[TheOtherBill]

I think a lot more than 1% would like, or could use, more than 16gb for apps and data on the internal SD. Especially given the fact that not all apps have settings to put data on the external SD, that puts many Note 2 users in the same boat as many Apple heavy game users. It's likely at least 10 to 20% of Note 2 would like more internal storage.

You do realize that would be over a million people, don't you? I'm not sure that many people would even know what "internal storage" even meant, much less what it is used for. 1% is probably a much more accurate number.

[rexxman]

You do realize that would be over a million people, don't you? I'm not sure that many people would even know what "internal storage" even meant, much less what it is used for. 1% is probably a much more accurate number.

"I'm not sure" and "probably" does not equal "accurate".

Blue 32gb Galaxy S3

[Ry]

Is it whining and complaining to need or desire something for legitimate reasons? I can see especially given the fact that some apps don't have settings to store data on the external card that at least 10-20% of users would find the basically 10-9 gigs internal storage available to be limiting.

If a phone or tablet doesn't offer features that are most important to you, you don't have to buy it.

It's hard to bring up logical and legitimate business reasons as to why 16GB seems to be the norm right now when most of the logical and legitimate reasons aren't deemed good enough for those that want more memory.

That doesn't mean they don't make a higher profit margin on tablets.

That doesn't mean that they do. There's a significant difference in BOM comparing phones to tablets. It probably costs more to develop a phone. But they probably sell more phones.

"I'm not sure" and "probably" does not equal "accurate".

Blue 32gb Galaxy S3

"likely" doesn't make 10% to 20% all that accurate either.

[rexxman]

If a phone or tablet doesn't offer features that are most important to you, you don't have to buy it.

It's hard to bring up logical and legitimate business reasons as to why 16GB seems to be the norm right now when most of the logical and legitimate reasons aren't deemed good enough for those that want more memory.



That doesn't mean that they do. There's a significant difference in BOM comparing phones to tablets. It probably costs more to develop a phone. But they probably sell more phones.



"likely" doesn't make 10% to 20% all that accurate either.

"Don't have to buy"

No points for stating the obvious. As previously mentioned in this thread, I waited on the N7 to meet my requirement and then bought two. I'd love to own a GN2, but won't buy any 16gb phone.

I have not read logical and legitimate business reasons for low storage limits on the latest Android phones. Guesses and speculation, yes. And if you have some, why is it hard for you to bring them up?

And finally, I do not see the word "likely" in that 10–20% post. Nor the word "accurate".

Blue 32gb Galaxy S3

[rexxman]

Ok, found the word "likely". My bad.

Blue 32gb Galaxy S3

[Ry]

"Don't have to buy"

No points for stating the obvious. As previously mentioned in this thread, I waited on the N7 to meet my requirement and then bought two. I'd love to own a GN2, but won't buy any 16gb phone.

I have not read logical and legitimate business reasons for low storage limits on the latest Android phones. Guesses and speculation, yes. And if you have some, why is it hard for you to bring them up?

This post screams "la la la I can't hear you" like a child.

People gave reasons but none are good enough for you. Just because they're not good enough for you doesnt make them illogical or illegitimate.

Maybe higher profit margin?

Or their normal isn't what you think is the new normal?

Or someone told them if they build out 16/32/64GB versions of the same phone, most people would just buy the smallest version?

The carriers want them to have small memory sizes so we use "the cloud" and as much data as possible.

Realistically it could be as simple as watching the iphones sales numbers. If iphone sells mostly 16gb devices then why make anything different

We are not the primary customer, the carrier is.

Yup. Maybe carriers ask for a specific capacity.

We will see larger norms in the future for this reason and because memory prices always drop. Take a look at the desktop/laptop world, a few years ago 1GB RAM was normal, now it's 4GB and costs less.

The first (cheapest) iphone was 4, the iphone 3 and 4 were 8, the 5 is 16. See the trend?

Another plausible explanation?

OEM's may have market research that shows offering higher capacity or higher capacity versions would be less likely to sell than a model set at a particular, but lower capacity. Maybe in their market research, a significant number of potential customers surveyed said they would be 90% more likely to buy the 16GB version of a device vs. a 32GB version of the same device.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[MaxBuck]

Can anyone logically explain why all ice-cream cones don't come with 3 scoops? I always want 3 scoops of ice cream, so I think all cones should come with 3 scoops.

[rexxman]

Ry,

Please stop the personal attacks. Nobody is right or wrong in this discussion.

You have just repeated the same conjectures, quesses and suppositions. If you have any ACTUAL data, please share. Not what you or others THINK might be the reason, but, as you put it, carrier/manufacturer business justifications. Please note the the IPhone is available in various storage capacities.

