Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why no Card Reader on new iMacs?
- Thread starter FoxHoundADAM
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really a fair arguement as it's almost Apples to Oranges. I use my game systems for gaming and my computer for media. ALL my pictures are uploaded to my computer, only rarely d I hook up my 360/PS3 for any sort of multimedia viewing.
True, they should reintroduce Firewire (with a TI chipset) across the board.
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?
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.
Btw. Has 802.11n been ratified yet?
Hehe, yeah, you sure illustrated that perfectly
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. With that sort of argument we don't even want USB 2.0 on anything we purchase, because why include something when something different/better/faster/bigger will emerge in the near future?
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.
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 requires a supporting chipset (reminds me of FW vs. USB), but it should be doable to swap the "internal" card reader for an upgraded version if so inclined. At least technically, unless you have some company who will try to void your guarantee because of it.
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.
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.
However, in the mean time, people who actually can't afford to take the backseat will get work done, while you wait for people to "decide" on a format. Did I mention the SD format sits on more than 75% percent of the market?
See above.
As above.
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.
Btw, sitting at measly 6 percent and dwindling, CF is on the way out. No matter how much you as a photographer and me as journalist-cum-producer bemourn that (because we use it every day).
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.
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 standard
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?
I don't use memory sticks because I grew tired of buying into proprietary stuff after having tried working with Atrac (Portadisc MDP-500).
As already mentioned a couple of times, the SD-format sits on 75 percent of the market.
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.
Again, the argument that it will render your entire computer obsolete is utterly ridiculous. It's not like we have to choose if we want to be able to have firewire and USB or none of that and have a card reader instead.
Actually, on mine I had a choice. I could go with - none - , 3-in-1, or a 5-in-1 with a modem.
Again, weight? Really? We're not even talking ultralights like mine, but talking iMacs. And even if we were, it's much lighter to have an inbuilt reader than having to carry an external plus associated cable (mind, I do have a Sandisk Micromate).
Cost? Again, it's cheaper to built it in than it is to buy an external. And considering the built in won't become "obsolete" until you have no peripherals using the formats supported by the reader anymore, it shouldn't matter one iota.
Because that wasn't the question being asked by FoxHoundADAM: he asked 'What are you doing?", not "What would you ultimately prefer?".
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.
A common counter-argument. Where did I say that I've adopted it?
YMMV. Your priorities don't also have to be mine.
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.
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".
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 7 formats in just under 5 years.
Yes, a new one every 9 months.
So then why isn't the debate to ask Apple for an EC34 slot in the iMac...?
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.
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.
I've already pointed this out once before. I trust that you won't make it necessary to repeat myself umpteen more times.
Agreed, but its not "A" shift, but "Yet Another" shift.
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.
But for how long?
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.
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.
Strategically, I think that an ExpressCard slot would be a better option.
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.
And on the iMac, it should positionally be along the top (not side).
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!
Again, you misinterpret my message. Its about risk, and consequently, how much you're willing to invest because of that risk.
Gosh, 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.
Thus, 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?
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 that Apple has the audacity to require them to use an external peripheral instead of a built-in. Apparently, merely providing them the capability (through an external) isn't good enough for them: they want it on a silver platter too.
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.
Thus, the only way to minimize your losses is to ... not play the game.
Hence, no built-in card slots on Macs.
And a contributing reason why is because the Mac customer demographic would complain when after 2 years, they've failed to be forwards-compatible to an emerging standard that didn't exist when they bought the computer.
Yes, this is an unrealistic consumer requirement, but we both know that it will happen anyway.
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.
My apologies; this debate usually comes up on laptops, since that's ~70% of what Apple is selling these days.
Namecalling is a TOS violation.
Recommend that you go have a nice relaxing cup of herbal tea...or whatever floats your boat.
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.
(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).
Its not that I'm saying that people shouldn't have the option.
What I'm saying is that because of the rate of standards flux, it is a "Be Careful What You Ask For" situation.
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.
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.
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.
-hh
Some good points there -hh and I'm sure that similar thoughts are shared at apple. Also, it appears Apple is moving against MORE SLOTS on their computers/devices. The AIR for example, not to mention the iPhone. Both of which are pretty limited as to what you can input into it.
While I think this type of strategy is about 5 years ahead of it's time (wifi enabled devices just aren't common enough yet) I can see their argument for wanting to push things forward yet also reducing costs and maintaining a sleek look.
That's the problem with "cutting edge", be it style or performance, it often comes at the expense of convenience and function.
While I think this type of strategy is about 5 years ahead of it's time (wifi enabled devices just aren't common enough yet) I can see their argument for wanting to push things forward yet also reducing costs and maintaining a sleek look.
That's the problem with "cutting edge", be it style or performance, it often comes at the expense of convenience and function.
Still, I consider using a printer as card reader as the ultimate in ridiculous workarounds.
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.
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.
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.
See above.
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.
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.
The answer is as irrelevant as your rhetorical question.
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".
Properly because it wasn't you or I who made this thread and because I don't do stationary Macs?
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.
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.
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.
Sigh!
Answer: Until NONE of YOUR equipment uses that "old" standard.
I don't have an opinion with regards to PPC in relation to Snow Leopard.
But once again (this is getting tiresome), card formats will work until NONE of your equipment uses said formats.
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.
Well, you'd need an adaptor for it, but yes, it's big enough for such an adaptor.
I don't have a preferred position, but if on top it should have a "flap" to keep dust out of it.
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.
Wow. Talk about twisting words and ignore reality
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 card
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.
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.
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.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.
LOL, "namecalling"? Seriously, I recommend you look "once more for Prince Knut" up. It's a historical reference.
Fair enough, but since you mentioned it, I thought it was okay to do the same as an example.
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.
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.
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................
Point
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...
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...
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.
I have to say I (and I would guess I represent a major chunk of imac users) don't own a card reader. I haven't understood the point of them.
I use the machine primarily for photography (after web/email) and simply plug my camera in via USB. I have a 4gb SD card in there, and it really doesn't take too long to transfer the images. My parents do the same with their P&S camera.
If you are a pro (or super serious amateur) with several cards, then that's a different matter, but I would guess that they might be using a Mac Pro...
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.
Everything is always about priorities and how they get ranked in one's decision-making. Even what time your alarm clock went off this morning.
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.
But its probably not done with a complete disregard either: Any purchase decision is invariably based on a holistic examination of all factors, which are typically screened to see which ones are important/germane and which ones are not.
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.
Technically, I don't disagree, but the recurring theme here (politely) is "Value" in that people want the what-works-for-them solution thrown in for free.
Suppose that we posit that Apple were to offer the addition of an EC slot as a BTO Option on iMacs, and that it ships with an SD card reader EC card included. How many people do you think will choose to buy that option?
Correct: the answer depends on how much Apple would ask for it. If it were free, nearly everyone would take it, but at a price point of $100, virtually no one will want it.
Now eliminate the EC adaptor and make it a built-in SD slot: at the same price points, you can pretty much assure the same consumer conclusion.
Not quite. My underlying point is that the consumer demographic can determine the specific format preference. Thus, if Apple is trying to target Photo Pros, they need to consider how to either support CF, or to support "Not CF" while not alienating that demographic.
Business success is not exclusive to making the customer happy - it is also about not ticking them off, and some experts will claim that that's actually more important than making them happy.
In an ideal world, the soution would be present, and/or be 'self-evident' well before the applied need. Thus, the path forward already has clarity.
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?
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.
FWIW, you might think that I'm crazy (or self-contradicting) because last summer, I bought a new 35mm camera body. The purchase was in fact a trade-off of knowingly "wasting money" to keeping an existing system running for $200, which buys time by allowing me to defer the $8,000 expense for its digital equivalent replacement.
If you've never bought something to discover that it looked compatible but actually wasn't, consider yourself lucky.
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.
Yes, because it is ultimately Apple's decision as to what to sell. We only get a crude binary (yes/no) vote with our wallets, to either buy, or not buy.
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.
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.
There is never a free lunch.
Pragmatically, that "UNTIL" is pretty much guarenteed, since we're all generally asking our computers to do more functions, not fewer.
Email, Internet, digital music, digital photos and digital video are all merely examples of areas where this 'do more' have already occurred...unless you believe that this trend will reverse itself, it is most assuredly an 'Inevitable'.
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.
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.
The 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.
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".
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.
Literary hyperbola, but the point remains that the capabilty exists via external peripherals, but why are people nevertheless still complaining because that is "Not Good Enough"?
Its merely a technique to try to understand their actions, rather than to be blind to their needs, motivations, etc.
Time will tell if I'm right. To clarify, I'm not particularly optimistic that Apple will builld-in an SD slot so long as there's many competing formats in the marketplace. Simplistically, this means that Fuji and Olympus will have to give up on xD and Sony on Memory Stick.
And I'm not necessarily saying that I support this decision as much as I say that I understand why they choose that path.
Yes, you missed the memo. As well as the memo that SD is most undoubtedly proprietary, too.
FWIW, the flash media card has long been suffering from consumer adoption elements that have been to a degree self-induced. As referenced above, SD-SDHC (and soon SDXC) are incurring consumer confusion (which invokes dissatisfaction) that historically has not been unlike the missteps that External SATA suffered from ... they only recently have gotten their act straightened out, but they're about to mess themselves up again with power-over-SATA. You can also mark my words that USB-3 is also going to incur significant consumer confusion...as a technology developer, I've already identified the strategic mistakes that they've already committed to making.
I understand your point entirely. However, when you look at the timeline, its really only been within the past ~24 months that SD has really emerged as a clear leader ... which probably can be attributed to its owners loosening the rules on their NDA after it was reverse-engineered.
As such, the business perspective that one should apply to this is that the SD consortium "loosened up" not because they wanted to, but because they had to. As such, don't be too surprised if they try to lock down their control again with SDXC and thus, we potentially start the entire "who's the leader?" merry-go-round all over again. Don't forget for one instant that their motivation isn't anything other than to make money.
Suggest you Google that quoted phrase yourself: 14 hits, all of which are yours.
Plus the phrase clearly insinuates a need to repeat because the Prince is stupid. Use it again, and it will unfortunately have become the MR Mods' headache to have to decide what to do about it.
Ease of use I can understand/agree with; it is its weight contribution that is silly to complain about because its contribution is lost in the noise. However, since you appear to have a need for both SD and CF, then why are you so willing to be satisfied with not getting CF too? Is it this "CF is only 6%" rationalization? And if you're going to have to hook up an external for CF anyway, then would there not be effectively no 'extra burden' from the SD slot being in the same reader?
Its merely an issue of trade-offs. For example, consider trying to pin a number onto how much is it worth to you in real dollars to integrate capability "X" into an existing device.
And I do personally believe that the 'spaghetti monster' is going to go away within the next decade (and probably much sooner): the MacBook Air was merely a first step in this direction of 'wireless everything'.
Right now, there's already wireless 'memory' cards for use in digital cameras, plus the wireless USB currently being sold by Kensington has wireless-USB and wireless-video capability ... FYI, its video bandwidth is adequate for Powerpoint charts, but isn't quite there yet for HD video...version 1.1 "soon come".
The other main challenge is wireless power, particularly to recharge a laptop. Inductive coupling is IMO going to be the solution approach, as it has already been demonstrated on various commercial devices, including a mat to recharge cellphones. The key milestone there will be to get the power level up to being able to pass (ballpark of) ~75 watts to recharge a laptop.
-hh
that is a very good point.
sometimes people can just be happy though with using an xpress card like in the MBP's
And it continues. I have taken the liberty to cut down on things - both yours as well as my own, to keep this short (relatively speaking):
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.
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. However, IF they do, the chances that they're simultaneously using the newest formats no matter what is equal to zero. THEREFORE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A CARD READER IS BACKWARDS COMPATIBLITY, NOT FORWARDS DITTO.
Oh, and I'm certainly not "deciding for you". Including a card reader does not limit your choices of using an external any more than including firewire on the MB limits people's choices with regards to their USB-readers. It's like saying that having an expresscard port limits your choice as to what cards you will be using or what USB reader you will be using. Once again: There is NO RISK. There are drawbacks, but that's not "risks".
[removed irrelevant part of post]
[removed irrelevant parts of the post]
I am well aware that the de facto standard that SD constitutes is gone by, say, ten years, but I'm not buying a computer first and then cameras, recorders and whatnot. 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.
There is NO indication that the SD-format (and derivatives) will plummet off the face of the earth and some completely new will come along in the near future. It's certainly not like the analogue>digital phase in camera (or audio for that matter).
[removed irrelevant parts of the post]
Putting a card reader in the computer does not change or limit her options one iota
Perhaps at the same time they should include a "properly" sized expresscard slot in the MBP.
[removed irrelevant parts of the post]
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.
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".
And with that, I'm taking a break from this nonsensical discussion where the only point of yours seem to be "Don't include anything, because inclusion is risky. Besides I prefer to have everything in external boxes and if I had my way I'd have a desktop with the same 'easy' way of getting things in and out of the computer as what the MBA delivers".
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.
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. However, IF they do, the chances that they're simultaneously using the newest formats no matter what is equal to zero. THEREFORE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A CARD READER IS BACKWARDS COMPATIBLITY, NOT FORWARDS DITTO.
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.
Oh, and I'm certainly not "deciding for you". Including a card reader does not limit your choices of using an external any more than including firewire on the MB limits people's choices with regards to their USB-readers. It's like saying that having an expresscard port limits your choice as to what cards you will be using or what USB reader you will be using. Once again: There is NO RISK. There are drawbacks, but that's not "risks".
[removed irrelevant part of post]
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.
[removed irrelevant parts of the post]
How much "clarity" do you want? A marketshare of more than 75 percent is a lack of clarity? Seriously?
Actually, it took years and years to plummet off the cliff, but suddenly, yes, it was over.
I am well aware that the de facto standard that SD constitutes is gone by, say, ten years, but I'm not buying a computer first and then cameras, recorders and whatnot. 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.
There is NO indication that the SD-format (and derivatives) will plummet off the face of the earth and some completely new will come along in the near future. It's certainly not like the analogue>digital phase in camera (or audio for that matter).
[removed irrelevant parts of the post]
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.
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.
Putting a card reader in the computer does not change or limit her options one iota
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.
Really? You're arguing that the consumer should buy third party boxes in order to have the daily functionality of other brands.
[removed irrelevant parts of the post]
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
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.
[Removed the rest of the post]
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".
And with that, I'm taking a break from this nonsensical discussion where the only point of yours seem to be "Don't include anything, because inclusion is risky. Besides I prefer to have everything in external boxes and if I had my way I'd have a desktop with the same 'easy' way of getting things in and out of the computer as what the MBA delivers".
Actually, that one was inferred in option #2 (rely on the human to only use 'correct' combinations).
I never claimed that forwards- was more important than backwards-.
My point has merely been that longer term compatibility is problemmatic for those applications where the standards are undergoing rapid change, so being forward-looking needs merits consideration too.
Maybe so, but the risk of you being wrong is significantly higher in some areas than others.
For example, a computer purchased in 2005-06 has a decent chance of being SD-only (and not SDHC upgradable), and even if it was upgradable, it won't support SDXC which is now rolling out.
Thus, do you really think that a 3-4 year old computer is really doomed for the scrap heap? Especially for the home (not business) user?
Anecdotally, I'd venture to speculate that most home computers are around for at least 5-6 years. Even before the downturn in the economy, Enterprise was stretching out lifecycles to ~5 years. And in .EDU, I have a friend who works in New York who's working this year with 7 year old 600MHz G3 iBooks.
It at least is one more thing that can break or otherwise go wrong. That may very well be an acceptable risk (on a desktop), but it still shows that the claim of "NO RISK" is false, no matter how many times (more) you try to claim otherwise.
You missed my tangential point, which was of 'sunk costs' that represent barriers to adopting change(s). For example, a barrier to change from Windows to OS X can be $1000 worth of software licenses that have to be re-purchased. Similarly, someone invested in CF or SD may be understandably reluctant to abandon that format to transition to SDXYZ. While backwards-compatibility is generally good, it isn't necessarily going to be forever. Cue "Classic Mode" in Leopard, amongst others.
See those trees? They create a forest. Think of the generalized case that's beyond just today's desire for a SD reader.
Gosh, that sounds like you're saying that you don't care if your computer has a built-in interface or not, since it is the performance of the peripheral - - not the comptuer - - that is the primary deciding factor.
But if that's the case, then why is having a particular (and proprietary) I/O interface "built-in" to the computer so gosh-darn important nevertheless?
The $100 was purposefully chosen to be high, to illustrate that there is an upper bound to which no consumer would be likely to accept the product offer. Nevertheless, since a card reader for an EC slot was included in that hypothetical and these alone cost ~$30, and an EC interface retails for another ~$30, its not really quite as outrageous as it looked on the surface.
I'm not arguing that the consumer shouldn't have a say...all I'm saying is that I can understand why Apple chooses to avoid making the product offering.
Namely, the EC54, to which I wholeheartedly agree. However, the street reality is that it shipped with the EC34.
No. The point here was that there's no need for a newer until there's a need for a newer...to which I said was pretty much inevitable. The observation that we're asking our computers to do more was merely to show that we're unlikely to stop taking digital photos next year, etc, which means that the "need for newer" is pragmatically assured.
True, but this doesn't reconcile well.
Because of forwards-compatibility limitations, the practical way that these new capabilities are obtained is through eternal add-ons, which means that add-on boxes are inevitable...so why the big fuss for why the current capability absolutely must not be tolerated as an external add-on today?
I don't dispute the fact that a built-in is a nice-to-have (particularly if it is less likely to become obsolete), but it seems very odd to me that you are willing to accept the klunky external as the solution for a change 2-3 years from now while being so strongly opposed to that same approach for today's need.
Perhaps this is merely a difference in our respective consumer expectations for how long we expect the product to realistically last? Should I ask how long you expect to keep 'Computer X'? My hunch is that you're not expecting to keep a computer for more than 2, maybe 3 years...whereas I'm assuming that the same computer (whatever it is) is going to be kept for 5+ years, which makes the 'inevitable' all the more likely to occur.
FWIW, I've found it interesting to hear some of the real world user comments that have chimed in on this thread. So far, the leading response seems to be along the lines of: "I don't bother with a reader; I just plug in the camera directly".
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
The camera makers take their competition quite seriously. Canon has been sliding and Sony's been making a big push as of late...so who's really to say what about the potential popularity of Memory Stick in another 18 months? This is why one still can't count any format totally out of the race yet.
IMO, our disagreement lies within assessing the relative levels of risks, and consequently, what action (if any) to take in response to that in order to address/manage/minimize that particular risk factor.
You may believe that the risks I've pointed out are so minor as to be "nonsensical", but that merely is reflecting the differences in our respective abilites to recognize risks, and perhaps also our individual risk:benefit tolerances.
From a minimalist philisophical perspective, every single item considered for inclusion has to be critically reviewed and its benefits clearly determined and then judged in the context of its downsides. One don't just throw it onto the pile because you believe that it just might be a good idea.
If we believe that Apple takes a minimalist approach, then this is how we should expect them to behaive when it comes to the consideration of extra widgets being built in.
I'm not asking if you believe if minimalism is right or wrong (nor am I defnding it myself)...but do you believe that Apple's design philosophies generally follows minimalism? If your answer is Yes, then that's how you should expect them to act.
Incorrect interpretation.
I'm not claiming that one shouldn't do "X" because it is too risky, but rather that the claims that "X" has zero risk anywere are pure and unmitigated horse hockey.
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.
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.
The process of developing and building a product has many risks ... "cost, schedule, performance" are the classic words we've all heard. 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.
-hh
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.
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. This you do, utterly ignoring that it will still work with what it did when it was bought, and most likely with a few more (see the SD/HC thing).
Secondly, you base that on the argument of someone you know who worked on a 7 year old computer. Now, tell me this: How likely is it that someone using a 7 y.o. computer will be even having the need to use the utmost newest formats? Is it likely that that person is a front runner when it comes to technology? No, it's not, is it?
If we were to follow your argument (especially seen in the light of that 7 yo computer) we shouldn't even have had USB 2.0, because it can't connect to that 7 yo computer. Again, completely missing the point, that the ones that keep their computers for so long rarely have a need for the newest formats.
All else equal, it's the formats of your equipment that dictates the computer. Or it should be.
Again, in that long post of yours, you're still at the exsact same spot. You now even go as far as to speculate that it's "just one more thing to go wrong". Well, I hate to spring this to you , but (and this is a REAL reductio ad absurdum) if we were to follow that argumentation, we shouldn't have more than one connector (not just type, but a single port), 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.
As you can see, I agree that it's "one more thing to go wrong", but the same could be said about most any part of the computer, including ethernet. Hell, even Wi-Fi. Why don't you argue that we should use external USB-dongles for that? I mean, it's inbuilt, people have to pay extra for something they might not use.
Now, that was a real reductio ad absurdum.
You speak of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I think that me being able to see that when 75 percent of a given market is taken by a single format, that I'm able to see that forest. You're the one who continue to focus on the tree - the small detail, the small formats.
As I asked then, how much more "clarity" do you want when it comes to what "the consumers" have chosen? 75% percent of all cards sold are SD. SD is THE consumer choice.
Your parameters for "risk" are what's wrong. You're making them up as you go along, such as that there is a risk that the computer will become obsolete because a new card format is out. 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.
This seems to be a common argument for some reason. But let me clarify that having an inbuilt card reader does not suddenly ban you from connecting your camera directly. The inbuilt card reader works EXACTLY the same as the one you have to find and/or carry and THEN plug-in. The problem with connecting cameras directly is that most cameras have butt-slow transfer speeds. Some don't consider that an issue, though - they're used to it.
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. This you do, utterly ignoring that it will still work with what it did when it was bought, and most likely with a few more (see the SD/HC thing).
Secondly, you base that on the argument of someone you know who worked on a 7 year old computer. Now, tell me this: How likely is it that someone using a 7 y.o. computer will be even having the need to use the utmost newest formats? Is it likely that that person is a front runner when it comes to technology? No, it's not, is it?
If we were to follow your argument (especially seen in the light of that 7 yo computer) we shouldn't even have had USB 2.0, because it can't connect to that 7 yo computer. Again, completely missing the point, that the ones that keep their computers for so long rarely have a need for the newest formats.
All else equal, it's the formats of your equipment that dictates the computer. Or it should be.
Again, in that long post of yours, you're still at the exsact same spot. You now even go as far as to speculate that it's "just one more thing to go wrong". Well, I hate to spring this to you , but (and this is a REAL reductio ad absurdum) if we were to follow that argumentation, we shouldn't have more than one connector (not just type, but a single port), 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.
As you can see, I agree that it's "one more thing to go wrong", but the same could be said about most any part of the computer, including ethernet. Hell, even Wi-Fi. Why don't you argue that we should use external USB-dongles for that? I mean, it's inbuilt, people have to pay extra for something they might not use.
Now, that was a real reductio ad absurdum.
You speak of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I think that me being able to see that when 75 percent of a given market is taken by a single format, that I'm able to see that forest. You're the one who continue to focus on the tree - the small detail, the small formats.
As I asked then, how much more "clarity" do you want when it comes to what "the consumers" have chosen? 75% percent of all cards sold are SD. SD is THE consumer choice.
No, you have taken the time to manufacture risk to make it fit with your subjective opinion.
Sure, there's also the risk that a black hole will develop right next to me and swallow me.
Your parameters for "risk" are what's wrong. You're making them up as you go along, such as that there is a risk that the computer will become obsolete because a new card format is out. 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.
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.
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.
This seems to be a common argument for some reason. But let me clarify that having an inbuilt card reader does not suddenly ban you from connecting your camera directly. The inbuilt card reader works EXACTLY the same as the one you have to find and/or carry and THEN plug-in. The problem with connecting cameras directly is that most cameras have butt-slow transfer speeds. Some don't consider that an issue, though - they're used to it.
Good grief Tosser and HH, take it elsewhere. My scroll fingers are getting tired.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.*
Although, the iMac shouldn't be reminiscent of something like that. It should have more ports and slots than an ordinary laptop.
*I have an ultralight and have no use for an external drive, nor the need for that many dongles (sigh!) or readers/adaptors
(brevity for the sake of others)
Because of forwards-compatibility limitations, the practical way that these new capabilities are obtained is through external add-ons, which means that add-on boxes are inevitable...so why the big fuss for why the current capability absolutely must not be tolerated as an external add-on today?
Second request for you to explain your self-contradiction.
No, that's not anything close to what the above question is asking. Please try again.
When one ignores the "benefit" side of the Risk:Benefit, that is precisely what happens.
However, that's not what I've been saying. I've been saying to pay attention to both sides: both Risk and Benefit.
Wrong interpretation...again; see aforementioned Option#2. Having an incompatible reader will at least cause customer confusion, and that's not something that any sane person would ever list under the "Benefit" column.
I highly suggest that you re-read the 2008 citation that I provided earlier: it specifically talked about this problem occurring with SD vs SDHC. Plus with SDXC having now been announced this past January, its simply not possible for this customer confusion to simply go away...and eventually (lest I say "invariably" again), its going to adversely impact that very same "75%" of the market that's already adopted the SD form factor (if it hasn't already).
Now realize that this is the customer dissatisfaction minefield that people are begging a vendor (Apple) to step into.
Do you really think that if they did so, that their customer satisfaction numbers wouldn't suffer when these customer confusion problems gets blamed on the seller?
My opinion is that Apple doesn't believe that the marketable upside gain is big enough to offset the downside risk(s). You're free to hold a different opinion...
In the meantime, let's not forget that there's still no built-in reader on the iMac, and there must be a reason why. My guess is that its because Apple doesn't know that the technology exists.
-hh
I took a look online earlier today and found one USB keyboard that had an iPod dock and media card reader built-in. Unfortunately, one of its descriptions said "Not compatible with Mac".
-hh
Because of forwards-compatibility limitations, the practical way that these new capabilities are obtained is through external add-ons, which means that add-on boxes are inevitable...so why the big fuss for why the current capability absolutely must not be tolerated as an external add-on today?
Second request for you to explain your self-contradiction.
No, that's not anything close to what the above question is asking. Please try again.
When one ignores the "benefit" side of the Risk:Benefit, that is precisely what happens.
However, that's not what I've been saying. I've been saying to pay attention to both sides: both Risk and Benefit.
Wrong interpretation...again; see aforementioned Option#2. Having an incompatible reader will at least cause customer confusion, and that's not something that any sane person would ever list under the "Benefit" column.
I highly suggest that you re-read the 2008 citation that I provided earlier: it specifically talked about this problem occurring with SD vs SDHC. Plus with SDXC having now been announced this past January, its simply not possible for this customer confusion to simply go away...and eventually (lest I say "invariably" again), its going to adversely impact that very same "75%" of the market that's already adopted the SD form factor (if it hasn't already).
Now realize that this is the customer dissatisfaction minefield that people are begging a vendor (Apple) to step into.
Do you really think that if they did so, that their customer satisfaction numbers wouldn't suffer when these customer confusion problems gets blamed on the seller?
My opinion is that Apple doesn't believe that the marketable upside gain is big enough to offset the downside risk(s). You're free to hold a different opinion...
In the meantime, let's not forget that there's still no built-in reader on the iMac, and there must be a reason why. My guess is that its because Apple doesn't know that the technology exists.
-hh
I took a look online earlier today and found one USB keyboard that had an iPod dock and media card reader built-in. Unfortunately, one of its descriptions said "Not compatible with Mac".
-hh
I haven't used a SD card and don't plan on it.
My digital camera uses a Memory Stick Duo card. I just connect my camera through USB cable to my iMac to import pictures. When the importing is done, I disconnect my camera.
I don't think that SD slots or any other type of memory stick slot should be put on Macs unless all the camera companies, phone companies, etc. all agree on a single format.
My digital camera uses a Memory Stick Duo card. I just connect my camera through USB cable to my iMac to import pictures. When the importing is done, I disconnect my camera.
I don't think that SD slots or any other type of memory stick slot should be put on Macs unless all the camera companies, phone companies, etc. all agree on a single format.