The guys over at Griffin Technology were very kind to send us over two of their products for evaluation: the SightLight and the iFire. Here's what we think about these two Mac products.
Post a Comment
Why are the devices rated so high?
We have the iFire that fires a too bright light and the tester noticed it can not be used over a long duration because of that. The tester even said it is not usable for many situations - it makes only sense if you really can not illuminate your office better. So why is it rated 7 out of 10 pts? Shouldn't it be more like 3 or 4 points ( taken the other disadvantages like not mountable with the other i-Thingy ).
Also: Why is the impact on battery time not tested???
Similar the iFire:
The tester noticed that it blocks the only port on the 12" books. It won't be usable for me then because I regularly use the port on my 12" iBook. Even worse, it does that just to get powered! But then again: Why is the impact on the battery not tested???
If the iFire comes with a firewire port, why does it not act as a firewire device, giving your system another audio output device?
And finally, how is the audio quality?
Jet alone the blocked firewire port should have downgraded the rating to as most as 6 points out of 10. Why is it rated like being almost the best device ever?
This is a pretty useless review to me :-(
Correction: My first paragraph refers to the SightLight. Sorry for that.
Another solution is to add a firewire hub. I also have a 12" Powerbook and I solved my firewire problems by adding a FireWire hub. They are available on the Apple online store, and Belkin has quite a selection of some now :
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatSectionView.process?IWAction=Load&Me...
Because if they rate it too low, Griffin will think twice about sending them any new toys to play with next time they release something new. It's a rather common phenomenon on review sites. Rate it high and they'll be happy to continue sending you there products for 'testing'.
I agree that they're getting a way too high of a score given the negative points brought up in the review. If the sightlight is unusable for a longer period of time and it makes use of the isight itself cumbersome, then why would it get a 7/10? I'd give it a mere 5 or less to be honest.
And the iFire, sorry to say, but if I'm at home, I have my ipod connected to my ibooks firewire port. Having to constantly switch between the ipod and the iFire audio output is annoying and unworkable, to say the least. This would have better been rated at 6/10.
Then again, I can't do these kinds of reviews (because I already know that there will be comments along the lines of 'if you can do it better, then you submit a review'). Companies don't send their products to mere mortals like me to review.
Being a developer for firewire devices, I have some of them lying around here ;-)
But I do not want to take anything more with me than the bare minimum of devices.
Why use Firewire as the power source? Why not a mini AC adaptor? Firewire is not standard on PCs (yet) and most PC laptops only have the 4-pin version - that does not carry power.
>The tester even said it is not usable for many situations - it makes only sense if you really can not illuminate your office better.
This is NOT true. Read more carefully of what I said.
>Why is the impact on battery time not tested???
Because I mostly used it with my Powermac, not my Powerbook.
>And finally, how is the audio quality?
I have ALREADY commented on that.
I suggest you stop trying to be a pain and read the article a bit more carefully.
Firewire is available on many PC's. They also have cheap expansion cards! PC's that are marketed as Multimedia, will have them also since many DV cameras use Firewire.
I know, I added a FW card to my PC too. But the iFire product itself becomes a little less attractive if it means having to purchase yet another product just to reuse an Apple Pro Speaker.
>>The tester even said it is not usable for many situations - it makes only sense if you really can not illuminate your office better.
>This is NOT true. Read more carefully of what I said.
Ok, I read again. Found the following:
[Quote]
but for the pain it gives to your eyes, it doesn't perform as expected. You see, the light of the bulb really gets into your eyes after a few minutes
[/Quote]
[Quote]
and honestly, I don't think it is usable for long durations
[/Quote]
You say that a user should even use the thing that fits on the quotes above, or illuminate their room better. I think given the choice of "pain in your eyes" or "add more illumination in your room", who votes for the pain?
I am sorry I missed your "The sound is the same as before, I noticed no glitches" comment. Being a technical interested guy, I expecet from a review testing an amplifier, that the tester does at least try to find out how the audio quality is. I see you obviously just played back some random MP3 file and noticed "OK, sounds familiar".
> I suggest you stop trying to be a pain and read the article a bit more carefully.
Sorry for being a pain to you. Now I have read again the article and the single thing I see is that I missed your comment about the audio quality.
I see you are the "editor in chief" here. Fine. If you react on criticism with: you are "trying to be a pain" , well I think any reasonable editor should think twice before publishing his/her article on "OSNews".
To me, criticism on my work is important. To you, obviously, it is personal offense.