14 
OK, it’s a bit odd that the 32GB Surface actually only turns up with 16GB of space, because Windows RT takes up half of it, but suing Microsoft? Really? Why don’t you just stick an SD in there and call it a day? What’s wrong with you?
A lawyer, from California, took offense to the fact that he quickly filled up his 32GB Surface because of the limited space. Despite Microsoft actually stating the free space in the fine print on its site, Andrew Sokolowski insists that he’s been swindled, and not only wants Microsoft to change its adverts, but damages as well.
Oh, what a litigation-happy world we live in. This is another reason why we can’t have nice things. [AP via The Register]
Image credit: Furious from Shutterstock
Why Apple Won't Sue Microsoft Over Surface
Surface Pro too Pricy? How About a £400 Asus VivoTab Instead?
Megaupload Sues Record Label for Censorship
Scum, subhuman scum.
the question is, is that the Lawyer or Microsoft, that is the question?
The lawyer for thinking that an appropriate response for a lack of storage space is to file suit against a major corporation and have the cheek to ask for damages.
The company for making Windows 8 RT so damn big.
I think it was a rhetorical question :p
Surely he’s still in the return period? Even if he isn’t, if microsoft offered a refund isn’t his point pretty void?
Actually I hope this changes the way devices are advertised
They should only quote the available storage to the user, not the total that the device has fitted
They should list both like – 16gb of 32gb. But I feel a better solution is to split the memory internally, have 16gb running OS and 16gb for storage, make for a safer and fastest system – these memory chips are cheap.
Oh man, he’s going to be livid if he ever buys a Hard Drive.
i agree its stupid.. but i also kind of think that MS should not be aloud to sell it as a 32gb device when its really on 16gb.. thats quite a lot of difference.. and i think it would be good for all tablet makers to follow suit and only be aloud to advertise the device with is “real” memory.
would make them put the OS on a 16gb partition and then have 32gb for the user.. its not like space is expensive these days so why cant they do this?
big numbers sell gadgets, its an old hat selling tool, but its miss leading when you dont really get it.. so i hope the guy wins and then everyone else has to follow suit..
Its like with the original htc desire, which said it had a gig of internal space but only 128 or something was usable.
I think the storage space taken by any OS should be not be taken into “storage” calculation, especially when it takes half of that space(!). This guy is just hoping for some money out of it, but I really hope this will teach computer manufacturers a lesson.
Yeah just like when lawyers tell you it will cost a few thousand and in the end it costs many times more. You would think they would be used to it but also he must realise that Microsoft’s lawyers exist to deal with fools like himself.
I do actually hope this triggers a change between advertised and available. In some previous generation tablets the storage space advertised was that on the provided sd storage and not on the system memory. I would like to see a return to that and manufacturers even without SD cards having separate memory space for the OS and storage.
Fucking right! About time someone did something about it, they should advertise the actual free space not the space without the OS. Why should he have to fork out extra on an SD card on top of his costly purchase?
I agree. Hope he wins.
Totally agree!
How many times have I bought a pair of running shoes and not been able to run a marathon? And don’t get me started on dog food… IT DOESN’T CONTAIN DOGS!!! I’m partial to a hotdog…
He might have a vague point, but to sue?
It’s not a vague point, it’s an excellent point. If something is advertised as having a certain amount of space it is dishonest to sell a product that doesn’t actually offer that amount of free space. It’s like firms selling Broadband offering speeds that are nigh on unobtainable for the majority of users. It’s dishonest and should be rectified.
In an Utopian world I would be 100% in agreement. But common sense is gradually being sucked out of planet by people who want to sue at the slightest thing.
Must EVERYTHING be labeled to such a degree a 3 year old would understand it? This person is after all a lawyer so I would assume someone of some intelligence and would surely accept a simple explaination from customer service?
Does it REALLY take litigation to make a point?
The FSA bombard us with facts and figures that lenders have to tell us when we borrow, but I bet no-ones listens/reads.
And what about EULAs? How long was it before anyone noticed the disclaimer about making WMD?
This man just wants to make a name in the papers.
Now it’s my turn to say in a perfect world I would be 100% in agreement
This isn’t a perfect world, and unfortunately, for big corporations not to rip off the little people, yes, they do need to label shit clearly. And if they’re going to label it anyway (which they do – 32GB! 16GB! etc.) then they should at least label it accurately…
I totally concur that all too frequently people sue over the tiniest little first world problem, anything to make a quick buck, but in other cases, such as this one, I think litigation genuinely could make life clearer for consumers.
Weeeelllll….He was stupid enough to buy a crappy Microsoft product in the first place…..Cretin.