WHY did google scrap SD card access?

[xperia2995]

We all know kitkat sucks because they removed SD card write access.
Though google said it is to prevent clutter and privacy, It is so false.
Because the apps still clutter the internal memory and leave behind folders even after uninstall. Also nothing is private since all apps share the internal memory.

What may be the real reason? Some rumors.

1. I hear google had to pay microsoft because SD cards use fat32 &this was to save them millions.

2.Mimicking apple, gradually phase out SD cards. And price phones drastically based on just their memory (like iphones currently)

3. Bloatware takes up large space (eg 16GB internal actually gives only 8GB space).
Thus OEMs want to push people to buy high end phones with ~32GB memory.

4.Push people to root phones and install custom ROMs without bloatware. Heard people use bloatware instead of google provided stuff. Thus loss of advertising mass.

Any other reason?
Why else would an open source,flexibe and powerful OS suddenly go toothless?

 

[Gekko]

Internal RAM is much, much faster and secure than SD Cards.

 

[zorak950]

There's already a thread that covers all this.

http://forums.androidcentral.com/showthread.php?t=389885

 

[Phil Nickinson]

Rumors? We don't need rumors.

KitKat and SD cards — what's fixed, what's broken and what's misunderstood | Android Central

 

[Standroid43]

Internal RAM is much, much faster and secure than SD Cards.

Do you have anything to support these claims or are you just trolling?

Sent from my C6806_GPe using Tapatalk

 

[osvanberg]

I hate it as well! I think you are spot on with claim no 2! That is the reason IMO, together with the reason to force users to use their cloud service. I bet Google are dying to snoop around and sell our data for commercial reasons for a couple of hundred million more users....

Skickat fr?n min GT-I9195 via Tapatalk

 

[xperia2995]

There's already a thread that covers all this.

Not happy - Android Forums at AndroidCentral.com

Though, it was a wonderful thread, it just repeated what google said. Or "what google wanted its users to believe"

But on using kitkat it is clear that many of what they said is wrong.
Files are still cluttered and memory is still shared. (As I already mentioned).
Which causes one to question their claims

 

[xperia2995]

I hate it as well! I think you are spot on with claim no 2! That is the reason IMO, together with the reason to force users to use their cloud service. I bet Google are dying to snoop around and sell our data for commercial reasons for a couple of hundred million more users....

Skickat fr?n min GT-I9195 via Tapatalk

True.
Google is no charity organization. An easy to use os, was not their priority. Money was.
Their aim to attain global mobile OS share is now fulfilled. Maybe this is step two of their master plan.
"Force their services on users"
Cause they know, a once accustomed user will hesitate to switch OS. Also many wont dare to root their phones

 

[zorak950]

Though, it was a wonderful thread, it just repeated what google said. Or "what google wanted its users to believe"

But on using kitkat it is clear that many of what they said is wrong.
Files are still cluttered and memory is still shared. (As I already mentioned).
Which causes one to question their claims

Did you read Phil's link? The issue isn't the way files are organized, it's how permissions are handled (or, more to the point, not) in FAT file systems. The internal storage uses the ext4 file system and isn't subject to the same security limitations. I don't know where you got the clutter thing from, but I don't think Google ever mentioned that as a reason for the change.

 

[xperia2995]

Did you read Phil's link? The issue isn't the way files are organized, it's how permissions are handled (or, more to the point, not) in FAT file systems. The internal storage uses the ext4 file system and isn't subject to the same security limitations. I don't know where you got the clutter thing from, but I don't think Google ever mentioned that as a reason for the change.

I have an opinion that android must have used a dual approach.
It must still allow acces to sd cards.

A banking app must be intelligent to store its info only within internal memory to provide security.

At the same time a movie making app must be directly able to access the huge external memory and help do what it is meant to.

What happens if the internal memory is too small? Not all phones are high end for that kind of internal memory.

 

[zorak950]

I don't disagree; Google's solution was a bludgeon rather than a scalpel. One must appreciate the fact though that even if they provide all the right tools, they don't get to control what idiotic decisions an app designer might make, and if something were to happen, the headlines would invariably declare yet again that Android had played host to a security snafu, and that this sort of thing can't happen on iOS or what have you. Even if the app was to blame, the fact that they used Android's toolset to make the flawed app would reflect poorly on Google and Android.

