@pspearman: The terms "flash memory" and "SSD" refer to the same things. An SSD is just any drive without moving parts and if you look up internal desktop/laptop SSD specs you'll see that their architecture varies according to what type of NAND Flash they use (TLC, MLC or SLC). Often people use "flash memory" when they mean is "USB Flash drive," but this leads to confusion. For instance, your phone likely lists it's storage as "flash memory" but it almost certainly outperforms any flash drive you've ever used. (Unless you have a beastly flash drive like: https://goo.gl/RdbjZ3.)
Second, both flash drives and SSDs are very cheap now. For internal drives you find 120 GB as low $47 (https://goo.gl/oL7AbJ) and as you can see from the link you can double the price for about $25 more. And as you can see from the link in the first paragraph, even a beastly flash drive will only run you about $50. There really isn't a monetary reason to skimp on the storage space.
Now you might say "well this is only a problem if you want to download your games." To which I say, first, why is that OK? Why are we giving Nintendo a pass just because they've shafted only some of their customers? And second, it may actually be a problem for everybody. We're not sure what technology the cartridges are using, but there's a decent chance that the load times will be much faster when installed on the hard drives. If the cartridges are basically sd cards, then this will likely be the case. Similarly, while memory is expandable, sd cards are sllllllow. It would be best if there was no need to install on them.
@saganage: It's possible that Switch games will have much shorter loading times when installed on the Switch's internal hard drive. So it may turn out even those that prefer hard copies want to install games on their hard drives. We don't know yet.
I just don't get Nintendo. I understand their philosophy is "games sell consoles," but they're cutting so many technological corners without real tangible payoff. Storage is so cheap they could easily bump this to 64 or 128 GB and not greatly cut into their per-sale profit (while generating more sales). 32GB would make sense if they were selling this at a crazy low price: we'd say "well, sacrifices had to be made to hit, say, $200." But they're not selling this super cheap.
Same thing with their rumored downclocking: if the goal was to increase battery life, how does this only last somewhere between 2-6 hours? The Shield Tablet got similar battery life without downclocking.
@saganage: The problem is that SD cards are slow af. They're not just slower than the flash memory inside the Switch, they're apparently even slower than 5400 RPM HDD--which are basically obsolete. So, thee 32 basically restricts you to either physical purchases, juggling which games are installed on your Switch, or dealing with looong load times. (And you may wind up dealing with long load times when playing off a cartridge. The specs there are unknown.) It may not be a fatal flaw, but it is a flaw and it seems like a needless one. Given the low price of storage, Nintendo could easily have offered a 64 or 128GB model without cutting into their profit-per-sale. Instead they don't even offer a deluxe 64 GB model?
RS13's comments