Seagate settles class action: cash back over misleading hard drive capacities

David Flynn25 October 2007, 12:16 PM

The world's largest hard disk manufacturer will offer customers 5% cash back on disk drives bought over the last six years in order to settle a legal action over the measurement of hard drive capacity.


The world's largest hard disk manufacturer will offer customers 5% cash back on disk drives bought over the last six years in order to settle a legal action over the measurement of hard drive capacity.

But the real story starts way back, when marketers decided 24 bytes didn't mean much. In modern terms, it's equivalent to a fraction of a cent, or the weight of a feather atop a two tonne truck.

It didn't make much of a difference several decades ago, when memory capacities nudged past the three-digit mark and it was decided that a ‘kilobyte' - based on the established use of kilo as meaning ‘a thousand' - would be useful shorthand for 1,024 bytes. After all, it was just 24 bytes, right? Of course, it followed that there'd be a thousand kilobytes in a megabyte, and so forth.


Warp ahead to the modern era of gigabytes and terabytes and that molehill became a mountain, as physical capacity set on a decimal-based definition of 1,000 units fell behind the binary-based assumption of 1,024 units.

By the time we hit one gigabyte, the difference between was 73MB. 10GB disk drives had a usable capacity that fell 730MB short of the promised ceiling (in fact, this was more that the operating system reported and dealt with the drive capacity as the smaller figure, but the end result was the same). 100GB drives had some 7.3GB missing in action, while 500GB drives shortchanged customers by 35GB and put only 465GB on the platter.

This discrepancy vexed Michael Lazar and Sarah Cho, two US purchases of Seagate drives who in 2005 initiated what became a class action suit against against the company. They claimed that the company mis-labelled hard drives with the higher capacity, which they say amounted to a misleading promise that customers would receive approximately 7% more usable storage capacity than they actually received.

Seagate this week settled the case by offering customers a cash payment equivalent to 5% of the drive's purchase price, or a "free backup and recovery" program. The caveats? You have to have purchased the drive "from an authorised Seagate retailer or distributor" between March 22, 2001 and September 26, 2007. Buying a desktop, laptop, server, PVR or other non-Seagate product with a Seagate drive fitted doesn't count.

Oh, and you had to have bought it in the US. Yep, this deal is stamped ‘For Yanks Only'. You'll find full details here, if you're interested.

This settlement comes with potential implications for customers in other countries, and other hard disk manufacturers for that matter. Seagate has long been specifying in the fine print of its retail boxes that actual capacity differs from the stated capacity - which also takes into account the overhead added by formatting and the way that operating systems might report the disk capacity (which can in turn be affected by the size of each block in the file system versus the size of files being written to the disk).

There's also a movement to popularise use of the terms mebibyte and gibibyte (respectively, contractions of ‘mega binary byte' and ‘giga binary byte' and abbreviated to MiB and GiB) as binary-based units of computer storage.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

wired076:

How stupid can class actions get. Yeah it is important but most of us have come to realise that this is the case. Why sue Seagate, aren't they all doing it??

I really believe that there is no point to suing Seagate for this issue. How else do you want them to fix the error.

To make it the normal 1024KB = 1MB and 1024 MB = 1 GB you have to waste so much money and time to get it right and is it really worth it, obviously for Seagate it would have?

But why only a six year period and why only the US?

Why does everything only happen in the US? It's the internet everything should be available worldwide. Sort of like those tv shows on the web that you can only watch if you live in America or the UK.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

W.Monroy - Seagate:

Just to clarify: Seagate did not lose a lawsuit, as the the headline states.
Seagate denies any wrongdoing and the Court has made no determinations regarding liability or damages.
Seagate believes that its advertising and other business practices were and are proper in all respects. However, because of the expense and burden of litigation, Seagate believes that resolving the matter through settlement is in the best interests of Seagate and its customers.


29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Potoroo:

Seagate did not lose the action, it settled it outside court. Monetary settlements are common in the United Lawsuits of America and often bear no relationship to the merits of the complaint. In lieu of a judgment by the court it is dishonest to report the outcome in terms of winning or losing.

Further, the issue owes nothing to mythical marketers and everything to conflict between popular understanding of what terms like kilo- and mega- mean and the world's major standards organisations, such as SI, IEC, IEEE and ISO. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures officially defined kilo as 10^3 in 1960. Seagate Technology was not founded until 1979. While the use of kilo to mean 2^10 remains common for things like RAM and software, Seagate had every cause to argue they were operating in line with international standards. That they decided a payout would be cheaper in the long run does not change the fact that the idiots who sued did not do their homework in the first case.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous578:

I do see the point of this I mean if I buy a 400gig hdd why cant I get a 400 gig hdd not 370 gig. So where is my hard earned cash refund….

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Potoroo:

You did get a 400 gigabyte (GB) HD. What you expected (because you don't pay attention) but did not get was a 400 gibibyte (GiB) HD.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous564638456i:

every single hard disc manufacture do this trick. I think they should all give refunds :-)


29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

bluelight:

I submit that the plantiffs should have sued the operating system vendors for UNDERreporting the stated capacities. When hard drive manufacturers switched to base-10 calculations, the OS vendors should have followed along.

