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

On 2025-06-20 09:47, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:26:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
 

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

>
I would not even consider a phone with only 64 GB.

 Hi Carlos (from a kinder, gentler me, but still the logically sensible me)
 May I ask when you say you wouldn't consider a 64GB phone if that phone had
an sd slot or not as it makes an astoundingly huge difference which it is.

I want more storage space, and I do not consider storage in a card as equivalent. I consider it as a hack.
For instance, my WhatsApp storage is several gigabytes. A lot of storage. And can not go into a card. Ok, it can be done, but at the cost of making it slower and less reliable.

 

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

>
I don't care what they do. I don't buy my phones from them.

 Last we checked, most Android phones (from all carriers) had sd slots for
the obvious reason that it's impossible to replace what sd cards do any
other way, but that means a lot of Android phones do not have sd slots.
 It's not just Apple or Google (where none of their phones have basic
functionality) but it's also Samsung for their high-end smartphones.
 Ever wonder why Samsung puts slots in the lower end but not the high end?
I have.
 And I think I know why.
 (If I haven't mentioned it yet, some marketing gimmicks are brilliant.)
 

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

>
What, exactly? It doesn't do any thing I need.
>
Move over the card somewhere else? I do not need it.
>
And I can prove this: My phone does have a card slot and I don't use it.

 I've explained, in gory detail, what an sdcard does that is impossible to
replace, but if you don't need any of what it does, then you don't need it.
 But wait.... you did need it!
 You said you wouldn't buy a phone with only 64GB of storage.
You wouldn't have said that if it had an sd slot.
 So you *did* need it.
You simply replaced *some* of what it did with a phone with more storage.

My phone does have an SD slot, and I don't use it.

 But it's *impossible* to replace what portable storage does with permanent
storage. You can work around some of the issues - but not all of them.

I consider the reverse: you are working around the lack of internal storage with a hack: installing an external card.

 

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

>
Ok, there is that.
>
But I don't need it, either.

 I'm glad you're being reasonable in that you understood that permanent
storage costs an arm and a leg at yesterday's inflated prices, because you
have to plan ahead for five years of use of that phone when you buy a phone
that does not have an sd slot. You get no second chances.

You do not know what it costs, because you have to compare model prices when the _only_ difference is the internal storage size. Often more storage comes in a model with several more features, starting with more RAM.

 One of the many beauties of portable storage that is *impossible* to fully
replace with permanent storage is that it can not only grow over time, but
as it grows, you get to buy bigger & faster sdcards at today's cheaper
prices.
 Essentially, without sd slots, you have to "future proof" a phone at
inflated yesterday's prices for all the storage you think you might need in
the next five years - but with sd slots - you can add cheaper portable
storage at prices that just get cheaper as you need more & more storage.
 If you bought a phone that had more than 64GB of storage, you wasted a lot
of money as a result. So you *did* need it. You just might not realize it.
 

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.

>
I don't need that.

 I agree with you that it's reasonable to say that most people won't need to
pop out an sd card to pop it into another phone, or even into a computer.
 Most people transfer data over USB or Wi-Fi so while this capability is
impossible to replicate fully, it can be partially replicated with cables.
 

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

>
I only need to copy over the photos ONCE in the life of the new phone.
It is the same setup I have to use to migrate everything else, including
the apps.

 I'm probably only one out a few million people who populate a phone fully
and completely without ever using the Internet (or the cloud) to do it, so
I'm well aware that, nowadays, re-populating a phone is pretty easy to do.
 Bear in mind I had two Samsung Galaxy A32-5G's break on me, which were
replaced under warranty, where I just popped the old sdcard out and popped
it into the new phone and I didn't have to copy any of the OSMAnd data.
 In your use model, how would you copy over all the OSMAnd data to a
replacement phone? And how would you copy over all your APKs to the
replacement phone (especially if many aren't from the Google Play repo)?

There is a tool that replicates the phone.

 And how would you copy over your homescreen from the old phone to the new
phone so that every folder and app is exactly in the same place?
 I'm not saying you can't do that - but I am asking HOW you do that.

By hand, but that's a different issue. I don't use a phone desktop app except the default one, so no export/import/backup feature.

 

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?

>
Nope.

 Well, let's just agree to disagree because we've had entire threads on this
and nobody has found any evidence that the manufacturers are passing to the
consumer the cost benefit to them of removing the basic functionality of
either the sd slot or the aux jack (or the charging block for that matter).
 

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

>
Evidence of this claim of yours? :-)
A slot for a card is a hole, and it has to be waterproofed. That's evident.

 Same thing with the IP ratings, where there is no overall difference that
anyone can find between IP ratings of phones with basic functionality
intact versus the phones where marketing removed the basic functionality.
 

Given phones without portable storage are clearly substandard to phones

>
This is your opinion, not a fact.

 Ah, Chris, it *is* a fact.

I'm not Chris.

The fact you think it's not a fact, is disconcerting to me.
 I'm trying to be nice when I say this, because it's clearly a fact.
I don't know if you ever took logic in college, but I did.

Not a fact. It is your opinion.

 It's impossible for you to claim it's not a fact.
Because it is.
 How do I get that concept into your head in a nice way?
Let me try this approach - to get the idea into your head nicely.
 Take two cars.
They're exactly the same except for a single thing.
 One of the cars has basic industry-standard functionality removed.
The other car does not have that basic standard functionality removed.

It is your opinion that "whatever" is a basic industry standard functionality.

 Q: Which car has less functionality?
A: ?
 

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?

>
Google has published their ideas for over a decade. Namely, they
consider external memory card slow and unsafe. And both things are true.

 Heh heh heh... what marketing says is the reason they removed basic
industry standard functionality (i.e., it's "courageous") is never going to
be the real reason why they removed it.
 Did you ever take marketing in college?
I did.
 It's all about fleecing the customer.
And making the customer believe that it's good for them.
 Marketing is all about eking out more dollars than you'd get without it.
Which is why Apple/Google/Samsung spend, oh, I don't know, billions on it.
 If Marketing wasn't so successful, Coca Cola, Marlboro & Apple would be
tiny companies that simply made soda, cigarettes & iPhones.
 MARKETING is brilliant.
My advice to you is to never think it's not.
 Essentially, if Marketing says they removed basic functionality for reason
X, you can rest assured they did NOT remove that functionality for that
reason.
 They'll never tell you why.
But where they earn their profits tell you why.
 The only reason they removed the basic industry standard sd slot in some
phones is to make the customer scramble to find a way to buy it back.

--
Cheers, Carlos.