On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:38:37 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
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 Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:32 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
Why would anyone buy a phone so limited? I do have a modicum of common
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.
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:03:17 AM UTC-4, Neil Ellwood 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. 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.
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?
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
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.
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:29:25 PM UTC-4, The Real Bev wrote:
You probably would be informed, if you asked the question. The real
problem I see is that the number is going to change every day. And
if Tmobile tells someone like Danny that the phone has 700MB of free
storage, the software gets updated tomorrow and he looks at it then
and it says 600MB, then they're going to be complaining that they
were "lied to" and this time they will be right.
To keep it updated and totally accurate, they would have to have a
list of every phone they sell and keep it updated real-time.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 04:05:09 -0500, K Wills wrote:
That was a good hint. Thanks.
That "Otterbox" brand seems to show up nicely with a google
alonside the Nexus 5!
Seems that these case brands come up fairly often:
The majority seem to be made out of something I had never heard
of, called "TPU", which, when I googled, turned out to be
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
Delivery in about 3 weeks.
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.
The BLU comes with what I assume to be plain vanilla Android 4.2.1. It
says BLU when it turn on, but otherwise seemed to have only normal
useful stuff. I wish I'd paid attention to the storage space before I
started adding what I regard as essential stuff that i had on my Samsung
Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- ES File explorer being the first.
'Android Assistant' says RAM = 468.7 MB, ROM = 1008.29 MB and SDcard 1.79 MB. The specs say internal memory = 4 GB with 512M RAM
A different BLU with 16 GB internal memory was said by an Amazon
reviewer to show only 9 GB empty.
For $300 I could get a better BLU -- 32 GB and a better camera, but
possibly with no USA warranty. If I'd been more informed I might have
chosen that one. I certainly would now, with what I know, except for
the warranty thing.
So many decisions...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:03:17 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote:
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:
#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
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:06:48 -0700, trader_4 wrote:
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:
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:
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 Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:22:55 PM UTC-4, Danny DiAmico wrote:
I bought my ZTE Awe in December for $100 at BestBuy. That included 4 months
of free service: 300min voice, 300MB data, 500 texts. No contract and
after the 4 months are up, it should be costing me less than $25, the
way I use the phone. The carrier is Zact, which buys time on the
I didn't pay attention to the memory issue at all, because this is my
first smart phone. I didn't have any idea what extra apps I might put
on it, how much memory they would need, etc. I was just looking for
a good deal on an entry level smartphone and to get away from Verizon,
who expected me to pay $80 a month for any kind of smartphone.
So, it wasn't tricky for me at all. And even if I had wound up with
a phone that only had 600MB, which appears to be the worst case,
I still would be happy. This one has 1.13GB free, after putting about
a dozen apps on it.
I'd say your characterization is based on unreasonable expectations
for an entry level phone. You can't put 10 lbs of crap into a
5 lb bag. If those phones were really unusable, how could Tmobile
be doing it? They'd have a store full of angry customers, wasting
the company's time, giving them a bad image, losing customers, etc.
Makes no sense to me. What purpose would it serve? As someone else
pointed out, Tmobile wants to keep you as a *service* customer. It
makes no sense to scam you with a phone you can't use. If anything,
the more apps, the more you can use it, the more $$$ they make.
The more logical conclusion is that for most entry level smartphone
buyers, that Tmobile phone is acceptable, not unusable.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.