When Apple released the 2nd generation iPod Nano’s about two months ago, September ’06, we got a hold of all three models: 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB. Although this is the same issue with any storage device, one of the first things we noticed, which enraged us, was the true storage capacity. The black 8GB Nano, in reality, only ended up having 7.44GB of usable space. We felt this was quite ridiculous since users are now loosing over a 1/2GB (approx. 560MB) of space, which could have been well used. (~100 songs)
We do know that every other company does the same thing, for example a 200GB external HDD usually only has about 190GB, however our point is that companies such as Apple should be obligated to inform the consumer the true storage capacity. In the case of the 8GB Nano it only ended up having 7.44GB which in fact ends up rounding down to 7GB not up to 8GB.
Anyone else thing companies should be obligated to state the true formated capacity?
Also in case you already don’t know, due to the high demand and unexpected popularity of the 4GB (Product) Red iPod Nano, Apple decided to release a 8GB version. The red 8GB nano will cost $249, which is the same price as the original black model, plus Apple will donate $10 to the Global Fund to fight AIDS. The new 8GB model is available in stores now.
Links: Apple iPod Nanos
Related: Join (Product) Red
Technically, the true storage volume *is* 8GB. It is, however, 7.4GiB.
The reason it reports the space as 7.44 GB is the same reason that all hard drives don’t report their advertised capacity. Apple isn’t trying to scam anyone.
Before getting any hate mail, let me clarify my post. I didn’t mean to insist that Apple is scamming customers. I do know that the NAND flash drives are 8GB, but that they will only be 7.44GB after formating. Anyways my point was that companies that sell storage devices should be obligated to display the available storage space after formatting (in each format) on the box.
I have thought about this so many times and I have realized that whether or not they state the real capacity, the space that you take up works the same way. Like if you had 8 million bytes (about 8mb) of stuff, you should still be able to store 8 million bytes worth of data on a hard drive that advertises 8 million bytes worth of space. So it’s not like your losing or anything, but it is very sly of these companies.
With regards to the 8GB nano, red or not, it’s a ripoff. For the same price, you get a 30GB video iPod! It really doesn’t make sense to me.
The fact that the volume seems to be only 7.44 is not because of “formatting.” The space needed for the file system and partition accounting information is very small — rarely more than a few MB.
As noted by LKM and Rosano, there really is no discrepancy between the advertised capacity versus the “actual”; they both describe the exact same thing. The size of the volume can be denoted as both 8GB (eight gigabytes) as well as 7.44GiB (seven point forty-four gibibytes). The perceived difference stems from the method of notation: SI prefixes versus binary prefixes.
When the first multi-million byte capacity hard drives appeared in the late 1950s, companies started to use the prefix “kilo” to describe 2^10, or 1024, units of storage. Later on, when the SI prefix system was introduced to the industry 1024 was deemed to be close enough to 1000, as denoted by 10^3, so nothing was changed
Windows, like many other operating systems, will most often denote the size of a volume using the binary interpretation of the prefix as opposed to the SI interpretation, resulting in a perceived discrepancy. Windows, however, will also display volume size using the decimal system, although this depends on where you look.
It would seem that the user is losing storage space, which he or she might have been able to use to store more songs, but this is incorrect. Sure, this might seem to be the case if the storage capacity of the volume is measured using one definition and the size of the songs were to be measured with the other definition, which is unfortunately often times the case.
However, if both the file size and storage capacity were to be measured using the same definition, either binary or decimal, then everything would work out fine. That is to say that as long as the same definition is used, the exact same number of songs should fit on the volume, and there is no “lost” space for an extra 100, or so, songs.
I just want Apple to come out with that previously rumored 12GB Nano. Er, make that 11GB.
Umm keep in mind there is an OS installed to play the music. You cant use a computer without Windows/Linux/OS X installed remember.
The actual controls DO take space. Otherwise we could just use air and it would magically be our iPod.
Go buy a brand new Macintosh or Windows computer. It may list a size of 100GB or so. But you will probably lose 20 of those GB with initial OS installation and Applications . . . Everything takes space. Not just music. Think before you make a stupid statement about the space of an iPod.
[Comment ID #9228 Will Be Quoted Here]
you are correct, the ipod software does take up some space, but not completely. the ipod software is only about 40MB. I doubt anyone gives a sh*t about that small amount. They were talking about the method companies use to advertize the space on the unit. (i think)
When choosing what size device I need, I look at the total size of my music library as represented by ITunes. With a closed, proprietary system like apple has set up, they have a responsibility to represent the library and storage capacity consistently, otherwise it is a scam.
I don’t blame an HD company for the number representation change when the OS chooses how to represent the number. Apple is different in that they control both the hardware packaging, and the representation on the software level. They are actively exploiting the confusion, which really is wrong.
Well if the iPod Nano 8GB has an availability or 7.44GB, the iPod Video 30GB has approximately 27GB (not entirely sure, please correct me if I am incorrect) and why does my 80GB then have 74.37GB? I think its plain ridiculous to have that much of a difference between the iPod models.
Despite that though I would still purchase another iPod, because of their other features and practicality.
TIM is right. the reason why the device is 7.44 is not because of the “OS” installed on the iPod it is because companies list 1K as 10^3 (1000) instead of 2^10 like it should be. If you look at the iPod capacity this does not take into account ANY space….. this means that the TOTAL space is 7.44 GB. Again this is even BEFORE they add the “OS” on it. So in reality you have less than 7.41GB of usable space. This is a marketing scam and HDD manufacturers have already been sued over this same issue.
is there any real reason not to just get an 8-gb nano pirate ripoff? they work just as well, probably a lot better than the stupid nano’s which scratch up (thankfully the clone ISN’T 100% accurate). why not save 3/4th of your money and get something 10% worse? am I the only one that agrees with the mathematical benefit there … ?
Hey Saha your being a real whiner! You have nothing better to do except comment and hardware’s box?????? HAHA im rolling on the floor right now!!!! tell you what u want a real 8gb ipod?? Ha lets see how u could install the application, settings and software!! Then what your going to ITS USELESS and your going to be more of a asshole!!!!
A GB on the packaging is 0.93 GB on the computer because one is a billion and the other is 2^30 or 1,073,741,824. 8 billion equals about 7.45 times 2^30.
The packaging for all storage devices exaggerates the capacity in this way.
Apple’s reason is probably a mix of “because we can” and “because everybody else does it”.
i think we all understand the fact that the OS on the iPods take up some space…but apple should tell us that because we get all happy when we go and buy the 8gb nano but when we get home we find out that we can only put 7.4gb worth of media on it. companies should tell us this.
what they should do is put 8.6gb storage in the ipod, then after all the OS software has been installed there’ll be 8gb storage for the user to put all his or her songs/videos/pics… then everyone’s a winner :)
I’m having this problem, but on a MUCH larger scale. My iPod has a 30 gig storage which on the box says is 7500 songs. I have exactly 2750 songs on it (No movies or pictures or music video’s, just those songs.) and it only has 6 gigs of space left. That is WAY less space than it should have left on it. If you do the math that means theres about 131 songs per gigabyte that I’m using at the moment (if it were truly 30 gigs there should be 250 songs to a gigabyte). Which on a 30 gig storage would come out to 3,930 songs. WHERE IS THE SPACE FOR THE REST OF THE 3,570 SONGS I’M SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO PUT ON IT???? D: