MiceAge on the latest news regarding MyMagic+ : Read it and weep.

englanddg

englanddg

One Little Spark...
C.FERNIE said:
It insides do not look that pretty! looks pretty basic to me!
Click to expand...
There's not much to these chips. Also, the electronics are cased in sealant (part of the waterproofing), which is why it looks so basic in that picture.

I don't know, cause that picture isn't high enough resolution, but I suspect that the passive RFID is the chip in the middle, and the "arms" going off it are antennae, and the smaller piece down the side is the long range emitter (possibly even connected to an antenna that is in the handle.

It's hard to tell without more / better pictures...but, that's my guess.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
englanddg said:
It's hard to tell without more / better pictures...but, that's my guess.
Click to expand...

That's only one side of it and mangled at that. Don't read too much into what you see there.

The 'arms' going off are the traces connecting to the other elements in the band (why its connecting to basically all the pins on the chip).
 
englanddg

englanddg

One Little Spark...
flynnibus said:
That's only one side of it and mangled at that. Don't read too much into what you see there.

The 'arms' going off are the traces connecting to the other elements in the band (why its connecting to basically all the pins on the chip).
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's really hard to tell anything from that picture. I couldn't tell if he unfolded it or not...but what you said would make sense.

If I had more than one first pair of bands, I'd get to work on one right now! But, I do sortof like them for sentimental purposes!
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Wonder if you could bake the unit in an oven to melt that plastic and expose the pcb.

The internals are probably not too far from a Sputnik tag.
http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?2964
500px-Sputnik.jpg
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Let me start by saying that I am so technically void that anything beyond a sundial is totally out of my grasp. That said, however, off the top of my head, I would think that the reason that they just issue new ones is that they have no way of knowing what has happened to the band since the last visit. Did the sealant dry or crack and water damage occurred, was it used as a play thing jostled and beat about or is the battery probably a limited time power source. When manufactured in bulk, as they are, it is probably more economical to just issue new ones then have to trouble shoot each return one to find out if it still works or not. Doesn't seem that complicated to understand to me, but keep in mind the sundial thing. :)
 
Zac Skellington

Zac Skellington

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
Let me start by saying that I am so technically void that anything beyond a sundial is totally out of my grasp. That said, however, off the top of my head, I would think that the reason that they just issue new ones is that they have no way of knowing what has happened to the band since the last visit. Did the sealant dry or crack and water damage occurred, was it used as a play thing jostled and beat about or is the battery probably a limited time power source. When manufactured in bulk, as they are, it is probably more economical to just issue new ones then have to trouble shoot each return one to find out if it still works or not. Doesn't seem that complicated to understand to me, but keep in mind the sundial thing. :)
Click to expand...

It may be more economical to just issue new bands. However, what about the personalization (your name), those fancy Incredibles boxes, and shipping costs? What happened to Disney trying to be Green?
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Zac Skellington said:
It may be more economical to just issue new bands. However, what about the personalization (your name), those fancy Incredibles boxes, and shipping costs? What happened to Disney trying to be Green?
Click to expand...
They still are. Dollars are green too. Hey, maybe that is where the profit is going to come from. That's the only one that we have no control over. Hmmmm!
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
So I'm heading to WDW in January and was looking to link my sister to the Dining Reservations. We both have accounts, but she has not added the rest of her family members to her account. I can't simply add her to the dining reservation, I need to make sure everyone else is accounted for as well. We have other people joining us that don't have accounts. Yes, I could create usernames for people under me, but that's annoying as well.

To clarify, this is what I'm doing. I have a reservation for 10. I want to modify the guests going to the reservation. Right now the reservation shows up as myself and 9 guests. I can add my sister as 1 of the 9 guests on the "modify guests" page, but it won't accept just the addition of her. I need to add the other 8 guests in order for it to be retained. The annoyance here is that you're not required to have all members of the party identified, and the only reason to link it is so that people that are "controlling" the vacation can see it on the app. It's designed in such a way that it won't let you do that.

I decided to take this up with Disney, and in just over 20 minutes I was fortunate enough to get a person on the line. The person saw the issue and agreed with me that the current set up isn't beneficial. There were no real workarounds should of creating a bunch of dummy names to fill out the rest of the names.
I also love the last question of their surveys.
Which of the following best describes your call experience today?
Efficient
Magical
Exciting
Informative
None of these
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1 said:
So I'm heading to WDW in January and was looking to link my sister to the Dining Reservations. We both have accounts, but she has not added the rest of her family members to her account. I can't simply add her to the dining reservation, I need to make sure everyone else is accounted for as well. We have other people joining us that don't have accounts. Yes, I could create usernames for people under me, but that's annoying as well.

To clarify, this is what I'm doing. I have a reservation for 10. I want to modify the guests going to the reservation. Right now the reservation shows up as myself and 9 guests. I can add my sister as 1 of the 9 guests on the "modify guests" page, but it won't accept just the addition of her. I need to add the other 8 guests in order for it to be retained. The annoyance here is that you're not required to have all members of the party identified, and the only reason to link it is so that people that are "controlling" the vacation can see it on the app. It's designed in such a way that it won't let you do that.

I decided to take this up with Disney, and in just over 20 minutes I was fortunate enough to get a person on the line. The person saw the issue and agreed with me that the current set up isn't beneficial. There were no real workarounds should of creating a bunch of dummy names to fill out the rest of the names.
I also love the last question of their surveys.
Which of the following best describes your call experience today?
Efficient
Magical
Exciting
Informative
None of these
Click to expand...

Do you HAVE to link your dining reservations? Is there a good reason to other than testing their system?
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1 said:
No, you don't have to link the dining reservations. The reason to do it is so that they show up on someone else's profile.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that this particular problem had been resolved. I have not heard anyone complain about it anymore and, as we all know, there will be many ready to pounce on that whenever they can. If it is no longer happening, we need to let it die.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom