Small, medium and large, that might do it, maybe with X-Large and XX-Large for the American market. Works for pants and plenty of fast moving consumer goods. Cuts out having to have detailed specs, plus it is not exactly as if a computer is something that has to be sized to a person&#x27;s anatomy. The same could be applied to screen sizes, instead of clumsy acronyms like &#x27;CGA&#x27;, &#x27;SVGA&#x27; etc.<p>I am actually a traditionalist, for me, bytes matter, as to megabytes and gigabytes, not forgetting terabytes. I like the consistency of Base 2, Base 10 for disk sizes always makes me feel short changed. But I am on HN, I cut my teeth on 6502 and I know my two times table. But my uncle, with his top of the range iPhone whatever? He takes lots of photos and has a huge iTunes collection, for him &#x27;large&#x27; might be the thing that informs his choice. My auntie? She doesn&#x27;t do music but she plays those Angry Birds games, &#x27;medium&#x27; will do nicely for her. My nephew? Small should do him fine (he always loses his phone so never has much on it).<p>Of course people in-between &#x27;developer&#x27; and &#x27;techno-phobic&#x27; might need a little guidance in choosing size, but right now these megabyte and gigabyte things are just plain confusing. &#x27;Best for photos - medium&#x27; might be the strap line to sell the product.<p>Of course, like clothing sizes could be on a per-brand basis. Much like how you can be a &#x27;Large&#x27; in Nike jacket sizes, you could be an &#x27;X-Large&#x27; in some equivalent Italian leisure-sports-wear brand. In the world of gadgets you could therefore be &#x27;Large&#x27; in Apple device-land and &#x27;X-Large&#x27; in Samsung gadget-land. Even bicycles that were once measured in distance from bottom-bracket to top-tube are now simply sold as &#x27;Small&#x2F;Medium&#x2F;Large&#x27;.<p>This simple sizing could make things a lot simpler for all involved, side-stepping this Base 2&#x2F;10 nonsense.