I had a long post penned defending this stance, but after some really great conversations on App.net and in my inbox, I am changing my stance a bit. While I still feel it is disingenuous to call something wireless when it needs a dongle, I do concede that perhaps a better overall approach is to simply label whether or not things include a dongle.
[David Krauser on App.net][1]:
> @benbrooks @dlehman that’s one thing I’d like to see on packaging: whether or not a dongle is required/included. As it stands now, if you buy something dubbed ‘wireless’, you have no idea what you’re getting.
[Dave Lehman][2]:
> @palimondo @benbrooks @dtk I definitely agree that a “dongle-free” designation would be a selling point.
> “Wireless” is like saying “calorie-reduced”– it’s not nearly telling the whole story.
This pretty well encapsulates what I failed to clearly convey yesterday.
[1]: https://alpha.app.net/dtk/post/11652285
[2]: https://alpha.app.net/dlehman/post/11653153
Note: This site makes use of affiliate links, which may earn the site money when you buy using those links.