Keyboard Warrior
|  Re: Do I really need 32 gb on the Nexus 7?
 Originally Posted by SOLGarion  Yes, probably more than $2, but not much more. Not any where near $100 bucks more to go from 32 - 64 as some phones and tablets charge. Even worse when they make you pay $100 to go from 16gb to 32gb. (I know most are $50 but a good amount at $100.) Not when an entire 64GB micro SD card is $42 retail. And I am not arguing that it isn't a good price. The base price on these $200 android tablets is awesome. But the memory upgrades have huge profit margins compared to the rest of the device. You agree the base price is awesome, so why complain when Google/ASUS make a little extra money on the higher storage models? Would it be better if they met around the middle and sold the 7 for around $220 and $240 for the 16 and 32GB models? Of course if you want a 32GB model you'll say yes, but if you want the cheapest Nexus 7 possible or you want more people to get their hands on Android tablets, you wouldn't agree. Google will sell far more Nexus 7's with their current pricing than if they decided to make the same amount of profit on both devices, so that's what they do. Offer the base model for dirt cheap and try to make some of their money back on the higher storage model.
I feel Apple charging $100 for an extra $16GB (32GB model devices) is practically robbery, but I personally don't mind paying $100 for an extra 32GB of internal storage, because they are making a decent profit off of that without raping my wallet.
Originally Posted by SOLGarion And the speed thing is not huge at all. Especially since the main thing most people seem to be doing is storing music and movies with that much storage. You don't need lighting storage for this. Wanting the fastest speed storage just because it is faster, regardless of actual need or use, is like needing to get to school down the block in under 30 minutes so you take a racecar. Still gonna get you there. That is just a moot point. The margin on the memory is ridiculous and they charge it because they always have and can. Business 101. If you can charge em for it, do it. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Doesn't mean the mark up isn't ridiculous. Well yeah, if all you want to use your phone for is to watch videos and listen to music and don't mind waiting longer to transfer dozens of GBs to your device. But apps also need to be saved in this storage and slower storage makes your device run like crap. You'll get to school a block away on time on a bicycle, but after school, you'll struggle to get to work across town. What you're saying is you'd rather Google use cheaper components to give you an even better price on an already cheap product.
Originally Posted by SOLGarion Actually that wasn't my point at all, the 14 hour battery life thing was a throw away. I shouldn't have written it, pretend it isn't there if it makes you happy. The main point is people who have the 4 months of music on their phone. I agree there is no problem having more music than battery life, I am sorry the second part of my statement offended you. It was not the main thrust of my point. 4 months of non-repeating music on a phone is nothing like having more than 5 hours of music on a laptop. It's an unfair comparison. One makes sense, the other is excessive. First off, you never offended me. We're just having a discussion. Second, I don't think that was an unfair comparison. If having more music than battery life on a phone is dumb, why isn't it also dumb on a computer? But you said just forget about it so I won't keep talking about it. I don't see what's wrong with carrying your entire (or a large portion of your) collection of music on your phone though. It's so much more convenient than having to constantly manage your music with your computer, and nice to be able to play any song you want at any time because they're all with you all the time. But there are also people who use all that storage for movies. Movies can take several GBs each, so your storage will fill up quick if you keep too many.
| |
|
Reply
