OSNews

Actually you don't seem to understand the meaning of nonsensical.

Nonsensical means without meaning or ludicrous.

What ilovebeer, you and I have are a difference of opinion. Before throwing phrases around, actually learn what they mean.

Well done.


You believe that advertising laws don't exist, don't apply to computing products and anyone who claims that they do must be anti-Microsoft.

I believe that fits my definition of nonsensical. I believe I understand it very well and knew what I meant when I typed it, thank you very much.

Edited 2012-11-18 14:00 UTC

Lucas, I wasted a few minutes here just to respond to your arguments. Make it simple. And yes I am using my real name.

Use some common sense:

It is tolerable for Android and iOS to come up with an actual 32Gb storage space but with a few % deducted for an Operating System. If Microsoft came up with the same model (deduct a few percentage from an advertised storage capacity), there will be no suing. Else you will win for this specific case.

But here is Microsoft advertising a 32Gb storage, but with an obscure explanation that it deducted 50% of that storage space is no longer acceptable from a consumer's point of view, that is, from a consumer, NOT FROM YOUR perspective. They(consumer) don't have to pay EXTRA(BUT YOU LUCAS, you can) for an external storage if you expect something that at least you can save more than 80% of your data out from that 32Gb storage, it is a bit unusual, for this is a MOBILE device, THIS IS NOT A PC WHERE you can have terabytes of storage and yes it is tolerable on a PC, you might have >500Gb of storage, but for a mobile device, this is no longer the case if you use your common sense. But because you set your mind that you can buy extra storage because the device have these extra features that others were lacking caused you to be blinded by the fact that other people can no longer afford to pay that extra cost.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that to make any kind of point. Not only is the analogy terrible, I have yet to see a single law cited to support theories like yours.


If that is true, it should be absolutely no problem for you to start citing laws and successful lawsuits based on false advertisement of a product because how much actual "free space" was not clearly described in the advertisement.

Now you get the chance to prove there's any shred of truth to anything you've said. I'm going to warn you though, I expect to see citations of laws and/or cases that actually address the very issue you & others are whining about -- meaning don't waste anyones time citing some irrelevant bullshit and trying to force it to fit.

You hate Microsoft, I get it. But, this case is going nowhere and anyone with any common sense knows it.

Christ on a pogo stick, fanboys can be so willfully stupid it hurts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#Manipulation_of_meas...

Yes, there are definitely laws in the US regulated by the FTC regarding false advertising. Yes, class action lawsuits have already been settled with regards to the above link concerning hard drive space amounts. So yes, in this case, Microsoft is advertising n amount of space and in actuality there is n/50 for available use. This is false advertising. This lawsuit is valid and will proceed based on the prior precedent. And yes, it will likely be settled out of court with a financial amount paid plus precise changes to the wording in the adverts.

Is this now clear enough for you and Lucas to get?

An awful lot better than that? What I described is false advertising and you can't get away with that. If you don't know that then you really know very, very little - to put it politely.


I'm afraid the precedents are wider than that and they are as I have described. False advertising is false advertising. You don't get away with it because you are selling people gigabytes.


Just face it sweetheart. This is false advertising. I'm afraid standing in a court of law and telling everyone that they hate Microsoft is not any sort of legal argument.