Quote:
Originally Posted by koland
Your calculations fail to take into account how much space amazon now wastes on each book for thumbnails, highlights, reviews/goodreads, xray, indexes and other such. Well over the size of the book itself, in most cases. On the older Fires with 8GB storage, they gradually fill up just with the thumbnails, leaving no space at all for an actual book or app; I don't imagine there is much difference on the eink kindles, if you use the thumbnail view (assuming, of course, the stupid things are smart enough to not download thumbnails for those of us that lock them into text only home pages; it not, they fill up with useless dreck for every Kindle, eventually).
An SD card slot solves the "kindle won't last that long" issue, as well as "where is that book I wanted" problems. And the "what size Kindle should I get" issue, as they only need leave enough room for a hundred books and the indexes, then bump you to adding an SD card if you need more room.
Of course, they took them out to reduce call support and because eliminating audio removed a lot of the high-storage users from using Kindles. No doubt they had hundreds of call an hour where people put books on the card, then moved the card to a new Kindle, then it didn't work (not to mention the poor design that required shutting it off to change the card).
|
You comparing apples to oranges--Kindles to Fires. Not the same thing at all. And even if you double the file sizes, you are not going to read 4000 books on a Kindle before it wears out with age. No frigging way. I simply don't buy into any argument I've ever heard claiming that Kindles need more than 4GB of storage. It simply is not true for the average, or the vast majority, of Kindle owners, who tend to use them to casually read eBooks, are not techies, and will rarely visit a forum like this. Those who constantly bitch about their Kindle only having 4GB or so of memory would be better served buying a tablet instead.