Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #154741 > unrolled thread

SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others?  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-06 21:29 -0400
    Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others?  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-07 09:15 -0400
      Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-07 16:42 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-07 15:50 +0100
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 17:30 +0200
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 17:30 +0200
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 17:27 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-07 22:09 +0200
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 02:28 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-10 17:41 +0200
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 09:24 -0800
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:38 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 02:01 -0800
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-11 12:32 +0100
                  Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:19 -0800
                    Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:20 +0200
                      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 10:24 +0100
                        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:08 +0200
                          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:51 +0100
                            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 13:40 +0100
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 13:28 +0200
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 13:27 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-11 12:39 +0100
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 10:38 -0700
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-11 13:58 +0000
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:12 +0000
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-12 20:36 +0200
                  Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-12 20:40 +0000
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:19 -0800
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:52 -0800
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-12 20:44 +0200
                  Storage media availability over time (was: Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-16 09:20 +0100
                    Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-16 10:01 -0800
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:28 +0200
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 10:22 +0100
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-15 08:50 -0800
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 02:27 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 08:34 -0800
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 13:02 -0400
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-11 06:20 +0200
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:37 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-11 10:21 -0400
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:18 -0800
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-12 06:00 +0200
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 20:47 -0800
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-12 17:03 +0200
                  Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-12 20:41 +0200
                    Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-13 18:59 +0200
                      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-15 07:56 +0200
                        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:00 +0100
                          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-15 08:34 -0800
                        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:10 +0200
                        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-15 19:33 +0200
                          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-16 06:23 +0200
                            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-17 18:18 +0200
                            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-17 17:41 +0000
                    Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-14 00:21 +0200
                      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-14 20:23 -0800
                  Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-14 00:20 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:37 +0200
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-15 19:34 +0200
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-15 20:09 +0200
      Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-10 17:38 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 11:49 -0400
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-10 18:04 +0200
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-11 06:33 +0200
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-11 05:54 +0000
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-11 10:10 +0200
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 10:18 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 10:30 +0100
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-15 15:19 +0000
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-11 10:01 +0200
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 10:11 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:34 +0200
    Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Siard <saylor259@mailbox.org> - 2026-08-07 16:57 +0200
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 02:32 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Siard <saylor259@mailbox.org> - 2026-08-10 09:25 +0200
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 08:47 +0100
      Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 09:40 -0800
    Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-07 19:15 +0200
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 22:34 +0200
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 08:28 -0800
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:42 +0200
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 17:40 +0100
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 09:28 -0800
    Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-08 11:43 +0100
      Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-08 20:57 -0400
        Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-09 14:33 +0000
          Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 14:28 -0400
            Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 08:32 -0800
          Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 18:34 -0400
            Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 02:20 -0400
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 07:31 +0100
              Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-08-10 08:59 +0100
                Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Philippe <p.naudin+nntp@free.fr> - 2026-08-10 11:06 +0200
                  Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 10:33 +0100
                Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-08-10 10:51 +0100
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 10:25 +0200
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 09:43 +0100
                  Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 10:34 -0400
                    Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:24 +0200
              Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 09:42 -0400
      Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 09:49 +0100
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-09 15:21 +0200
        Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 14:21 -0400
          Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-09 22:31 +0200
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 19:33 -0400
              Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-10 02:48 +0200
                Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 02:25 -0400
    Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-09 14:43 +0000
      Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 13:21 -0400
        Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-10 18:01 +0000
          Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 14:55 -0400
            Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-10 19:19 +0000
              [OT] non-Unix fingers (was: Re: SD card vs. Esim?   Samsung vs. others?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-11 01:00 +0100
            Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-08-11 21:02 +0100

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#154917 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Carlos E. R., 2026-08-11 10:38:

> On 2026-08-10 19:24, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> In summary, anyone saying sd cards are obsolete, knows nothing about them.
> 
> As we can use eSIMs instead, which is the advantage?

SIMs are not "SD cards".


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154916 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Maria Sophia, 2026-08-10 19:24:

> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> Google ASI says that "flagship phones (like Samsung Galaxy S or Google
>>>> Pixel series) have largely dropped microSD card slots...."  Really? 
>>>
>>> Yes. SD cards are technically obsolete. Albeit there millions of users
>>> that do not know this fact and are even less prepared to accept it.
>>>
>>> E-SIMs are standard for years. A second physical SIM slot is as obsolete
>>> as a SD-card-slot.
>>
>> Why are they "obsolete"? 
>>
>> Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the
>> manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money?
> 
> I agree with Steve that saying sd cards are obsolete is patently absurd.

SD cards in mobile devices are mostly there because in the past memory
was quite expensive and many people did not need much storage. So it was
better to sell devices cheaper with only little memory built in and
offer the option to extend this using SD cards.

However nowadays memory is cheap enough (at least it was before the AI
hype started), that even mainstream devices got a decent amount of
memory built in which is enough for many users. And the more expensive
models now have options for 256 or even 512 GB built in - for example a
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL comes with 512 GB. And this is not slow SD card
memory but UFS storage which is way faster and way more reliable.

> The *only* reason sd slots aren't put in 40% of Androids is to make money.

