Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #154741 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-06 21:29 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-08-11 21:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 156 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
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: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-18 14:00 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:22 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:44 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-18 19:22 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-18 18:15 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-19 07:58 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-18 23:15 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 15:36 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 08:23 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 16:59 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:04 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:15 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:19 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:29 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 11:57 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 22:13 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:50 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 19:11 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 09:44 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 19:56 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:11 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:17 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:24 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:35 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:04 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 22:15 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 13:02 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 09:51 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-19 18:48 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:13 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 20:25 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:55 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-20 01:16 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-19 18:17 -0400
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 23:45 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-18 13:29 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-18 08:47 -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? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-18 05:24 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-18 10:19 +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 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 13:28 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115f101$3ut9p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154913 |
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]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 13:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115f0uo$3ut9p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154888 |
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]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 12:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <ne0fu1FedmtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154916 |
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]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115q87a$3hmo8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154919 |
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]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 13:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115fe9s.ucc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154916 |
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]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 14:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115fhm4.h94.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154922 |
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]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 20:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115ieg5$11npq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154922 |
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]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 20:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115ilo0$14a0d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154940 |
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]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 08:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115fi26$22pl$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #154916 |
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]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 08:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115fk0i$io4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #154927 |
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]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 20:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115ietk$11tqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154927 |
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]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 09:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Storage media availability over time (was: Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?) |
| Message-ID | <115rrsa$jrh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154942 |
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]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 10:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <115stt3$1aff$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155036 |
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]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 14:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1161hgi$1pte9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155042 |
Maria Sophia, 2026-08-16 20:01: [...] > If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it. > Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it. This comparison is stupid and tasteless! Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer for more than 5 years and did never miss that. For me they are outdated and many other people also don't *need* SD cards any longer. > 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. On of the reason is also, that the manufacturers then don't have to offer multiple models with 128, 256, 512 GB etc. but just *one* model with an SD card slot. > What sd does, no other replacement can even come close to doing. Only when you need replacable memory inside the phone. And this is only one of many ways to store data. Also if you use SD cards to extend the internal memory to install apps on it, you can't just replace them when needed without moving everything to the internal memory of the phone first. > Anyone saying otherwise, simply doesn't understand what sd can do. > It's impossible to replace what sd cards do with privacy & for free. It is. External USB based storage solutions exist and you can also use your *own* server to store data which you don't need on the phone all the time. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 15:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <nej4k2Fb03jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155058 |
On 2026-08-18 14:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-16 20:01:
>
> [...]
>
>> If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it.
>> Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it.
>
> This comparison is stupid and tasteless!
>
> Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer for more than 5
> years and did never miss that. For me they are outdated and many other
> people also don't *need* SD cards any longer.
My phone has the socket, and I think all my previous phones had it. But
I have not used them in well over a decade.
Saying they are obsolete is as silly as saying they are an absolute
need. Some people need or like to use them, and some people don't need
nor like to use them. Millions on both sides. It is ridiculous to
ridicule any of both groups, and it is ridiculous to argue for any side.
It is fantastic that there is choice.
...
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 15:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <11625lh.nu4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155059 |
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-08-18 14:00, Arno Welzel wrote: > > Maria Sophia, 2026-08-16 20:01: > > > > [...] > > > >> If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it. > >> Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it. > > > > This comparison is stupid and tasteless! > > > > Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer for more than 5 > > years and did never miss that. For me they are outdated and many other > > people also don't *need* SD cards any longer. > > My phone has the socket, and I think all my previous phones had it. But > I have not used them in well over a decade. My previous 128GB phone still had a SD-card slot, but like you, I never had any use for it, 128GB was more than enough. (My current phone is 256GB, no SD-card slot. 60GB used.) My first phones were only 4GB and 8GB (yes, non-volatile Internal storage, not RAM). On those phones, one needed to use a SD-card to be able to do anything useful. > Saying they are obsolete is as silly as saying they are an absolute > need. Some people need or like to use them, and some people don't need > nor like to use them. Millions on both sides. It is ridiculous to > ridicule any of both groups, and it is ridiculous to argue for any side. > It is fantastic that there is choice. Of course SD-cards are not in anyway obsolete. That they're not often used in *smartphones* anymore, does not mean that the *medium* is "obsolete". One just has to look at the abundance of brands, suppliers, stock, etc. to see how silly such a stance is. But then, we do know *who* is uttering such sillyness over and over again, don't we!? :-) FWIW, our digital cameras *do* have SD-card slots and yes we *do* use them (the cameras and the slots)! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 19:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <nejm4qFfo3kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155061 |
Frank Slootweg wrote: > My first phones were only 4GB and 8GB (yes, non-volatile Internal > storage, not RAM). Mine was 0.5GB RAM plus 0.5GB FLASH > On those phones, one needed to use a SD-card to be > able to do anything useful. absolutely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 18:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <11633j6$1g5h$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155065 |
Andy Burns wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> My first phones were only 4GB and 8GB (yes, non-volatile Internal >> storage, not RAM). > > Mine was 0.5GB RAM plus 0.5GB FLASH > >> On those phones, one needed to use a SD-card to be >> able to do anything useful. > > absolutely. I feel sorry for Pixel owners, even as I envy their "stock" Android experience (which, on Samsung, is anything but a stock Android ROM). Funny story, in the "olden days" of 4GB phones (when the Android OS was about 3GB or so) I bought a phone from T-Mobile for one of my college kids. T-Mobile had "advertised" that you can "extend the storage" with an sdcard. Yeah. Right. The kid complained that the sd card didn't make the 4GB to 16GB (or whatever the typical SD card was at that time) so I complained to T-Mobile. They gave me all my money back (except for the sd card, of course). That's how I learned that it was BS that the card was useful to turn a 4GB phone into a 15GB phone (or whatever the size was of the sd card then). Still, I recently ordered a set of 256GB sd cards as we don't like removing the photos/videos of the grandchildren (of which we get tons daily). Hence, I feel sorry for you Pixel owners. You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone. -- The most powerful tool in our phone arsenal is having a smart philosophy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 07:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <nel2fgFma0nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155069 |
Maria Sophia wrote: I feel sorry for you Pixel owners. > You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone. True, but the strange thing ... even though google don't have SD slots, they did implement "adoptable storage" that allowed SD cards to extend the internal storage in the transparent way T-Mobile claimed, and I believe Samsung allows adoptable storage. I think you prefer to have the ability to pull your SD cards out for portability or backups, so you can't/don't use them that way?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 23:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1163l6h$2uig$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155071 |
Andy Burns wrote: > I feel sorry for you Pixel owners. >> You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone. > > True, but the strange thing ... even though google don't have SD slots, > they did implement "adoptable storage" that allowed SD cards to extend > the internal storage in the transparent way T-Mobile claimed, and I > believe Samsung allows adoptable storage. > > I think you prefer to have the ability to pull your SD cards out for > portability or backups, so you can't/don't use them that way? I think almost nobody uses the sd card as "extended storage" nowadays. And, I think almost nobody pulls the card out frequently, given it's trivial to copy everything off the card while it's still in the phone. Mostly I pull the card out every few years to double the card size. Hence, I love any phone that allows us the luxury to double storage size. When I was contemplating replacing my broken phone (the port is busted), I looked at the Pixel and *loved* that it's a stock Android experience. But I can't live without the sdcard, since every few years I double my storage without having to remove anything (so I keep the original files). My 64GB phone started with 32GB of extra storage, then 64GB, then 128GB. But now I'm going to swap out the 128GB sdcard for a 256GB card instead. Over 60% of today's Android phones can do that, where the minority 40% almost all fall into the category of the highly marketed brand names. Google, for example, just like Apple, does not provide the sd card because they make far more billions by having you buy back the functionality. It's basic MARKETING 101. a. Take something important away b. So the owner is desperate to buy it back c. But, tell them that it's good for them! :) The marketing is so successful, I'm actually surprised that most phones still have the sd slot hardware, because companies like Google can't lose. The only way they lose is if people stop paying through the nose to replace the lost functionality, but Google hides that huge payment in storage size. Google also hides the huge cost by having people rent their data back. It's all basic MARKETING 101 so it's obvious to everyone what it is. It's kind of like how candy bars used to be 5 cents and about six inches long, while now they're a buck (or whatever) and only three inches long. The marketing people tell you that smaller bars are the "fun size" now. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web