This Could Be Motorola's New 'X Phone'

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
No SD card slot? What drew me to Motorola's Bionic was the SD slot and the removable battery. If Google has Motorola move away from these customer friendly options, they may see customers move away from them.
There is no excuse not to include SD slots on phones. They have been on phones since well before smartphones hit the market. Even the free dumb phones always had them, so they don't add significantly to the cost of manufacturing the phone. The only reason not to include it is to push their cloud services, which with small data caps on cell networks just makes things more difficult for users.
 
No SD card slot? What drew me to Motorola's Bionic was the SD slot and the removable battery. If Google has Motorola move away from these customer friendly options, they may see customers move away from them.
There is no excuse not to include SD slots on phones. They have been on phones since well before smartphones hit the market. Even the free dumb phones always had them, so they don't add significantly to the cost of manufacturing the phone. The only reason not to include it is to push their cloud services, which with small data caps on cell networks just makes things more difficult for users.
 
There is no real reason to have a SD card slot. SD cards are slower than internal storage. Also most phones don't allow more than a 32GB SD card anyways, so you're still going to have the same amount of storage.
 
@fatboytyler
Its not about the speed of SD cards vs internal flash. Its about the convenience.
SD Cards are primarily useful for storage of media files (music, videos, pictures and documents), leaving more room on the internal storage for apps. Doing video recording at 1080p a lot can quickly eat up all your usable space and SD cards are convenient hot plug add-ons so you dont need to constantly moving files wired to a PC (cloud sync is dependant on data caps or easy access to Wi-Fi networks).
It also reduces the costs of the devices substantially. Entry level 16GB model phones can be offered at subsidized rates contract with expandable storage of up an additional 64GB.
It makes no sense for a consumer to pay an additional $100-200+ per flash upgrades (to 32GB or 64GB), on a phone that will last them 2 years on contract.
 

I'm sorry, but not sure you have any well thought out reason on that. For one thing, a class 10 SD card is not that slow. I can't tell much of a difference on apps on an SD card opening versus those on internal storage.

But it's not really a place for storing apps anyway. It's a great place to store music and other media files, especially since phones are good for taking snapshots and quick videos. And instead of using data to stream music, you can have your music locally and can move files more quickly to your computer via an SD card slot. There simply is no reasonable argument to not having more local storage options, unless you own a cloud storage service, especially when this type of storage is so inexpensive to add to a phone.

 
Don't get me wrong, Class 10 are fast, that's what I currently use. It is a convenience, but certainly not a needed feature. However, if it were to come without a removable battery... That is much more of an important feature.
 
The answer is simple. Google wants you to take advantage of their cloud based services instead of having things stored locally on your phone. That argument they gave about speed and "user experience" was PR nonsense.
 


No, it is a needed feature. Many people like myself will not give a phone a second look if there is not a SD slot. I was pleased with my Bionic. If it had a removable battery and a SD slot, I would have bought the X phone. No SD slot, no sale to me. There's a reason Samsung is gaining popularity and one of the main reasons is they refuse to cut back on features. And yes, not including an SD slot is limiting a customers options.

With a paltry 4GB of data and the ending of unlimited data there is no excuse and reasonable reason to get rid of an SD slot. Why cut out such an inexpensive thing? There is only one answer, Google wants to push it's cloud services, plain and simple.
 
You also have to think that Google is finally putting a Vanilla firmware on a phone. No bloatware provided by the company of the phone. So with a Quad-Core running 2GB of ram it'll be significantly better than most phones on the market without any root-level customization (so the end user won't NEED a root to speed their phone up if they don't want it). For my purposes it is better than most, despite no SD card slot. I am just speaking my opinion/preference here.
 
Some say that SD cards are slower than internal. But try transferring 16GB of data over WiFi or 4GLTE compared to just popping a micro-SD out and into a laptop. The cloud services are great for doing many small transfers over time but when you to upload from your phone up to a cloudservice and then download back to your PC... that is a lot of wasted time. And many times the drivers for direct USB cable connections let you down. Especially when a LG or HTC USB cable does not work with your Samsung or vice-versa.
 

So if you don't want to use a SD card, having the SD slot there doesn't hurt you in anyway, you merely leave it blank. But up till now, you haven't been arguing that is your own personal preference, you've said there is no purpose to one which is a blanket statement trying to say no one needs one.

No, not everyone will mind not having an SD slot available. However, the fact that there is not one WILL cost them sales. I can say this for a fact because I was planning on buying it as long as it had one and a removable battery and because it has no SD slot, I am for sure not buying one. I know I am not alone in this view.

Limiting people's options is always a bad thing for sales. Google should stop emulating Apple this way. It was the iPhone that made sealed batteries and no SD slots popular, and no Android phone should follow the iPhone in that manner.

 
For me Motorola generally = STAY AWAY! I think Moto is the only company aside from LG that makes the buggiest, shittiest running Android devices I have ever used. Build quality has always been superb from Moto but is is beyond me why they think putting the shittiest, buggiest, ugliest, most battery draining poorly coded UI overlay on a phone with a tiny battery and locked bootloader is a good idea.
I don't care if they put out a super phone that washes my dishes if it's from Moto i own't buy it until I see some proof they improved their smartphones. I can't remember the last Moto device I have owned that's actually functioned properly
 


I don't know what Moto phone you were using, but all the ones in my experience have had better battery than most phones as well as unlocked bootloaders...

@wildkitten I apologize for the misunderstanding. I understand why that would deter you. I certainly understand why not having a removable battery is a deal-breaker, which is why I immediately turned down the new HTCs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom