• 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    6 days ago

    Not that I think it was a good reason for ditching them whatsoever, but one of the main reasons given has a tiny bit of merit:

    Allegedly, a lot of users often cheaped out on SD cards and then used them as adopted system storage where they moved all their apps to. This had the effect of completely tanking phone performance and then they would often get corrupted after a bit of use taking user data with them. This then generated a load of negative reputation about the devices being slow and unreliable, when the problem was the choice of SD card, and generated a load of wasted money in supporting these users when that happened (think unnecessary RMAs, etc).

    Personally I think they should just have restricted it to A1+ SD cards, and sucked up the people complaining about their bargain bin Scrandrisk SD not working. But I guess they saw an opportunity to have their cake and eat it by just removing it and charging a premium for larger storage skus.

    • itsmect@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 days ago

      There is a UFS-II specification and even a PCIe version specifically for micro SD cards. It was all planned out, and it would have been trivial to tell consumers: “Yo need card with more contacts as shown in picture”. But no, the biggest manufacturer of flash storage is samsung, and they decided they’d rather sell higher storage capacity phones as a premium. Easy to do when you’re the second biggest manufacturer of of phones and apple already paved the way.

    • potustheplant@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      I literally never heard or read about a user say that when using an sd card. They just took it out to charge more for more storage.

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s not the users saying it, it’s the OEMs. Back when this was a new discussion, I at least remember Google saying this as justification for why it stopped including them in their devices after the nexus 4

          • 9point6@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t think it’s a lie, it’s objectively true that shit SD cards would have that effect on performance if used as adopted storage. But I do agree with you that it was a convenient excuse, as I wrote at the end of my original comment.

            • potustheplant@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Yeah but how many people you kbow actually formatted their sd card to install apps on it? Everyone I know (and myself) use it only for media.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Question is rather: why does Android not allow any distinction between Internal and external/removable?

      My downloaded media files belong on the SD card, but APKs, sqlite DBs and temp files don’t belong there. But de facto, it’s just used as an extension for internal storage. That’s just stupid.