy S4 16GB model, approximately 6.85GB occupies [the] system
part of internal memory, which is 1GB bigger than that of the Galaxy S3, in
order to provide [a] high resolution display and more powerful features to
our consumers. To offer the ultimate mobile experience to our users,
Samsung provides [a] microSD slot on Galaxy S4 for extension of memory.¡

Notice that Samsung didn't mention that you CAN'T USE that SDCARD
memory for app storage, which was the original problem in the
first place (that the app & os storage took up all the memory).

Also notice how Samsung IMPLIED (ever so insiduiously) that the
memory could be used to solve the problem (of app storage bloat).

To me, they are clearly being deceptive.
They even fooled CNET (who didn't mention what I'm saying above).

In article , wrote:
Ann Marie Brest:
Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

Irrelevant. We are in a corporate state, and the phone company defines
truth.

... or to rephrase that ... it is acceptable and expected that advertising
contains inconsistencies, misleading statements, errors and lies.

Ann Marie Brest:
Do you think mobile phone companies should be more honest about storage?

Irrelevant. We are in a corporate state, and the phone company defines
truth.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:57:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Maybe it's time to ask what your 600MB number is based on. I think
most of us here are assuming it's what shows up when you look at it
in the system settings, where the phone reports the free storage space.
What does the phone show? And if it's based on that, then why shouldn't
I believe my 1.3GB?

You should *not* believe that you actually have 1.3GB!
You seem to also have fallen for that trick (as did I).

What shows up on my 600MB LG Optimus L9 is 1.8GB (which I have said all along).
What's ACTUALLY available is about half that, at 600MB.

I suspect you have a similar reduction in what you "think" is available.
You *probably* have something more like 600MB available user storage.

Even after reading all 200 posts in that "how to get android to tell the
truth about memory" thread, I'm still not sure WHY they do this.

To delve deeper, depending on your VERSION of Android, what you're
probably seeing as 1.3GB is what appears to the Operating System as
the available memory *before* the carrier-added bloatware and
certainly before you added any apps.

But, what's nearly certain (depending on your version of Android),
is that you have *much* less than 1.3GB of available space for apps!

The only way to arrive at the 600MB number (that I know of) is
to add up the sizes of all the "stuff" that is in that 1.8MB.

Bear in mind, I'm (clearly) not an Android expert, so, I would
ask those who know better than I how to arrive at that number
of truly available space for apps.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:35:43 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

To delve deeper, depending on your VERSION of Android, what you're
probably seeing as 1.3GB is what appears to the Operating System as
the available memory *before* the carrier-added bloatware and
certainly before you added any apps.

One way to tell, is to add an app.
See if the number changes.
On mine, it doesn't.
Does yours?

NOTE: I'd love for an Android expert to help explain all of this
since it's an important figure that everyone seems to misinterpret
(including me, at first).

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:58:54 -0400, TJ wrote:

More likely they, as experienced smartphone users, know but don't
consider it as important as you do.

That "may" be the case, but, if so, why did the reviewers accept the
clearly incorrect answer the phone reported for the "available space"?

The fact they didn't catch on to what took me a while myself to
understand, is that this "available space" isn't the available space
at all.

I still wish an Android expert would chime in to explain this, but,
it appears to be the space that *was* available after the OS was
installed.

The actual available space is MUCH smaller than what is reported
by the Android OS, on the order of half of what is reported
(depending on the Android version and on what the user installed).

So, if the PC Magazine and CNET reviewers did understand what they
were doing, why did they report the wrong numbers when they
complained about the bloatware?

The actual numbers are far worse than those that they complained
about. Methinks that, if they actually knew this, they would have
said so.

But, they didn't.

On 04/08/2014 09:03 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:58:54 -0400, TJ wrote:

More likely they, as experienced smartphone users, know but don't
consider it as important as you do.

That "may" be the case, but, if so, why did the reviewers accept the
clearly incorrect answer the phone reported for the "available space"?

The fact they didn't catch on to what took me a while myself to
understand, is that this "available space" isn't the available space
at all.

I still wish an Android expert would chime in to explain this, but,
it appears to be the space that *was* available after the OS was
installed.

The actual available space is MUCH smaller than what is reported
by the Android OS, on the order of half of what is reported
(depending on the Android version and on what the user installed).

So, if the PC Magazine and CNET reviewers did understand what they
were doing, why did they report the wrong numbers when they
complained about the bloatware?

The actual numbers are far worse than those that they complained
about. Methinks that, if they actually knew this, they would have
said so.

But, they didn't.

I'm no expert by any means, but I would think that caches could explain
at least part of the discrepancy you're seeing. Because each app runs in
its own "sandbox," each app has its own cache, with the size of each
cache expanding or contracting depending on how the apps are used. Thus,
if you check available storage before using any apps, as someone who is
reviewing a phone might do, you'll get a different number than *after*
you use some of them.

TJ

On 04/08/2014 08:35 PM, Danny D. wrote:


You should *not* believe that you actually have 1.3GB!
You seem to also have fallen for that trick (as did I).

What shows up on my 600MB LG Optimus L9 is 1.8GB (which I have said all along).
What's ACTUALLY available is about half that, at 600MB.


You need to complain to somebody about your calculator, too. Or maybe
your public school education.

600MB is 1/3 of 1.8GB, not 1/2.

TJ

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 00:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

What shows up on my 600MB LG Optimus L9 is 1.8GB (which I have said all along).
What's ACTUALLY available is about half that, at 600MB.

600 MB is rather closer to 1/3 of 1.8 GB than to half of it. Why are *you*
allowed to be so inaccurate but T-Mo and LG are *not* :-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.