Re: What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:26:58 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

You are arguing, without clearly saying so, that it is cheaper to buy a
phone with smaller internal storage, and compensate by inserting a large
memory card (which is cheaper). And treating as stupid the people that
do not agree with your hidden argument.

My argument, as are all my arguments, is based on knowledge & logic.

The knowledge that Apple/Google are not stupid. They're actually brilliant.
And knowledge that 64GB is plenty of internal storage for a thousand apps.

Think about this next question, Carlos:
Q: Why would anyone (pay a lot) for more than 64GB of internal storage?
A: You tell me.

HINT: I know the answer. As I said, Google/Apple marketing are not stupid.

Maybe.
 
But, for example, when I am offered the same model of a phone in several
versions, the one with more internal storage also has more internal ram,
and a few other things.

I will agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible argument, where, if
you are choosing a phone with double the RAM, that's a *different* issue.

A completely different issue.

In fact, I'm on record, for years, explaining to the Apple owners that only
until AI proved me right, Apple has historically put the cheapest RAM
possible in the iPhone (which is part of Apple's strategy of putting the
cheapest components possible, such as the battery, into the iPhone).

Hence I will agree with you that *other factors* go into determining what
phone you purchase, where my logically defensible argument is only that...

a. A phone without sd is always inferior to a phone with sd (in many ways)
b. But only if we're comparing two essentially equivalent phones otherwise

As other have said, the internal storage is way faster than external
memory cards, and have a much lower failure rate.

I will *never* disagree with a logically defensible argument.
Only fools do that. That's why they're fools.

My response is that I have nothing against internal storage *except* that
it doesn't do what portable storage does, and, worse, internal storage
(while faster & more reliable) certainly costs a *lot* more than equivalent
portable storage costs.

So internal storage is good... but...
a. It costs an arm & a leg (compared to portable storage), and,
b. It can't do what portable storage does

For example, internal storage can't grow over time.
Portable storage can.

Internal storage can't be popped into a handful of phones to populate them.
And it can't be transferred to a new phone like portable storage can.

Not without the clusterfuck of the cloud or cables or thumb drives.

And the card slot
means that it is more difficult, perhaps impossible, to waterproof the
phone.

While that sounds logically defensible...

As badgolferman noted, I don't think there is evidence of those two things.
a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings

Hmmm... if that's the case, maybe the removal was just a marketing trick?

You may say that you do not mind waterproofness, but that's your
opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Me, I have lost
a phone to water, so to me it is important.

I won't say that.

What I will say is nobody has shown any evidence of your claim.
See above.
a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings

Given phones without portable storage are clearly substandard to phones
that have it, and, while the theoretical advantages of IP ratings and cost
make sense, they don't seem to be passed on to the consumer, the question
is why did Google/Apple remove the basic functionality of portable storage.

HINT: I know why. Do you?