Why no SD cards?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by gevaisa

kacir, not really sure what you're getting at. Wouldn't having an SD slot just mean I could carry around a huge collection of Kindle ebooks I bought off Amazon?

Books you bought at Amazon are backed up in the cloud and that is supposed to be enough. Sadly, designers of contemporary devices can't imagine users that do not have almost constant connection to the net.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Anthem

And to prove how good of a job they are doing with their nefarious mind-control methods (Bezos you evil genius!) I shall name all of my children and pets in the following Amazon inspired manner:

Matt's 1st Child
Matt's 2nd Child
Matt's 3rd Child

and the pets shall be:

Matt's 1st Pet
Matt's 2nd Pet
Matt's 3rd Pet

Brilliant!

And they all have to wear attire suitable only for the Amazon and nowhere else. And they must all constantly SMILE! That is how thorough the control is! It's crazy!

...brilliant!

[Zeebra]

I don't understand why the need for tons of storage or SD cards on ereaders. Most ebooks are fairly small in size and you can carry thousands already on the device. Maybe it's just me but I don't go carrying around a bunch of books, I get that other people like to but it just seems unnecessary.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kacir

Books you bought at Amazon are backed up in the cloud and that is supposed to be enough. Sadly, designers of contemporary devices can't imagine users that do not have almost constant connection to the net.

You can still sideload even if you don't have a connection, so I don't think that's the issue here. They supply storage for more books than they expect most people are likely to want available at any given time.

Now if they eliminate the ability to sideload, you might have more of a case about wanting a constant connection. As is, the idea of having the books you plan on reading immediately stored locally and the rest backed up to the cloud seems reasonable enough for most users that an SD card isn't a necessity.

[TuxGirl]

If you have a 3g model, honestly, the vast majority of users would have a pretty constant connection. I can't imagine being someplace without 3g or WiFi long enough to get through 1600 books. I mean, maybe in the apocalypse, but I think in that situation, I may have more pressing concerns than making sure I have access to all my books.

I think the lack of an SD card is probably related to performance of the device. Even without an SD card, the kindles slow down long before they fill up the storage with books.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Clouds are great; when there's WiFi. Not so hot when you're traveling and WiFi is nowhere in sight. At least Amazon doesn't gouge you as much as Apple does for storage bumps.

You could just do what I do and never have enough money to travel! Works perfectly. ;D

[Readirect]

The main reason for an SD card is that I'd like to have a WIDE choice of what I read and I usually read multiple different books -- different titles in the same category and different categories -- at the same time; often starting several different books before I find ones that I want to continue reading . YOU might not think that's important and that's fine, but you're not buying my ereader for me, are you?

My dollars, my choice. Fortunately, Kobo and others understand the value of actually caring about their customers.

That's why I'm saying "good riddance" to Kindle e-ink hardware.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Readirect

The main reason for an SD card is that I'd like to have a WIDE choice of what I read and I usually read multiple different books -- different titles in the same category and different categories -- at the same time; often starting several different books before I find ones that I want to continue reading . YOU might not think that's important and that's fine, but you're not buying my ereader for me, are you?

My dollars, my choice. Fortunately, Kobo and others understand the value of actually caring about their customers.

That's why I'm saying "good riddance" to Kindle e-ink hardware.

It's not whether I think it's important, but whether Amazon thinks it will bring enough of a return on investment to justify including one in the Kindle.

Amazon simply doesn't appear to believe the benefits of including one outweigh the costs.

[TheBookWiz]

This is just my option, but I feel as though it has more to do with pushing sales. Think about it this way. If the kindle had the SD slot people would buy the cheapest model available; because they have that option to extend the amount of storage if needed. BUT take away that option and people will be willing to buy a more pricier model because it has the storage they need/want. Besides the screen size differences, what separates the kindles? The GBS. You have 8, 16, and 32. I am not sure about you guys, but if the kindle had an SD slot, screen size alone would not have me purchase a more experience model. Why would I buy a 32gb when I can buy an 8gb that does the same exact thing. I can add storage if needed. That's just me though. I feel like this is one of the reasons apple does the same thing .

[ratflinger]

oh good god - the whining here is legion. Just put Calibre on your laptop & there is your collection.

How many friggin books can you read one time anyway? Oh, I need all 10,000 at my fingertips or I might collapse - Try leaving mom's basement once in a while.

[TheBookWiz]

Originally Posted by Zeebra

I don't understand why the need for tons of storage or SD cards on ereaders. Most ebooks are fairly small in size and you can carry thousands already on the device. Maybe it's just me but I don't go carrying around a bunch of books, I get that other people like to but it just seems unnecessary.

