Timeline for Are 'digital frames' really uniformly awful?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2013 at 15:31 | comment | added | bmargulies | @MichaelClark Of course. However, in this case, it seemed as if (a) some mfgs had disappeared entirely, and (b) the lines had shrunk. This might be biased perception. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 21:39 | comment | added | Michael C | @bmargulies The same could be said about lenses sold by any optics company that has been around more than 10 years: They have many more discontinued than current lens models. Let's not get started about former to current models of digital cameras! Also true of automobile manufacturers, flash memory card makers, and just about any other product. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 21:17 | comment | added | bmargulies | Harriet, evidence suggests that these vendors are leaving the category and/or downgrading their products. For Sony, discontinued products outnumber non-discontinued by a factor. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 17:06 | comment | added | Harriet | If you stick to the brand names such as Sony, Toshiba (if you can find one), Kodak (Pulse will still send wirelessly), Pix-Star, Ceiva, etc. and stay 8" and above with preferably a 4:3 ratio, you should be fine. I am using a Digital Spectrum 8" frame every day at our business since 2008 and have had not one single problem with it's function. My site is www.digital-frames-connect-people.com. You don't have to buy anything there unless you want to but I think there is enough information on it to help you to choose. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 16:53 | comment | added | mattdm | Can you address some of the issues of reliability raised in the question? | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 16:38 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 18, 2013 at 16:53 | |||||
| Jun 18, 2013 at 16:21 | history | answered | Harriet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |