Look at PS3 I got it when it was first released in UK... used card reader less than five times (over two years now!) and now Sony dont even put a card reader in the PS3!!
True, they should reintroduce Firewire (with a TI chipset) across the board.For CF format, I have a Firewire800 reader. When you're dealing with a dSLR and RAW files, you don't want to be tortured with USB.
Personally, I print so little (most of my work is audio and/or delivered electronically) that I would consider getting a printer the ultimate non-argument: We're talking about a huge box here. Besides, if you're fine wit having card readers in your printer, why are you so against having them on your computer?For SD format, my USB-based Canon printer has a couple of built-in slots.
Actually it's not. Many SD-readers became SDHC the moment the company writing the drivers decided to include SDHC support. More often than not it's a question of firmware with regards to SD vs. SDHC. He properly got lucky.Its pretty impressive that you were able to find/buy a card reader 3 years ago that supported SDHC before it was a ratified standard...
Hehe, yeah, you sure illustrated that perfectlyTry again. The underlying issue (as illustrated above) is that Flash Media formats are still undergoing fairly rapid change, which represents a risk of obsolescence, since a built-in reader can't be readily removed & replaced.
A, yes. The floppy disk. It seems that whenever the floppy is mentioned it is used by some apologist to "explain" any and all lacks on the platform. How splendid. Most often it's used to "explain" the lack of firewire, though.Its not like this hasn't happened before...years ago, I can personally recall using seven (7!) different formats of 3.5" floppy disks.
True. But I'm adding a CF card reader that fits flush into my Expresscard slot, so there. No external readers.And yet, there's no CF slot, which is what all older dSLRs and all higher end dSLR cameras still today all use...so an external adapter is still going to be required.
It's true that we once again are on the verge of a shift. If Apple had been in the midst of the pack, people would have been able to use their cards for years and years. Now, of course, the timing is not the best, but even so, it would still allow people to use their cards.Plus the newly ratified SDXC card format isn't listed and it is known that an SDHC reader won't be compatible with SDXC.
Just because some other/newer tech comes around doesn't mean my computer is obsolete. In fact, if I had a computer with an SDXC slot in I wouldn't know were I'd use it. None of my peripherals use SDXC. Luckily the SDXC is backwards compatible.As such, your brand new laptop already is partially obsolete (the first SDXC card was already announced, in March 09), althought in fairness, its only a figurative obsolescence at this point.
Hello!? We're talking technology here! What in your computer is not "obsolete" by the time the format the card readers are obsolete? Seriously, you're arguing apathy, or in other terms, your arguing that because some tech is moving fast, lets not do it all. If that thinking were taken literally we should all do nothing, because if we wait something much better will come along.Its partly a case of "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it", although more from the aspect of longer term Risk Management regarding obsolete subsystems that are in non-upgradable implimentations (eg, built-in readers).
See above.Recall that Optical Media has just essentially ended their HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray battle with a declared winner & loser. The problem is that the standards battle in Flash Media has been long and it remains unresolved. That's why there are these "24 in 1" readers for sale on the marketplace.
As above.And sure, while the SD family is doing well today, the 'standards problem' is that xD and Memory Stick still haven't been killed off even in P&S cameras, so there's no signs yet that that "24 in 1" can be figuratively superseded with a "22 in 1".
Sigh! There is NO risk. The reader will read whatever it has always been able to read. The only "risk" is that you might sometime in the future have to buy an external to read a much newer card reader that supports, say ,SDXC. For everything else - that includes people's cameras, audio players and phones -it will STILL support cards that those things support. The card reader's "obsolense" (spl?) is directly related to how fast YOU upgrade your peripherals, camera, audio recorder, video recorder, and NOT related to when a new format comes out.Since the EC slot is a "user-maintainable" peripheral interface, that represents a lower Risk for the user, since if CF goes to non-forwards-compatible "Class N+1" tomorrow (or you ditch all your CF devices) you can replace just this adaptor rather than the entire laptop.
SDcards may technically be proprietary, but from an end-user's point of view it's the de facto standard. Only in our (respective) line of work does CF come close to that.Actually, they're all proprietary formats, including SD. Let me know if you can't find the relevant Wiki pages.
Sure they can do that in theory. But again, even if they did, it would not make the card reader obsolete, unless you at that (imaginary) moment decides to ditch ALL of your peripherals in favour of ones with the newer standardThe Risk is that if the SD Consortium decides to profit more from their current marketplace success by increasing their licensing fees, the camera makers can respond (and fairly quickly) by shifting gears to use one of the competing media formats.
I don't know of any other company than Sony which makes use of the Memory Stick format. I may be wrong, and a whole slew of companies apart from them uses that format. If so, can you point me to them?Overall, this is just an example of where competition is both good and bad: it keeps one dimension of prices down, but at the cost of long term stability through adopted standards. Choose your poison.
As already mentioned a couple of times, the SD-format sits on 75 percent of the market.Not at all. The proprietary nature of ALL of the media card formats is ultimately the source of an adoption risk for the consumer. This then predicates the degree to which the consumer is willing to commmit (financially, etc) to adopting a particular media format.
Now you're simply being ridiculous. Take my computer as an example (and ignoring the EC slot), will I have to throw out my computer even if I do buy myself some camera or recorder that uses, say, the SDXC standard? No, of course I won't. Just like you who have no way to slide in any sort of card whatsoever will not become obsolete either and you won't have to toss that one out either.The underlying risk management factor that's really the source of this discussion is that when the adaptor isn't built-in, there's simply a lower overall investment commitment, since its more painless for the consumer to throw away a $10 device than a $1000 laptop.
Actually, on mine I had a choice. I could go with - none - , 3-in-1, or a 5-in-1 with a modem.And while the laptop will continue to be useful even with an "obsolete" port built into the side, since that port can't be removed, it nevertheless still represents an incremental 'cost' to the consumer, from at least the aspect of having to carry that additional ounce (or three) of weight & size every single day.
Sure, you can that that this penalty is acceptably small, but this is a personal "YMMV" decision and not a universal "Truth" that all must abide by.Once again for Prince Knut:
"penalty"? It allows you to NOT carry around an external card reader for the most used formats. You and I are special cases, I understand that. That is one of the reasons I went for the X200s – it has the expresscard slot so I can get firewire when needed and otherwise use it as a cf-slot. But SD is, once more, sitting on 75 per cent of the market.
You're talking to someone typing this on a Thinkpad X200s. Look it up, and you will notice I do value "light and small" but equally as much "functionality". These three things are the reasons I have "dumped" the 15" MBP sitting next to me. Even though my new processor is slower, it's much more functional, lighter and smaller. Same resolution, 12", Expresscard slot, 3 usb ports, up to 13 hours of battery life (well, usually around 7-8), better keyboard, clearer screen, higher powered usb ports, and, in the context of this topic: A modem (I use that sometimes) and a card reader.YMMV case in point: I personally look at it from the perspective of what can I eliminate for when I don't need a capability, because I value "light & small".
Seriously, go look up my computer, and I have to say that it is odd for someone purporting external readers and whatnot to also be saying he values "light and small" all things considered.
Finally, this is fun, because I can see how you work. So to reciprocate the favour, here's what I have/do:Thus, I don't generally bother to download photos into my laptop, since my desktop is my permanent repository and workhorse, and if I'm trying to travel light on a serious Photo trip, the 5lb laptop is "Too Heavy" so it stays at home. I use other solutions for data storage...currently, that includes 26GB worth of media cards for short trips, plus two 40GB digital wallets to give me from 66GB (redundant) to 106GB (non-redundant) storage capacity.
When at the work place (as in having to use Dalet), I don't use my computer much. Well, at least I didn't use to when I was using my MBP – there were simply way to many problems and workarounds trying to tie in with the network and Dalet. Dalet is a no-go on OS X.
But, anyway, I need my computer on-the-go. I need to be able to edit in the field, I need to be able to write in the field and I need to be able to transfer files in the field.
Sometimes I have to use a video camera in order to do a stand-up, bu luckily that is seldomly the case. It's usually for radio and web.
My recorder is the Sound Devices 722, which records to both CF and the internal 250GB harddisk. I always record in at least 24bit/48kHz.
I always have a 16GB CF card (in the recorder), and extra CF-card (8 gb), 3 extra SDHC-cards, and two SDHC-cards for my Cowon D2 audio player (one of which is in the player – it's 32GB).
I am no photographer, but I do carry a camera. I have the D-Lux 4, which I use to take pics to upload (usually I have to write a little web-thing in parallel to the broadcast) to go with the story.
Even If I carry my minimalist setup, I still carry quite a lot. My recorder alone weighs more than my computer. And my computer is very light.
With me I always have an extra harddisk I use as scratchdisk when I'm editing, although I have been known to connect the recorder and use the internal as one instead.
The neat thing about this setup is that it allows me to get whatever I need from whatever I want at any given time plus it allows me to do it in more than one way. I'm only screwed if both capsules on my CMXY stops working of if the recorder should stop recording at all (neither ever happened).
I agree that five pounds is heavy, which is another reason why I have ditched my MBP in favour of the X200s, but the reality of all this is, that you are able to completely forego carryin a laptop, and yet you argue that even on laptops people shouldn't have the option of sliding in a memory card.
Personally, I print so little (most of my work is audio and/or delivered electronically) that I would consider getting a printer the ultimate non-argument: We're talking about a huge box here. Besides, if you're fine wit having card readers in your printer, why are you so against having them on your computer?
Many SD-readers became SDHC the moment the company writing the drivers decided to include SDHC support. More often than not it's a question of firmware with regards to SD vs. SDHC. He properly got lucky.
Btw. Has 802.11n been ratified yet?
Do you buy a computer to use and to connect your current peripherals to? I would believe you do. And if so the future proofing of the card reader should be low on the priority list. However, being able to use current tech in the easiest manner should not.
Your entire argument is that one should include nothing because technology moves fast.
A, yes. The floppy disk. It seems...
True. But I'm adding a CF card reader that fits flush into my Expresscard slot, so there. No external readers.
But seriously, again we have an argument that goes something like "You will need an adaptor to connect X, so you should get adaptors for Y, Z, B, V, and K too"
As far as I know (I use CF cards as well), CF sits on around 6 percent of the market where the SD format sits on more than 75 percent. So, no, I'm not saying there should be slots for any format sold and used.
It's true that we once again are on the verge of a shift.
If Apple had been in the midst of the pack, people would have been able to use their cards for years and years. Now, of course, the timing is not the best, but even so, it would still allow people to use their cards.
So, are you saying that this time they should get on board?
The SDXC standard...
Hello!? We're talking technology here! What in your computer is not "obsolete" by the time the format the card readers are obsolete? Seriously, you're arguing apathy, or in other terms, your arguing that because some tech is moving fast, lets not do it all.
Sigh! There is NO risk. The reader will read whatever it has always been able to read. The only "risk" is that you might sometime in the future have to buy an external to read a much newer card reader ...
SDcards may technically be proprietary, but from an end-user's point of view it's the de facto standard. Only in our (respective) line of work does CF come close to that.
I don't know of any other company than Sony which makes use of the Memory Stick format. I may be wrong, and a whole slew of companies apart from them uses that format. If so, can you point me to them?
Again, weight? Really? We're not even talking ultralights like mine, but talking iMacs.
Once again for Prince Knut:
You're talking to someone typing this on a Thinkpad X200s...
Finally, this is fun, because I can see how you work. So to reciprocate the favour, here's what I have/do:
{snip}
But, anyway, I need my computer on-the-go. I need to be able to edit in the field, I need to be able to write in the field and I need to be able to transfer files in the field.
Sometimes I have to use a video camera in order to do a stand-up, bu luckily that is seldomly the case. It's usually for radio and web.
My recorder is the Sound Devices 722, which records to both CF and the internal 250GB harddisk. I always record in at least 24bit/48kHz.
I always have a 16GB CF card (in the recorder), and extra CF-card (8 gb), 3 extra SDHC-cards, and two SDHC-cards for my Cowon D2 audio player (one of which is in the player – it's 32GB).
I am no photographer, but I do carry a camera. I have the D-Lux 4, which I use to take pics to upload (usually I have to write a little web-thing in parallel to the broadcast) to go with the story.
Even If I carry my minimalist setup, I still carry quite a lot. My recorder alone weighs more than my computer. And my computer is very light.
With me I always have an extra harddisk I use as scratchdisk when I'm editing, although I have been known to connect the recorder and use the internal as one instead.
The neat thing about this setup is that it allows me to get whatever I need from whatever I want at any given time plus it allows me to do it in more than one way. I'm only screwed if both capsules on my CMXY stops working of if the recorder should stop recording at all (neither ever happened).
I agree that five pounds is heavy, which is another reason why I have ditched my MBP in favour of the X200s, but the reality of all this is, that you are able to completely forego carryin a laptop, and yet you argue that even on laptops people shouldn't have the option of sliding in a memory card.
Still, I consider using a printer as card reader as the ultimate in ridiculous workarounds.Because that wasn't the question being asked by FoxHoundADAM: he asked 'What are you doing?", not "What would you ultimately prefer?".
Yes, I seem to recall that too. It doesn't change the fact that the computer doesn't become obsolete the moment a new format comes out. You will also have to have nixed all of your "old" technology before _the reader_ becomes obsolete.Sure, some of the Flash Media changes have been forwards-compatible via non-hardware upgrades. However, this isn't necessarily a particularly reliable strategy. For SD (IIRC), it was only the v1.1 readers that could be firmware upgraded to v2 (SDHC); the v1.0 hardware could not.
You didn't say you had adopted 802.11 draft n. However, you used "ratification" to say that it was impossible to have used an SDHC card reader before it was ratified. Whether you adopted draft n or not is utterly irrelevant.A common counter-argument. Where did I say that I've adopted it?
This isn't about priorities. The argument goes to whether or not one uses a computer to connect whatever peripherals one has or use it to connect non-existant future peripherals.YMMV. Your priorities don't also have to be mine.
See above.Personally, I buy peripherals with an eye towards its benefits for both the current computer system as well as the one in the next room, as well as the most likely replacement. YMMV, but I don't have an infinite budget for IT.
