What an utterly specious argument.

The people who paid for their tablet before the stretch goals were added are getting nothing less than they had before. In fact they're getting SDxc support for free. They don't *have* to use it and they've not paid for it.

How on earth can you turn that into a minus?

That's your opinion. I would rather have SDxc support and exFAT since I'd like to transfer files bigger than 4GB to my tablet/phone.

It's not like there aren't loads of other patent encumbered or licenced stuff you've ALSO paid for already in the original tablet price but they didn't tell you about that they could have not spent money on them and instead improved the browser.

I'd also guess the amount of actual programmer time on adding ExFAT is a lot less than improving the browser. Money probably isn't the problem with improving the browser - resources are. ExFAT is a quick win for the money.

Personally I've got very few complaints about the browser, especially after the last update which fixed the link offset issue and improved rendering speed immensely. Cut&Paste outside of text areas is about the only complaint and that's coming.

So given the choice of a browser that already works well or SDxc cards that aren't supported well, I'll take the latter rather than having to reformat to FAT32 with it's limitations.


Really? why? It's not costing them anything extra and they were happy to pay H.264 licencing, JPEG, MPEG and who knows what licencing already. I can't imagine even the most ardent of open source advocate NOT buying something because it supports ExFAT.

Am I repeating myself? The standard says ExFAT, therefore it's 100% absolutely necessary if you want to claim SDxc card support.

If you want to run your own non-standard filesystem on your cards then that is up to you but for the rest of us that want it to just work everywhere, ExFAT it is.