Further, since the FAT filesystem used on SD cards in fact can't support permissions, even assuming that your banking apps and the like stuck to the internal storage as good sense dictated, recall that anything on the SD card is open season under the old system. That means that if your movie making app can access all of your SD card data, so can any other app with SD access. Your bank account might be safe, but all it takes is one malicious app to modify, delete, or steal all your pictures, music, movies, and documents that you've stored on your SD card. That, my friend, is a PR nightmare waiting to happen.

Not being able to count on every developer- let alone every end user- to know all of this and guard themselves accordingly, Google did what it thought was necessary to protect its users and save itself future headaches. An inconvenience to some, certainly, but a choice for which they had ample and legitimate reason.

 

[DebbieHeaney]

I can add one more to that list back at the top (by xperia2995) and that is online storage.
More and more companies are slowly pushing ever harder for people to take up online storage.
Surprise surprise Google do online storage (Google Drive). Whystore your stuff on your SD card when you could store it on their cloud drive?

the privacy and security of end users should be a shared responsibility! 50% of the developers and 50% of the end users!

My local storage solution(s) should by MY responsibility! Trying to keep software secure, tidy and bug free is the developers resonsibility.

If we do everything online then the security becomes mostly down to the service providers / software developers.

If i download a bad app then 50% of that is my problem as i should have done more research on it first. 50% Googles problem as they could/should be screening apps.

 

[xperia2995]

Further, since the FAT filesystem used on SD cards in fact can't support permissions

. An inconvenience to some, certainly, but a choice for which they had ample and legitimate reason.

Ok. Now I get your point.

However consider this,
Actually it is not an incovenience to some. Its to a lot.
In the global market a very large population use their phones for other things other than checking mails and e-banking.

News is out that OEMs may tweak kitkat to give the old permissions in their phones (dont know if that is possible though)

Wouldnt the good solution then be to use ext partitioning in SD cards, and using a lightweight application to connect to a PC?
(As stated in phils post)

If someone says "Sorry. You only get to eat bread for the rest of your life"
And another says "You can eat anything you want. All you need is to take a free coupon"
Which one is an inconvenience?

Installing an app in PC would be a slight incovenience.
But saying no more SD cards for you is just unacceptable.

 

[zorak950]

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Google's OS, Google's rules. That said, I agree with you on at least one point: if you can format your SD card to ext4, there's no good reason I know of from the security standpoint not to let you use it any way you please. Not having any background in coding, though, I also have no idea how problematic that might be from a software engineering standpoint.

Personally, I prefer to use internal storage and the cloud anyway, so to me it's a moot point, but I certainly understand your position. However, I also understand Google's.

 

[xperia2995]

Not having any background in coding, though, I also have no idea how problematic that might be from a software engineering standpoint.

Its quite neat. There already exist very efficient software to acces ext partitions of linux from windows. For those who dual boot their PCs.

And the google OS, google rules is the very reason I suspected that this move was much much more than just a security concern.

Some people still ask why google makes free android.
As we know that is part of a much bigger plan too.

About internal storage, kitkat is optimized to run on tiny phones with tiny memory too. Also note the bloatware I mentioned.
The operating space is just too small.

Considering the time it would take to access the cloud, not to mention the costs around the world. Cloud is not a good option either.

 

[zorak950]

I should also add, I don't doubt that Google's desire to move users onto the cloud (specifically its cloud) factored into their approach, I just don't think that was the primary reason for doing what they did. Google wanting to make money is hardly conjecture in any case.

Your original list of reasons, though, I think are nonsense.

 

[xperia2995]

I just don't think that was the primary reason for doing what they did.

I politely disagree.
Google has the best minds in the world. A small security flaw is not something they cant solve, I believe.
The security is probably the most brilliant way to keep their users quiet if at all they had another motive.
(Something microsoft has been doing for years. Along with every move,they play the security card. Remember the different boot system for windows 8 to discourage users from dual booting linux)

Though I dont assert that it definetly was cloud storage reason, there was probably something else.
Since they already have the "wont switch to another OS" power over us.

 

[zorak950]

Freedom and security are often competing interests, and not just in the technology realm. Every door you can open to mess with a system to improve it is a door someone else can open to turn it to their own purposes. Does that justify locking all the doors? That's a matter of opinion.

As far as the broad strokes of the Kit Kat SD changes are concerned, though, I think at this point everything that there is to say has been said already, so unless there's some particular question or problem you have with which I can assist, I'll take my leave.

 

[Golfdriver97]

Another thing to consider is the instability of SD cards. After having a Sandisk and an PNY become corrupted, I just no longer trust them.