Only if people buy additional online storage *only* for this reason. But
even *with* an SD card I want to have a backup of my data anyway and I
do *not* want to store 300 GB of pictures on my phone, just because I
used it to take the pictures.

And no, I don't want to pull the card to do a backup every day or to
copy pictures from it.

So the backup is done online or via USB and there is no need to have a
removable SD card. Also 128 GB built in memory in my current phone are
totally fine for me to keep all data I need even when I am offline, like
OSMAnd maps or my music collection for traveling or daily commute.
> They make money because the consumer must desperately replace the lost
> functionality, usually hugely larger initial storage costs overall.

I never had to "desperately" replace anything. It works fine for me as
it is. I've been running my own Nextcloud server for nearly 10 years now
- all backups of my phone go to hat server and all pictures I have taken
with the phone, right away after I have taken them. Also only the last 6
months of pictures will stay on the phone. If I want to review older
pictures I can use the "Memories" app which is available for Nextcloud
as well as for Android. Since I have an unlimited data plan and 5G
speeds most of the time I also don't care if "Memories" needs to
download images when browsing galleries.

The Nextcloud server is also fully backed up daily with a history of 6
months - so I can access every single day as a folder to see older
versions of a file as well.

And even if you would only use Google Drive - they charge around 2 USD
per month for 1 TB. So one year is around 24 USD. Even in 10 years you
only pay 240 USD. That is cheaper than some of the 1 TB SD cards
available and even before the AI crisis, the prices for SD cards were
not much cheaper.
> But also by incessant subscriptions to replace the lost functionality.

Well - backup storage is never for free. Even if you only do local
backups at home you still need some kind of storage - ideally not only
one single harddisc, but multiple copies in case one fails.
> In summary, anyone saying sd cards are obsolete, knows nothing about them.

In my opinion *some* people may still want to use them. But for many
people it is indeed obsolete - otherwise devices without SD card slot
wouldn't sell and most people would only choose devices which still have
an SD card slot. But it seems, other aspects are more important for many
users.

My wife has a Xiaomi phone with 128 GB built in and an SD card slot -
she did never put an SD card into it.

-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154919 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Arno Welzel wrote:

> However nowadays memory is cheap enough 

That's coming home to bite manufacturers since the AI buy-up of wafer 
production capacity, this years models look like they'll have less RAM 
than equivalents last year, however some will have more EMMC storage.

> (at least it was before the AI hype started), that even mainstream
> devices got a decent amount of memory built in which is enough for
> many users.
When I bought my Pixel 8a, I was undecided between upgrading to 256GB 
storage or sticking with 128GB, considering the likely 7 year life of 
the phone, I stuck with 128 and no problem so far.  Battery life may 
become too short before the phone reaches 7 years old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155020 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

On 8/11/26 04:39, Andy Burns wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
> 
>> However nowadays memory is cheap enough 
> 
> That's coming home to bite manufacturers since the AI buy-up of wafer
> production capacity, this years models look like they'll have less RAM
> than equivalents last year, however some will have more EMMC storage.
> 
>> (at least it was before the AI hype started), that even mainstream
>> devices got a decent amount of memory built in which is enough for
>> many users.
> When I bought my Pixel 8a, I was undecided between upgrading to 256GB
> storage or sticking with 128GB, considering the likely 7 year life of
> the phone, I stuck with 128 and no problem so far.  Battery life may
> become too short before the phone reaches 7 years old.

My 128GB Pixel2 (which I bought because I wanted a better camera than 
the one in my Motorola) was born in 2017.  I bought it in 2020 ($120 
"refurbished" but never opened) and replaced the battery ($60 and 
watching the guy do it was worth the price of admission all by itself) 
in 2022.  Still works fine -- it's pretty much a camera with additional 
utility and I store all my photos on my computer, so I've used only 
about half the available storage.

BUT I have a T-Mobile prepaid phone SIM ($10/year) with 306 minutes on 
it.  Unlikely to use them in my lifetime.  I also have a Keepgo data SIM 
(Spanish provider which roams on T-Mobile, not the best coverage but 
sufficient) with 3.5GB, which is currently in the Pixel and I use it 
(rarely, mostly just to allow my family to track me) with my google 
voice phone number.  Now my question:

I would like to put the T-Mobile SIM in the Pixel and convert the Keepgo 
SIM to an e-SIM (which I'm pretty sure is possible);  I'm also thinking 
about buying a Pixel 9 Pro for the tele camera capability.  Can an e-SIM 
be transferred to a new phone?  Keepgo is really good about email 
customer service, but I don't want to take a chance on accidentally 
triggering something irrevocable that I might not actually want.

BTW, I recommend them highly.  The data never expires and the cost is 
reasonable.  My system is perfect for people who almost never use their 
phone as a phone and hate to waste money. (Ignore the fact that I get 
more free data if you sign up through me;  apparently you get some too.)

So, to reiterate:  Can an e-SIM be transferred from phone to phone?
----------------

UPDATE:  Yes, this is all possible.  AI provided UI before I posted this 
-- which I'm doing because it may provide other useful information and 
hey, it's free!


-- 
Cheers, Bev
       A man's got to know his limitations.
       It's a woman's duty to make sure of this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154922 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
> And even if you would only use Google Drive - they charge around 2 USD
> per month for 1 TB. So one year is around 24 USD. Even in 10 years you
> only pay 240 USD. That is cheaper than some of the 1 TB SD cards
> available and even before the AI crisis, the prices for SD cards were
> not much cheaper.

  AJL's post triggered me to have a look at the current Google Drive
options and rates and AFAICT, the 1TB option doesn't exist anymore and
the rates are quite a bit higher now.

  For example 400GB is already EUR 4.99 per month and 2TB (1TB isn't
mentioned) is EUR 9.99 per month. I assume the rates in USD will be
about the same.

  Yes, rates are lower for the first 3 months (or year if paying
yearly), but nowhere near 2 USB per month for 1 TB.

  N.B. There are '( Get Discount )' buttons for each of the options, but
I didn't dare to proceed ('Agree' to their 'Google One Terms of
Service') after clicking those, in case Google finds my credit-card
somewhere in their records! :-) But I doubt those discounts will be as
high as 80% (or even 'just' 60%).

  N.B. All but the lowest two (100GB and 200GB) 'plans' now are 'Google
AI PLus' with all kinds of Gemini and other stuff, instead of just
'STORAGE'. I.e. you pay for stuff you probably don't want/need.

  That said, I still only use the free 15GB, of which about a third is
used.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154923 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

A little earlier, I wrote:
[...]

>   Yes, rates are lower for the first 3 months (or year if paying
> yearly), but nowhere near 2 USB per month for 1 TB.

  What on earth would one do with c.q. get for 2 USB per month!? :-)

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154940 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Frank Slootweg, 2026-08-11 15:58:

> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> [...]
>> And even if you would only use Google Drive - they charge around 2 USD
>> per month for 1 TB. So one year is around 24 USD. Even in 10 years you
>> only pay 240 USD. That is cheaper than some of the 1 TB SD cards
>> available and even before the AI crisis, the prices for SD cards were
>> not much cheaper.
> 
>   AJL's post triggered me to have a look at the current Google Drive
> options and rates and AFAICT, the 1TB option doesn't exist anymore and
> the rates are quite a bit higher now.
> 
>   For example 400GB is already EUR 4.99 per month and 2TB (1TB isn't
> mentioned) is EUR 9.99 per month. I assume the rates in USD will be
> about the same.

Yes, you're right - I got fooled by the "for 3 months" thing...

>   Yes, rates are lower for the first 3 months (or year if paying
> yearly), but nowhere near 2 USB per month for 1 TB.

In this I'd suggest Hetzner with their 1 TB Nextcloud offer which is
around 4 EUR per month, if one really needs that much:

<https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-share/>



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154943 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>AJL's post triggered me to have a look at the current Google Drive
>options and rates and AFAICT, the 1TB option doesn't exist anymore and
>the rates are quite a bit higher now.

I made an error in my earlier post about the size of my Google Drive (and
 Gmail storage) plan. I started by paying $2/month (US) for the 100GB Basic
 Plan in 2018. Later my plan changed to $19.99/year (cheaper but with a year
 lock). My needs are light so my drive usually sits at least 20GB free. As
 reported earlier I've never had one problem in all those years. And as I
 said to the original poster who complained about the excessive price of
 online storage $2/month isn't really all that large of a strain on my
 budget...  8-O

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154927 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Why are they "obsolete"? 
>>>
>>> Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the
>>> manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money?
>> 
>> I agree with Steve that saying sd cards are obsolete is patently absurd.
> 
> SD cards in mobile devices are mostly there because in the past memory
> was quite expensive and many people did not need much storage. 

This is dead wrong for two reasons, one of which is 60% of all 
recent/current Androids have the sd card slot for good reasons.

The other reason is people who are desperate for "more storage" have plenty 
of ways that MARKETING provided to them for them to pay for it monthly.

It's their abject desperation that I point out, which makes them pay hugely 
up front and then again for the rest of their lives that I'm pointing out.

> So it was
> better to sell devices cheaper with only little memory built in and
> offer the option to extend this using SD cards.

I realize Arno does just fine w/o a portable memory slot, but I'm assuming 
he also paid "more than he would have" in his desperation to replace the 
lost functionality, even as I'm sure Arno doesn't realize that's what he 
did.

Just like Andy said he was forced to decide between 256GB & 128GB of the 
expensive internal storage, Arno was faced with the same dilemma because 
his phone only comes with the far-more-expensive internal storage.

My 64GB phone is still doing just fine as every few years I double the 
sdcard memory, although I will openly admit, an sd card went bad on me.

> However nowadays memory is cheap enough (at least it was before the AI
> hype started), that even mainstream devices got a decent amount of
> memory built in which is enough for many users. And the more expensive
> models now have options for 256 or even 512 GB built in - for example a
> Google Pixel 10 Pro XL comes with 512 GB. And this is not slow SD card
> memory but UFS storage which is way faster and way more reliable.

I think it's relatively clear that the 40% of current/recent Android models 
without hte sd card are marketed for people who are quite willing to pay in 
their desperate attempt to gain back the functionality that they lost.

Google saves fifty cents by not putting that slot into the phone.
Yet the customer pays for the rest of their lives to gain that back.