Along the same lines, the OS folks should have also informed the consumer that, due to formatting overhead, some of the hard drive space would be "lost." They make a similar disclaimer for system RAM when the on-board video subsystem takes up a chuck of the main memory.



29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous Chris:

There was no switch. HDDs were always labeled and sold using the correct decimal prefixes since the 1950s. I've double-checked my HDDs from the 1990s. They are labeled correctly (MB = 1,000,000 byte). They even explain the correct and universal meanings of kilo, mega and giga on their websites and the fine-print - something you should have learnt at school. The problem here is simply that convenient slang terms (jargon) creeped into business language. If you want to blame any marketing guys, blame those who sell memory-chips (RAM) labelling 268,4 MB incorrectly as 256 MB. Take this as a lesson that the geeky neighbour kid isn't always right.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Paul Pritsis:

Why is always the ignorant and mis-informed that complain? If they actually understood what went on inside a hard drive then we wouldn't have this problem.

Everyone knows that that 1 kilobyte is actually 1024 bytes don't they? The math is easy; 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024. That's why we have RAM with those numbers too. Next they'll be complaining that after they start up Windows on a 512 Meg machine there's only a couple of hundred Meg left. Where did all the other RAM go? Derrr... Loading Windows... Where DID you think it was being loaded to?

The same even applies to a floppy disk. Why do you think that a 2 Meg floppy only formats to 1.44 Meg? The File Allocation Table and other 'system' data has to be stored somewhere, approx 560Kb is reserved.

I bet the same people complain that there are not enough potato chips in a packet. I mean, why have such a big packet for such a small amount of chips? Don't they realise that the air in there is so that the chips don't get crushed?


29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous Chris:

The ignorant, mis-informed one is you. kilo means thousand which is 1000. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about bytes, meters, liters, tons or dollars. RAM is labeled incorrectly albeit you actually you get more than they promise. That's because RAM uses binary chips and to make a long story short that means you'll end up with a multiple of a power of two for the capacity. That's not the case for disks or transfer rates. Back in those days, engineers said K (kay not kilo) when they meant 1024 because it was sufficiently close and outsiders weren't involved.

There are no 2 Meg floppies. A 3,5" PC floppy holds 2880 sectors with 512 bytes each which is 1440x1024x1000 which is 1.47 MB or 1.40 MB. They are labeled as 1.44 MB but it's simply wrong. Also the FAT clearly does not take as much space as 560 kB. It takes 11 kB because there are two copies of it and then there's one boot sector (512) reserved. Each directory consumes at least another sector (512). However you can fit at least a single 1,3 MB file on such a floppy.

Potato chips are not sold by volume, they are sold by weight and the vendor has to label them properly nonetheless and specify the tolerance if there is any. If the vendor cannot even adhere to its own specified tolerance he's clearly at fault.


29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AT:

5%, why not 7% to match the shortchange?

The smart thing to do would be to offer clients 7% credit of their next Seagate purchase since there was no court ruling and PR is important to them.

And make that discount worldwide, they would be selling a lot of new drives with the incentive.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous Chris:

Very simple, because the suing party agreed to it. There was no judgment, it was a settlement. Scroll up and read some of the comments, Seagate and others are not cheating anyone. It is software like Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS which use the wrong definitions of kilo, mega, giga. Do you even realize how frickin cheap harddisks are today? If you didn't buy the latest and greatest, the payback is hardly worth the hassle considering that a common consumer HDD costs less than $100. It's not like Seagate uses any other definitions than their competition. Nobody sells you a 400 GiB disk labeled as 400 GB.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jake F:

We should all be jaded when it comes to lawyers talking chumps into suing for no reason whatsoever, but this takes the cake.

Sara sues because she's American. Sara sues to help her lawyers make millions, and bogs down our legal system with her misguided contempt for hard drive manufacturers. *sigh*



29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tony Brown:

:) Heh heh I just downloaded the .pdf file from the case site and I'm really amazed at the gall of some people at what they can get away with.
Sure I was totally mystified when my 320GB drive was only reported as being 297Gb by "System Management" but then a friend explained this is how pc's work,formatting of drives and all the rest of it.
I say if you want a bigger drive.Just go out and buy one and don't break the HD maufacturers "short and curlies"
because "Windows" uses a different system to report capacities than us mere mortals can understand.
If you don't want to fiddle with PC's why buy one:)
Cyas all and Have A Merry Xmas

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Douglas:

All I can say about this. Seagate should have demanded that the Parties sueing should apply for a license to operate the computer systems.

Or sue the school systems. Even back in they 80's when I was in High School it was common knowledge when hard drives came out they are base 10 not base 2.

It is the mixing of the base 10(aka decimal) terms with deca(not used often)^1, kilo^3, mega^6, giga^9, tera^12, peta^15 (yes we are actually there in computing.

Surprised some freaking idiot hasn't filed a lawsuit based on the 8/10 platform in serial communication. takes 10 bits to transfer a byte. or that most broad band is reported in Bits/Sec and windows and the like report in bytes/sec.

I know they don't understand that if they need hand holding and a lawyer that will rape the system to file a class action lawsuit for uninformed idiots.



29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags