SanDisk introduced its first 200GB microSDXC card earlier this year, and now it’s available for purchase… if you’ve got $240 to spare.
While that’s a lot of money to spend on a removable storage card for your phone or tablet, it’s a lot better than the suggested retail price: SanDisk had initially suggested that its 200GB Ultra UHS-I Premium Edition card would be priced at around $400.
SanDisk says the card offers transfer speeds up to 90MB/s and enough storage space for up to 20 hours of full HD video or an awful lot of high-resolution photos, music files, or other media.
The card also comes with an adapter so you can use it in full-sized SD card readers.
While the price is a lot lower than we’d expected, it’s still pretty high on a price-per-gigabyte basis. Amazon sells a 128GB version of the same card for $79, although that model has a top data transfer speed of 48MB/s.
I suspect the 200GB model will get cheaper once 400GB models become common.
Jeez.. at this price, it’ll take 2 years to get down to under $99..
The 64gb cards are the sweet spot now.. as low as $25. The 128gb cards are more than 3x the price and it obviously gets worse from there.. bring the prices down, otherwise it’s a niche novelty, at best. I remember the days when 200/250gb hard drives were the shizzle! BTW, at these prices.. they’re overlapping SSD drives.. which you could use over a wireless network!
All I can say about this is: NRAM is coming to replace this old & slow technology. Keep an eye on NRAM. It’s a big thing.
Hey Brad, can you get one in for testing purposes? Then you can give it away to one of your readers when you are done with it. 😉
Blimey. I’d expect a U3 spec card for that price… If you need a big card like that, it’s for 4K video or something. I’d have thought U3 was essential…
I’ve never lost one. In fact I still have a 1GB in a drawer.
I don’t think I’d pay $240 for one when a 64GB is pretty cheap now and big enough for a phone.
I wonder why it’s 200 GB rather than 256 GB.
Because they are moving to hard drive sizing where 200GB is 200,000,000,000 bytes and not 200GiB or 214,748,364,800 bytes.