>> The *only* reason sd slots aren't put in 40% of Androids is to make money.
> 
> Only if people buy additional online storage *only* for this reason. But
> even *with* an SD card I want to have a backup of my data anyway and I
> do *not* want to store 300 GB of pictures on my phone, just because I
> used it to take the pictures.
> 
> And no, I don't want to pull the card to do a backup every day or to
> copy pictures from it.

I'm confused that you need to "pull the card out" to back it up.
Backing up data from the phone to the desktop is trivial.
With or without an sd card.  

> So the backup is done online or via USB and there is no need to have a
> removable SD card. Also 128 GB built in memory in my current phone are
> totally fine for me to keep all data I need even when I am offline, like
> OSMAnd maps or my music collection for traveling or daily commute.

You need to look up "opportunity cost". It's clear you don't understand it.

As I noted, Google removed the sd slot not because of the fifty cents.
They removed it because it makes you desperate to buy more storage.

And it worked.
Yes, I know Google doesn't supply a 64GB phone.

Because their decision to remove the fifty-cent hardware requires more.
But trust me, you *paid* for that storage, even if you think you did not.

You were so desperate to pay for the missing functionality that you 
couldn't have survived with a 64GB phone even if they offered it.

Without sd card storage, I couldn't survive with 64GB either.

>> They make money because the consumer must desperately replace the lost
>> functionality, usually hugely larger initial storage costs overall.
> 
> I never had to "desperately" replace anything. 

You are not understanding me, as the desperation is already proven.
 a. You didn't buy a 64GB phone (yes, I know Pixels don't come that way)
 b. I believe you are paying subscriptions for cloud storage, are you not?

If a guy robs a bank, and he says he wasn't desperate to rob that bank, 
then you have to ask him why he robbed that bank if it wasn't desperation.

Or, look at it this way. Why didn't I rob a bank?
Because I'm not desperate for money.

You, on the other hand, were desperate for storage, so you paid more.
 a. You paid more than you needed to, up front (yes, I know the options)
 b. You pay more every month via a subscription

Think of this from a MARKETING perspective. 
 a. They removed the slot in 40% of the current phones
 b. To make the consumer desperate to buy the functionality back

Apple does this crap all the time.

> It works fine for me as
> it is. I've been running my own Nextcloud server for nearly 10 years now
> - all backups of my phone go to hat server and all pictures I have taken
> with the phone, right away after I have taken them. Also only the last 6
> months of pictures will stay on the phone. If I want to review older
> pictures I can use the "Memories" app which is available for Nextcloud
> as well as for Android. Since I have an unlimited data plan and 5G
> speeds most of the time I also don't care if "Memories" needs to
> download images when browsing galleries.

So why do you pay subscriptions for cloud storage? 
Or am I confusing you with someone else?

> The Nextcloud server is also fully backed up daily with a history of 6
> months - so I can access every single day as a folder to see older
> versions of a file as well.
> 
> And even if you would only use Google Drive - they charge around 2 USD
> per month for 1 TB. So one year is around 24 USD. Even in 10 years you
> only pay 240 USD. That is cheaper than some of the 1 TB SD cards
> available and even before the AI crisis, the prices for SD cards were
> not much cheaper.

I don't think any argument "against" sd cards can be made on cost alone.

It's like arguing against the cost of sneakers versus shoes.
 a. Sneakers generally are far cheaper than shoes are, and, 
 b. When you need to do something with them, you can.

There is no argument possible, that I can think of, made purely on the 
basis of cost that favors the lack of the sd card in any phone.

In fact, that's exactly why MARKETING removed the sd card hardware.
They know that it costs the consumer more NOT to have the hardware.

>> But also by incessant subscriptions to replace the lost functionality.
> 
> Well - backup storage is never for free. Even if you only do local
> backups at home you still need some kind of storage - ideally not only
> one single harddisc, but multiple copies in case one fails.

Nobody is saying storage is free.
Even an sd card costs, oh, what? About thirty bucks, right?
And they can go bad.

One of mine recently stopped showing up in the phone. Dunno why.
I put it into the PC card slot and it reads fine.

So I need to buy another sd card to replace it. 
Probably a bigger one. That's another 30 bucks down the drain.

Nobody said sd card storage was free.

>> In summary, anyone saying sd cards are obsolete, knows nothing about them.
> 
> In my opinion *some* people may still want to use them.

Well, you saw the results. I didn't fake them. Run the search yourself.
It showed 60% of current/recent phones still have the sd slot hardware.

Anyone claiming they're "obsolete" is simply dead wrong.
Why are they dead wrong? 

Dunno. I assume that they simply don't understand them.

> But for many
> people it is indeed obsolete - otherwise devices without SD card slot
> wouldn't sell and most people would only choose devices which still have
> an SD card slot. But it seems, other aspects are more important for many
> users.

Marketing knows that removing the sd slot makes people desperate to buy the 
lost functionality back, which, let's not forget, is why they removed it.

They didn't do it to save fifty cents.

> My wife has a Xiaomi phone with 128 GB built in and an SD card slot -
> she did never put an SD card into it.

My wife has a 64GB Samsung Galaxy A32-5G with a mere 64GB built in and yet 
she takes tons and tons (and tons) of pics and videos of the grandchildren. 

How does she do it?
-- 
Marketing is clever at getting people to not realize they're paying them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154928 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Maria Sophia wrote:
> You need to look up "opportunity cost". It's clear you don't understand it.

I apologize for saying it that way, as it was rude of me. I'm sorry.

We were discussing the implications of phones with and without sd hardware.
Arno & I simply put different weights on what the sdcard does & doesn't do.

My point about "opportunity cost" is from a marketing standpoint.

 a. The opportunity cost of including an SD card slot is
    vastly higher than omitting it. 
 b. Omitting the slot allows the brand to capture high-margin internal 
    storage upgrades, transition customers into lucrative recurring cloud 
    subscriptions, protect brand equity from poor user experiences caused 
    by slow memory cards and maintain cleaner industrial designs. 
 c. The revenue and ecosystem retention gained by removing the slot 
    overwhelmingly eclipses the marginal sales lost from power-users 
    demanding physical expandability.

In summary, from a marketing standpoint, the opportunity cost of including
an SD card slot is vastly higher than omitting it. 

Omitting the slot allows the brand to capture high-margin internal storage
upgrades, transition customers into lucrative recurring cloud
subscriptions, protect brand  equity from poor user experiences caused by
slow memory cards and maintain cleaner industrial designs. 

The revenue and ecosystem retention gained by removing the slot
overwhelmingly eclipses the marginal sales lost from power-users demanding
physical expandability.

That's opportunity cost marketing 101, for sd slots, in a mouthful.
-- 
Some of the best classes I ever took, were macro/micro & marketing

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154942 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Maria Sophia, 2026-08-11 18:19:

> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> Why are they "obsolete"? 
>>>>
>>>> Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the
>>>> manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money?
>>>
>>> I agree with Steve that saying sd cards are obsolete is patently absurd.
>>
>> SD cards in mobile devices are mostly there because in the past memory
>> was quite expensive and many people did not need much storage. 
> 
> This is dead wrong for two reasons, one of which is 60% of all 
> recent/current Androids have the sd card slot for good reasons.

No, it is not "dead wrong". You remember the late 1990ies?

And some things will just die very slowly, but they will one day, like
optical disc drives (CD/DVD/BD).

> The other reason is people who are desperate for "more storage" have plenty 
> of ways that MARKETING provided to them for them to pay for it monthly.

No - just because they are lazy.

I have around 60 GB used on my 128 GB phone. And I don't see why I would
need much more within the next 3-5 years.

The complete backup of *all* data on my Nextcloud server inlcuing *all*
changes from the last 12 months done in that time is around 400 GB. And
this is including data from my close friends and family with whom I
share this server.

[...]>> So it was
>> better to sell devices cheaper with only little memory built in and
>> offer the option to extend this using SD cards.
> 
> I realize Arno does just fine w/o a portable memory slot, but I'm assuming 
> he also paid "more than he would have" in his desperation to replace the 
> lost functionality, even as I'm sure Arno doesn't realize that's what he 
> did.

No, I pay exactly what I need. 3 EUR a month for 1 TB storage and around
30 EUR for a server which runs a lot of services for me:

<https://status.0x0c.de>
> Just like Andy said he was forced to decide between 256GB & 128GB of the 
> expensive internal storage, Arno was faced with the same dilemma because 
> his phone only comes with the far-more-expensive internal storage.

This was not a dilemma for me. I never even considered 256 GB - I don't
need it, really!
I get it - you want SD cards and do not accept any other view. Fine.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155036 — Storage media availability over time (was: Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?)

On 2026-08-12, Arno Welzel wrote:

> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-11 18:19:
[...]
>> This is dead wrong for two reasons, one of which is 60% of all 
>> recent/current Androids have the sd card slot for good reasons.
>
> No, it is not "dead wrong". You remember the late 1990ies?
>
> And some things will just die very slowly, but they will one day, like
> optical disc drives (CD/DVD/BD).

Is there any similar replacement for data storage and backup? IIRC the
best of them all is tape, but tends to be expensive; optical media being
more prevalent and readily available, although for capacity and
price/capacity the most feasible one, at least before the introduction
of friggin' SMR (granted, backup might be one place where it actually is
acceptable) and recent price increases, was to just use a hard disk
drive?

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155042 — Re: Storage media availability over time

Nuno Silva wrote:
>> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-11 18:19:
> [...]
>>> This is dead wrong for two reasons, one of which is 60% of all 
>>> recent/current Androids have the sd card slot for good reasons.
>>
>> No, it is not "dead wrong". You remember the late 1990ies?
>>
>> And some things will just die very slowly, but they will one day, like
>> optical disc drives (CD/DVD/BD).
> 
> Is there any similar replacement for data storage and backup? IIRC the
> best of them all is tape, but tends to be expensive; optical media being
> more prevalent and readily available, although for capacity and
> price/capacity the most feasible one, at least before the introduction
> of friggin' SMR (granted, backup might be one place where it actually is
> acceptable) and recent price increases, was to just use a hard disk
> drive?

Hi Nuno,

I decided not to reply to that post as he meant well, but his analogy was
so inappropriate that it would have taken too many words for me to correct.

We've had this same absurd "argument" on the Apple newsgroups forever.
 1. Apple removes functionality so that you have to buy it back
 2. But Apple tells people the functionality was "outdated"
 3. People "believe" everything Apple tells them to believe
It's like a religion.

If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it.
Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it.

People love to believe a "story" concocted by other people manipulating
them, where it's a fact that anyone believing SD is outdated is wrong.

There's a reason more than half of all Android sold tody have sd slots.
What sd does, no other replacement can even come close to doing.

Anyone saying otherwise, simply doesn't understand what sd can do.
It's impossible to replace what sd cards do with privacy & for free.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154968 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

On 2026-08-11 13:27, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-10 19:24:
> 
>> Steve Hayes wrote:

...

>> They make money because the consumer must desperately replace the lost
>> functionality, usually hugely larger initial storage costs overall.
> 
> I never had to "desperately" replace anything. It works fine for me as
> it is. I've been running my own Nextcloud server for nearly 10 years now
> - all backups of my phone go to hat server and all pictures I have taken
> with the phone, right away after I have taken them. Also only the last 6
> months of pictures will stay on the phone. If I want to review older
> pictures I can use the "Memories" app which is available for Nextcloud
> as well as for Android. Since I have an unlimited data plan and 5G
> speeds most of the time I also don't care if "Memories" needs to
> download images when browsing galleries.
> 

Is there a Howto for dummies, about Nextcloud? :-)

Quickie: do you need to have a fixed IP for this? Or are the transfer 
done only inside the LAN?


> The Nextcloud server is also fully backed up daily with a history of 6
> months - so I can access every single day as a folder to see older
> versions of a file as well.
> 
> And even if you would only use Google Drive - they charge around 2 USD
> per month for 1 TB. So one year is around 24 USD. Even in 10 years you
> only pay 240 USD. That is cheaper than some of the 1 TB SD cards
> available and even before the AI crisis, the prices for SD cards were
> not much cheaper.
>> But also by incessant subscriptions to replace the lost functionality.
> 
> Well - backup storage is never for free. Even if you only do local
> backups at home you still need some kind of storage - ideally not only
> one single harddisc, but multiple copies in case one fails.
>> In summary, anyone saying sd cards are obsolete, knows nothing about them.
> 
> In my opinion *some* people may still want to use them. But for many
> people it is indeed obsolete - otherwise devices without SD card slot
> wouldn't sell and most people would only choose devices which still have
> an SD card slot. But it seems, other aspects are more important for many
> users.
> 
> My wife has a Xiaomi phone with 128 GB built in and an SD card slot -
> she did never put an SD card into it.

I had no need for an SD cards in my phone for a long time (over a 
decade). However, in my new tablet I did install one, because I wanted 
to store many movies. I do not store movies in a phone, the display is 
too small.


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154996 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

On 2026-08-10, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:27:22 +0200, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
> wrote:
[...]
>>E-SIMs are standard for years. A second physical SIM slot is as obsolete
>>as a SD-card-slot.
>
> Why are they "obsolete"? 
>
> Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the
> manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money?

This really doesn't compute, either physical SIMs are obsolete or they
aren't. If a first slot is not obsolete, then the second one isn't.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155011 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-10, Steve Hayes wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:27:22 +0200, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
> [...]
>>>E-SIMs are standard for years. A second physical SIM slot is as obsolete
>>>as a SD-card-slot.
>>
>> Why are they "obsolete"? 
>>
>> Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the
>> manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money?
> 
> This really doesn't compute, either physical SIMs are obsolete or they
> aren't. If a first slot is not obsolete, then the second one isn't.

You are correct. They are wrong. Dead wrong. 

You're bringing up absurdities in this thread which abound everywhere.
These utter absurdities are coming from Joerg, s|b, Steve Hayes, et al.

One of the major problems in this thread causing most of the absurdities is
the people "saying" that the hardware is "obsolete" have no idea it's not.

Here's a list of 2923 current/recent Android phones with "dual SIM" h/w.
 <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&chkDualSIM=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2>

And here's a list of 363 current/recent Android phones with "ESIM" h/w.
 <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&chkESIM=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2>

FWIW, here's a list of only 340 current/recent phones with both:
 <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&chkDualSIM=selected&chkESIM=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2>

In summary, the people claiming sd hardware is "obsolete" are factually
wrong, and, it turns out, only the known trolls are claiming that anyway.

