this kills the ipod nano

what a world we live in

>>51452488
I doubt many music players even support it.

File: 1401161573456.png (193KB, 393x479px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 393x479px

$99?! Holy shit

no, the iPhone and streaming music killed the nano

>>51452536

i think anything with exfat support will

>>51452542
Imagine just how much profit they normally make on this product.

>>51452488
Too expensive anon
I can get a 1 TB HDD for 2/3 of that price

>>51452542
>tfw bought my 64gb micro sd chip for $80 2 years ago

File: Ahh tech..jpg (38KB, 480x638px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x638px

you know what also does?
this

>>51452610
Can that HDD fit inside a phone?

>>51452542
It's a class 10 chip too. I thought it was gonna be a class 4.

>>51452644
>Can that HDD fit inside a phone?
no ofcouse not
I was just giving a comparison of how expensive that kind of storage currently is, if the price drops anytime soon, i'll grab it before you know it

>>51452644
What phone nowadays even has an SD-slot?
And the ones that do certainly don't support 200GB cards

>>51452675
>What phone nowadays even has an SD-slot?
not pointing fingers but
non shit tier ones anon

>>51452581
Probably not as much as you think. Chips like that will have a low success rate in production.

>>51452536
pretty much everything supports SDXC

and FAT32 supports up to 2TB drives

>>51452729
yeah your right, it's called yield rate or product yield though fyi

>>51452729
That's BS. Sandisk wouldn't risk pissing off customers like that.

>>51452748
Thanks.

>>51452752
They don't sell the ones that fail.

Not sure about storage but in CPUs they usually burn off (Intel) or disable (AMD) the cores that fail and sell them as a lower-tier product.