5 ms·

Am I the only one with a confused and blown mind why they refuse to offer a slot for MicroSD and insist on hard wired internal memory?

by zng 13y ago

vasco 13y ago
Google wants you to store your files (music, documents, pictures) online instead of in a local card.
- zng 13y ago
  Yeah, you are of course right... (I disapprove though)
- devx 13y ago
  If that's true, then that's a pretty "evil" thing of them to do, so I really hope that's not the main reason.
  - jfb 13y ago
    Much simpler an explanation is that having removable storage means that everything in the stack needs to understand removable storage and that that imposes a cost on library authors, app developers, and most problematically, on users. Better to do away with the possibility than have to deal with explaining to someone why their pictures have all of a sudden magically disappeared.
4ad 13y ago
Google wants to push the idea that local storage is just a cache for the cloud. There's no need for extra storage. Also see the chromebook example.
- Touche 13y ago
  Many chromebooks have sdcard slots, all have usb.
Oletros 13y ago
No SD, no need for FAT so no patents
- pjbringer 13y ago
  That would be interesting, however after launching adb shell: shell@mako:/ $ grep vfat /proc/filesystems vfat shell@mako:/ $ grep vfat /proc/mounts /dev/block/platform/msm_sdcc.1/by-name/modem /firmware vfat ro,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0337,dmask=0227,codepage=cp437,iocharset=iso8859-1,shortname=mixed,errors=remount-ro 0 0 So fat is being used in spite of not having an SD card.
- devx 13y ago
  Samsung has just released version 1.0 of their open-source implementation of ex-FAT [1]. Why aren't they using that? I think it should at the very least work with 64+ GB microSD cards, if not with smaller ones, which I'd be fine with. If they still think it's risky to be sued by MS, I think that lawsuit would be well worth it. At worst, they risk losing a few tens of millions of dollars (I doubt the "damages" that can be claimed would be more than that for a single Nexus model). But the potential upside is huge. If they win, then not only Google, but every other OEM can finally stop paying Microsoft for FAT/ex-FAT patents, and just use that. Heck, they can probably even convince Samsung and a few other OEM's to pony up a pool of money for the trial, if they don't want to take it all on themselves. The value/cost would be orders of magnitude bigger than what Google paid for Motorola's patents. And if they win, the potential savings for all OEM's who still use microSD cards, would be in the billions of dollars. As for my personal expectations of this happening, I think Google is too chicken to do it, as they usually are when it comes to such confrontations, but I see Samsung doing it soon. What is Microsoft going to do to Samsung? Beg them not to buy Windows from them anymore? (which is what they'd risk doing if they sued Samsung) I have a strong suspicion that the only reason Samsung even agreed to pay them for the patents in the first place was because it was part of a deal with Microsoft, in which they got lower prices for Windows licenses, which means Microsoft may even lose or break even at most with Samsung in that deal. Microsoft would've definitely agreed to something like that, because having Samsung on their "extortion list" meant every other company would then start to give them money, too - which is exactly what happened as soon as Samsung agreed to pay, and Microsoft made it public. [1] - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQzODQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQzODQ
Shooti 13y ago
Android Engineer, 2011: "There's no particular hardware reason a device can't have both. The problem is that there is no good UI for it. One of the core Android principles is that you never need a file manager. Ever. We wanted to avoid the obnoxious "sneeze and a file picker appears" syndrome of basically every other OS. Local data that apps know how to handle should just be magically available within the apps, or stored in the cloud. You shouldn't have to go spelunking on your SD card to find data. The problem with having both internal storage and SD cards is that suddenly that goal gets a whole lot harder to achieve. For a given shot, should the camera save to internal-16GB, or to SD card? Should an app from Market be installed to internal or SD? etc. Yes, we can solve this by letting the user choose, or have it be in settings. But then, that's a file picker, or close enough to the file picker experience that we dislike it just as much. And besides that, there are API consequences: if you stick in an SD card with photos on it, do you add those to the system media content provider? If you do, you will screw up apps because they aren't designed with the concept that photos can come and go. What we will probably do eventually is add an import/export concept to removable storage. So the Camera will always save to internal-16GB, and when you pop in an SD card (or insert a thumb drive on USB host devices) you can start a migration or import/export dialog. But until we have that, devices will generally either have an SD card, or a large internal storage, but not both. I totally get that a lot of people like SD cards, and I miss USB Mass Storage myself. But then, that's why it's great that there are so many devices to choose from. :) tl;dr: it's a can of worms. We're thinking about compromises for future versions." http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/11/18/impromptu-qa-session-with-android-engineer-dan-morrill-brings-to-light-reasons-behind-galaxy-nexus-lack-of-usb-mass-storage/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/11/18/impromptu-qa-session... Head of UX, 2012: "Everybody likes the idea of having an SD card, but in reality it's just confusing for users. If you’re saving photos, videos or music, where does it go? Is it on your phone? Or on your card? Should there be a setting? Prompt everytime? What happens to the experience when you swap out the card? It’s just too complicated. We take a different approach. Your Nexus has a fixed amount of space and your apps just seamlessly use it for you without you ever having to worry about files or volumes or any of that techy nonsense left over from the paleolithic era of computing. With a Nexus you know exactly how much storage you get upfront and you can decide what’s the right size for you. That’s simple and good for users" https://plus.google.com/114892667463719782631/posts/JAAMUzx1PFX https://plus.google.com/114892667463719782631/posts/JAAMUzx1... tl;dr Technical/UX issues.

Am I the only one with a confused and blown mind why they refuse to offer a slot for MicroSD and insist on hard wired internal memory?

by zng 13y ago

Am I the only one with a confused and blown mind why they refuse to offer a slot for MicroSD and insist on hard wired internal memory?

vasco 13y ago

Google wants you to store your files (music, documents, pictures) online instead of in a local card.

zng 13y ago
Yeah, you are of course right... (I disapprove though)
devx 13y ago
If that's true, then that's a pretty "evil" thing of them to do, so I really hope that's not the main reason.
- jfb 13y ago
  Much simpler an explanation is that having removable storage means that everything in the stack needs to understand removable storage and that that imposes a cost on library authors, app developers, and most problematically, on users. Better to do away with the possibility than have to deal with explaining to someone why their pictures have all of a sudden magically disappeared.

4ad 13y ago

Google wants to push the idea that local storage is just a cache for the cloud. There's no need for extra storage. Also see the chromebook example.

Touche 13y ago
Many chromebooks have sdcard slots, all have usb.

Oletros 13y ago

No SD, no need for FAT so no patents

pjbringer 13y ago
That would be interesting, however after launching adb shell: shell@mako:/ $ grep vfat /proc/filesystems vfat shell@mako:/ $ grep vfat /proc/mounts /dev/block/platform/msm_sdcc.1/by-name/modem /firmware vfat ro,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0337,dmask=0227,codepage=cp437,iocharset=iso8859-1,shortname=mixed,errors=remount-ro 0 0 So fat is being used in spite of not having an SD card.
devx 13y ago
Samsung has just released version 1.0 of their open-source implementation of ex-FAT [1]. Why aren't they using that? I think it should at the very least work with 64+ GB microSD cards, if not with smaller ones, which I'd be fine with. If they still think it's risky to be sued by MS, I think that lawsuit would be well worth it. At worst, they risk losing a few tens of millions of dollars (I doubt the "damages" that can be claimed would be more than that for a single Nexus model). But the potential upside is huge. If they win, then not only Google, but every other OEM can finally stop paying Microsoft for FAT/ex-FAT patents, and just use that. Heck, they can probably even convince Samsung and a few other OEM's to pony up a pool of money for the trial, if they don't want to take it all on themselves. The value/cost would be orders of magnitude bigger than what Google paid for Motorola's patents. And if they win, the potential savings for all OEM's who still use microSD cards, would be in the billions of dollars. As for my personal expectations of this happening, I think Google is too chicken to do it, as they usually are when it comes to such confrontations, but I see Samsung doing it soon. What is Microsoft going to do to Samsung? Beg them not to buy Windows from them anymore? (which is what they'd risk doing if they sued Samsung) I have a strong suspicion that the only reason Samsung even agreed to pay them for the patents in the first place was because it was part of a deal with Microsoft, in which they got lower prices for Windows licenses, which means Microsoft may even lose or break even at most with Samsung in that deal. Microsoft would've definitely agreed to something like that, because having Samsung on their "extortion list" meant every other company would then start to give them money, too - which is exactly what happened as soon as Samsung agreed to pay, and Microsoft made it public. [1] - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQzODQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQzODQ

Shooti 13y ago

Android Engineer, 2011: "There's no particular hardware reason a device can't have both. The problem is that there is no good UI for it. One of the core Android principles is that you never need a file manager. Ever. We wanted to avoid the obnoxious "sneeze and a file picker appears" syndrome of basically every other OS. Local data that apps know how to handle should just be magically available within the apps, or stored in the cloud. You shouldn't have to go spelunking on your SD card to find data. The problem with having both internal storage and SD cards is that suddenly that goal gets a whole lot harder to achieve. For a given shot, should the camera save to internal-16GB, or to SD card? Should an app from Market be installed to internal or SD? etc. Yes, we can solve this by letting the user choose, or have it be in settings. But then, that's a file picker, or close enough to the file picker experience that we dislike it just as much. And besides that, there are API consequences: if you stick in an SD card with photos on it, do you add those to the system media content provider? If you do, you will screw up apps because they aren't designed with the concept that photos can come and go. What we will probably do eventually is add an import/export concept to removable storage. So the Camera will always save to internal-16GB, and when you pop in an SD card (or insert a thumb drive on USB host devices) you can start a migration or import/export dialog. But until we have that, devices will generally either have an SD card, or a large internal storage, but not both. I totally get that a lot of people like SD cards, and I miss USB Mass Storage myself. But then, that's why it's great that there are so many devices to choose from. :) tl;dr: it's a can of worms. We're thinking about compromises for future versions." http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/11/18/impromptu-qa-session-with-android-engineer-dan-morrill-brings-to-light-reasons-behind-galaxy-nexus-lack-of-usb-mass-storage/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/11/18/impromptu-qa-session... Head of UX, 2012: "Everybody likes the idea of having an SD card, but in reality it's just confusing for users. If you’re saving photos, videos or music, where does it go? Is it on your phone? Or on your card? Should there be a setting? Prompt everytime? What happens to the experience when you swap out the card? It’s just too complicated. We take a different approach. Your Nexus has a fixed amount of space and your apps just seamlessly use it for you without you ever having to worry about files or volumes or any of that techy nonsense left over from the paleolithic era of computing. With a Nexus you know exactly how much storage you get upfront and you can decide what’s the right size for you. That’s simple and good for users" https://plus.google.com/114892667463719782631/posts/JAAMUzx1PFX https://plus.google.com/114892667463719782631/posts/JAAMUzx1... tl;dr Technical/UX issues.