Regarding My ‘Ridiculous’ Assertion that RF is Not Wireless

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:

@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:

@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.

Become a Member

This site is 100% member supported and free of advertising. Members receive access to exclusive weekly content: iPad Productivity Report, videos, and the best products listing.

Join Now

Already a member? Please sign in.

Article Details

Published
by Ben Brooks
1 minute to read.


tl;dr

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 […]