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: 1518; 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: 3005; 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: 470; 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: 89; 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: 1746; 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: 449; 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: 1904; 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: 5029; 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: 561; 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: 1904; 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: 449; 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: 29; 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: 4786; 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: 29; 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 (Posts: 14630; 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: 5029; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)

Techie S6 edge dont support sd card...

posted on 01 Mar 2016, 13:25 2

83. DoggyDangerous (Posts: 1010; 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: 123; 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.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories