Google Pixel 2

[jamezr]

The "in a phone" part is the only thing relevant here. Google doesn't oppose the existence of SD cards; they oppose the use of SD cards in phones - because of the issues I detailed, which is a restatement of their statements with some added context.

Not at all...you said that SD Cards fail and are not reliable. I have given you examples of how they are used in a very reliable storage option in a variety of ways. You chose to discount those uses because they are not in a phone...... The same reason they are great storage options in cameras and tablets hold for phones as well.

Spouting the Google mantra still does not give it any more credibility...just means that is Google stance. It does not have any greater importance.

 

[Aquila]

Not at all...you said that SD Cards fail and are not reliable. I have given you examples of how they are used in a very reliable storage option in a variety of ways. You chose to discount those uses because they are not in a phone...... The same reason they are great storage options in cameras and tablets hold for phones as well.

Spouting the Google mantra still does not give it any more credibility...just means that is Google stance. It does not have any greater importance.

It has a lot of importance when we're trying to argue whether or not the Pixel 2 is likely to have an SD card I happen to agree with Google's reasoning, but that aside... given what we know their position to be, we should expect them to continue to avoid using that feature.

 

[xocomaox]

If that were the case, yes I'd still be fine with it, but that's not the case, because those software engineers and others working on the project will be working on other projects and almost every other project they could work on is more important, to me, than the SD card implementation. That's true up and down the chain for every aspect of resource expended on it. Every dollar, every second, every molecule could have been conserved or better spent elsewhere. Something, somewhere is less awesome than it could be because a phone has an SD card slot. Whatever that is, to me, the tradeoff was not worth it.

I'm more partial to believe if a company is not doing something to save money, they aren't investing that time elsewhere. They are just getting the product out faster or start later. Which could actually be a win in your favor.

But, if it is the same price you would still be okay with it. I understand.

 

[Aquila]

I'm more partial to believe if a company is not doing something to save money, they aren't investing that time elsewhere. They are just getting the product out faster or start later. Which could actually be a win in your favor.

But, if it is the same price you would still be okay with it. I understand.

Yep, even if the difference is the conservation of resources and they just keep everything close in as profit, that's still better IMO even though I don't directly get anything out of that. Realistically we're probably talking about less than a dollar per device once the sunk costs are spread out, so maybe they can afford 2-3 extra employees for quality control or for whatever. No matter what that "whatever" is, it's probably worth more to me than the slot

 

[xocomaox]

It has a lot of importance when we're trying to argue whether or not the Pixel 2 is likely to have an SD card I happen to agree with Google's reasoning, but that aside... given what we know their position to be, we should expect them to continue to avoid using that feature.

I feel like Google's reasoning is more-so the money-making aspect. They can get more people to buy the premium storage option if they don't include expandable. I think this practice is used in mostly every manufacturer's tactics. Either they include small base storage with SD card option (Samsung) or don't include it but offer a higher base storage or storage options (Google). Either way they are winning. I have no manufacturer experience, but I would bet it doesn't cost them a lot to implement, but it hurts their bottom line a ton if they don't do the above options.

 

[Aquila]

I feel like Google's reasoning is more-so the money-making aspect. They can get more people to buy the premium storage option if they don't include expandable. I think this practice is used in mostly every manufacturer's tactics. Either they include small base storage with SD card option (Samsung) or don't include it but offer a higher base storage or storage options (Google). Either way they are winning. I have no manufacturer experience, but I would bet it doesn't cost them a lot to implement, but it hurts their bottom line a ton if they don't do the above options.

Could be true, but I buy that theory more when the company is actually a manufacturer of storage, such as Samsung.

 

[jamezr]

I feel like Google's reasoning is more-so the money-making aspect. They can get more people to buy the premium storage option if they don't include expandable. I think this practice is used in mostly every manufacturer's tactics. Either they include small base storage with SD card option (Samsung) or don't include it but offer a higher base storage or storage options (Google). Either way they are winning. I have no manufacturer experience, but I would bet it doesn't cost them a lot to implement, but it hurts their bottom line a ton if they don't do the above options.

I agree...they only offered a 32 and 128 GB options. They did this for the price points they offered them. The entry level 32 is quickly becoming the 16GB option of a couple years ago. It just is not enough storage. Then the price point of the 128 put it out of reach for some people. It would have been great to have a SD Card to supplement the on board storage.

 

[Aquila]

I agree...they only offered a 32 and 128 GB options. They did this for the price points they offered them. The entry level 32 is quickly becoming the 16GB option of a couple years ago. It just is not enough storage. Then the price point of the 128 put it out of reach for some people. It would have been great to have a SD Card to supplement the on board storage.

IMO storage options and prices were based exactly on what Apple was offering with the iPhone 7.

 

[jamezr]

Yep, even if the difference is the conservation of resources and they just keep everything close in as profit, that's still better IMO even though I don't directly get anything out of that. Realistically we're probably talking about less than a dollar per device once the sunk costs are spread out, so maybe they can afford 2-3 extra employees for quality control or for whatever. No matter what that "whatever" is, it's probably worth more to me than the slot

This make no sense at all to me.....saying they can eliminate features so they can hire more employees is so short sighted.
If they added more capacity and made more phones they would have made more money to begin with and could have hired more employees. As it is it takes 6-8 weeks to buy the dang phone.

So you would have been ok with Google putting a less capable camera in the Pixel.....so they can save money and hire more employees? Make no sense......

 

[Law2138]

I like sealed devices with a larger capacity internal storage. I know from the get go how much space I have and don't have to concern myself with what SD card to add or what I can and cannot store to it. Sure, it sounds limiting, but for my smartphone experience, that's what I prefer at the moment. Its simple and effective.

I don't care to research what SD card offers the best performance, and finding it on my own. I like to keep it simple, and remove the potential for external cards to effect my experience.

 

[jamezr]

IMO storage options and prices were based exactly on what Apple was offering with the iPhone 7.

lol...Apple should not be the guiding light so to speak for Google to produce phones. Apple also has the FPS scanner on the front....runs IOS and allows very limited customization as well. Should Google follow suit?
Should Google copy Apple and not allow you to position app icons where you want them on the home screen? Should Google copy Apple and not allow widgets on the home screen as well? See how you should not use Apple as an example for Android OEMs.....

 

[Aquila]

This make no sense at all to me.....saying they can eliminate features so they can hire more employees is so short sighted.
If they added more capacity and made more phones they would have made more money to begin with and could have hired more employees. As it is it takes 6-8 weeks to buy the dang phone.

So you would have been ok with Google putting a less capable camera in the Pixel.....so they can save money and hire more employees? Make no sense......

No, the camera is a mission critical feature to flagship phones. Storage is too, but internal storage is better than removable storage so it's not the same argument at all. Wanting removable storage is like wanting a better camera that you can attach to your phone... which exists, Moto did that with their modules. But modules hardly the winning proposal at this point in the game.

And the hire employees thing is just one of a zillion things that not wasting resources can be useful for. It's just an example of what they could do, not meant to mean that is what they actually do.

 

[Aquila]

lol...Apple should not be the guiding light so to speak for Google to produce phones. Apple also has the FPS scanner on the front....runs IOS and allows very limited customization as well. Should Google follow suit?
Should Google copy Apple and not allow you to position app icons where you want them on the home screen? Should Google copy Apple and not allow widgets on the home screen as well? See how you should not use Apple as an example for Android OEMs.....

Matching the pricing structure of your main competition is not the same thing as copying everything about the devices. Google was/is clearly trying to position their lineup as a viable Android alternative to the iPhones.

 

[jamezr]

Matching the pricing structure of your main competition is not the same thing as copying everything about the devices. Google was/is clearly trying to position their lineup as a viable Android alternative to the iPhones.

But Apple is not their main competition....other Android OMS are.....It is like well Apples and Oranges

Then to be honest you brought up not including a SD Card so they could hire more employees. I don't think they should skimp on features at all.

Buying a 32GB Pixel then adding a 128GB sd card is a huge benefit.
Here is a great 128GB SD Card for $39.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Sele...ag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=UUacUvbUpU5764086

 

[Aquila]

But Apple is not their main competition....other Android OMS are.....It is like well Apples and Oranges

Then to be honest you brought up not including a SD Card so they could hire more employees. I don't think they should skimp on features at all.

Buying a 32GB Pixel then adding a 128GB sd card is a huge benefit.
Here is a great 128GB SD Card for $39.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Sele...ag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=UUacUvbUpU5764106

You can still do that. You just can't put it IN the phone. But external storage is supported on the Pixel via OTG.

 

[jamezr]

You can still do that. You just can't put it IN the phone. But external storage is supported on the Pixel via OTG.

Not the same thing at all. Then all of your objections and the Google mantra would go against using external storage even more than internal storage.

 

[Ry]

But Apple is not their main competition....other Android OMS are.....It is like well Apples and Oranges

Then to be honest you brought up not including a SD Card so they could hire more employees. I don't think they should skimp on features at all.

Buying a 32GB Pixel then adding a 128GB sd card is a huge benefit.
Here is a great 128GB SD Card for $39.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Sele...ag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=UUacUvbUpU5764203

Google included a cable to migrate iPhone to Pixel. I'd consider the iPhone main competition just because of that cable in the box.

 

[Aquila]

Not the same thing at all. Then all of your objections and the Google mantra would go against using external storage even more than internal storage.

How so?

 

[LeoRex]

I have never had an SD Card fail on me yet.....

I've had three die... all name brand, 'top quality' cards. One of them crapped its pants at the end of a vacation and we lost all of the photos we had on the camera (this was pre-cloud backup days).

I will never again rely on an SD card to store my pictures and videos. I'll use them to expand the storage of a phone, like on my wife's S7 Edge, but those pictures get sucked up to Google Photos toot sweets... I view SD cards as temporary storage, and every picture that is on one that isn't backed up yet, I see as a potentially lost one.

They fail... they fail fairly often... That you haven't had one die on you, consider yourself lucky. The other volunteer staff and I here have each answered dozens of posts from people who had those cards go south on them and needed help recovering them (hint : unless they are backed up, you can't)

 

[jamezr]

How so?

removable storage versus internal.....the card failing...all of your objections to external storage.