Can anyone logically explain why Samsung and others 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

 

[kgk1985]

Doubling storage usually results in $100 increments(apple). You can get a 64gb sd for $50. Seems more economically correct than $100 for 16gb more internally. No? THAT is why they do it. Not everyone needs the whole 16gb. That's what android is about, customization. A lot of people, like myself, hate the high internal storage with no sd slot like Apple does. It's like Communism

sent from Galaxy Note 2

 

[fade2black101]

Doubling storage usually results in $100 increments(apple). You can get a 64gb sd for $50. Seems more economically correct than $100 for 16gb more internally. No? THAT is why they do it. Not everyone needs the whole 16gb. That's what android is about, customization. A lot of people, like myself, hate the high internal storage with no sd slot like Apple does. It's like Communism

sent from Galaxy Note 2

Yes but they don't allow you to store apps or app data on the sd card. You have to root the phone and jump through hoops to do that. This is idiotic on their part and does not benefit us at all, and they should put more than 16gb (10gb free) if they are going to try force us to use the restricted space.

Nothing good about that at all, and it would be dirt cheap to increase the storage capacity considering they force us to use it for apps. I don't see how it would cost them ?100 to do it, to be honest.

 

[kgk1985]

Not being able to put apps on the sd card was the OS's limitation I thought, not the phone

sent from Galaxy Note 2

 

[fade2black101]

Not being able to put apps on the sd card was the OS's limitation I thought, not the phone

sent from Galaxy Note 2

Perhaps.

Frustrating none the less though.

 

[snookasnoo]

Few phones have sd cards now and even fewer will. Google has stopped supporting them too. The manufacturers also know a tiny number of people actually use SD cards.
HTC is in a very weak position as making Android phones has lost them millions over the years. They do what Verizon tells them to do if they want Verizon to carry their phones.

 

[Ry]

Few phones have sd cards now and even fewer will. Google has stopped supporting them too. The manufacturers also know a tiny number of people actually use SD cards.
HTC is in a very weak position as making Android phones has lost them millions over the years. They do what Verizon tells them to do if they want Verizon to carry their phones.

Link to where it says HTC is operating at a loss?

 

[TheOtherBill]

Yes but they don't allow you to store apps or app data on the sd card.

The app developer has the ability to store app data on the SD card. Write them and tell them you want it.

It was Google that made the decision to not be able to store apps on the SD card. There are already several threads discussing that.

You do have other choices, like BlackBerry 10. I'm not sure about Windows Phone. Definitely not ios.

 

[fade2black101]

The app developer has the ability to store app data on the SD card. Write them and tell them you want it.

It was Google that made the decision to not be able to store apps on the SD card. There are already several threads discussing that.

You do have other choices, like BlackBerry 10. I'm not sure about Windows Phone. Definitely not ios.

Don't particularly want to switch operating systems.

I was just pointed out that it is far from ideal for some of us. There was really no need for google to do that. Blackberry and Windows Phone are not ideal for me given the lack of quality apps and poorer standard of the "well known" ones.

 

[rexxman]

Dpham00 - #46

You probably meant to say that this poll was not applicable.

If you have issues with the accuracy of the poll, take that up with Jerry Hildebrand.

As far as comparing any of this to the famous Dewey headline, it is not applicable.


Blue 32gb Galaxy S3

 

[dpham00]

Link to where it says HTC is operating at a loss?

Not recently at least, last year was pretty brutal to htc, and they made money... Not much compared to previous years though

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II