View Single Post
Old 07-07-2015, 09:51 AM   #31
eschwartz
Ex-Helpdesk Junkie
eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
eschwartz's Avatar
 
Posts: 19,421
Karma: 85400180
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Beaten Path, USA, Roundworld, This Side of Infinity
Device: Kindle Touch fw5.3.7 (Wifi only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by invention13 View Post
No, you don't.
You can do it with wireless, or even bluetooth (if you wanted to). Probably 90% of the books I put on it with calibre are done using their content server. What would be even better with calibre would be pushing the books to the reader through a wireless connection. From a distance/bandwidth/power consumption point of view, bluetooth might actually be a good way to go.
Th problem with that logic is that it is one thing to say "this is an alternative option, and I prefer using it"; it is another thing entirely to say "let's force everyone else to use this, since it's what I prefer".

Sideloading books through USB-attached storage is pretty simple and reliable. There are no hard dependencies on using a calibre content server either, which is a good thing because can you just imagine how many people would go absolutely positively ballistic if it were required?

Quote:
I'm not saying do away with the port, just reduce the dependence on actually plugging it in.
The point is, kobo had a good idea putting the usb port behind a sealed trap door. It keep moisture and crap out of it. From a reliability point of view, it is a good idea to have the insides sealed.
But if you aren't getting rid of the port, then why bother adding extra cost to the device for no net gain?

Getting rid of the port from a reliability and streamlining perspective does indeed make a lot of sense, but if you aren't getting rid of it...

"Reducing the dependency" doesn't IMHO make things less likely to go wrong. I assume the cap is being used whenever you aren't plugging it in, and lessening the numerical count of times when you plug it in is not going to make it fundamentally more reliable.





Wireless USB would theoretically solve all these problems. From a user perspective, nothing changes except that you don't need a physical connection. Pretty similar to wireless induction when you think about it.

Using both technologies together offers the opportunity to strip out the actual USB port itself, which is a tempting target. Merely offering an extra way to charge -- I cannot see that argument as very convincing.
eschwartz is offline   Reply With Quote