No it doesn't. If you reread your posts the conclusion of the "be careful" is to "do nothing". As I have shown you run NO risk by getting an inbuilt reader. It's not obsolete until you have peripherals using the formats supported by the reader.Incorrect. My argument is that one's level of commitment (eg, financial investment) should be tempered by the downside risks ... which here include the risk stemming from the higher relative rate of change.
Effectively, that means "Be Careful", not "Do Nothing".
No I wouldn't. As I have shown again and again, it doesn't matter how many formats come out. It only matters what YOUR peripherals use.You would have been far better off had you asked the correct follow-up question, namely how many years transpired for those 7 different formats.
The answer is as irrelevant as your rhetorical question.The answer is 7 formats in just under 5 years.
Who cares? I don't swap my peripherals because a new format comes out. And I don't buy peripherals thinking "oh, nice, it has a new card format, I'll better get that camera/recorder/DAP".Yes, a new one every 9 months.
Properly because it wasn't you or I who made this thread and because I don't do stationary Macs?So then why isn't the debate to ask Apple for an EC34 slot in the iMac...?
That's true. It also dominates in the audio business. However, I'm not talking about how much the equipment costs but market share alone. I also stated earlier that CF does dominate in our respective line of work. So I don't think we disagree much in this specific area.But remember that "Creative Professionals" demographic that gets bandied about so much? In the high end digital camera market, CF dominates. When you take that 6% share and multiply by $2500 per unit, it financially counterpoints a heck of a lot of sub-$100 P&S cameras that are using SD.
I don't disagree with that either. However, your argument seems to be that because high end uses a niche format (let's face it, we're working in a niche with niche formats) a consumer grade computer should NOT include a reader that sits on 75 percent of the market share and is used mostly by consumers.So while SD has just made a strong showing in the consumer cameras, which now includes the <$1000 dSLRs, for nearly everything higher up, the standard is 100% CF...and when you do find the exception, it is a dual-slot body with one CF slot & one SD slot.
Yes, I know you have pointed "this" out before. Let's all go apathetic and not include a consumer format in a consumer computer because a new consumer format will emerge down the road.I've already pointed this out once before. I trust that you won't make it necessary to repeat myself umpteen more times.
So? Do you bemourn OS updates, new chipsets and so on? With your arguments, Apple shouldn't include USB 2.0, nor should they have included FW400, because a newer standard will emerge. And for the love of god don't go buy anything that uses USB in its current state, because it will soon render your computer and peripherals obsolete, given that "yet a new standard" is around the corner.Agreed, but its not "A" shift, but "Yet Another" shift.
And again:If it were merely "A" technology change, the rate of change would be acceptably low, and thus the relative risk of commitment would be low too.
Sigh!But for how long?
I don't have an opinion with regards to PPC in relation to Snow Leopard.Regardless of what you think of the PPC - Snow Leopard debate, what that debate illustrates is the Apple Consumer's expectations for how many years they expect to have full support. That's a consumer expectation that Apple has to deal with, and with the high rate of change in Flash Media, it is one that is effectively incompatible with their customer expectations.
And this is relevant somehow?Apple has to keep in mind that there will be a contingent that complains, particularly malicious media sharp-shooters looking for the excuse to rile up the stock market after they've gone short on Apple stock, etc. And this isn't necessarily Apple's fault, per se: it is a characteristic of their consumer base.
Personally, I'd prefer that too. However, from reading these forums, most people wouldn't even know how to put it to use.Strategically, I think that an ExpressCard slot would be a better option.
Well, you'd need an adaptor for it, but yes, it's big enough for such an adaptor.IIRC, the EC54 can accept a Common Access Card (CAC) which some companies are using for user authentication, which would help open up the Enterprise market, while also offering the utility to the home user who want a built-in slot to instead throw a camera card reader in there.
I don't have a preferred position, but if on top it should have a "flap" to keep dust out of it.And on the iMac, it should positionally be along the top (not side).
It's the exact same format. Only the size of the slot is different.And yet if Apple were to do this, since the MBP has the EC34, Apple will still get hit with consumer complaints for using two different EC formats!
I am not misinterpreting anything. I'm trying to make you realize that there are no risks associated with it. In fact there are many times less risk associated with this than there is buying any camera or other peripheral with a card slot. The peripherals are a high-risk purchase in comparison.Again, you misinterpret my message. Its about risk, and consequently, how much you're willing to invest because of that risk.
Wow. Talk about twisting words and ignore realityGosh, there's no risk ... except where there is risk.
Since I've been explicitly talking all along about 'Forward-Compatibility', I'm glad to see that you agree that an external reader is the only solution.
BECAUSE we won't "inevitable" end up using an external, UNTIL we buy some newer peripherals with a NEWER card format. When we do so, It's doubtful that we won't use ANY of the "old" formats all at once{/b]. That means that for most of our peripherals we will STILL be able to use theinbuilt card reader, and only for that odd format will we have to use an external. in the meantime we will be able to forego having to use an external card reader and simply slide in the cardThus, the question is:
Since we know that new, incompatible formats are inevitable, then why shouldn't we simply address our current capability needs today through an external, since that's where we're going to end up anyway?
Apple caters more and more to mainstream consumers. The foremost mainstream card format is SD sitting at 75 percent of the market.Its not just about us: the manufacturers (eg, Apple) also have to take into consideration where the various markets...and submarkets...are when they decide upon their product configuration.
Now keep in mind that the only reason why this entire thread exists is because a few consumers are offended … [/COLOR]
Offended? Really?
I don't need to "put myself in Apple's shoes". It's a huge corporation that has shifted focus from my needs as a professional to that of mainstream pop culture. Therefore I have made a purchase that will allow me much more functionality and ease of use.If you put yourself into Apple's shoes, you'll realize that they are utterly screwed, because at present there's insufficient convergence, so there's no way to please everyone.
Yes, as I've said, your argument results in apathy.Thus, the only way to minimize your losses is to ... not play the game.
Hence, no built-in card slots on Macs.
Did I miss the memo? I'm saying that although the SD-format may theoretically be proprietary, it is the most widespread format out there at 75 percent of the total market, making it a de facto standard.Promptly, upon you cite all of the $1000+ dSLRs that only take SD.
I'll even refrain from demanding that they be 75% of that market segment.
Whether or not DSLRs priced over $1000 are sd-only or not have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
My argument was that things like memory sticks are truly proprietary, wereas SD is the de fact standard. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
No problems, I tend to think the same, because I mostly use laptops.My apologies; this debate usually comes up on laptops, since that's ~70% of what Apple is selling these days.
LOL, "namecalling"? Seriously, I recommend you look "once more for Prince Knut" up. It's a historical reference.Namecalling is a TOS violation.
Recommend that you go have a nice relaxing cup of herbal tea...or whatever floats your boat.
Fair enough, but since you mentioned it, I thought it was okay to do the same as an example.Fine, but let's keep in mind that if we're getting this back on track regarding desktops (iMac), then laptop discussions are irrelevant for both of us.
You got that all wrong. Exactly BECAUSE I need to carry a lot of stuff around, I care about the weight of the individual item AS WELL as ease of use.(As good of a break point as any else).
Long story short, it looks like you're carrying probably at least 15lbs of gear; possibly more...which suggests that the additional 2oz weight burden isn't the issue: its the hassle of one more cable to set up. But since this is for a business application, figuratively, the budget exists for more tightly integrated systems that improves productivity (and saving weight/complexity will do that).
IMO, the EC34 slot (such as on the MBP) functionally provides a built-in capability for those who want it, and being a user-serviceable item, as the standards continue to change, the consumer can swap it out for a new EC34 reader with minimal pain. The downside of this solution on a laptop is that the MBP is a bigger/heavier & more expensive laptop. Personally, I've found it somewhat frustrating that the 12" G4 Powerbook still hasn't been functionally replicated: compact, light but also powerful.
For desktops, the generic home consumer isn't necessarily going to be all that profoundly impacted by a lot of the issues that come from having the interface being externally wired up. Sure, a built-in right on the front of the iMac would be convenient (or on the keyboard ... better choice IMO) but in the big scheme of things, the question ultimately will come down to if it is perceptually worth "X Dollars", or even perhaps its showroom aesthetics.
I don't disagree that an EC slot would be optimal. However, as I have said before, it ought to be EC54.Part of the problem is that it is all too easy for us to compare Apple to the 'commodity' PC makers, since Apple tends to design simplification and the PC makers are going the opposite direction, scratching for any possible overt product differentiation factor (eg, hardware features) that they can muster, since they lack software differentiation because they all use Windows OS.
Not to me. I prefer to have as few cables and boxes as possible. I have plenty of cables and boxes as it is, even when I go "ultralight".In the end, they're all just tools and there's always going to be tool variations that are better/worse for specific missions. Personally, my serious 'travel' camera bags typically weigh in the ballpark of 22lbs, so while adding a laptop bumps that to 28lbs, the question of if an accompanying card reader is internal or external is minutia noise that's lost in the weeds.
SD card on the keyboard would make more sense.
Agreed, if anything has come from this posting it was that idea.
Heck they could even make a USB card reader tha slides onto the left USB connection on the current keyboard, it could slide neatly over the top left hand side of the keycoard and would be a nice and convienent solution.
Well I really mean a all in one card reader. I didn't meant to indicated it would only read SD.Nope, if there was an SD reader on the keyboard, then everyone here would moan that there wasn't a CF slot/mini/micro SD reader/ pencil sharpener/ ball shiner/ lube dispenser/ light saber charger/ potato peeler................
Well I really mean a all in one card reader. I didn't meant to indicated it would only read SD.
In fact, it I had the capabilities I would totaly design one and sell it. I think there would be a decent market for these.
...It doesn't change the fact that the computer doesn't become obsolete the moment a new format comes out. You will also have to have nixed all of your "old" technology before _the reader_ becomes obsolete.
This isn't about priorities. The argument goes to whether or not one uses a computer to connect whatever peripherals one has or use it to connect non-existant future peripherals.
As I have shown you run NO risk by getting an inbuilt reader.
Who cares? I don't swap my peripherals because a new format comes out. And I don't buy peripherals thinking "oh, nice, it has a new card format, I'll better get that camera/recorder/DAP".
Besides, you argued "cost" an EC-slot is more expensive than a card reader, and I would never argue EC34. I would argue EC54 as that would give me some more options (one of which is having a CF card reader sitting flush).
That's true. It also dominates in the audio business. However, I'm not talking about how much the equipment costs but market share alone. I also stated earlier that CF does dominate in our respective line of work. So I don't think we disagree much in this specific area.
...
I don't disagree with that either. However, your argument seems to be that because high end uses a niche format (let's face it, we're working in a niche with niche formats) a consumer grade computer should NOT include a reader that sits on 75 percent of the market share and is used mostly by consumers.
So? Do you bemourn OS updates, new chipsets and so on? With your arguments, Apple shouldn't include USB 2.0, nor should they have included FW400, because a newer standard will emerge. And for the love of god don't go buy anything that uses USB in its current state, because it will soon render your computer and peripherals obsolete, given that "yet a new standard" is around the corner.
And again:
There is no risk: Even with new standards coming out tomorrow, it means nothing, UNLESS you go buy something BECAUSE it has a new(er) format. The "old" format will STILL allow you to use your "old" equipment until that "old" equipment is truly legacy.
{but for how long?)
Sigh!
Answer: Until NONE of YOUR equipment uses that "old" standard.
And this is relevant somehow?
Personally, I'd prefer that too. However, from reading these forums, most people wouldn't even know how to put it to use.
It's the exact same format. Only the size of the slot is different.
I am not misinterpreting anything. I'm trying to make you realize that there are no risks associated with it. In fact there are many times less risk associated with this than there is buying any camera or other peripheral with a card slot. The peripherals are a high-risk purchase in comparison.
BECAUSE we won't "inevitable" end up using an external, UNTIL we buy some newer peripherals with a NEWER card format. ..
Apple caters more and more to mainstream consumers. The foremost mainstream card format is SD sitting at 75 percent of the market.
Even you and I who uses CF cards and firewire and whatnot have items using SD-cards.
Offended? Really?Now keep in mind that the only reason why this entire thread exists is because a few consumers are offended
I don't need to "put myself in Apple's shoes".
Yes, as I've said, your argument results in apathy.
Did I miss the memo? I'm saying that although the SD-format may theoretically be proprietary, it is the most widespread format out there at 75 percent of the total market, making it a de facto standard.
My argument was that things like memory sticks are truly proprietary, wereas SD is the de fact standard. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
LOL, "namecalling"? Seriously, I recommend you look "once more for Prince Knut" up. It's a historical reference.
You got that all wrong. Exactly BECAUSE I need to carry a lot of stuff around, I care about the weight of the individual item AS WELL as ease of use.
I prefer to have as few cables and boxes as possible. I have plenty of cables and boxes as it is, even when I go "ultralight".
I think the main point is that Apple probably doesn't want to be seen as supporting any particular format (i.e. driving business to one type of reader). If this happened, than many other people would say, why not Memory Stick Pro? Why not CF? etc, etc. Heck, I see usb card readers now with 20+ formats... it just doesn't make much sense to incorporate a technology that seems to evolve in differen shapes, sizes, interfaces every month or so...
Granted, while it doesn't immediately become obsolete, what does happen is that technology implimentations like this tend to have a period of overlap. For example, one's new digital camera supports SDHC, but some of one's "old" SD readers don't, and are incapable of having their firmware being upgraded.
So what are the options?
1) Do not buy SDHC cards until all of the old SD readers gets disposed of, and live with the consequences of having "many small" cards to manage & track, instead of a "few large" capacity ones.
2) Rely on the Human-in-the-loop to only use the "correct" combinations, and accept the fact that there will be to 'mysterious' problems that will result in productive time lost due to the time rquired to troubleshoot the root cause as an operator error.
3) Bite the bullet and buy new SDHC reader hardware to promptly get rid of all SD readers so that its not possible for the human to make incompatibility mistakes.
And while option #3 is arguably the most preferable, it is also the most expensive, particularly when the readers are built-ins.
Yes, but when we talk risks there will have to be a downside and it has to be put in context. In this case, including a card reader carries NO RISK for you.It is patently impossible for anything to ever have no risk. What you're really saying is that the risk --for you-- is acceptably low. The risk might also be acceptably low enough for me to tolerate too, but that's for me to decide for me, not for you to decide for me.
Say what? We propably both have at least that amount worth of cards and the readers to go with them. No way will a reader make those cards obsolete. If you're worried about that, you should worry about the ITEMS THAT USE THOSE CARDS.And FWIW, when one has $500 worth of 'Format X' whatever, it most certainly can be a factor when deciding the merits of Product A vs Product B. It doesn't matter if we're talking Media Cards or a software licence's OS.
How much "clarity" do you want? A marketshare of more than 75 percent is a lack of clarity? Seriously?The question is what do we end up doing in the real world? More specifically, when there is a lack of clarity, what happens to marketplace adoption?
Actually, it took years and years to plummet off the cliff, but suddenly, yes, it was over.While we can agree that SD isn't ... today ... at an ambiguous point, it unfortunately has not always been so. And given that the competing standards are still surviving, it may not necessarily remain with SD on the top of the heap. Being dominant today doesn't necessarily provide strong assurances for tomorrow when it is known to be in a dynamic area: just look at how quickly 35mm film has plummited off the cliff.
I have, but seldomly anything besides some really cheapo stuff. I tend to research before I buy. I don't buy computers, audio equipment, phot equipment with out checking what it is, knowing what I buy. This includes batteries, cables, and, yes, memory cards.If you've never bought something to discover that it looked compatible but actually wasn't, consider yourself lucky.
Sheesh! It doesn't matter if SHE's not interested in changing. She can either use the new card reader in her new computer (because it happens to be backwards compatible), OR she can continue to use her old computer, OR she can decide if she wants to upgrade either thing or none at all.Easier said than done, since this is where backwards-compatibility bites us in the toosh by having a long tail. There's 4MP cameras from circa 2003 that remain "perfectly usable" today, and generic consumer 'Mom' simply isn't interested in changing.
Go look at what inbuilt card readers cost with other companies, including the higher end price wise. Some arbitrary number as $100 is way over the top and utterly ridiculous.So you're perhaps part of the 0.1% that would be willing to pay $100 as a BTO. Personally, I'd not bother, since I'm not bothered by having an external reader on a desktop that's significantly cheaper.
Maybe. But you cannot argue that the consumer shouldn't have a say, and then argue that they shouldn't include x or y because then people will complain.Agreed, but my point is that there invariably will be someone who buys an EC54 adaptor for use on his iMac would then complain loudly that 'Apple Screwed Him', because that EC54 doesn't also fit in the EC34 on his MacBook Pro.
Really? You're arguing that the consumer should buy third party boxes in order to have the daily functionality of other brands.Pragmatically, that "UNTIL" is pretty much guarenteed, since we're all generally asking our computers to do more functions, not fewer.
No, the "gist" of my argument is that even if SOME of your equipment becomes newer than the computer (as far as formats go), you will STILL be able to use the computer's reader with the rest of your equipment.As such, the gist of your argument is that you can safely ignore it...until you can't...and my point is that point inevitably occurs.
Ridiculous comparison.Fair enough, but that still doesn't reconcile the difference between offering the capability to add it versus it being built in. A similar "But its Popular!" argument can be made for computer games - - yet not even Dell or HP make game-friendly high end graphics cards on every single one of their products.
Ah, yes, with a 3-in-1 card reader where catering to the 85 percent of mainstream users. I can see why you'd consider that to be a slippery slope which would mean including any and all obscure formatsThe broader issue is the slippery slope of trying to include the relevant widget for everyone. Sure, its tempting to add "JUST ONE", but these little additions are like potato chips ... you can't stop at just one.
The Slippery Slope argument is not an Reductio ad Absurdum-argument. Don't get the two confused. Your argument continues to be the slippery slope, not the RaA, even though they can look alike.Asking the question from a reductio ad absurdum perspective, if you start at all, then where do you stop? Just SD, or SD and CF too? Or what about xD and Memory Stick? And Firewire 1600? More than just 3 USB ports? Pretty soon, we have the 50lb laptop and then people complain that its too heavy because you added too much "Junk".
[Removed the rest of the post]As I said, sometimes your best win is to not lose, which means to not even play the game...its the question of if the upside benefit is adequate to offset the downside risk - - as always, it comes down to Risk Management.
I was surprised, I thought that SDHC would mean a new card reader but I thought I'd give it a go & it worked just fine.Its pretty impressive that you were able to find/buy a card reader 3 years ago that supported SDHC before it was a ratified standard...
...Neither of those.
How about:
4) Use the inbuilt reader for the formats it has already taken, and IF and WHEN you need some newer format or go buy some obscure format, THEN go buy a reader for that thing and that thing ONLY.
THEREFORE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A CARD READER IS BACKWARDS COMPATIBLITY, NOT FORWARDS DITTO.
By the time even half of your new gadgets use new and/or obscure formats, the computer itself is most likely ready to be swapped for something newer.
And this is the crux. I don't keep a computer for, say, ten years, and I doubt that many do.
Yes, but when we talk risks there will have to be a downside and it has to be put in context. In this case, including a card reader carries NO RISK for you.
Say what? We propably both have at least that amount worth of cards and the readers to go with them. No way will a reader make those cards obsolete. If you're worried about that, you should worry about the ITEMS THAT USE THOSE CARDS.
How much "clarity" do you want? A marketshare of more than 75 percent is a lack of clarity? Seriously?
No, I buy the best "peripheral" for the job, and THEN do I decide on how best to go about it. I don't allow the computer to dictate the peripherals, but the other way around. Hence I choose formats for a specific purpose and a computer to match my needs.
Go look at what inbuilt card readers cost with other companies, including the higher end price wise. Some arbitrary number as $100 is way over the top and utterly ridiculous.
Maybe. But you cannot argue that the consumer shouldn't have a say, and then argue that they shouldn't include x or y because then people will complain.
Perhaps at the same time they should include a "properly" sized expresscard slot in the MBP.
...we're asking our computers to do more, not less...
Really? You're arguing that the consumer should buy third party boxes in order to have the daily functionality of other brands.
No, the "gist" of my argument is that even if SOME of your equipment becomes newer than the computer (as far as formats go), you will STILL be able to use the computer's reader with the rest of your equipment.
Ridiculous comparison.
A computer is a tool, and we have already agreed that Apple caters to mainstream. Since the format of choice for "mainstream" is the SD-format, why not include it? Those people do use their mac to read those cards as it is.
Ah, yes, with a 3-in-1 card reader where catering to the 85 percent of mainstream users. I can see why you'd consider that to be a slippery slope which would mean including any and all obscure formats![]()
I have chosen to cut your post short here. The reason I consider it be based on some ill perceived "risk", not realizing that the same "risk" or lack thereof exist by including, say, a USB port or completely forego the port. Including it carries OPTIONS with it, not "risks".
... the only point of yours seem to be "Don't include anything, because inclusion is risky.
No, you have taken the time to manufacture risk to make it fit with your subjective opinion.I've taken the time to list several dimensions that objectively represent non-zero risks. Instead of objectively agreeing that they're risks, but ones that you believe that they're acceptably small and managable (and making that case), these have instead been flat out denied as existing at all.
Sure, there's also the risk that a black hole will develop right next to me and swallow me.Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Like it or not, risks surround us everyday in everything. Just because we choose to deny, ignore, or accept those risks doesn't mean that they somehow magically go away.
Sheesh! One would think that after these posts you would be able to put this into context. Saying there are many risks developing and building a product is of course true, but you're not saying anything remotely revelant by stating such obvious things.The process of developing and building a product has many risks ... "cost, schedule, performance" are the classic words we've all heard.
I haven't confused your attempt to explain them as attempts to defend them. You're the one bringing that one up. On the contrary, I have simply ignored those parts of the posts for the most part. But again, you're the one bringing it up.Why Apple chooses to do what they do is known only to them...and attempts to try to examine and explain them should not be confused with defending them.
I have the Griffin dock/card reader for those times when I don't want iPhoto to open and get up in my business. The rest of the time, if a person is connecting a camera to their computer iPhoto will keep everything nice and tidy and works tons better than a card reader would.
Don't tell me they wanted to "minimize the risk" and nixed the pgup and pgdn keys?Good grief Tosser and HH, take it elsewhere. My scroll fingers are getting tired.![]()
Exactly. It is reminiscent of buying an ultralight not realising one's needs and then end up with external card readers and dongles and an external DVD drive to watch movies on, completely negating what could have been acheived by an all-in-one.*And while they're at it, add more USB ports, especially on the 24" model. My desk is covered with cables and hubs, which really kills the "sleek AIO" vibe of the iMac.
HH, you just don't get it, do you?
You're saying more or less directly that a computer which isn't able to read the newest format should be tossed on the scrap heap, because for some reason the emergance of a new(er) format will render it useless.
{snip}...we should only have one ram-slot, and we should have even fewer keys on our keyboards, and, yes, no more than one button on the mouse.
{snip}... There is NO RISK THE COMPUTER WILL BECOME OBSOLETE BECAUSE A NEW CARD FORMAT COMES OUT. Saying there is grasping at straws to put it mildly.
I agree the iMac should have a card reader on-board - and I think the suggestion of integrating it with the keyboard is a great one.