Why no SD cards?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And the SD slot was scrapped as a failed experiment on so many levels...

And the audio was scrapped as a failure at being a selling point...

And the 3G is something people value, and therefore Amazon has sold them ever since, despite your belief that: Amazon has no competition therefore why would they.
Thank you for coming to my defense.

The other thing to remember is that the 3G connectivity, unlike an SD card, is perfectly consistent with Amazon's designed usage pattern. Amazon's hardware feature set on the Kindle makes total sense, especially when you consider that they probably see all their hardware as a continuum so if people want audio they can just get a Fire.

I don't know why people have such a problem with the idea that the reason the Kindle doesn't have an SD slot is because it doesn't need one for it's designed function. Users may want one, but the Kindle doesn't need one for anything it's designed to do.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The other thing to remember is that the 3G connectivity, unlike an SD card, is perfectly consistent with Amazon's designed usage pattern. Amazon's hardware feature set on the Kindle makes total sense, especially when you consider that they probably see all their hardware as a continuum so if people want audio they can just get a Fire.

I don't know why people have such a problem with the idea that the reason the Kindle doesn't have an SD slot is because it doesn't need one for it's designed function. Users may want one, but the Kindle doesn't need one for anything it's designed to do.

"But it used to be designed for that function! "

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

"But it used to be designed for that function! "

And onboard storage used to be expensive and Amazon's cloud wasn't all that good, too.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

And onboard storage used to be expensive and Amazon's cloud wasn't all that good, too.

"Please don't be reasonable, it offends me."

[NickyWithNook]

I thought the SD card sounded awesome on my first Nook, but I never actually needed it. I doubt very many people need that much storage. I don't doubt some people here at MobileReads use that much, but most people just don't store thousands and thousands of books on their reader, or even want to. For those who want it, I'm glad the option exists in the ereader world, but to me a library that big is just one more thing other than reading to deal with, when I really only want to deal with reading.

[Greg Anos]

I think it's a philosophical issue.

1. Do you want a bunch of single purpose gadgets with no flexibility between gadgets.

2. Do you value the gadget higher than the data used by it.

The popular trend is to have a single, multipurpose gadget (read - smart phone) for everything. It does nothing well, but everything well enough to limp along.

Such a gadget will never have enough internal memory for all the data, external storage is a must. (Or you continually waste your time loading and unloading data.)

But at the same time, what parameters do you want on your multi-function gadget? Some people place a higher value on battery life, and are willing to give up some of the multifunctions (full motion video and web browsing, for example).

For such a gadget, an SD chip is optimal. You want to store more stuff? Buy a bigger chip. They're riduclously expensive right now, but you can buy a 1/2 Terabyte (512 GB) full-size SD chip. That would hold my audio library and my ebook library, on one chip, with lots of storage left over. The gadget then becomes an expendable...Any brand, any size, just as long as they will handle your chip, and you basic file structure. (Which is the opposite of the "walled garden" approach of multiple vendors...

But if all you want is a single function, totally non-flexible gadget, and are happy with the "walled garden" approach, then the Kindle is perfect.

[kaufman]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The popular trend is to have a single, multipurpose gadget (read - smart phone) for everything. It does nothing well, but everything well enough to limp along.

I think you are weakening your argument by overstating it.

My Galaxy Note does many things excellently. In fact, it does many things I do as part of being g a reader far better than the Kindle. It's even a pretty good book reading platform.

What the Kindle does better is the actual process of reading text only books. And for its price, I am willing to use it just for that.

But the Note is better for cataloging large libraries of books, for selecting books, for reading PDFs, for researching books on the internet. It's both wrong and distracting to say that it's just limping along for those functions.

The Kindle could do those things too if it had much stronger specs and a much higher price. But that would take it out of mass market range.

[TuxGirl]

I honestly think that amazon removed a lot of these features to make things more simple for their typical customer. I've spent many many many hours helping people on the kindle forum and kindle help forum on amazon. From what I've seen there and with people I know in person, the majority of users barely know how to do the most basic of functions on their kindles. More options would honestly confuse them. Honestly, plenty of people don't even understand what WiFi is and how it works. They haven't the slightest idea what an SD card is...

I love some of the features I've heard of for the kobo, but I am an admitted amazon fangirl, and I have too much of my life currently tied into the amazon ecosystem (including around 3000 ebooks). I also personally feel that amazon has the best store/infrastructure, so while I think some other devices have advantages over the kindle, I am sticking with the kindle ecosystem for now.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And the 3G is something people value, and therefore Amazon has sold them ever since, despite your belief that: Amazon has no competition therefore why would they.
Thank you for coming to my defense.

Actually, I do think the H2O is the biggest competition to the Kindle Voyage. I hope the H2O does really well as maybe that would give Amazon the idea that people want more features and customization options.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The popular trend is to have a single, multipurpose gadget (read - smart phone) for everything. It does nothing well, but everything well enough to limp along.

Such a gadget will never have enough internal memory for all the data, external storage is a must. (Or you continually waste your time loading and unloading data.)

But at the same time, what parameters do you want on your multi-function gadget? Some people place a higher value on battery life, and are willing to give up some of the multifunctions (full motion video and web browsing, for example).

For such a gadget, an SD chip is optimal. You want to store more stuff? Buy a bigger chip. They're riduclously expensive right now, but you can buy a 1/2 Terabyte (512 GB) full-size SD chip. That would hold my audio library and my ebook library, on one chip, with lots of storage left over. The gadget then becomes an expendable...Any brand, any size, just as long as they will handle your chip, and you basic file structure. (Which is the opposite of the "walled garden" approach of multiple vendors...

But if all you want is a single function, totally non-flexible gadget, and are happy with the "walled garden" approach, then the Kindle is perfect.

If by non-flexible you mean single-purpose (slight redundancy there?) I quite agree.
Walled garden is something totally different though.

Also worth noting is that multipurpose gadgets do not necessarily limp along. They have different strengths, just because some people value battery life say, and readability outside, does not mean a tablet -- targeted at a different use-case -- limps along in it's use-case. And for the people who do not value an ereader's strengths, a tablet is the superior device in terms of performance.

That is the beautiful thing about having both to choose from, we can all decide what we value.

Although I would not use a tablet as my main reading device (until they can duplicate the battery longevity and fix the outdoors issue, LiquaVista?? ) that doesn't mean the people who don't read outside and don't care about charging every ~day etc. have any reason or need to use a device that is substandard for their needs.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, I do think the H2O is the biggest competition to the Kindle Voyage. I hope the H2O does really well as maybe that would give Amazon the idea that people want more features and customization options.

Then would you mind making up your mind as to whether or not the Kindle does have competition? I am still unclear as to what you believe.

Does the Kindle have competition, and therefore an incentive to "innovate", whatever that means for ereaders , or
Does the Kindle NOT have competition, and therefore the H2O is meaningless*, oh and also it makes no sense that Amazon would compete with, say, 3G.

I strongly suspect that you meant to say "The H2O looks really cool, and I hope it will actually start competing with the Kindle", but I cannot see how that would be a response to what I said.


* -- despite how it may very well be that they are the best of a bunch of devices that do not compete

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

there is simply no way anyone needs to bump up their onboard storage FROM 1,500 books to 32,000+. When do you plan on reading all those, and why is it impossible to get to a computer anytime in the intervening two decades???

People carrying around their 21,941 volume Project Gutenburg collection in a 16 GB microSD card probably is the exception, rather than the rule.

The more common occurance is the on-the-spot in the middle of nowhere reference library, with a 627 volume reference library that takes up 5.23 GB, or, for an "extreme case" the ten volume reference library that takes up 4.5 GB.

My rant is that talking about the number of books a reader can hold, without giving the actual amount of storage is incredibly misleading. it's like the time a friend of mine was excited, because she was told that the mp3 player could hold twenty-five songs. Except, it barely could hold one song that she listened to --- a full length opera.

When sales droids tell me the number of books a device can hold, I just sweetly ask if that means that I could have all of the term papers my ex wrote during her art history course on it. The one on Vincent was only 5 GB in size.

[JSWolf]

[QUOTE=eschwartz;2935326]

No, no, NO. Even taking into account the all-powerful "personal needs"... there is simply no way anyone needs to bump up their onboard storage FROM 1,500 books to 32,000+. When do you plan on reading all those, and why is it impossible to get to a computer anytime in the intervening two decades???

I've been thinking of why someone would need more eBooks on their Reader then could be read and I may have one answer. It would be because that person has no idea what he/she wants to read next and by having all of those eBooks available, there is a greater choice of what to read next.

A lot of times when I go on vacation, I don't actually have that much access to Wifi, so if I am not sure of what I might want to read, having a lot of eBooks with me would give me more choice of what to read as I would not be able to connect to home, grab some eBook and read. Also, my computer at home will be turned off so even if I had WiFi, it wouldn't do me any good to connect to home.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

People carrying around their 21,941 volume Project Gutenburg collection in a 16 GB microSD card probably is the exception, rather than the rule.

The more common occurance is the on-the-spot in the middle of nowhere reference library, with a 627 volume reference library that takes up 5.23 GB, or, for an "extreme case" the ten volume reference library that takes up 4.5 GB.

My rant is that talking about the number of books a reader can hold, without giving the actual amount of storage is incredibly misleading. it's like the time a friend of mine was excited, because she was told that the mp3 player could hold twenty-five songs. Except, it barely could hold one song that she listened to --- a full length opera.

When sales droids tell me the number of books a device can hold, I just sweetly ask if that means that I could have all of the term papers my ex wrote during her art history course on it. The one on Vincent was only 5 GB in size.

Very well then:

1500/32000 books is estimated at ~800KB-1MB per book, which is about average for novels and suchlike.

Leaving aside books with high-quality maps/other images, comic books which are just a bunch of images to begin with, etc. -- plain text alone is extremely compact in memory footprints.

I would posit that people wishing to carry around 5GB term papers, is yet another one of those exceptions.
Reference libraries -- what do you mean by that? I assume likewise that people carrying around encyclopedias and factbooks are yet more exceptions.

All my arguments start with the assumption that we are talking about the average use-case of ereaders, which is someone wanting to read their extensive collection of novels.

I freely admit that, say, readers of comic books should be looking for a device with more storage. (Edge case devices for edge case users.)

P.S. Most people understand "songs" to be the common understanding of what a song is, the common form of a song, that is to say, 3-minute clips. Your friend, being the unusual type, has a responsibility to translate from typicality to her use-case.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've been thinking of why someone would need more eBooks on their Reader then could be read and I may have one answer. It would be because that person has no idea what he/she wants to read next and by having all of those eBooks available, there is a greater choice of what to read next.

A lot of times when I go on vacation, I don't actually have that much access to Wifi, so if I am not sure of what I might want to read, having a lot of eBooks with me would give me more choice of what to read as I would not be able to connect to home, grab some eBook and read. Also, my computer at home will be turned off so even if I had WiFi, it wouldn't do me any good to connect to home.

Wow, it's almost like I didn't preempt you by two weeks:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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.

I have enough books on my Kindle to cover myself in the exact case you suggested, and others have before you (including myself, because this was indeed a consideration of mine and I am happy to say ereaders in general passed with flying colors) and to do so for months of indecision without an internet connection.

P.S. If you are worried about your computer being off and you want to download your books from elsewhere over WiFi -- see my sig.
Can't help you if you don't have WiFi, but fortunately that is getting rarer.