Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Feb 2013 22:39 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Google is growing increasingly concerned with Samsung's dominance of the Android - and smartphone - landscape. Supposedly, the topic is being openly discussed at Google, and as far as I'm concerned, that's great news.
Thread beginning with comment 553794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: If Google is worried
by pashar on Wed 27th Feb 2013 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If Google is worried"
Member since:

FAT32 is a requirement by SD standard. So, it is required to implement microSD support. exFAT required for bigger cards (>64GB IIRC).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: If Google is worried
by dragos.pop on Wed 27th Feb 2013 13:11 in reply to "RE[3]: If Google is worried"
dragos.pop Member since:

Not sure: SD is a standard or a de facto standard like FAT?
Motorola used FRAND patents = when a new standard was defined motorola said (and signed) that it want it's patents to be use for that standard.
I don't think the same happened to MS, sd manufactures just used it to be compatible with Windows by default. They could have used a different file system and provide the drivers, but would hurt the adoption rate (format your card with ext2/3/4 and see that it just works on linux).
Of course you are partialy right from the ethical point of view. But the law is the law and motorola chose from the beginning to make that patents FRAND while MS didn't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: If Google is worried
by Neolander on Thu 28th Feb 2013 06:12 in reply to "RE[4]: If Google is worried"
Neolander Member since:

The SD-related standards are published by the SD Association ( ) and available to anyone who has a few thousands of dollars per year to spend.

There is also a free "simplified" specification, which effectively contains the minimum amount of information required to use an SD card as a storage device. Filesystem-related information has been mostly removed from it, however one can still see FAT-specific features being mentioned here and there.

Besides this, it is mentioned multiple times on the web, and also suggested by various pages of the SDA website, that the SD specification does mandate the use of filesystems of the FAT family (FAT32 for SDHC, exFAT for SDXC).

So in effect, what we have here is a publicly documented standard that more or less mandates the use of a proprietary, de facto standard. A shady practice to say the least, but then again I'm starting to expect the worst from people who do hardware standards...

Edited 2013-02-28 06:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: If Google is worried
by woegjiub on Thu 28th Feb 2013 01:48 in reply to "RE[3]: If Google is worried"
woegjiub Member since:

Not really; There's nothing stopping them from just using an ext filesystem, and telling users to install software if they want to access it through an adapter.

Most users access it through their phone via USB, when they want to put stuff on it, so there is really no reason to ensure that it can be read out of the box by windows and OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: If Google is worried
by helf on Fri 1st Mar 2013 21:44 in reply to "RE[3]: If Google is worried"
helf Member since:

Just thought I would chime in here - FAT32 can handle up to 2TB partitions just happily. The default MS tools for formatting cuts the support off at like 32gb, but that is an artificial limit. I have a 1tb HDD formatted to FAT32 that I use for easy file exchange between various new and old OSes just because it was the simplest option. exFAT is NOT a requirement, though it probably is a slightly better FS.

Edited 2013-03-01 21:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3