x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Samsung official explains why the microSD slot was gone in the Galaxy S6 and is back again in the S7

Samsung official explains why the microSD slot was gone in the Galaxy S6 and is back again in the S7

Samsung official explains why the microSD slot was gone in the Galaxy S6 and is back again in the S7
Last year, when Samsung launched its reimagined flagships — the Galaxy S6 and S6 edge — many were happy to see the company go for much more premium materials, as the phones were the first Sammy-made handsets to feature the metal-between-glass design language that we see today on its mid-to-top-tier devices. However, no small amount of users were disgruntled at the fact that Samsung omitted two key features its top smartphones had up until that point – a user-removable battery and an expandable storage, via microSD. This was a hit for powerusers, who were used to keeping a spare battery for peace of mind, and who didn't fancy the idea of paying $100 extra per storage tier (the Galaxy S6 sold in 32 GB / 64 GB / 128 GB variants).

With the Galaxy S7 and S7 edge, Samsung reintroduced the microSD card slot for storage expansion. Both phones now come with a pretty generous 32 GB / 64 GB of internal memory and accept cards of up to 2 TB. It only makes sense that a flagship capable of 4K video recording would actually have the space to store the clips it takes, after all.

The new UFS 2.0 memory wouldn't gel well, performance-wise, with a microSD card slot, Samsung feared

Samsung head of technology, content, and launch management Kyle Brown spoke for TechRadar, saying that a microSD slot in the Galaxy S6 posed a risk to slow down the device. If you recall, it was the first handset where Sammy introduced its super-fast UFS 2.0 memory, which was almost three times faster than the previously used eMMC 5.0 chips. Samsung was concerned that data stored on the microSD card would be read slower, thus bogging down the phone's performance.

Since the new Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 edge handsets are just an upgrade to the fundamentals that were already laid down by their last year's predecessors, instead of an entirely new concept, Samsung was able to work on a solution and “get the best of both worlds”, Mr. Brown said. He continued to note that the return of the midroSD slot was one of the features of the S7 that received the most positive reaction from consumers, but also said that the team is very proud of bringing water- and dust-resistance back to the Samsung flagship line.

A true tech hurdle, or did Samsung just backtrack on a business decision that lost it some customers — what's your take?

source: TechRadar

  • Options

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:02 20

1. Bridgep0rt (Posts: 43; Member since: 04 Apr 2012)

Blah, Sammy listened to the customers, and made sure the SD card came back.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:30 7

17. ph00ny (Posts: 1234; Member since: 26 May 2011)

I remember while back regarding their series 9 laptops. Apparently the designers read the comments sections of tech site for feedback. i can only assume same thing is happening with their phones.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 10:45

62. j2001m (Posts: 2941; Member since: 28 Apr 2014)

Before you all go doa on this Samsung as used some type of ram system to speed things up where it uses some of the ram to sort the speed problems

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 00:41 1

108. chocowii (Posts: 445; Member since: 30 Jan 2014)

If Samsung really listens to customers then S6 would have a microSD card from the start. Samsung users are guinea pigs of Samsung itself. From the S4 it's all trial and error.
Switching components on and off, features on and off, designs on and off. Samsung really wants the best for their customers but the way they treat their loyals is not good. They're inconsistent. They thought switching things on and off and make it seem like its new and innovative again is not cool. They're indecisive.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 08:24 1

30. Shocky (unregistered)

Nothing wrong with bringing back the sdcard slot, but they reduced the internal storage again forcing users to buy sdcards because the phone doesn't have enough storage.

This is not the solution.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 08:31 3

32. hexa-core. (banned) (Posts: 58; Member since: 28 Feb 2016)

Samsung isn't the only one who reduced the storage size. LG has done it too in the G5.

Most people do, settle for 32 gigs if the phone features an SD card slot.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 08:52

37. Shocky (unregistered)

That doesn't make it okay,

From Samsung's point of view it's great, they can save money on internal storage and increase sales of their sdcards.

It's official, people are stupid.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 14:08

89. geordie8t1 (Posts: 38; Member since: 16 Nov 2015)

most people will NOT buy their SD cards they will go on ebay and try and buy cheap fake ones being none the wiser, being stupid enough to think they are getting a fantastic deal buying 200gb micro sd cards for $20/£20, then they complain to samsung that the sd cards are making their devices slow and they lost all their data, one of the reasons why samsung no doubt removed the storage option so you are right, people are stupid

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 16:23

97. cheetah2k (Posts: 1576; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)

Why would you buy Samsung microSD cards when Lexar are faster? HAHAHHAHAHA

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 22:35

106. Larry_ThaGr81 (Posts: 441; Member since: 26 May 2011)

Not I sir, I'd buy a 128GB internal variant if available and still would want the micro SD card slot. For me this is no different that my Note 4 that I'm upgrading from to the s7. It simply doesn't make since to down size the internal memory just because the micro sd cad slot is coming back. I do like the fact that Sammy has finally got with the program for adding support for 200GB micro sd cards.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:05 3

40. xondk (Posts: 1388; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)

reduced? min size of sgs6 was 32 gb? min size of sgs7 is 32 gb? no reduction, unless you are referring to that they didn't increase it?
Quite a few phones around with 16 gb still so yeah...

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:39 4

51. Shocky (unregistered)

Yes, reduced, 32GB was the minimum, now it's the ONLY option.

There was a 64GB and 128GB model and they were both available at launch.

That's a significant reduction.

16GB is generally for budget devices, flagship devices with 16GB are disgraceful in 2016.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 12:13 2

75. marorun (Posts: 3561; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)

Flagship device with 16 gb are disgraceful since at least 2014...

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:51 1

88. Shocky (unregistered)

Actually it wasn't so bad in 2014, back then you could still root without voiding your warranty and move apps around manually.

You can't do that anymore.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:05 1

81. lallolu (Posts: 471; Member since: 18 Sep 2012)

If there is SD slot, not many will buy a higher memory capacity version. It is not worth it from a business perspective for Samsung to make a higer memory version. If you really want high capacity and you would have bought a64/128GB phoe, then you should be able to afford a very fast 128GB microsd

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 14:10

90. Shocky (unregistered)

You can't use microsd card for apps, they're useless for me as all the files I need are online, I have no need to carry around 128GB of random files.

I need storage for applications, games are only going to keep getting bigger.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 14:32 1

92. xondk (Posts: 1388; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)

Last I checked bigger versions aren't the one's that get released at first release time, they come later along? so yeah? I can't imagine they wouldn't make them later on like most others I've seen but I guess if sgs6 had some at launch then yeah its a bit odd that this wouldn't have, but it might also be from the fact that they simply don't sell as many of those, so instead they focus on the 32 gb and give us back SDcards?

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 06:29

109. Shocky (unregistered)

Galaxy S6 had 32GB and 64GB on launch, 128GB came around a week later, didn't have to wait long.

The thing is Samsung have pretty much told us there will be no 64GB devices in the US and Europe, they may change their mind at some point but I doubt it.

Networks/carriers will always sell/push the cheaper, low capacity devices but that doesn't make it okay.

Back in 2014 people complained that 16GB wasn't acceptable, two years later Samsung phones have more bloat and apps/games have all got bigger.

32GB should have been the standard in 2014.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 22:40 1

107. Larry_ThaGr81 (Posts: 441; Member since: 26 May 2011)

As much as flagship devices cost, 32GB as an only option is disgraceful.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:42 5

52. Tomgabriele (Posts: 27; Member since: 25 Feb 2016)

Dude, SD cards are so cheap. If you are buying a $700 phone, a $12 64GB SD card shouldn't be a stretch.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:49 1

57. Shocky (unregistered)

If flash storage is so sheap why does a $700 phone only have 32GB?

Think Dude!!

They're ripping you off. :p

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 19:19

99. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)

Flash storage is cheap, but if the difference between a 32GB and 64GB model was only a few bucks, why would anyone buy the lower capacity model? This is where OEMS followed Apple's lead in charging exorbitant amounts to move up to the next storage tier. I will guarantee that the 64GB chip doesn't cost $50-100 more than the 32GB chip. It's all about wringing more money out of the consumers. With SD cards, there is no upgrade except to a different chip, and unless the next storage capacity is new there isn't much of a difference in price. But with a smartphone, the storage capacity is the only upgrade to the device, and they're going to make more money on the higher storage models.

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 07:25

111. Tomgabriele (Posts: 27; Member since: 25 Feb 2016)

The status quo forever has been to use capacity upgrades to gain more margin on sales - you wouldn't get 'ripped off' any less if they had a $750 64gb option.

Although if your argument in general is that manufacturers should be making less margin on phone sales, I can't fault you for that. But it's unlikely to change. The opportunity for making money is what has made the market so competitive and advancement so rapid.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 10:43 2

61. TechieXP1969 (limited) (Posts: 10115; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)

False! People who want sdcards will buy them no matter what size the phone internal storage. FACT. The 32GB model of the S, was still the top selling model due to pricing. The vast majority of users still never used sdcards with them.

The Note since the Note 3, the 32GB model is still the top selling model.

Even though I always buy 64GB, if the phone uses an sdcard, I still use a 128GB sdcard. So the phones internal storage is not relevant to me.

Even when I had my 128GB S6 Edge, I still used a 128GB sdcard, because even though the storage was fast and enough for all my music, when I moved all my music which is nearly 6000 files at 119GB, it slowed the phone down way to much even with faster storage.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 12:14 5

76. marorun (Posts: 3561; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)

Techie S6 edge dont support sd card...

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:25 2

83. DoggyDangerous (Posts: 857; Member since: 28 Aug 2015)


you caught him red handed. Will you call him a story maker now? will you? Now he need to come up with a cover up. For example, he was talking about USB on the go or something revolutionary tech which we have no idea about. Hmm, my dirty mind is forcing me to think that how those long paragraphs come in to being? Now I have a clue.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:43 1

86. Shocky (unregistered)

Maybe he carried it around with an adaptor and OTG cable, or maybe he forgot it didn't have a sdcard slot.

Old age does that. :-)

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:37

84. Shocky (unregistered)

I have no doubt the lowest capacity devices sold the most as they're cheaper and deals usually revolve around them and not the higher capacity devices which most carriers don't stock, nobody is disputing that but there are reasons for this.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

As for your music collection, that's funny. Upload them and be done with it, streaming music doesn't use much data, that was me back in 2014. :)

I'm guessing based on that comment your in your 40/50's, that's the general age group for users that stick to what they know and don't adapt well to change.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 15:49

96. ShadowHammer (Posts: 98; Member since: 13 Mar 2015)

Upload 120 GB to the cloud? That's gonna cost him $ every month to store unless there is some free non-promotional 200 GB service I'm unaware of. Yeah, it may not be much each month, but it still is a cost. How long would it take to rack up to the cost of a 128 GB SD card? Not sure.

Also, what do you do when you go on a road trip and service is spotty, or you go camping or something with no service?

I understand that for you, having a large SD card seems old-fashioned, but I can see numerous scenarios in which it makes sense. Each to their own, but it's nice to have the choice at least.

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 07:10

110. Shocky (unregistered)

Play Music I believe has a 50,000 song limit (300mb per track)

He can start by filling that up, it's free.

Videos can go on youtube, series/movies can be watched on streaming services or even Kodi.

Photos, documents can be uploaded for free using many services.

Easier than you might think.

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 08:32

113. ShadowHammer (Posts: 98; Member since: 13 Mar 2015)

Good points about online storage.

Unfortunately none of those options address my second paragraph about what to do if you don't have good coverage, or any service at all. I live in mountainous Utah where even the mighty Verizon has many areas with no service, or poor service.

For me, having my files physically on my device is a boon, because I don't have to worry about connection speeds, or coverage, or login issues.

I'm not saying that's great for everybody, I'm just saying I can see use cases for using old school methods. But if all online works well for you and where you live, then that's fine. Live and let live I say.

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 08:58

114. Shocky (unregistered)

It's very unusual to have no coverage, like I said unless you live in the middle of nowhere this simple isn't an issue.

I spend two hours commuting every day and there is only a small gap where I lose signal, usually I don't even notice.

FYI - I have a very small 128GB flash drive attached to my keys with built-in adapter, rarely ever gets used.

Point being there are solutions for having no sdcard, there is no solution for running out of app storage.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 19:41

101. jojon (Posts: 332; Member since: 11 Feb 2014)

that is a very embarrassing mistake you made there

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 11:54 1

70. Ruturaj (Posts: 1329; Member since: 16 Oct 2014)

I agree, there should have been 64 and 128 gb version. Companies make a lot of profit in those model, also for sales they can offer 64 gb model for price of 32 gb and 128 gb model for price of 64, they will sell like hot cakes (They did this with s6). SD cards are still slow compared to UFS, if people are paying extra what harm can is cause to Samsung.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:41

85. Shocky (unregistered)

Galaxy S7 users will end up paying the same price for 32GB that Galaxy S6 users paid last year for the 64GB and 128GB models.

That's messed up, this is about Samsung maximising profits and nothing else.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 14:36 1

93. xondk (Posts: 1388; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)

From my provider I get to pay less for the sgs7 then sgs6 cost at time of release at same provider, so yeah, maybe its a provider thing, though I decided to go edge.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 14:23

91. SupermanayrB (limited) (Posts: 571; Member since: 20 Mar 2012)

Which would you rather do: pay $100 more to go from 32GB to 128GB or pay $50 to have 32GB PLUS 128GB?

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 21:47 1

105. xfire99 (Posts: 827; Member since: 14 Mar 2012)

They didnt reduced internal storage, just released 32GB at launch and 64GB to comes later in some countries. 128GB is unknown. If there are demands and sure they will release it too.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 11:00

65. QWERTYphone (Posts: 654; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)

They removed the slider keyboard, microSD, removable battery, and intentionally designed the phone to shatter when dropped to INCREASE PROFITS and copy Apple.
I've bought EVERY Samsung Galaxy and Note released since the first Galaxy and will be replacing my S5 with the LG G5.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 19:24

100. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)

Samsung hasn't had a device with a slider keyboard for years. The last one they had was the Stratosphere 2, I remember because both my brother and my niece had one. It was a horrible phone, each of them went through 3 replacements before giving up and moving to a touchscreen only device. And to be fair, aside from the Priv, no one else has had a slider keyboard since the Droid 4, and that was around 3-4 years ago.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 20:42

102. QWERTYphone (Posts: 654; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)

EVERY PROFESSIONAL ADULT uses a LAPTOP with a PHYSICAL KEYBOARD. Touchscreens are for child's toys. Apple, and the idiots that buy them, forced PROFESSIONAL ADULTS to give up our professional phones for toys.
Intelligent buyers demand a removable battery and microSD, even for their touchscreen toys.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 21:09

104. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)

We're not talking about laptops here, we're talking about smartphones. And no one's going to be typing 60 words a minute on a physical keyboard like you would with a full-size keyboard.

And I never said anything about removable batteries or expandable storage. Reading comprehension isn't just used in school.

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 07:28

112. Tomgabriele (Posts: 27; Member since: 25 Feb 2016)

Have you seen the keyboard case for the S7? What do you think of it?

Any phone with a sliding keyboard now will be far too thick to gain mass approval/sales.

I am not sure what you are getting at with your 'Samsung Lies' comment...

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 19:45

117. catze86 (Posts: 726; Member since: 07 Dec 2015)

Naah. Ignore him. He just inhis QWERTY mode

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:03 18

2. hoomanPeasants (unregistered)

Umm what? SD cards will read slow regardless compared to a flash storage. I don't see how they were 'able to work on a solution and “get the best of both worlds”' Also, they took away the 64 and 128 GB storage options. What kind of boneheads run Samsung is beyond me!

To be clear, I'm all in for microSD cards. They are super cheap to store multimedia and have huge sizes. What I'm against is the terrible decision to remove 64 GB option.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:05 2

5. grbrao (Posts: 287; Member since: 23 Nov 2012)

they might have thought with SD card slot no one will shell extra money for higher memory.....

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 08:25 3

31. Shocky (unregistered)

They were wrong.

Goodbye Samsung, catch you again in 2017.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 08:44 3

36. hexa-core. (banned) (Posts: 58; Member since: 28 Feb 2016)

Samsung is not to be blaimed. The consumers are!

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 08:56

38. Shocky (unregistered)


posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:19 1

43. mitchytan92 (Posts: 82; Member since: 02 Mar 2015)

Same. Internal is just more important than external. There is just no way they can fixed the fact that microsd is just way slower than ufs 2.0 and could cause bottleneck in performance.

Now we lost our big internal storage in exchange for a slow external microsd.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:26

48. Kary1 (Posts: 300; Member since: 26 Jun 2015)

No, the tech press is to be blamed. Consumers wanted and bought features. The tech press wanted other things. Samsung listened to the tech press rather than their customers.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:39

50. Manyci (Posts: 116; Member since: 03 Aug 2015)

And what do you think the tech press wanted the SD card? Because the ("not so wise") techy consumers, who read tech sites cried for it. The average Joe gave a huge ammount of sh*t about SD card expansion. (It's enough if you only look at the 16GB base iPhone-users and how many are from them)

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 15:11

95. Kary1 (Posts: 300; Member since: 26 Jun 2015)

Assuming you meant "why" the tech press wanted the SD card, I didn't see a lot of call for that from the tech press. They're more interested in "premium materials," the color and other nonsense.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:27 1

49. Kary1 (Posts: 300; Member since: 26 Jun 2015)

You're more forgiving than me. Once I'm done with a tech company, I'm done with it. For Samsung it's not just the S6 disaster, it's also finding out that if you buy one of their TVs it's a crapshoot on what screen you'll get.

posted on 02 Mar 2016, 11:03

116. aajynqzz (Posts: 5; Member since: 03 Dec 2014)

Same for me. Bought a full ops Note 5 in November, spilled a glass of water on it two weeks later and that's it: phone bricked. First time I spill water on a mobile phone in 15 years and it just died like that. I always thought that a phone had to be dropped into a pool to be damaged, never expected a 800$ flagship to not withstand some water. I owned most of the S and Note models by Samsung and wrote to them to make a gesture (reparation, paid reparation, offering, anything) they just refused. I am done with them, just went back to my S5 sleeping in a drawer and will jump wagon to another brand pretty soon. What I didn't tell them in my letter is that I get to decide which phone models are authorized by the IT network in my company and I am pushing them out.

Trust for a company is earned when there is an issue, not when everything goes well.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:12 5

10. xocomaox (Posts: 134; Member since: 14 Dec 2015)

I believe what they are hinting at at kernel settings that take into consideration read-ahead buffers and other tricks that they've implemented in reading SD cards so that it does not lag the system.

Current cards are very fast and, even though compared to the internal memory are still far behind, you won't notice much of a difference. I've installed plenty of games and other applications on my SD cards and once the info is loaded in memory, there is no more reading of the card.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:31 1

19. ph00ny (Posts: 1234; Member since: 26 May 2011)

It wont help if people buy cheap slow SD cards to use in their flagship phones

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 07:58 2

27. hoomanPeasants (unregistered)

Current cards are extremely fast(upto 100 MB/s) in sequential performance; but in random read/write, they are around 10-20x slower than UFS based storage.

I just did a little bit of digging and it seems that Samsung isn't allowing apps to be installed on S7 microSD cards(it's called adaptive storage). Apps are the major reason to use random I/O and most multimedia is stored sequentially in sectors. That will ensure that SD won't slow down the system.

That brings us to the issue that you only get 26 GB or so for your apps. There is no 64 GB option and you can't install apps on SD.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:20

44. xocomaox (Posts: 134; Member since: 14 Dec 2015)

That makes perfect sense. In the case of archiving massive amounts of data (I currently do this with manga, I have tons of it on my SD card) it will be perfect to put all pictures videos and music on there which will see no slowdown or lag. I still think a good card can run apps very well, but when you incorporate adoptable storage option in Android M, it probably looks at the card far more often.

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 09:46 2

54. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

I'd rather have the 64gb option, but my Note 4 never ran into storage issues and it was limited to 32gb internal. But again, come on Samsung, give people options. The Note 6 better have other choices.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories