You cannot take out a factor of the death of a hard drive (being dropped) of the equation and then compare the two.
You must consider every way a drive is going to be used then determine its viability.
You are the one coming up with the argument that movable drives which wear down are better than a solid state drive.
I will agree that after 300,000 - 1,000,000 bit writes they will become less reliable and corrupt more, but that depends on how often the backups are made.
Unless you can show me something more conclusive (which I have indeed googled and I have worked with computers for well over 10 years, 3 of which professionally), I will never agree that a movable drive which have moving components that can fail is more reliable than a solid state drive which does not have any moving parts.
You must consider every way a drive is going to be used then determine its viability.
You are the one coming up with the argument that movable drives which wear down are better than a solid state drive.
I will agree that after 300,000 - 1,000,000 bit writes they will become less reliable and corrupt more, but that depends on how often the backups are made.
Unless you can show me something more conclusive (which I have indeed googled and I have worked with computers for well over 10 years, 3 of which professionally), I will never agree that a movable drive which have moving components that can fail is more reliable than a solid state drive which does not have any moving parts.