You have to wonder why in this age a trillion dollar computer company that helped usher the PC revolution would allow their systems to become crippled by a full

You have to wonder why in this age a trillion dollar computer company that helped usher the PC revolution would allow their systems to become crippled by a full storage device, especially when these devices are applied as indispensable tools for everyday life. I'm begging the question: In the 70s / 80s there was consumer tort litigation for all kinds of "misrepresentation", which was fair, because there was a huge and growing business of dark patterns of false claims, faulty products, and schemes for exploitation of unwitting and/or oppressing customers. But it also became absurd, like class action suits against RCA for selling TVs with 25" inch screens where the picture only measured 24.5 inches due to the cabinet facia overlapping the edge of the tube or the raster not reaching all the way to the edge, etc. Tort reform became a hot-button political issue because an enormous subsector of "consumer-rights" legal practice developed to milk payouts under consumer law. You still see this today for "personal injury." So Apple has trillions in pockets and all their kit is sold with capacity specs. Well, customers has better be able to get access to all that capacity, even if it kills their device. I'm wondering if it's not a bug but a legal calculus, a la intro to Fight Club where Ed Norton is reviewing the share value implications of Ford paying off claims for Pintos that explode when rear-ended versus the cost of a recall?