Late-night poll: How much internal storage is enough? | Android Central

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much is enough? I'm all in the cloud, and it's too late for me to turn back. I get by fine with 16GB, and could probably never miss a beat with only 8GB. Many of you are the opposite -- don't care for the cloud and want to store their stuff on their device. They need a lot more storage than I do. Where do you fall? Let us know in tonight's poll. - Jerry Hildenbrand

How much internal storage is enough?

8GB or less. Cloud, baby 5.42% (532 votes)
16GB 27.08% (2,657 votes)
32GB 37.35% (3,665 votes)
There is never enough 30.15% (2,959 votes)

Total Votes: 9,813

[makaroni]

If companies made these devices with more memory, with their capabilities and data speeds, they could eliminate the need for laptops and tablets. Therefore they'd have to make us pay significantly more for them as they would lose Money in other areas of their products. A Galaxy Note 2 w/ 16gigs was $249 for a new 2 yr contract agreement, I'm not sure what the price was for the 32 gig if there was one but let's just say it was $349. If that were to be the standard and then it would go up from 32 gigs on up, then How much would a 64 gig device be? Probably too much to even pay as a new customer. Maybe almost what you'd pay full price for the phone now out of contract. For them to add more memory and still make a nice profit, they'd have to kill our pockets to get it. So in order for us not to have to pay the same price as a BMW car note for a phone, we get less internal memory. If 32 gig Note 2's and S3's sold like hot cakes then I'm sure they'd consider making more internal memory the standard but I'm sure the bulk of phones sold last quarter by Samsung were 16 gig models so as a Manufacturer, stick with what sells or get stuck with a loss and in big business, the magic word is always "Profit" $$$

My GS3 sleeps in the bed and I make my girlfriend sleep on the couch

[rexxman]

I pre-ordered my S3. Subsidized was $199/16gb and $249/32gb.


Blue 32gb Galaxy S3

[Ry]

Can anyone logically explain why all ice-cream cones don't come with 3 scoops? I always want 3 scoops of ice cream, so I think all cones should come with 3 scoops.

lol. This is awesome.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[Ry]

Ry,

Please stop the personal attacks.

If you thought that was a personal attack, report it and move on.

Nobody is right or wrong in this discussion.

Funny you should say that since you seem to think that everybody is wrong in this discussion.

You have just repeated the same conjectures, quesses and suppositions. If you have any ACTUAL data, please share. Not what you or others THINK might be the reason, but, as you put it, carrier/manufacturer business justifications. Please note the the IPhone is available in various storage capacities.

Unless a product manager for one of these OEMs comes out and says exactly why, conjectuers, guesses, and suppositions are all you're going to get. You're looking for something you'll probably never get a definite answer to.

Curious, if a Google representative said "we came out with 8GB/16GB versions of the NExus 4 because we felt that those options would be enough for most consumers", would that be an acceptable answer to you?

Late-night poll: How much internal storage is enough? | Android Central

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much is enough? I'm all in the cloud, and it's too late for me to turn back. I get by fine with 16GB, and could probably never miss a beat with only 8GB. Many of you are the opposite -- don't care for the cloud and want to store their stuff on their device. They need a lot more storage than I do. Where do you fall? Let us know in tonight's poll. - Jerry Hildenbrand

How much internal storage is enough?

8GB or less. Cloud, baby 5.42% (532 votes)
16GB 27.08% (2,657 votes)
32GB 37.35% (3,665 votes)
There is never enough 30.15% (2,959 votes)

Total Votes: 9,813

So you're going to assume a poll on an Android-centric website is a good enough representation of the general buying public? Smells like conjectures, guesses and suppositions by you.

[tirith]

So you're going to assume a poll on an Android-centric website is a good enough representation of the general buying public? Smells like conjectures, guesses and suppositions by you.

Considering most of the people here are rooted, rommed, everything else, I don't think the poll is anywhere near accurate. Go into your local "insert carrier here" store and ask the same question to anyone butting an android phone, or even an iPhone.

Swyped from my Galaxy Note II on the Now Network

[rexxcastle]

You guys are all forgetting 1 major thing, Samsung sells memory. Every time they sell a Samsung Micro SD they make more money. I would also guess they the phone company's have some form of agreement with memory makers to NOT make larger devices so that more cards are sold. I for 1 if i had a 64gb device would not had gone out and purchased the additional Samsung micro sd card.

[Ry]

You guys are all forgetting 1 major thing, Samsung sells memory. Every time they sell a Samsung Micro SD they make more money. I would also guess they the phone company's have some form of agreement with memory makers to NOT make larger devices so that more cards are sold. I for 1 if i had a 64gb device would not had gone out and purchased the additional Samsung micro sd card.

Every time they sell a phone (or someone else sells a phone) they make money off of the internal memory too.

