Reply
Newbie
Posts: 7
Registered: ‎10-05-2017

Re: Missing 6.8 GB on Sandisk ultra m3.0 64 GB

Does the disclaimer give a free hand to reduce the actual user storage? How much lesser? Please can your be absolute if you can be or specify the percentage. This is diverting from the point where you are denying comparison with not any competitive products user storage but Sandisk’s own storage. You may want to double check the problem specified here.
Newbie
Posts: 7
Registered: ‎10-05-2017

Re: Missing 6.8 GB on Sandisk ultra m3.0 64 GB

Refer link for True 64 GB capacity which should be 59.6 GB and not 57.2 GB.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2102633/usb-64gb-storage-total-size.html

 

Highlighted
Newbie
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎08-27-2017

Re: Missing 6.8 GB on Sandisk ultra m3.0 64 GB

@virkamr:

I believe most customers do not really care for the missing 4-5% of the "less user storage" (again, I am not talking to the space "lost" due to binary conversion!...which is not actually lost, as we all know). But it means 4-5% more profit for SanDisk. Is the space really needed for optimizations? How come other manufacturers don't face these problems and sell what's advertized?

 

And, while you can return the product, some countries (especially European, don't know about the rest) actually hold you accountable to your advertizing. I.e., if you agree to sell a 64 GB stick, and you fail to deliver this, you are not only obliged to take back the "faulty" product, but you (as a seller, not manufacturer) might be asked to pay compensation to the customer if he/she has to buy a comparable product of a more expensive competitor. However, as it goes, nobody is gonna open a court case because of a few euros. Though, maybe a competitor (hopefully) might like to sue for unfair competition due to false advertisement.