On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 03:20:06 -0500, K Wills wrote:

In Danny's defense, the PTB list it as ROM on the spec sheet.

Exactly. And, failing information to the contrary, I must assume that, when
they call something ROM, it's because it *is* ROM, and not something an
ordinary user can write to -- or erase from -- without heroic efforts :-) .

If I'm wrong in that, well, show me how :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:53:31 -0700, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

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...s-over-mobile-
phone-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?



I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the
capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the
operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When
just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?

--
Neil
Reverse €˜a and €˜r
Remove €˜l to get address.

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:59:13 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
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).

I downloaded storage analyzer, which appears to be a popular and
highly rated Android app for reporting memory usage. It appears to be
confused, because it reports on the main screen 1.93GB free and when
I click on the pie chart icon, it shows 1.95GB total, ~1.12 GB free.
The 1.12GB number is exactly what the ZTE phone says is free when I go to
system settings and click on storage. And it also
went down from the previous 1.13GB after I downloaded the storage
analyzer app. The info for the app says it takes up 1.6MB, so that
is consistent with the 1.13GB going down to 1.12GB.

So, if anything, it's this free app that appears to be reporting
the wrong memory size and it's overstating it by a huge amount compared
to the phone, not the other way around. So far, I don't see
anything that says I have less than the 1.12GB free that the phone
shows. But it's also a curious thing that what is supposed to be
a memory analyzer disagrees with itself on how much memory is free.

On 04/09/2014 04:56 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:



I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the
capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the
operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When
just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?

Even at the tender age of 64, I know that common sense is all too uncommon.

It comes from being "protected" from our own folly far too much. If
you're never allowed to stumble, you don't develop the ability to avoid
stumbling.

TJ

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 11:24:34 PM UTC-4, tlvp wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 03:20:06 -0500, K Wills wrote:



In Danny's defense, the PTB list it as ROM on the spec sheet.



Exactly. And, failing information to the contrary, I must assume that, when

they call something ROM, it's because it *is* ROM, and not something an

ordinary user can write to -- or erase from -- without heroic efforts :-) .



If I'm wrong in that, well, show me how :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

--

Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

You're wrong because obviously the smartphone has Flash and
that is what is used to hold the OS, apps, pics, music, etc. Even the
BIOS on PCs has been Flash, not ROM or EPROM for decades now.
You don't want ROM because it can't ever be updated. Flash can
and besides holding the OS, the same chip can hold user data,
apps that are added, etc. Further,
don't you think it would be pretty dumb for the whole industry to
be distinguishing phones as 4GB, 8GB, 32GB, etc, if it's just ROM
that the user has no access at all too? Why would anyone care?

The simple fact is that for Danny's phone, Tmobile incorrectly
calls the 4GB ROM. LG calls it internal storage. Internal Flash memory
would be an even more accurate description.

On 04/08/2014 11:24 PM, tlvp wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 03:20:06 -0500, K Wills wrote:

In Danny's defense, the PTB list it as ROM on the spec sheet.

Exactly. And, failing information to the contrary, I must assume that, when
they call something ROM, it's because it *is* ROM, and not something an
ordinary user can write to -- or erase from -- without heroic efforts :-) .

If I'm wrong in that, well, show me how :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

One should avoid making assumptions that defy logic. Isn't that what got
Danny in trouble in the first place?

TJ

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

In my case, I feel I was deceived by deceptive advertising on T-Mobile
LG Android phones which advertised 4GB of internal memory *plus* the
capability of a 32-GB external SD card (presumably for augmenting that
paltry memory).

UPDATE on the first 4GB phone gift:
T-Mobile sent this Google LG Nexus 5 to replace (what I characterize
as the nearly useless) LG Optimus F3 (with me paying the difference):
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...cd5359ed83.jpg

Out of the box, the Android 4.4.2 OS "reports" 12.28GB of the
original 16GB of internal flash memory as being "available".
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/...bd07a0ed_b.jpg

I'm not sure if that's an accurate report, as I'm not familiar
with this newer OS, but that's what it says out of the box.

As for the second 4GB gift, I'm preparing to root the T-Mobile
LG Optimus L9, and take my chances on seeing what I can free
up of the puny amount of memory available.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:46:52 -0400, TJ wrote:

One should avoid making assumptions that defy logic.
Isn't that what got Danny in trouble in the first place?

Indeed!

The (stupid) assumption I made was that the 4GB would
be enough, when, after it's filled up with the OS &
bloatware, isn't close to enough.

Luckily, (a) I'm learning, with your help & advice,
and (b) I now have a lot of phones now to give away
as gifts!

Here are the ones just in my hands at the moment:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/1...e10a2362_b.jpg

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:35:10 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

So, if anything, it's this free app that appears to be reporting
the wrong memory size and it's overstating it by a huge amount compared
to the phone, not the other way around. So far, I don't see
anything that says I have less than the 1.12GB free that the phone
shows. But it's also a curious thing that what is supposed to be
a memory analyzer disagrees with itself on how much memory is free.

I don't disagree.

I tested a score of supposed memory analyzers, where many reported
different information for the same phone, all of it being wrong:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/...5daa12cc23.jpg

In fact, simply changing operating systems on the same phone:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2888/...82b45a2b_c.jpg

Reported drastically different memory, on the same phone
(changing nothing else!):
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7387/...67414c1a_c.jpg

So, until someone who knows way more than I do about Android
tells me what's going on, I'm going to tentatively conclude
I can't believe anything coming out of these memory reporting
programs!

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:56:34 -0700, Danny DiAmico wrote:

T-Mobile sent this Google LG Nexus 5 to replace (what I characterize
as the nearly useless) LG Optimus F3 (with me paying the difference):
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...cd5359ed83.jpg

BTW, does anyone know how to reference a FLICKR photo so that
it is the same size as that which I uploaded?

I had uploaded a full-size picture (something like 2Kx2K), but,
viewing page source, this is the only photo reference I could
find.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...cd5359ed83.jpg

How do we get FLICKR to report the link to the photo full size?

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:43:01 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 04/09/2014 04:56 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:



I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the
capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the
operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When
just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?

Even at the tender age of 64, I know that common sense is all too
uncommon.

It comes from being "protected" from our own folly far too much. If
you're never allowed to stumble, you don't develop the ability to avoid
stumbling.

TJ

TJ - I like it. Well put.



--
Neil
Reverse €˜a and €˜r
Remove €˜l to get address.

On 04/08/2014 01:41 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

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.

Indeed, but this seems like something we should know before actually
buying the phone. Now that we know what to look for we can ask to see
an actual out-of-the-box phone and look at the actual memory usage. We
didn't know about that when we were virgins, though.

Which of you former virgins actually about that before you bought your
first android phone and where/how did you find that information?

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.

The difference here, however, is that the space is easily seen.
Suppose the Corvette ads loudly proclaimed a V-8 engine, but when you
finally opened up the hood you found out that each cylinder only
displaced 100 cc? Yeah, you might have looked before you bought the
car, but how many people know that a cylinder can have pretty much any
displacement that somebody wants to build AND that yeah, size does matter.

I've had people tell me about engine size in terms of cylinders, not
displacement. When I ask about that they look confused.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ==============
"Is there any way I can help without actually getting involved?"
-- Jennifer, WKRP

On Friday, April 11, 2014 5:17:52 PM UTC-4, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/08/2014 08:24 PM, tlvp wrote:



On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 03:20:06 -0500, K Wills wrote:



In Danny's defense, the PTB list it as ROM on the spec sheet.



Exactly. And, failing information to the contrary, I must assume that, when

they call something ROM, it's because it *is* ROM, and not something an

ordinary user can write to -- or erase from -- without heroic efforts :-) .



Another wrinkle: Are they using decimal or hex numbers?



Have you ever seen memory in a product spec'd in hex? I haven't. Do you
mean using base 2 measurement, ie 1024 vs 1000? That is a nit because
4GB measured either way is close to 4GB and it has an insignificant
effect on the true memory size. It can't make 4GB into 600MB. But
loading the OS and pre-installed apps sure can.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:31:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

It can't make 4GB into 600MB.
But loading the OS and pre-installed apps sure can.

I think T-Mobile knows that they lied because, otherwise,
why would they have given me full face value (the entire $240)
that I had paid, months ago, for the LG Optimus F3?

Of course, I also paid full face value ($400) for the Google
Nexus 5 from T-Mobile, which, we all know would have gotten
me on the open market a 32GB phone instead of a 16GB phone,
but, I had wanted so badly to get rid of the LG Optimus F3
that I went for it.

My gift recipient has been notified, and they are happy to
get rid of the F3. I just have to find a case now for the
Google Nexus 5 that will handle the brutal teen environment.

Any suggestions on cases? I'm not too good at those either.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:44:55 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

The simple fact is that for Danny's phone, Tmobile incorrectly
calls the 4GB ROM. LG calls it internal storage. Internal Flash memory
would be an even more accurate description.

I am glad you pointed this out.

Only belatedly, did I realize the (correct) point that it's not
"ROM" in any correct sense of the word.

It's FLASH memory, in the most correct sense.
So, I do apologize if any of my earlier comments didn't make sense,
as I had not understood what you were trying to tell me.

Now, I think I do, and I am sorry for calling it ROM when it's
clearly not ROM at all.

The funny thing is, as you noted, that T-Mobile calls it ROM.
In this comparison of the two gift phones, there is something
else that they talk about:
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/com...es/8148%2C7862

Notice they call it "Built-in Storage"; but also notice the line
AFTER the built-in storage. It says "Maximum User Storage", which,
for the LG Optimus F3, is listed as 1.24GB.

So, that's interesting because that 1.24GB must be *before*
T-Mobile loads its bloatware, which drops the /real/ user storage
to just half that.

But, at least phonearena seems to understand that it's an important
figure. In fact, it's WAY more important than the amount of FLASH
that the phone had at the factory (which is all T-Mobile tells you).

I think they know they goofed; otherwise, why did they give me
full value for the phone?

On 2014-04-12, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:31:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

It can't make 4GB into 600MB.
But loading the OS and pre-installed apps sure can.

I think T-Mobile knows that they lied because, otherwise,
why would they have given me full face value (the entire $240)
that I had paid, months ago, for the LG Optimus F3?

Of course, I also paid full face value ($400) for the Google
Nexus 5 from T-Mobile, which, we all know would have gotten
me on the open market a 32GB phone instead of a 16GB phone,
but, I had wanted so badly to get rid of the LG Optimus F3
that I went for it.

My gift recipient has been notified, and they are happy to
get rid of the F3. I just have to find a case now for the
Google Nexus 5 that will handle the brutal teen environment.

Any suggestions on cases? I'm not too good at those either.

Is this supposed to be different when buying a computer with 8 gigs
of memory? Do you think that you really have 8 gigs of usable
memory. Or get a 500 gig hard drive & expect 500 gig of space
actually available to use? There is always "overhead" on the hard disk
as in file allocation tables, cluster sizes, etc.

That's the reason that the ability to use an external drive should
be considered as part of the criteria when buying.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:32 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

So you'd be OK with it if the 4GB of internal memory were completely
consumed by the OS and permanent apps such that you couldn't download
ANY additional apps or store any additional photos/email/whatever?
Wouldn't you expect some sort of warning? At what point does the
warning become not-misleading?

Just for the record, I admit I was a total moron for even THINKING
that a 4GB phone would be usable as a gift to a teen.

Now, I know, that, pretty much, 4MB is a TINY amount of flash,
and, that the greedy carrier will suck up every last bit with
their unnecessary bloatware (some are almost double that bloat,
if you can imagine that), which can't easily be removed.

So, having been burned twice, I realize that the "promise" of
the external SD card is a hollow promise, and, it's made with
malice of thought by the carrier, because they never tell you
in all their advertisements that you can't actually use the SD
card for app storage.

I realize now, that if they actually told the truth, that nobody
would buy their phones. This I now know.

However, moving forward, "my" recommendations for the best
inexpensive phone, would be to still aim for the $200 mark,
but, don't ever consider any phone with less than about 16GB
of "stated" flash "internal memory", of which you'll likely
end up with less than 12GB of usable storage space for apps.

If it has an external SD card, that's not a negative; it's a
good thing - but - my advice would be that the sd card is only
marginally useful because it can't be used for app storage.

The key point, that I had not realized (and nobody had told me),
is that you can't rely on the SD card augmenting the flash memory.
Period.

That's the key takeaway, and the lesson learned, the hard way.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:52:06 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

... does anyone know how to reference a FLICKR photo so that
it is the same size as that which I uploaded?

I had uploaded a full-size picture (something like 2Kx2K), but,
viewing page source, this is the only photo reference I could
find.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...cd5359ed83.jpg

How do we get FLICKR to report the link to the photo full size?

I hope I'm wrong, but my impression is FLICKR will never let you have a
true copy of what you uploaded back -- only an assortment of variously
reduced quasi-thumbnails. I'd be overjoyed to be proved wrong :-) . -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:15:48 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

I've never truly believed what any reviewer had
to say about anything, even Consumer Reports; CR regards as important
things that I regard as trivial and vice versa.

I don't disagree!

You listed two problems that cause reviewers to NOT give the
consumer the information we need.

1. They have to kowtow to their advertisers, and,
2. They don't test what is really important.

I think *both* of the above is why both CNET and PC Magazine
failed to warn the users of this problem.

If they said the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9 were unusable
because they had almost no space left for app storage, the
advertisers might object to that strong statement (of truth).

And, they didn't test what REALLY matters. Instead of going
on and on about the fact that it's a "dual core" phone, they
could have said that you can't install more than a few apps,
period, over the life of the phone.

So, the reviewers failed.
The carrier failed us too.

I lost money (a lot of money) on these two phones, so, I have
been hurt by idiotically believing that the SD card could
augment the lack of flash memory - and by the carrier bloating
up what little was left of the flash memory - and by that
carrier making that bloat non removable.

Luckily, I have a remedy:
a) I have already traded in the LG Optimus F3 for the Nexus 5
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/1...e10a2362_b.jpg

b) I am studying how to root & cyanogenmod the LG Optimus L9
http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....php?t=2369055

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:28:33 -0400, tlvp wrote:

How do we get FLICKR to report the link to the photo full size?

I hope I'm wrong, but my impression is FLICKR will never let you have a
true copy of what you uploaded back -- only an assortment of variously
reduced quasi-thumbnails. I'd be overjoyed to be proved wrong

Don't tell anyone, but, what I've been doing (painfully), is
looking at the "view source" of the displayed photo in order to
reconstruct that URL.

For example, here is what I'm "supposed" to show you (I guess):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98287134@N02/13754583623/

But, what I "want" to show you is just this pictu
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...849b4ff3_h.jpg

I get that URL, painstakingly, from the source code of Flickr
that I can get by doing a certain few (unstated) things to my
about:config in my browser - and then when I view the photo,
I can see the source code.

If you have a BETTER way for me to point to a photo for you
guys, please let me know as you all know I try to show you
what I'm doing.

As an aside ...

Interestingly, Flickr advertises for programmers in that source!
Here is a snippet ...
!DOCTYPE html
html xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" lang="en-us" class="no-js html-photo-page-view"
head
!-- _
. - ` : ` '.' `` . - '` ` .
' ,gi$@$q pggq pggq . ' pggq
+ j@@@P*\7 @@@@ @@@@ _ : @@@@ ! ._ , . _ - .
. . @@@K @@@@ ; -` `_,_ ` . @@@@ ;/ ` _,,_ `
; pgg@@@@gggq @@@@ @@@@ .' ,iS@@@@@Si @@@@ .6@@@P' !!!! j!!!!7 ;
@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ ` j@@@P*"*+Y7 @@@@ .6@@@P !!!!47*"*+;
`_ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@ .@@@7 . ` @@@P ` !!!!; . '
. @@@@ ' @@@@ @@@@ :@@@! !: @@@@7@@@K `; !!!! ' ` '
@@@@ . @@@@ @@@@ `%@@@. . @@@@`7@@@b . !!!! :
! @@@@ @@@@ @@@@ \@@@$+,,+4b @@@@ `7@@@b !!!!
@@@@ : @@@@ @@@@ `7%S@@hX!P' @@@@ `7@@@b !!!! .
: """" """" """" :. `^"^` """" `""""" ''''
` - . . _._ ` _._ _ . -
, ` ,glllllllllg, `-: ' .~ . . . ~. `
,jlllllllllllllllp, .!' .+. . . . . . .+. `.
` jllllllllllllllllllll ` +. . . . . . . . .+ .
. jllllllllllllllllllllll . . . . . . . . . . .
.l@@@@@@@lllllllllllllll. j. . . . . . . :::::::l `
; ;@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@lllll :. . :::::::::::::::::: ;
:l@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@l; ::::::::::::::::::::::;
` Y@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@P ::::::::::::::::::::: '
- Y@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@P . ::::::::::::::::::: .
`*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@*` ` ` `:::::::::::::::`
`. `*%@@@@@@@%*` . ` `+:::::::::+` '
. ``` _ ' - . ``` -
` ' ` ' `

You're reading. We're hiring.
https://flickr.com/jobs/
--
.... stuff deleted ...

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 01:52:16 +0000, lew wrote:

Is this supposed to be different when buying a computer
with 8 gigs of memory?

I think you missed the entire point since you gave that
example. To make that example make sense, it's as if
you bought a computer that "said" it had 8GB of RAM,
but, in the end, it had only a half of a GB of RAM that
was actually usable by your programs.

The "lie" is in the hugeness of the disparity.

Or get a 500 gig hard drive & expect 500 gig of space
actually available to use?

Again. This example would only make sense if, out of that
500GB hard drive, you only had about 100MB of usable storage.

The deception is in the hugeness of the disparity.

There is always "overhead" on the hard disk
as in file allocation tables, cluster sizes, etc.

I think you missed the entire point.
Nobody is complaining (in this thread) about the loss of 4GB
in a 16GB phone (in fact, the SOLUTION was to replace the phone
with a 16GB phone which turned into a 12GB phone).

The problem is in the hugeness of the disparity when a 4GB
phone turns, essentially, into a 0GB phone.

That will never happen in the examples you've provided.
Those examples have been provided so many times in this
thread that I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but, you
missed the entire point.

The point isn't that "some" memory is lost; the problem is
that ALL of the memory (essentially) is lost!

Big difference between that, and round-off error or
formatting errors or base-2 differences.
h
That's the reason that the ability to use an external drive should
be considered as part of the criteria when buying.

Again, I'm sorry to say, you missed the point.
The external SD card is USELESS.
Get that into your head!
It can NOT be used to augment the missing flash memory!
The reason is not technical (so much) as business.

They made it so that you can't store APPS on the external memory.
This thread was, is, and always was about storing APPS.

The external sdcard is absolutely useless for storing apps.
That's the whole point of this thread.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:38:37 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

Now that we know what to look for we can ask to see
an actual out-of-the-box phone and look at the actual memory usage.

I think it's even worse than that, because, in some cases,
what is reported by the Android OS seems to be totally wrong
(long gory thread on that, with many confusing datapoints).

But, even if the Android phone told the truth, that still
doesn't tell you that the SD card turns out to be USELESS
for storing apps!

And, it doesn't tell you that the phone company made all
their bloatware non removable.

So, they let you "think" that the SD card can augment the
memory (and any reasonable person would think it would);
but, the SD card turns out to be USELESS for augmenting
the internal memory for storage of apps.

But they don't tell you that!
Neither do almost all the reviews.

I only know that the SD card is useless because I found
out the hard way.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:38:37 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

The difference here, however, is that the space is easily seen.
Suppose the Corvette ads loudly proclaimed a V-8 engine, but when you
finally opened up the hood you found out that each cylinder only
displaced 100 cc?

Exactly!

You get the point.

The problem here isn't that 16GB turned into less than 12GB.

The problem here is that 4GB turned into almost 0GB.
Even with the highly advertised addition of a 32GB sdcard!

You understood this thread!

It's not the lie itself which is the problem; it's the scale of the lie.

On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:37:08 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:15:48 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:



I've never truly believed what any reviewer had

to say about anything, even Consumer Reports; CR regards as important

things that I regard as trivial and vice versa.



I don't disagree!



You listed two problems that cause reviewers to NOT give the

consumer the information we need.



1. They have to kowtow to their advertisers, and,

2. They don't test what is really important.



I think *both* of the above is why both CNET and PC Magazine

failed to warn the users of this problem.



Maybe. On the other hand, I've seen many reviews over the years
where they've reviewed all kinds of products and point
out disadvantages to ones where the manufacturers may be advertisers
or potential advertisers



If they said the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9 were unusable

because they had almost no space left for app storage, the

advertisers might object to that strong statement (of truth).


Did they even review the Tmobile phone? How about if it came
from a different carrier, or maybe from LG themselves, with
a minimal software load? How do you know how much
memory was available on the phone they did review? Maybe it was
2X what was on your Tmobile phone.




And, they didn't test what REALLY matters. Instead of going

on and on about the fact that it's a "dual core" phone, they

could have said that you can't install more than a few apps,

period, over the life of the phone.


You're exaggerating again. I put about a dozen apps on my phone and
it took just 100 - 200MB. The typical app I loaded was 5MB - 20MB.
Your list of apps that you expect to go on to an entry level Android
is unrealistic. I seriously doubt many entry level users have that kind
of expectatio, eg multiple different mapping apps, having maps pre-loaded
and available offline, etc.






So, the reviewers failed.

The carrier failed us too.



I lost money (a lot of money) on these two phones, so, I have

been hurt by idiotically believing that the SD card could

augment the lack of flash memory - and by the carrier bloating

up what little was left of the flash memory - and by that

carrier making that bloat non removable.



Luckily, I have a remedy:

a) I have already traded in the LG Optimus F3 for the Nexus 5

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/1...e10a2362_b.jpg



b) I am studying how to root & cyanogenmod the LG Optimus L9

http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....php?t=2369055

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:32 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/09/2014 01:56 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:



I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the
capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the
operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When
just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?

So you'd be OK with it if the 4GB of internal memory were completely
consumed by the OS and permanent apps such that you couldn't download
ANY additional apps or store any additional photos/email/whatever?
Wouldn't you expect some sort of warning? At what point does the
warning become not-misleading?



Why would anyone buy a phone so limited? I do have a modicum of common
sense.

I don't use my mobile to to take pictures ( I have a p+s and a dslr) I
don't have additional apps on my mobile ( I have a desktop, a laptop and a
netbook in addition to my ipad).

It is only common sense at work.

--
Neil
Reverse €˜a and €˜r
Remove €˜l to get address.

On 04/11/2014 08:04 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:31:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

It can't make 4GB into 600MB.
But loading the OS and pre-installed apps sure can.

I think T-Mobile knows that they lied because, otherwise,
why would they have given me full face value (the entire $240)
that I had paid, months ago, for the LG Optimus F3?

They are attempting to buy you off.

TJ

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 04:05:09 -0500, K Wills wrote:

Check to see if OtterBox makes a case for the Nexus 5.

That was a good hint. Thanks.

That "Otterbox" brand seems to show up nicely with a google
alonside the Nexus 5!
http://www.nexus5case.org/blog/best-...ase-on-network
http://www.geek.com/android/which-ne...-best-1576442/
http://blog.shopandroid.com/ballisti...tterbox-rival/
etc.

Seems that these case brands come up fairly often:
Otterbox
Ballistic
Cruzerlite
Diztronic

The majority seem to be made out of something I had never heard
of, called "TPU", which, when I googled, turned out to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoplastic_polyurethane

Danny D. wrote:

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

They'll be reporting the available space in a "as sold by manufacturer"
configuration; the carriers routinely require a custom configuration with --
just for instance -- their own branding.

I suppose it is concevable that some carrier might require a configuration that
left /more/ space spare than the direct-from-manufacturer spec (if so it'd
probably be a Samsung device with Samsung Super Bloat somewhat mitigated), but
I don't know whether that ever happens in the real world.

It'd be interesting to see a review comparing /carriers/ on this issue.

-- chris

On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:06:17 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 01:52:16 +0000, lew wrote:



Is this supposed to be different when buying a computer

with 8 gigs of memory?



I think you missed the entire point since you gave that

example. To make that example make sense, it's as if

you bought a computer that "said" it had 8GB of RAM,

but, in the end, it had only a half of a GB of RAM that

was actually usable by your programs.



The "lie" is in the hugeness of the disparity.



Or get a 500 gig hard drive & expect 500 gig of space

actually available to use?



Again. This example would only make sense if, out of that

500GB hard drive, you only had about 100MB of usable storage.



The deception is in the hugeness of the disparity.



The funny thing here is how you do exactly what you complain
about Tmobile doing. You're exaggerating and going totally off
the rails. You bought a 4GB phone that winds up with 600MB of
free space. That's 15%. So, using the above analogy, that would
be like buying a PC with a 500GB hard drive and finding out that
only 75GB is free space. 100MB is an exaggeration, three orders
of magnitude worse.




There is always "overhead" on the hard disk

as in file allocation tables, cluster sizes, etc.



I think you missed the entire point.

Nobody is complaining (in this thread) about the loss of 4GB

in a 16GB phone (in fact, the SOLUTION was to replace the phone

with a 16GB phone which turned into a 12GB phone).



The problem is in the hugeness of the disparity when a 4GB

phone turns, essentially, into a 0GB phone.



And you just did it again. An entry level Android phone with
600MB of free storage is not "essentially a 0GB phone". As I've said
many times, I've put about a dozen apps on my 4GB phone and they took
only 100 - 200MB. Typical sizes were 5 - 20MB. I could put ~5X that
on your 600MB phone. It's not close to a 0GB phone and certainly
not useless.




That will never happen in the examples you've provided.

Those examples have been provided so many times in this

thread that I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but, you

missed the entire point.



The point isn't that "some" memory is lost; the problem is

that ALL of the memory (essentially) is lost!


And there you go again.





Big difference between that, and round-off error or

formatting errors or base-2 differences.

h

That's the reason that the ability to use an external drive should

be considered as part of the criteria when buying.



Again, I'm sorry to say, you missed the point.

The external SD card is USELESS.

Get that into your head!

It can NOT be used to augment the missing flash memory!


It's false that an SD card can't be used to augment the
internal storage. It's just that it can't be used to store
apps. You can still put videos, pics, user data there.


The reason is not technical (so much) as business.



That could be true, but I've seen no evidence to show why they
did it. I don't see any competitive advantage to Google to do it
and **** off their customers.



They made it so that you can't store APPS on the external memory.

This thread was, is, and always was about storing APPS.



The external sdcard is absolutely useless for storing apps.

That's the whole point of this thread.

You have a valid point. But I think it's funny that you're just
as far or farther off the rails than Tmobile. The big disconnect
here is between what you expect an entry level phone to do and
what I think most people buying such a product are looking for.
You gave us a list of apps that I'd say you'd find in some advanced
users, not an entry level user. If all those entry level buyers or even
a large segment of them had similar expectations, Tmobile would have a huge
problem. Their stores would be full of customers complaining
about "useless" phones, demanding to swap them out or get refunds,
etc.

Danny DiAmico wrote:

Out of the box, the Android 4.4.2 OS "reports" 12.28GB of the
original 16GB of internal flash memory as being "available".
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/...bd07a0ed_b.jpg

I'm not sure if that's an accurate report, as I'm not familiar
with this newer OS, but that's what it says out of the box.

Sounds about right.

-- chris

On 04/12/2014 07:03 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:


Neil
Reverse €˜a and €˜r
Remove €˜l to get address.

Which 'l' do we remove?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:03:17 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote:

Why would anyone buy a phone so limited?
I do have a modicum of common sense.

I can answer that question, but it will only be the truth,
so, you might not like (or agree with) the answer.

Here are the phones I'm talking about:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/1...e10a2362_b.jpg

#1: I have a Samsung Galaxy SIII, which, while it suffers
from the same loss of 4GB of flash memory, the remaining
12GB doesn't cause loss of function.

#2: However, the whole point of the other phones were to
be gifts, and, as such, I had researched enough to know
that anything less than $200 wouldn't get a decent phone.

#3: Given that $200 target price, today, I'd get the 16GB
Google Moto G (as shown in the picture), which turns into
a 12GB phone, but which can't use an external sd card.

#4: However, I was swayed (I admit) by the advertising for
the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9, in that their
admittedly low Flash memory of 4GB could be augmented by
the addition of a 32GB external sd card.

#5. Nobody told me these three critical datapoints!
a. There is only about 600MB of app storage available!
b. The 32GB sd card is useless for app storage!
c. The carrier used up almost the entire 4GB flash!
d. The carrier defined the bloat to be non removable!
e. None of the reviews noticed these extremely critical points!

So, the answer is that I had not realized, at the time,
that the phones were so limited. Otherwise, I would not
have bought them. Even now, I'm trying to get rid of them,
in favor of something that actually works for the gift
recipient.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:32:04 -0400, TJ wrote:

They are attempting to buy you off.

It worked!

Notice the replacement Google LG Nexus 5 in the linup today!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/1...e10a2362_b.jpg

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:03:17 AM UTC-4, Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:32 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:



On 04/09/2014 01:56 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:







I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the

capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the

operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When

just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?



So you'd be OK with it if the 4GB of internal memory were completely

consumed by the OS and permanent apps such that you couldn't download

ANY additional apps or store any additional photos/email/whatever?

Wouldn't you expect some sort of warning? At what point does the

warning become not-misleading?







Why would anyone buy a phone so limited? I do have a modicum of common

sense.


The valid point they are making is that the vast majority of
people aren't going to figure out to ask how much free storage
the phone has. I didn't when I bought my 4GB Android. I didn't
even think about how much free space it has versus how much space
apps that I might download would take.

The latter gets into another interesting angle. With many, maybe most
entry level Android buyers, this will be their first phone. Most aren't
even going to know what apps they are going to wind up loading, let
alone how much memory any or all of them take. So, while I agree that
the sellers should at least have some kind of clear disclaimer that
the OS, pre-loaded apps, etc consume a substantial portion of storage,
a lot of people will still have no clue as to whether 600MB, 1.2GB,
whatever is a lot, enough, or insufficient for what they want to do
with the phone.




I don't use my mobile to to take pictures ( I have a p+s and a dslr) I

don't have additional apps on my mobile ( I have a desktop, a laptop and a

netbook in addition to my ipad).



It is only common sense at work.


So, like me, you don't have a useless phone either.
I find it amazing that you don't have any additional apps at all though.
I don't think that's typical. However, as I've said before, I put
about a dozen apps on my 4GB Android, it took 100 - 200MB total,
typical app is 5MB - 20MB. One could put a couple big, 100MB apps,
and dozens of apps that are the size I put on a phone with just
600MB. That doesn't seem totally unreasonable for an entry level phone,
especially if the phone is priced aggressively.
If you saw the list of apps Danny says he expects to be able to
put on an entry level phone, it just doesn't compute in my world.
How many entry level phone users are going to want multiple mapping
programs, powerpoint viewer, excel viewer, etc? Can you even see
a PPT slide on a screen the size of a phone?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:06:48 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

You bought a 4GB phone that winds up with 600MB of
free space. That's 15%. So, using the above analogy, that would
be like buying a PC with a 500GB hard drive and finding out that
only 75GB is free space.

I'll accept your math as it makes the same point I was trying
to make.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:06:48 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

If all those entry level buyers or even
a large segment of them had similar expectations, Tmobile
would have a huge problem. Their stores would be full of
customers complaining about "useless" phones, demanding
to swap them out or get refunds ...

Well, I don't know how long their swap-out policy has
been in effect, nor, how many other people complained,
but, they gave me full (face) value for the LG Optimus F3
($240) that they swapped out for a 16/12.28 GB LG Google
Nexus 5 just this week:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...849b4ff3_h.jpg

On 2014-04-12, Danny D. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 01:52:16 +0000, lew wrote:

Is this supposed to be different when buying a computer
with 8 gigs of memory?

I think you missed the entire point since you gave that
example. To make that example make sense, it's as if
you bought a computer that "said" it had 8GB of RAM,
but, in the end, it had only a half of a GB of RAM that
was actually usable by your programs.

The "lie" is in the hugeness of the disparity.

Or get a 500 gig hard drive & expect 500 gig of space
actually available to use?

Again. This example would only make sense if, out of that
500GB hard drive, you only had about 100MB of usable storage.

The deception is in the hugeness of the disparity.

There is always "overhead" on the hard disk
as in file allocation tables, cluster sizes, etc.

I think you missed the entire point.
Nobody is complaining (in this thread) about the loss of 4GB
in a 16GB phone (in fact, the SOLUTION was to replace the phone
with a 16GB phone which turned into a 12GB phone).

The problem is in the hugeness of the disparity when a 4GB
phone turns, essentially, into a 0GB phone.

That will never happen in the examples you've provided.
Those examples have been provided so many times in this
thread that I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but, you
missed the entire point.

