WD leads consumers to commit a big error (WNDA3100)

Western Digital takes users to error for many years and remains in silence! They say there is support for Netgear WNDA3100 adapter, but only a version that is no longer for sale. The only version that is sold still have the same number, but the identification of a new version (V2) is not listed in the front of the box, but only on the side and in small letters. I honestly do not blame the Netgear, since it does not manufacture its products for WD. But WD should have more respect for their customers. It’s a great big shame! The company must include support for the new product, or withdraw entirely from the list of supported. I’m not talking about something new! This is happening since 2010 (or before). And WD continues inducing customers to error. They lost me as a customer and hope they lose several others!

1 Like

Sorry to hear that the adapter did not work. Please note that a disclaimer is included on the list of compatible devices, only the versions/revisions that have been tested to work are part of the list. 

“If your Wireless adapter has a revision number on the box, the product may be a newer revision than what was validated and may not work.”

“The tested device did not have a version number listed for the hardware on the box or the device. Wireless suppliers have a history of changing the actual hardware (the electronics design and chip), but keeping the model numbers the same and adding a revision level on the box and/or the device.”

Check the following link for the complete list.

http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5688

The problem is that the device without a version number is no longer manufactured. Only version 2, and even then it is not clearly specified in the product box. In other words: WD says that the product works, but today you can only buy one that doesn’t. So I think that the fair solution would be to remove that support information from the WD website. Anyway, thanks for reply!

LOL,

this is not WD’s fault

in fact I’d say it’s your fault for not reading where it says “version number not listed”

manufactures commonly change the hardware used without changing the product name/number

they just add a different revision

and the actual hardware is often completely different (different chipset usually)

how is WD supposed to track every wifi dongle revision # change

what I do think would be useful to add to that list, is what firmware it works on

What I think would be useful, is if WD (and any other manufacturer of a device intended to work both wired or wirelessly) is to make to device with the wireless capability already included from the get-go, instead of requiring an adapter) .

This is what Roku has done from the very first unit it made.  Today, ALL their devices are still wireless, and if you want a dual-connected device, you pay extra for the top end unit that also has an ethernet connection.  This is the way to go, instead of “cheaping it” by leaving out the wireless. Of course, a WD player pretty much requires it be wired for best performance and so needs both capabilities.

If WD had done what Roku did and made their media players all wireless and wired, it would have saved them lots of $$ in less returned units. service hassles, etc.  I hope someone from WD sees this comment and takes the idea to the company.

1 Like

Mike - all the latest models from WD have wireless built in. (Live gen3 and Play)

richUK wrote:

Mike - all the latest models from WD have wireless built in. (Live gen3 and Play)

Yep, thanks, and let’s hope it stays that way for all WD products to come!

Would’nt it have been nice if they included built in Wi-Fi in the New (500GB - 2TB) WDTV Live Hubs ?

Instead of just wacking in a new capacity HDD and shipping them out the door.

JoeySmyth wrote:

Would’nt it have been nice if they included built in Wi-Fi in the New (500GB - 2TB) WDTV Live Hubs ?

 

Instead of just wacking in a new capacity HDD and shipping them out the door.

Well Joey, if you want to make a quick buck on current products, that’s exactly what ya do!  They likely figured they already had sold all the !TB Hubs they could for a while, so they did what any marketing dept would do – they “extended the product life-cycle” as it is called in the marketing textbooks, to get new business.  So, they designed a Hub for the dude who thought the original one was “too expensive” and gave it a 500GB drive.  Then, they created one for the dude who needs to have the “latest and greatest” (and likely already has the 1TB Hub)  – they put in a 2TB drive for him.  All done at minimal development costs to WD, and both units bring in new dollars that the previous Hub couldn’t anymore!

It is a pretty sad comment that they could not make the new Hubs wireless, as you suggested, but hey – that ups the cost to WD!   To heck with what the customer wants!

I personally think WD’s policy of not making every new iteration of the media players come with built-in wireless is kind of foolish.  I think they can lose more in lost sales than they save by not putting it in.  There are more sellers of media players today than there were a few years ago, and they all want to steal market share away from WD.

The Hub is underpowered as it is, why would you want to burden it further with a niche feature like wireless capability?

A wired connection is the most reliable and will get you better data transfer rates than wireless ever will. Simply put, it produces the best quality playback.

The vast majority of people who are going to be streaming any sort of data from the internet will be doing so piggy backed off their TV source. Be it cable or fiber, these lines are generally run in close proximity to where one would be putting their TV/Media Player/Router. Depending on your housing situation you may not even have a choice in the matter. Wireless is simply not the best choice here.

The Hub and WD’s other devices are slipping in market share, not because they lack wireless - thier price point is too high for the drive-by consumer. Rokus are cheap, in the disposable price range and not to mention they are on the shelf of every major big box retailer in the country. Faced with the choice of a piece of garbage for $45 or something with some real features behind it, the average tech-ignorant consumer is going to spend $45. Most of them probably don’t know the new TV they bought last Christmas already can do what the Roku can do, or would have if they didn’t buy the “door-buster” version of a normal model.

The Hub is an entry-level enthusiast device that receives little to no marketing and is practically impossible to find outside of online retailers or rarely, Best Buy. Even when you see one in Best Buy, it’s sandwiched next to the hard drives and not back by the TVs where it really belongs.

The best thing WD can do is sink to the competition with a cheap, bare bones streamer and market their upgrade path to the better devices. Additionally, they need to take the Hub a step further with a faster, more capable processor and put some effort into fixing a number of nagging issues.

Well, nobody in this thread said wireless is good.  My whole system is wired, but I do have a second WD player that HAS to be run wirelessly because it is not near an internet outlet in the bedroom it is in.  Adding wireless to a unit during manufacturing is not that expensve and it eliminates the many complaints (and returns) like are found in this forum regarding add-on wireless adapters.  WD units should have them, like Rokus have them.  Hang around this forum long enough and you will see the many complaints that arise around compatibility of wireless add-ons…  The majority of people NEED wireless, because they don’t or can’t have a convenient wired connection.  I’m fortunate that my newer home has ethernet built in to four rooms, and with network switches at all outlets, I can have lots of wired connections…

I have a feeling that WD units are mostly purchased online and not in the Best Buys of the world.  A media player like a WD, is not for the average person – too complicated for 'em.  Something like a Roku is better for that group, although I think the Roku is handy, so I have a few in operation as well as the WDs.

  The best thing WD can do is sink to the competition with a cheap, bare bones streamer

You need to pay closer attention:  WD introduced an el-cheapo (and dummied-down) media player called the TV Play fairly recently, taking direct aim at the lower-level Rokus.

What WD needs is something better than the Live Streaming – with the latest bells and whistles.

There are other options for wired connections such as Livewire. Works quite well, I use a kit here at home.

No, wireless wouldn’t add much cost but what it would do is slow the unit down even more. **bleep**, the integrated nic isn’t even capable of transmitting the advertised speed because the cpu can’t keep up.

Wasn’t aware of the Play, after a quick look - it’s still too expensive. What I was getting at is they need shelf presense to get name recognition in this device range. If it’s over priced it won’t sell and it won’t get shelf space in a store. They need to make a decision what they want to do. There are alot of bad media players out there, there is opportunity to shine.

WD is very well known to me, was my first HDD in a PC. Stuck with them for over 20 years and have never had a problem. Whenever I have deviated to another brand for a sale or a quick purchase … I’ve been burned. Which is amusing in a way because I know some people have the same feelings about Seagate and will never buy a WD product. They have alot of brand loyalty with me. However, for non-tech people they may as well be ABC Corp of Kukamunga.

Why would a “supported” (SMC EZ connect N - SMCWUSB-N2) stop working for all Hub firmware updates since version 3? I’m (and al lot of other people) still stuck on version 2 and can’t get access to any of the new firmware functionality.

The issue has been raised since 2011…

Your problem is a prime example why wireless should be built-in to every WD media player.  If the wireless doesn’t work then after a firmware update, WD can not blow it off or blame the adapter, or ignore the problem!

I still don´t see “the big error” in this thread

Try to buy today the Netgear WNDA3100 USB adapter (listed as compatible) and you’ll see…

That sounds like a bummer.

Could you exchange your Netgear WNDA3100 USB adapter (listed as compatible) for someother, or ask friends?

Can WD remove Netgear WNDA3100 from the list of compatible devices and stop to lead consumers to mistakes? I’m not asking for anything more!


Blackbriar wrote:

Can WD remove Netgear WNDA3100 from the list of compatible devices and stop to lead consumers to mistakes? I’m not asking for anything more!

    • *I understand your problem but you have not got the same adaptor that WD tested which has no version number.  You tell us that you have V2. WD does make the point on the list that it may not work. If you had the one without a version / revision number then we must assume that it would work and therefore it is compatible.
      Netgear RangeMax Dual Band Wireless N USB adapter WNDA3100

      Not Listed*

       

      *If your Wireless adapter has a revision number on the box, the product may be a newer revision than what was validated and may not work.

      The tested device did not have a version number listed for the hardware on the box or the device. Wireless suppliers have a history of changing the actual hardware (the electronics design and chip), but keeping the model numbers the same and adding a revision level on the box and/or the device.

I just saw that Ichigo (staff member) has answered to your thread.

Did you tried to ask Netgear to produce Netgear WNDA3100 in its original version?