I don't thinks it has to do with carrying around tons of storage. Its more along the lines of Ereader are more advance now than when they first came out. Most of the Ereaders out now are tablets as well, which comes with more features that do require storage. With its apps, photo, music, etc storage does play a big role. I love reading and listening to music. Part of my storage is used to house my music files, as well as audio books.

Also amazon has come quite a long way from when they first started. Amazon Prime is a good example. They offer music, books, and videos to their subscribers. I tried out their services for 30 days, and was able to save their prime tv shows and movies to my device. The HD videos I know for a fact take up quite a good amount of space.

[TheBookWiz]

Originally Posted by ratflinger

oh good god - the whining here is legion. Just put Calibre on your laptop & there is your collection.

How many friggin books can you read one time anyway? Oh, I need all 10,000 at my fingertips or I might collapse - Try leaving mom's basement once in a while.

For me its not so much as my book collection. I use my Kindle for everything that's why I did purchase one that had a bigger storage capacity. I have just enjoyed it so far and I still have a pretty good amount space left. Extra storage would be a plus though. But heck, as you suggested Calibre is an option if you have a problem with your books storage.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by kacir

You are not supposed to have your hoarded collection on your Kindle.
Here is how you are supposed to use your Kindle:
1. Buy an e-book at Amazon.
2. Read that e-book
3. go to step 1

And that is what the vast majority of users do. Why would Amazon want to support people that want to bring in their collection, or buy books elsewhere?
Go and buy an e-ink reader from a manufacturer that makes a profit on the reader and not on content
You will have 14 supported formats, including DRM protected epub, dropbox integration, SD card and other features, like numerous configuration options.

Alternative explanation: I store a mere 3500 books on my Kindle, and read them however I want -- together, one at a time, from Amazon, not from Amazon, downloaded from Dropbox even...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Readirect

The main reason for an SD card is that I'd like to have a WIDE choice of what I read and I usually read multiple different books -- different titles in the same category and different categories -- at the same time; often starting several different books before I find ones that I want to continue reading . YOU might not think that's important and that's fine, but you're not buying my ereader for me, are you?

My dollars, my choice. Fortunately, Kobo and others understand the value of actually caring about their customers.

That's why I'm saying "good riddance" to Kindle e-ink hardware.

I agree with you... except for the part where I do that with the Kindle, which can hold ~3500 books, a number of which I am reading simultaneously.

Good riddance to FUD.

---

So that's the story. The Kindle has more than enough memory already to carry around thousands of books at a time. To quote myself on a different thread,

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And since the 3.5GB in the Kindle Touch can hold about 3,000 average-sized books, you don't need expandable memory. If you read 100 books A DAY you will still have one month of reading on your Kindle. At a more reasonable but still exorbitant 3 books a day, you will have nearly 3 YEARS worth. I'm sure somewhere along the way you can get to a computer and swap them for new ones.
(Same logic applies to every other eReader, including the Kindle Paperwhite which has (shudder) a measly 1.5 GB and about a year's worth of books.)

There is no need to carry around thousands MORE. At some point you will run out of memory even with a 128 GB SD card, presumably because you are that crazy guy whose lust for SD cards is so he will never be without Wikipedia...

The vast majority of Kindle users never come close to reaching the memory limit, so why should Amazon install a pointless SD card, which, as has already been pointed out, will raise the cost and weight of the device for no practical gain (from Amazon's perspective)?

I can hear the need for an SD card if you are in the habit of reading many comic books, which average at a FAR greater size than ebooks. But I guess Amazon is more interested in the majority of users, and in any event, they can use a Fire. Tablets will probably give a superior reading experience for that anyway, and there is plenty of memory on a tablet.
And yes it sucks. But Amazon doesn't care about minorities, they care about pleasing the most people. As they should.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by TheBookWiz

This is just my option, but I feel as though it has more to do with pushing sales. Think about it this way. If the kindle had the SD slot people would buy the cheapest model available; because they have that option to extend the amount of storage if needed. BUT take away that option and people will be willing to buy a more pricier model because it has the storage they need/want. Besides the screen size differences, what separates the kindles? The GBS. You have 8, 16, and 32. I am not sure about you guys, but if the kindle had an SD slot, screen size alone would not have me purchase a more experience model. Why would I buy a 32gb when I can buy an 8gb that does the same exact thing. I can add storage if needed. That's just me though. I feel like this is one of the reasons apple does the same thing .

Um, you do realize there is only one storage size, 4 GB?

Except for a while when there was only 2 GB, but they weren't exactly offering an expensive model with more memory.