-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Disappointed by the 16gb+16gb storage arrangement...
- Thread starter schembfs
- Start date
rossman26
Member
I believe he's trying to put forward that Motorola would have found it cheaper to have built in 32GB of internal storage and not included a MicroSD card with the phone thereby allowing (or forcing) users to buy their own cards.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that thought but meh, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
This post reminds me of the Coffee Talk skit on SNL... throw some random statement out there.. 'now talk amongst yourselves..'
Yup, I'm disappointed too. It's just too little for a true flagship device (or at least a device priced like this). Probably one spec that remained unchanged from prior to CES until now and was a carryover feature. I too would vastly prefer a 32GB internal and no standard microSDHC card for several reasons:
-years after being first shown, 64GB microSDXC cards are nowhere on the horizon. And when they do appear, they will likely not be compatible with this generation of phones and will be very expensive. So the easiest way for us to max out our storage capabilities is to have 32GB internally and 32 on an SDHC card.
-I already have a 16GB card left over from my OG Droid as well as another one I bought last year and a 32GB card currently in my X2.
-I still find the 16gb internal storage of the D3 and DB still rather constraining, primarily due to the Bionic's strange internal memory partitioning. You start to DL a couple of the big Gameloft games and that space starts to fill up awfully fast. Also, won't ICS have greater storage requirements (assuming the DB sees an update to ICS down the road)?
While I can understand if Moto had to freeze the DB's hardware specs months ago and couldn't budge from 16GB, with a LOT of competition around the corner and the endless delays behind this device, I really feel that they should have followed the D3 model and omitted the 16GB card and sold the DB for $250 OR included a 32GB card at the $299 price point. The TB & Charge had 32GB cards months ago and a lot of consumers get hung up on the "free" memory card specs when making a decision.
-years after being first shown, 64GB microSDXC cards are nowhere on the horizon. And when they do appear, they will likely not be compatible with this generation of phones and will be very expensive. So the easiest way for us to max out our storage capabilities is to have 32GB internally and 32 on an SDHC card.
-I already have a 16GB card left over from my OG Droid as well as another one I bought last year and a 32GB card currently in my X2.
-I still find the 16gb internal storage of the D3 and DB still rather constraining, primarily due to the Bionic's strange internal memory partitioning. You start to DL a couple of the big Gameloft games and that space starts to fill up awfully fast. Also, won't ICS have greater storage requirements (assuming the DB sees an update to ICS down the road)?
While I can understand if Moto had to freeze the DB's hardware specs months ago and couldn't budge from 16GB, with a LOT of competition around the corner and the endless delays behind this device, I really feel that they should have followed the D3 model and omitted the 16GB card and sold the DB for $250 OR included a 32GB card at the $299 price point. The TB & Charge had 32GB cards months ago and a lot of consumers get hung up on the "free" memory card specs when making a decision.
Is it really that big of a deal? Come on man'
I should have elaborated that with 32GB of built-in internal storage and an empty SD slot(instead of 16GBint+16GBmicroSDHC), power users will have the option to add a 32GB microSDHC for a total of 64GB.
No big deal. I'm still buying it. I'm just saying that Motorola could have saved a little more during manufacturing (one less step in the assembly line) and at the same time gave the users an option to add even more storage. Think about it, they are still selling it with the same amount of storage (32GB). But at the same time, give us the option to add even more.
rossman26
Member
But with your assumption your missing all sorts of very relevant details.. What were the component prices for 32GB vice 16GB? Availability of the same components in the quantities needed for manufacture? Do most "average" consumers have a need for 32GB or was 16GB determined to be the "sweet" spot? Will most consumers find the addition of a 16GB card an attractive bonus? Conversely, would most "average" consumers view the lack of an included card in a negative light regardless of internal storage capability? Would the inclusion of 32GB internally negatively effect the position, differentiation and sales position of a later Moto platform? I could go on but think I made the point..
I would like to think they (Moto) dealt with a good many of these decisions and this 16X16 configuration probably represents the best compromise in cost, manufacturing speed and value to the consumer that they were able to realize at the point they had to freeze and begin production.
I'm sure Moto has 'road mapped' their product lines years into the future and I can't believe this was an 'accident'..
I see your point. It's like how an 8GB stick of memory is more expensive that two sticks of 4GB memory. But don't you think that it's the market forces(demand vs supply), not the cost of assembly that makes this so? Isn't a single 32GB NAND chip actually cheaper (to manufacture) than two 16GB NAND chips that would have gone into the internal memory and microSDHC card? But then again, you're probably right because Motorola doesn't manufacture these chips. They are subject to market forces just like the rest of us.