If the OEMs have some sort of agreement with memory makers, they'd look really foolish if that ever came out as fact.

And thank you for your contribution to this thread. Those reasons you listed could potentially be logical reasons why Samsung and others may scrimp on native memory.

[TheOtherBill]

Unless a product manager for one of these OEMs comes out and says exactly why, conjectuers, guesses, and suppositions are all you're going to get. You're looking for something you'll probably never get a definite answer to.

I was just thinking the same thing. No manufacturer is ever going to publish their marketing research and internal decision making process. Their competitors would have a field day.

You guys are all forgetting 1 major thing, Samsung sells memory. Every time they sell a Samsung Micro SD they make more money. I would also guess they the phone company's have some form of agreement with memory makers to NOT make larger devices so that more cards are sold. I for 1 if i had a 64gb device would not had gone out and purchased the additional Samsung micro sd card.

I'm not so sure about that. Samsung would make a LOT more money on the difference between a 16 and a 32 or 64 (for example: Apple charges $100 each time you double the memory) phone than they would on the sale of a 32GB external card that retails for $60. Even a 64GB Samsung card is only $80 and you know it costs Samsung more to make that card than it would cost them to put 32 or 64 into a phone instead of 16.

[Phab Guy]

I have a "16 GB" Samsung Galaxy Note currently running Samsung's Android 4.0.4, not rooted, not modded. I think the more salient question is why does the memory architecture of Android limit the "Internal Storage" (sometimes called "app storage" or "system memory") to a paltry 2 GB slice of that 16 GB?? Even if Samsung had put 32 GB or 64 GB on this phone, the "Internal Storage" would still be only 2 GB and that's where the problem really lies, IMO.

Right now, my Galaxy Note is reporting Internal Storage as follows:
- Total space: 1.97 GB
- Apps: 483 MB
- Available: 186 MB

That means a whopping 1.4 GB or 70% of it is formally unaccounted for, although I suspect it is being used by two things:
(1) Application data that should be stored somewhere else, such as contacts, messages, gallery thumbnails, media metadata database, log files, call history, etc.
(2) Data for apps that have long since been uninstalled, but the data never gets freed up. Just guessing, because I can uninstall apps till I'm blue in the face, and I get back very little Internal Storage. Thus a Factory Reset is forced.

So, I think the better questions are:
1. Why hasn't Google removed this predictable bottle-neck in the memory architecture? Is this fixed in Jelly Bean? NOTE: the underlying Linux does not have such a limitation. Nor does Windows or OS X. I can't speak for iOS, but I was certainly surprised to find this out about Android.
2. If we must have this limitation, then why is the Internal Storage partition set to a paltry 2 GB from the factory?
3. Why should I have to resort to rooting/modding my phone to workaround this? If the bottle-neck is inherent in the design, then please give me user-level controls to deal with it.
4. Why don't app developers put their data someplace else, especially data that can be expected to grow with usage and time?
5. When apps are uninstalled, why don't they remove EVERYTHING?

Just my two cents? Now to do that Factory Reset! :-(

[tirith]

On the note 2, we can use all 11.05 gb for apps

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

[TheOtherBill]

I have a "16 GB" Samsung Galaxy Note currently running Samsung's Android 4.0.4, not rooted, not modded. I think the more salient question is why does the memory architecture of Android limit the "Internal Storage" (sometimes called "app storage" or "system memory") to a paltry 2 GB slice of that 16 GB?? Even if Samsung had put 32 GB or 64 GB on this phone, the "Internal Storage" would still be only 2 GB and that's where the problem really lies, IMO.

Just an FYI: This is the Note 2 forum, not the Note forum. This does not apply to the Note 2 as tirith already mentioned.

[dpham00]

I see this kicked around all over the place, with petitions, wish lists, b&m threads, etc. Some people complain about it (like me) and other people don't think it's a big deal if you use a bigger SD card. But I have YET to hear a rational, logical, reasonable explanation from Samsung as to why they would put so little memory into such an otherwise magnificent, flagship device. (Same for most other manufacturers.) It's like putting a 4-cylinder 150hp engine in a 2013 Ford Raptor SVT. It defies logic.

Memory is pretty darn cheap now, isn't it? And I would think *onboard memory* for a company the size of Samsung would be even cheaper. What would it cost them...a couple of bucks to bump it from 16gb to 64gb? Moreover, I would think Google and app developers would be lobbying hard for more native memory so that people don't hesitate to install a larger app (or simply more apps). As it stands, some people, especially gamers, are forced to make choices about what not to install more than they should.

Honestly, this is not just another complaint thread. It's a simple question. How do Google and the manufacturers explain this?

Your example doesn't make sense. The engine of the note is pretty good. And the cost to upgrade the engine after purchase is very expensive. Cost to add a sd card is relatively cheap. Really, this is more like having a single cd player, and then you having to go out to buy a cd changer.

[dpham00]

This poll is about as accurate as the poll that said that Dewey won the election...

Ry,

Please stop the personal attacks. Nobody is right or wrong in this discussion.

You have just repeated the same conjectures, quesses and suppositions. If you have any ACTUAL data, please share. Not what you or others THINK might be the reason, but, as you put it, carrier/manufacturer business justifications. Please note the the IPhone is available in various storage capacities.

Late-night poll: How much internal storage is enough? | Android Central

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much is enough? I'm all in the cloud, and it's too late for me to turn back. I get by fine with 16GB, and could probably never miss a beat with only 8GB. Many of you are the opposite -- don't care for the cloud and want to store their stuff on their device. They need a lot more storage than I do. Where do you fall? Let us know in tonight's poll. - Jerry Hildenbrand

How much internal storage is enough?

8GB or less. Cloud, baby 5.42% (532 votes)
16GB 27.08% (2,657 votes)
32GB 37.35% (3,665 votes)
There is never enough 30.15% (2,959 votes)

Total Votes: 9,813

[johnmcd348]

Needs and desires?

lol.

When these manufacturers switch to 32GB being norm, there will still be that insignificant minority that will whine and complain about it, clamoring for 128GB/256GB to be the norm.

Oh and full-retail price for tablets are usually cheaper than phones.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

That is and always will be the norm for things like this in the tech world. I'm old enough to remember when my 8088 PC XT got upgraded with a whopping 10mb Hard Drive for about $600. It had 64Kilobytes of memory and an expanded 128Kb memory board. That was high tech back then. As memory got cheaper and storage got bigger, programs got sloppier and took up or wasted even more space. The same will happen with Apps as our phones grow.
Looking at my last portable device, a Dell Axim x51v, it came stock with 50mb memory but was also able to handle the top of the line CF and SD cards at the time. After that I went to a Touch Pro2 that had about 4 times that much. My last phone prior to this was the HTC Arrive. That was a great design in that it didn't allow an SD card but used a microSD card plugged in onboard for it's memory. It came stock with a 32gb memory and held a nice bit of App, Data, and whatever else I decided to put on it. BUT! I opened up the phone, removed the mSD card and replaced with with a 32gb card and made it even better.

My GN2 is my first Android type device and I am not happy with the limitation of 16gb of storage for apps. This, I don't even fault Samsung for. I fault Google entirely in that they removed the ability to install apps onto external SD card memory.

As apps grow, so will onboard memory. If they don't then apps will stagnate and devices will not get sold and replaced as often as they are now. Why would someone want to replace their 16gb device and go into another 2 year contract for another device that has the same memory and have the same limitations as the one they had before?

[dpham00]

I was just thinking the same thing. No manufacturer is ever going to publish their marketing research and internal decision making process. Their competitors would have a field day.


I'm not so sure about that. Samsung would make a LOT more money on the difference between a 16 and a 32 or 64 (for example: Apple charges $100 each time you double the memory) phone than they would on the sale of a 32GB external card that retails for $60. Even a 64GB Samsung card is only $80 and you know it costs Samsung more to make that card than it would cost them to put 32 or 64 into a phone instead of 16.

Apple is certainly making a huge profit on upgrading memory. On the iPhone 5, going from 16gb to 32gb costs $10 more, And they charge $100 for it. But, remember that typically, anything over the base model is gonna mean a larger profit margin on any upgrade. This is true on lots of things.

[Johnly]

I see this kicked around all over the place, with petitions, wish lists, b&m threads, etc. Some people complain about it (like me) and other people don't think it's a big deal if you use a bigger SD card. But I have YET to hear a rational, logical, reasonable explanation from Samsung as to why they would put so little memory into such an otherwise magnificent, flagship device. (Same for most other manufacturers.) It's like putting a 4-cylinder 150hp engine in a 2013 Ford Raptor SVT. It defies logic.

Memory is pretty darn cheap now, isn't it? And I would think *onboard memory* for a company the size of Samsung would be even cheaper. What would it cost them...a couple of bucks to bump it from 16gb to 64gb? Moreover, I would think Google and app developers would be lobbying hard for more native memory so that people don't hesitate to install a larger app (or simply more apps). As it stands, some people, especially gamers, are forced to make choices about what not to install more than they should.

Honestly, this is not just another complaint thread. It's a simple question. How do Google and the manufacturers explain this?

cloud

[SenseMonkey]

cloud

The cloud is not the answer to everyone. A lot of people want it stored on the device for quick access. And some are never near wifi so they have to rely on their mobile data. And a lot of us don't have unlimited data.

Sent from my Behemoth of a phone, the Galaxy Note 2