> "unremovable"

> you can't completely remove it

Maybe my English isn’t very good but that sounds like the definition of unremovable.

To be pedantic, yes, but not in a way that matters. The system partition is read-only. Mounting it read-write would require root and any modifications would break system updates. The apk will still be physically present in the file system, however, none of its code will run and it will be removed from your launcher and installed app list in settings, which IMO still counts as a removal.

Also, English is not my native language. I feel like I did get my point across anyway.

▲

hmcq6 a day ago | parent [-]

It's not being pedantic. Disabling the application does not give me the storage space back.

If people are paying for upgrades to storage space it's completely reasonable for them to be annoyed by bloatware

▲

grishka a day ago | parent | next [-]

The system partition is usually the same size regardless of which storage option of the same phone model you get.

▲

bracketfocus a day ago | parent [-]

But if the system partition could be smaller, other partitions could be larger.

▲

grishka a day ago | parent [-]

The system partition is made some fixed size, the same way disk partitioning works on PCs, and never resized, because resizing file systems is still a non-trivial task. It often has some free space too to accommodate future system updates.

On my 128 GB Pixel 9 Pro, /data is 109 GB. The rest is /system (although `df -h` doesn't show it explicitly, no idea what's up with that) and various other system-related partitions.

▲

bracketfocus a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, but if the phone shipped with less bloatware on the system partition, then maybe that partition would be made smaller initially.

Meaning the user would have access to more of the phone’s advertised storage.

	▲	Henchman21 21 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You have succeeded in splitting hairs down to the atomic level. Fissionable HN comments!!
	▲	charcircuit 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Or perhaps there would be less incentive for the OEM optimize for disk space and it ends up taking the same amount of space.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Even with the outrageous prices for phone storage upgrade, an entire gigabyte of inactive bloat would be a $1 impact. It's not a big deal.

▲

sedatk 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There’s an enormous difference between “it can’t be stopped” and “its storage area can’t be reclaimed” though.

▲

charcircuit 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's in a read only filesystem. You can't modify read only data, but you can choose to ignore it.

▲

ashirviskas a day ago | parent [-]

Only because it is mounted as one. It is like saying that you can't have your house in pink because it is green.

	▲	charcircuit a day ago \| parent [-]
		If you modify a file on the partition the device will fail to boot. Your metaphor is not equivalent because it ignores security.

▲

a012 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	bryant 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Regardless of the point, this language is extremely unhelpful here, especially considering op tried with good intent to help people dealing with the issue. And there are other analogies too, e.g with certain diseases being "functionally cured" vs "cured." Did the GP use the wrong word? Sure. But making that the sole focus of criticism misses the intent of the GP and the greater value of the whole comment, which instructs people on how to disable it so that it's functionally non-impactful.
	▲	themaninthedark a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		...doesn't sound removed to me, there are still copies sitting on other phones and servers somewhere. No, still not removed...the idea and possibility for implementation still exists in people's minds.