These are some of the thousands of current/recent Androids with sd slots.
1. Samsung Galaxy A17
2. Samsung Galaxy F70 Pro
3. Xiaomi Redmi Note 15
4. Xiaomi Redmi Note 17 (India/China)
5. Xiaomi Poco M8 Power
6. Samsung Galaxy A07 4G
7. Samsung Galaxy A27
8. Infinix Hot 70 Pro
9. Xiaomi Redmi 15
10. OnePlus N6x
11. Infinix Hot 60 Pro
12. Motorola Edge 60 Fusion
13. Samsung Galaxy A16
14. Infinix Hot 70
15. Sony Xperia 1 VIII
16. Samsung Galaxy A26
17. Infinix Smart 20
18. Samsung Galaxy A55
19. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 4G
20. Samsung Galaxy M47
21. Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G
22. Samsung Galaxy A07
23. Samsung Galaxy A06
24. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
25. Samsung Galaxy A54
26. Xiaomi Redmi 17 4G
27. Samsung Galaxy A15
28. Samsung Galaxy A35
29. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
30. Tecno Spark 50
31. Xiaomi Redmi A7 Pro 4G
32. Xiaomi Redmi 15C
33. Xiaomi Redmi A5
34. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G
35. Motorola Moto G77
36. Oppo A6 Pro
37. OnePlus N6
38. Samsung Galaxy A14
39. Xiaomi Redmi 14C
40. Realme 16
41. Realme C85
42. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
43. Xiaomi Poco M8
44. Xiaomi Redmi 13C
45. Samsung Galaxy A34
46. Honor X6c
47. Infinix Hot 60i 4G
48. Oppo A6
49. Tecno Pova 8
50. Xiaomi Redmi Note 15 4G
51. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
52. Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro
53. Oppo A6x 4G
54. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro
55. Samsung Galaxy M17
56. Samsung Galaxy A17 4G
57. Samsung Galaxy A05
58. Samsung Galaxy A32
59. Xiaomi Redmi 12
60. Infinix Smart 10
61. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
62. Samsung Galaxy A25
63. OnePlus Nord CE5
64. Tecno Pova 7
65. Infinix Hot 50 Pro 4G
66. Realme C71
67. vivo Y31
68. Sony Xperia 1 VII
69. Samsung Galaxy A13
70. vivo Y11
<https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2&idCardslot=1>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154856 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

micky, 2026-08-07 15:15:

> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 06 Aug 2026 21:29:34 -0400, micky
> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> 
>> So, I need a new phone and 1) some that I'm looking at have some model
>> that take A) a sim and either a second sim or an SD card. or 
>>          B) a sim and either a second sim or an Esim.   
>>
>> If you had to choose, which is more valuable, an SD slot or an esim
>> slot? 
>>
>> Are there those that have all 3? 
> 
> Google ASI says that "flagship phones (like Samsung Galaxy S or Google
> Pixel series) have largely dropped microSD card slots...."  Really? 

Yes, really.

> When I saw my battery failing, I had time to back up most of what was in
> my phone, but if I had stored everything possible on an SD card, I
> wouldn't have needed warning or last-minute actions.  

A backup should be done on a regular basis and not only if the battery
is about to fail. Treat your smartphone like your laptop or PC: you also
shouldn't keep important data only on your laptop or PC without any
backup since internal storage can always fail at any time and you can
delete or modify data by accident as well.

> I'm surprised I didn't see suggestions to keep things in external
> storage for this reason, but certainly some people already know, so why
> would expensive phones be dropping SD cards? 

Because internal UFS-based memory is faster and manufacturers can save a
bit money.

>> 2) Some times when I look for help, webpage instuctions don't match my
>> late lamented Xiaomi phone.  The standard seems to be Samsung, is that
>> right?   Are there other less expensive brands that are more like
>> Samsung than my Xiaomi has been?   

Samsung is not "the standard" in any way. It is just one of the
manufacturers with the largest market share. But Xiaomi is also very
popular nowadays and there is also Google itself with their "Pixel" series.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154884 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> 2) Some times when I look for help, webpage instuctions don't match my
>>> late lamented Xiaomi phone.  The standard seems to be Samsung, is that
>>> right?   Are there other less expensive brands that are more like
>>> Samsung than my Xiaomi has been?   
> 
> Samsung is not "the standard" in any way. It is just one of the
> manufacturers with the largest market share. But Xiaomi is also very
> popular nowadays and there is also Google itself with their "Pixel" series.

Most of what people are claiming in this thread is not supported by facts.

Samsung's world wide market share is substantial enough bit let's look at
the facts before making any conclusions about Samsung or Xiaomi sd slots.

These are current/recent Android phones that have the sd slot hardware.
(Des anyone notice the many  Samsung or Xiaomi models in that list?)

1. Samsung Galaxy A17
2. Samsung Galaxy F70 Pro
3. Xiaomi Redmi Note 15
4. Xiaomi Redmi Note 17 (India/China)
5. Xiaomi Poco M8 Power
6. Samsung Galaxy A07 4G
7. Samsung Galaxy A27
8. Infinix Hot 70 Pro
9. Xiaomi Redmi 15
10. OnePlus N6x
11. Infinix Hot 60 Pro
12. Motorola Edge 60 Fusion
13. Samsung Galaxy A16
14. Infinix Hot 70
15. Sony Xperia 1 VIII
16. Samsung Galaxy A26
17. Infinix Smart 20
18. Samsung Galaxy A55
19. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 4G
20. Samsung Galaxy M47
21. Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G
22. Samsung Galaxy A07
23. Samsung Galaxy A06
24. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
25. Samsung Galaxy A54
26. Xiaomi Redmi 17 4G
27. Samsung Galaxy A15
28. Samsung Galaxy A35
29. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
30. Tecno Spark 50
31. Xiaomi Redmi A7 Pro 4G
32. Xiaomi Redmi 15C
33. Xiaomi Redmi A5
34. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G
35. Motorola Moto G77
36. Oppo A6 Pro
37. OnePlus N6
38. Samsung Galaxy A14
39. Xiaomi Redmi 14C
40. Realme 16
41. Realme C85
42. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
43. Xiaomi Poco M8
44. Xiaomi Redmi 13C
45. Samsung Galaxy A34
46. Honor X6c
47. Infinix Hot 60i 4G
48. Oppo A6
49. Tecno Pova 8
50. Xiaomi Redmi Note 15 4G
51. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
52. Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro
53. Oppo A6x 4G
54. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro
55. Samsung Galaxy M17
56. Samsung Galaxy A17 4G
57. Samsung Galaxy A05
58. Samsung Galaxy A32
59. Xiaomi Redmi 12
60. Infinix Smart 10
61. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
62. Samsung Galaxy A25
63. OnePlus Nord CE5
64. Tecno Pova 7
65. Infinix Hot 50 Pro 4G
66. Realme C71
67. vivo Y31
68. Sony Xperia 1 VII
69. Samsung Galaxy A13
70. vivo Y11

<https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2&idCardslot=1>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154886 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 10 Aug 2026 02:27:05 +0200, Arno Welzel
<usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

>micky, 2026-08-07 15:15:
>
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 06 Aug 2026 21:29:34 -0400, micky
>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> So, I need a new phone and 1) some that I'm looking at have some model
>>> that take A) a sim and either a second sim or an SD card. or 
>>>          B) a sim and either a second sim or an Esim.   
>>>
>>> If you had to choose, which is more valuable, an SD slot or an esim
>>> slot? 
>>>
>>> Are there those that have all 3? 
>> 
>> Google ASI says that "flagship phones (like Samsung Galaxy S or Google
>> Pixel series) have largely dropped microSD card slots...."  Really? 
>
>Yes, really.
>
>> When I saw my battery failing, I had time to back up most of what was in
>> my phone, but if I had stored everything possible on an SD card, I
>> wouldn't have needed warning or last-minute actions.  
>
>A backup should be done on a regular basis and not only if the battery
>is about to fail.

Yes, I know.  I should also wash the dishes more promptly, revise my
will, set up a medical power of attorney, leave final instructions,
sharpen my lawnmowe blade. 

> Treat your smartphone like your laptop or PC: you also

I could do better on that too, but I do backup. 

>shouldn't keep important data only on your laptop or PC without any

I definitely don't do that.  What is probably lost are texts and text
chats that I probably would never have looked at, and about 40 mostly
short notes made on a note-pad type program, which I had intended to
review but nothing pressing.   

I haven't checked the google backup yet, but I have doubts that they
cover this.  The program is a little freebie that came with
MyPhoneExplorer. 

>backup since internal storage can always fail at any time and you can
>delete or modify data by accident as well.
>
>> I'm surprised I didn't see suggestions to keep things in external
>> storage for this reason, but certainly some people already know, so why
>> would expensive phones be dropping SD cards? 
>
>Because internal UFS-based memory is faster and manufacturers can save a
>bit money.

Okay.  

>>> 2) Some times when I look for help, webpage instuctions don't match my
>>> late lamented Xiaomi phone.  The standard seems to be Samsung, is that
>>> right?   Are there other less expensive brands that are more like
>>> Samsung than my Xiaomi has been?   
>
>Samsung is not "the standard" in any way. It is just one of the
>manufacturers with the largest market share. But Xiaomi is also very
>popular nowadays and there is also Google itself with their "Pixel" series.

Well, no more Xiaomi for a while.  I got Motorola. More details after it
ocomes and I try it, but some reviews said it had very few deviations
from vanilla Android.  So I should be able to find the settings etc.
that you guys or online articles tell me to use. 


For the record, I was lossing interest in the SD card, but I had a Redmi
note 8 pro, and they now have Redmi Note 17 Pro.  I tried 17, 15, 14,
13, and maybe back to 12 before I found one that woud use an SD card. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154900 — Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:02:00 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>Well, no more Xiaomi for a while.  I got Motorola. More details after it
>ocomes and I try it, but some reviews said it had very few deviations
>from vanilla Android.  So I should be able to find the settings etc.
>that you guys or online articles tell me to use. 
>
>
>For the record, I was lossing interest in the SD card, but I had a Redmi
>note 8 pro, and they now have Redmi Note 17 Pro.  I tried 17, 15, 14,
>13, and maybe back to 12 before I found one that woud use an SD card. 

I am considering getting a Redmi 15c or a Redmi A7 Pro, both of which,
I am told, make provision for an SD card. The 15c appears to have a
better specification than the A7 Pro, but costs less. I'm not sure how
that works.

There are a few other phones on my list to consider, but all of them
are said have provision for an SD card. If they don't have that, they
don't get on my list.

I'm not sure of the difference between a SIM and an ESIM, but had
assumed that an ESIM replaced the physical card. From what I read
here, it doesn't. Does it matter?




-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web