The point isn't that "some" memory is lost; the problem is
that ALL of the memory (essentially) is lost!

Big difference between that, and round-off error or
formatting errors or base-2 differences.
h
That's the reason that the ability to use an external drive should
be considered as part of the criteria when buying.

Again, I'm sorry to say, you missed the point.
The external SD card is USELESS.
Get that into your head!
It can NOT be used to augment the missing flash memory!
The reason is not technical (so much) as business.

They made it so that you can't store APPS on the external memory.
This thread was, is, and always was about storing APPS.

The external sdcard is absolutely useless for storing apps.
That's the whole point of this thread.


So you are saying that a "little" lie is OK while a "big" lie
is not. And that what is a "big" lie is dependent on the person's
perception? And "lying" is perfectly acceptable if it is perceived
as a "little" lie.

I guess that a 4 gig memory computer is only a "little" lie
if only 384 gig is seen & reported by the OS.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:25:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

The valid point they are making is that the vast majority of
people aren't going to figure out to ask how much free storage
the phone has. I didn't when I bought my 4GB Android.

What I've learned from reading this thread is that it's
really easy to choose an expensive (say, $500) smartphone,
but it seems rather tricky to select an inexpensive one
(say, around $200).

For $200, you can get what I would characterize as an
almost unusable smartphone (LG Optimus L9 or F3, for
example), or a pretty usable smartphone (16GB Moto G).

I was misled. I was stupid. I believed the sd card would
help. I didn't realize the bloat took all the space and
couldn't be removed.

It all boiled down to how much flash was left for the
user, as the sd card turned out to be a useless gimmick,
suitable only for user content and not for app storage.

On 04/12/2014 04:03 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:32 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/09/2014 01:56 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the
capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the
operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When
just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?

So you'd be OK with it if the 4GB of internal memory were completely
consumed by the OS and permanent apps such that you couldn't download
ANY additional apps or store any additional photos/email/whatever?
Wouldn't you expect some sort of warning? At what point does the
warning become not-misleading?

Why would anyone buy a phone so limited? I do have a modicum of common
sense.

Why indeed? But surely we should be informed as to exactly how much
space WE can use to add stuff that WE want before we hand over the
credit card.

I don't use my mobile to to take pictures ( I have a p+s and a dslr) I
don't have additional apps on my mobile ( I have a desktop, a laptop and a
netbook in addition to my ipad).

The good thing about a smartphone is that you have a
computer/camera-like thing that fits in your pocket. It doesn't do
anything as well as a real computer or real camera, but it's close
enough for emergencies and provides some nifty stuff that your computer
might not have. AND you can make phone calls with it.

My rip-stop nylon handbag weigs at least 5 pounds. Don't ask me what's
in it, but it's all essential; When I try to weed out the useless stuff
I mostly just get rid of old shopping lists and receipts. Cruft. If my
purse weighed 4 pounds all by itself I'd have only 1 pound for my
essential stuff, which isn't enough. Same concept.

I've got a cheap small P+s which I carry when I don't want to carry my
GOOD p+s, the Canon A720IS, which is bigger. If the camera in the phone
is better than that, I'd rather leave the Fuji at home.

I used to use a Speed Graphic. I love it. I also had an AE-1. I love
that too. It makes me want to cry when I see them at yard sales for
$20. The A720 is easier to carry. That counts for more. If the
camera in the phone was that good I'd leave the Canon at home.

It is only common sense at work.

Common sense generally means LESS work :-)

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===================
If violence isn't solving the problem, you're not using enough of it.

On 04/12/2014 05:52 AM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 04:05:09 -0500, K Wills wrote:

Check to see if OtterBox makes a case for the Nexus 5.

That was a good hint. Thanks.

That "Otterbox" brand seems to show up nicely with a google
alonside the Nexus 5!
http://www.nexus5case.org/blog/best-...ase-on-network
http://www.geek.com/android/which-ne...-best-1576442/
http://blog.shopandroid.com/ballisti...tterbox-rival/
etc.

Seems that these case brands come up fairly often:
Otterbox
Ballistic
Cruzerlite
Diztronic

The majority seem to be made out of something I had never heard
of, called "TPU", which, when I googled, turned out to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoplastic_polyurethane

The cheap Chinese mail-order places (I like DealExtreme -- they're
selling nicer stuff now, but I forgive them) offer a huge variety of
cases for the popular phones and tablets. I can't find one for my BLU,
but the TPU rotating cover/case for my Samsung Tab 10.1 was $12 WITH a
matching stylus. A friend put one of those on the tablet his kids abuse
and it looks pretty ratty, but 5-year-olds aren't notoriously careful
about things.

http://www.dx.com/c/cell-phone-599/cases-protectors-536

Delivery in about 3 weeks.



--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===================
If violence isn't solving the problem, you're not using enough of it.