Samsung, Xiaomi Moving To Next-Generation UFS 2.0 Memory Standard In 2015

[Guest]

Samsung and Xiaomi are getting ready to adopt the next-generation embedded memory standard called UFS 2.0, which comes with three times faster performance than eMMC 5.0 and improved energy efficiency.

Samsung, Xiaomi Moving To Next-Generation UFS 2.0 Memory Standard In 2015 : Read more

 

[razor512]

Please get rid of the endless scrolling for articles, it makes it harder to comment, especially when you need to log in.

 

[tomfreak]

there is no point moving to next gen memory when the base model of phones are still 16GB.

 

[salmansheikh]

Please get rid of the endless scrolling for articles, it makes it harder to comment, especially when you need to log in.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[coolitic]

Also you can't post comments with adblock turned on. Seriously?

Adblock also prevents endless scrolling/greatly improves loading speed.

 

[Wild Biker Bill]

100 Mbs 4K video is a whopping 12.5 MB/second. SDHC and SDXC memory can handle that just fine. You might want to come up with a different justification for this speed of memory being required in a smartphone.

 

[Flying-Q]

@coolitic, this comment is posted with adblock turned on.

 

[Flying-Q]

@coolitic, this comment is posted with adblock turned on.

 

[Flying-Q]

However, double posting just because I reloaded the page is a bit daft.

 

[epobirs]

There is plenty of value here even if 16 GB remains entry level for storage on smartphones. The speed that the phone can be booted and applications launched opens up new choices for reducing power usage. A major performance bump for certain functions while still being able to use inexpensive microSD for secondary storage, along with USB OTG devices for external (externaler?) storage will be an acceptable transition until the newer memory becomes standard at all levels.

 

[scolaner]

Also you can't post comments with adblock turned on. Seriously?

Adblock also prevents endless scrolling/greatly improves loading speed.

Um, so don't use Adblock. Why would we make it easier for you to block ads? We sell ads to make money. Money that keeps the lights on. And pays our writers and editors.

 

[scolaner]

Please get rid of the endless scrolling for articles, it makes it harder to comment, especially when you need to log in.

Thanks for your feedback. Seriously. And judging by the number of bumps your comments got, it would seem a lot of folks agree with you.

 

[Flying-Q]

I know that harping on about ads is off topic but the subject was raised and responded to. I do not have a problem with ads per se, it is the in-your-face, distracting kind that diminish the content that I object to. There was a phase where tom's had ads that covered content and couldn't be removed. For that reason alone I find an adblocker to be needed to read the content. Having installed adblock it is now on permanently for all sites that I visit. Prior to this, when ads were discrete, I found I would be occasionally interested and followed their enticing links. Now that they are so irritating I take action to remove them. This is a loss of advertising revenue.

 

[scolaner]

I know that harping on about ads is off topic but the subject was raised and responded to. I do not have a problem with ads per se, it is the in-your-face, distracting kind that diminish the content that I object to. There was a phase where tom's had ads that covered content and couldn't be removed. For that reason alone I find an adblocker to be needed to read the content. Having installed adblock it is now on permanently for all sites that I visit. Prior to this, when ads were discrete, I found I would be occasionally interested and followed their enticing links. Now that they are so irritating I take action to remove them. This is a loss of advertising revenue.

Look, I can't speak to your specific experience with content being blocked by an ad. If that was the case, someone surely screwed up. Apparently that problem has been fixed at this point?

But that's beside the point. You're complaining about ads on a site that serves up FREE content. All we ask of you is that you put up with seeing ads.

So you're right, it IS a loss of advertising revenue when you block ads. That takes money of out of our pocket that we have to make up somewhere else.

 

[hrrmph]

"Look, I can't speak to your specific experience with content being blocked by an ad. If that was the case, someone surely screwed up."

It seemed to be by design and happened so much that I just stopped coming here for a few years. Glad you got it fixed, but don't disparage your readership for having long memories.

 

[Flying-Q]

I know that harping on about ads is off topic but the subject was raised and responded to. I do not have a problem with ads per se, it is the in-your-face, distracting kind that diminish the content that I object to. There was a phase where tom's had ads that covered content and couldn't be removed. For that reason alone I find an adblocker to be needed to read the content. Having installed adblock it is now on permanently for all sites that I visit. Prior to this, when ads were discrete, I found I would be occasionally interested and followed their enticing links. Now that they are so irritating I take action to remove them. This is a loss of advertising revenue.

Look, I can't speak to your specific experience with content being blocked by an ad. If that was the case, someone surely screwed up. Apparently that problem has been fixed at this point?

But that's beside the point. You're complaining about ads on a site that serves up FREE content. All we ask of you is that you put up with seeing ads.

So you're right, it IS a loss of advertising revenue when you block ads. That takes money of out of our pocket that we have to make up somewhere else.

I am saddened that you appear to have missed my point. I shall restate:

I used to be happy with the style and content of ads up to about 4 years ago. I occasionally clicked through those that were relevant to my business, generating income for Tom's and on a few specific occasions I made purchases, which IIRC generates a more substantial income. In recent years the ads have become more invasive and intrusive. It is this exaggerated nature and prevalence of advertising that I object to and now use an adblocker to allow myself to get back to Tom's content. The consequence is that I no longer see nor click through ads. Tom's has lost income as a direct consequence of moving to more aggressive advertising.

I have discussed this trend in advertising with many other people in my network and, with a few exceptions, I have found the majority of people I know feel the same or even more strongly against it.

 

[scolaner]

(Apologies to those uninterested in this conversation! We didn't mean to highjack this thread with a discussion of ads on the site. I'd shift to a PM conversation, but there are a few of you interested in the topic in this thread. So.)

Again, I can't speak to anything that was going on a few years ago. I wasn't working here yet.

But going forward, if there's something on the site that you're hating, such as ads that are ruining the experience for you, please say something. We're not afraid of constructive criticism. That helps us do our jobs better.

You can PM me, bug the mods, etc. I'd rather we get a hundred complaints a day (and have something to fix) than hear that readers are no longer coming here and are instead sitting around with other potential readers grousing about how much it sucks to visit the site.

A great strength of TH is that readers have a voice. So speak up, tell us what you want. We can take it.

 

[Flying-Q]

Nice response scolaner. I shall ponder and reply in short order.