Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #154927
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.mobile.android |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Date | 2026-08-11 08:19 -0800 |
| Organization | BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) |
| Message-ID | <115fi26$22pl$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <mamb7lh0cdfr4klsnl7bjiulue8es4lt4g@4ax.com> <1154tgq$2gn6$1@solani.org> <h6sj7l5ft2gktoq8mvrm1i3oudteu8abup@4ax.com> <115d1gh$2kk0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <115f0uo$3ut9p$1@dont-email.me> |
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.
Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-18 05:24 +0200
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
csiph-web