Well, I wouldn’t really say that Microsoft does it “wrong”. Memory and all that has used K = 1024, pretty much since the beginning of the microchip, even before hard drives came along.
Part of the problem goes back to floppies… depending on the OS and the formatting used, the same number of physical data bits on the disc surface resulted in vastly different actual usable storage amounts. A 3.5-inch DSDD disc was just sold as DSDD (double-sided, double-density) and no storage amount was given (unless the discs were pre-formatted). Formatting the exact same disc under DOS, you’d get 720K… format it on a Mac (with less overhead) and you had 800K… format it on an Amiga and you had 880K available.
So, the media manufacturers have never wanted to be tied down to one operating system or one specific type of formatting.
The newer formats the OSes use don’t have nearly the discrepancies in the amount of overhead, so the differences in usable space aren’t that great depending on the formatting.
But there still is overhead, and it takes more space to store your stuff than what the stuff itself takes up, so there will always be a difference between the unformatted capacity and what is actually usable.
One can only assume that somewhere along the line, some bright person in marketing noticed that if they stick to the SI prefixes, as opposed to the conventional definitions, that their hard drives looked bigger… so all the manufacturers have been doing it for 30 years. Doesn’t matter whether it was Mac, or Amiga, or Atari, or Win/DOS, or Silicon Graphics, or anything else… your formatted capacity never matched the drive label. This “problem” isn’t new.
All apple has done, is to start using the SI prefixes instead of the standard computer conventions, for reporting size, so that the OS reports the same as what is on the manufacturer’s label. But, by doing that a 1MB file no longer takes up 1MB of system memory – because the computer chips still use the conventional prefixes. 
No manufacturer is about to go back to conventional prefixes, because then their drives will look smaller, on the store shelf, and folks will buy the competition that still marks using SI prefixes. A 1TB (empty, SI prefix) looks bigger than a 931 GB drive (formatted, base-2 prefixes), even if they’re the exact same thing.
