iPod Media Reader Slowness
gsfprez writes "According to an official statement by Belkin over at iPodlounge, the reason it takes 22 minutes to transfer a few pictures from your digital SLR's CF card to your iPod with their $99 iPod Media Reader is that, well, that's how they designed it. They wanted to 'address the needs of the largest percentage of owners of digital cameras and iPods,' because -- and let's be honest -- when you want to transfer 128 megs of pictures from your $200 digital camera, you think '$600 worth of iPod and media reader please!,' and not $14 flash readers." Belkin did say they are trying to work out a solution with Apple, perhaps in the iPod firmware, but it seems the problem may be with the design of the reader itself.
The sarcasm is so layered and the syntax is so awkward that I'm not sure what we're supposed to be upset with regarding this.
What does the Submitter mean. Can somebody translate it for me?
A Good Intro to NetBS
But does it matter for a flash card reader?
If the speed of reading/writing CF cards is slower than 12Mbps, then a FW reader will be just as slow as a USB reader.
Most people who have 1 gig cards have at least two. While your downloading the one you just filled up and can be shooting with the empty one.
As most programmers/developers know it is hard to balance the needs of ones users. For some the speed issue is a big deal, for most it is a slight inconvenience. If you have an iPod spending $100 for the convenience of a digital wallet is a lot better then spending another $600 and a dedicated/fast digital wallet. But is you have money to burn and you can't figure out what to do with your self for an hour (read a book, talk to someone) while you wait, then maybe this is not the product for you.
Tony
Assuming I buy one, this is how I plan to use it.
I'll have two cheap memory cards (either 128MB or 256MB), and when I fill one, I'll put it into the iPod adaptor and start the transfer while using the other card in my camera. That should be about 10 minutes to load a full 256MB card. I don't expect I will fill the other 256MB card that fast (if I do, then I *really* worry about how fast I'll fill my computer's HD at over 1GB/hour!).
The real benefit here is I can take my camera on vacation, or just out and about, and not have to carry around my notebook. This is a *huge* benefit. Couple that with only needing two memory cards (even two 128MB cards will be enough), and this is looking real handy *and* cost saving (I already have an iPod).
The drawbacks? It's not instantaneous and it takes batteries. Not a huge problem, and if it's something that can be done better, someone will. If not, I'm still better off than I was before.
I don't understand the sarcasm of the story's submitter. Sounds like the guy has issues. I bet he doesn't have an iPod or he'd see that Belkin has put to market something that can add to the utility of his iPod, if he wants it. If he doesn't want it, he's no worse off than he was before and he still has an iPod.
the big deal is that it IS a pro add-on. Why would you spend $99 if you were an "average" user? You wouldn't.
And even so - you could buy 6 128 meg CF cards for the price of this lame reader...
ripping out a CF card and copying its contents to an iPod because you ran out of space is a PRO thing to do... average users will just either jam in their other 128 meg card or they will stop taking pictures.
the reader is $100. Most "average" cameras are about $200. That seems already to be out of range in price for most average users... i'm certianly not in the market for this thing.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
My point is simply that if the card reader's speed is under 12Mbps, then it won't matter if the interface is FireWire or USB.
If the reader's speed is faster, of course, then the choice of interface probably will make a difference.
Ok, enough. I'm in the market for this, even after reading your muddled commentary. I spent $700 for my camera, because I like the features that that quality of camera added. Which means, incidentally, that I fill up my CF cards faster than a cheap camera, because my pics tend to be higher res, and therefore the pics take more memory.
So--when I travel to distant and exotic lands on vacations of a few weeks, I would still much rather take an iPod with this adapter and dump photos from a 256M card, than have to take an iBook and find places to charge it.
If it means that every 2-3 days, when I've filled up a 256M card, that it takes me 30 mins to upload to my iPod--yeah, I'm happy to do it. And I'll buy the adapter to do it with. I would still rather do that than carry my iBook through the hinterlands of Russia and Turkey.
So get over your damn self. Sorry the product didn't work for you. I still think it'll work for some people. Reporting the facts w/o sarcasm would have made for a better case. As it is, it seems like you're bent on convincing everyone else that this product will also suck for them, regardless if their needs are not your own.
--
$tar -xvf
This device is a "firewire device", yet it operates at slower than USB 1 speeds.
You wouldn't put up with that if it was a USB 2 device operating at 300 kbps, would you?
On the Apple Store's webpage, it clearly and openly says..
"Using software support that's built into your iPod (iPod software version 2.1 or later), transfer your pictures quickly via FireWire technology and you're ready to start shooting again. "
A reasonable person would assume that such a device would operate at such speeds. Or do we all quickly forget the 1st gen pre-Oxford 911 based IDE hard drive cases that were horribly slow and never mentioned that they couldn't possibly give you back even the the bandwidth of IDE, let alone Firewire. MacAlly got hammered in the press and by their customers over that whole debachle - as well they should have.
A reasonable person purchasing this product would assume that "transferring pictures quickly via Firewire" would not mean - "transfers slower than USB 1 devices".
"My issue" is that this $99 "Firewire technology" reader gets its ass handed to it by a $14 USB 1 device. That's unreasonable.
If they (Belkin and Apple on their store page) were to point out "while this uses Firewire, it does not transfer ANYWHERE near Firewire speeds, and in fact, its slower than USB 1", then there would be no "issue"
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Just chill out for a sec and listen.
Yes, the iPod,/i> is a FireWire device. The card-reader is NOT. The issue is not FireWire. It has nothing whatsoever to do with FireWire. It has to do with how Belkin has implemented this card-reading tech.
I mean, it sounds a tad slow to me too, but a 128MB card in 6 minutes.. on a portable device that has an 8-hour battery.. is not a big deal. It's still way more convenient than lugging around a laptop.
By the way, it sounds like you've got an axe to grind about FireWire though. I'll give you a bit of advice; its okay to hate a plug. The plug doesn't hate you. Move on to other plugs if you hate that one.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Damnit people, you can get devices that do this better and faster than repurposing your damn walkman to do it!
I have an iPod and $99 for this big bulky media reader junk is just stupid. I currently use some off-brand (sigma is maybe the brand name, i think..) device that has a compactflash port and takes a 2.5" HDD. It dumps out the cards to the HDD at 5-10MB/s and sometimes a little faster with microdrives.. It was about $200 including a 30GB drive. When I need to get the files off of it, it's got a slick USB2.0 or Firewire bridge board in it so that it can work as a standard HDD on pretty much any computer..