prismatics

danielchow said:

This was probably why Apple is discontinuing their current hardware because it’d be a waste of resources to keep manufacturing the Airports when a new hardware standard is going to come out (?)

WPA3 can be easily implemented in todays WPA2 compatible systems since it is based on the same hardware acceleration for the cryptography happening under the hood.

The comment section shows that the author of the article has not made the cause for the issue clear enough.

Processors today use PCIe to connect everything from Storage controllers, high speed I/O like USB, Thunderbolt and other stuff including SD-Card readers and Graphic Cards (or discrete GPU in case of macbook). And on each processor model there is only a specific number of these lanes available. This means that since Apple has to rely on Intel on this issue, they can't simply change this behavior by putting in a second controller, it's simply not possible because there is no dual core i7 Chip with enough lanes. Thats why Apple has chosen to use the PCH-supplied PCIe-Lanes.

PCH is an additional chip (which is integrated directly in the processor package on some models) which connects to the processor via a seperate high speed bus and it gives you many things included USB, keyboard support, audio and storage interface and additional (about half speed) PCIe-Lanes in one single chip. What I think is the case is that Apple is using these lanes because the processor itself does not supply enough PCIe-lanes.

So obviously, there is nothing to be added from a non-technical viewpoint, because it's not about power consumption or other marketing decisions, it's simply because Intel does not make the chips Apple needs for four Thunderbolt 3 full speed capable ports.

sergioz said:

I don’t think 5G will be super popular with cellphones in the beginning. As we develop new experiences and tech, demand will rise, but right now I don’t see why you would need access to 1 gigabit connection in you pocket? Plus as tricky 5G as a technology, even when it becomes widely available, it’ll be like the icing on the cake to have it.

The thing is, and what will make you understand why this matters is, that the gigabit is not for every individual device, but multiples of it (e.g. 4 or 8) are shared between many, many more subscribers. As data plans become increasingly more aware of increased media consumption (e.g. basic stuff as browsing, watching videos or streaming music), so do providers noticing that the higher data allowances result in increasing traffic in the existing mobile infrastructure.

The headroom that 4G technologies gave to 3G is exhausted, mobile broadband networks now face increasing cell congestion where there was plenty of capacity 3 or 4 years ago.

Continuing in existing cell topologies is no longer feasable, as in bigger cells, the ratio of available frequency spectrum (conclusively the available data rate) against subscriber count is rapidly going against unmaintainability of services in a useful manner and we are approaching a barrier which defines the maximum information density one can achieve with given parameters of a cell in traditional 4G.

5G is taking a different approach. Rather than creating big cells that have many clients share the same frequency spectrum like 4G and older technologies did, the concept of 5G is to create much, much smaller cells which have a much smaller range.

The obvious disadvantage is, that it's necessary to create more cells and it is much harder to coordinate this big amount of cells. Clients need to switch cells much more often and always maintain multiple connections to multiple cells nearby, which is its own challenge when it comes to energy consumption and the real-time requirements for the 5G backbone as all cells must cooperate.

But, as you might have understood from the explanation, the advantage of this approach is, that every cell can use the frequency spectrum it uses to transmit data in its much reduced range much more effectively, since less subscribers are active in each cell, providing much lower latency, much, much higher data rates as well as better quality of service to each customer.

The thing is, and many will be upset about this is, that the core benefits of 5G technology only apply to use-cases (or environments) where high cell congestion is an issue (e.g. airports, universities, cities, indoor areas). In areas outside of high population people will not see much change.

I hope I could address your concerns accurately.

Scot1 said:

Maybe Apple needs to come up with an iOS that once hacked, puts a Trojan horse back into the hackers network

Whatever

Fatman said:

The reality: Steam can’t sell these things even to the larger installed Windows base. They need to cut costs because they are bleeding money. As I’ve said in past posts, no one wants these big bulky headsets! On a related topic - Apple NEEDS to embrace and natively SUPPORT Vulkan on MacOS and iOS. It can co-exist with METAL and will give developers another option for app development.

Lol no. Apple Management I believe or how it looks to me is rotten enough to appropriate the arrogance that has lead intel to fail like they are right now, of course financially not but the technology. At least the general purpose computing part of Apple.

Imagine the Apple Stores not opening and you can't repair your shit

If the US thinks about freedom this way, why don't people have freedom to do what they want with their devices.

Well it obviously is inferior in a way that MU-MIMO and beamforming works much better with 3x3 or 4x4 compared to the 2x2 since there are one (or two in 4x4) more dimensions in which to solve the optimisation problem to maximise the spectral power at the receiver in uplink direction to the access point, it's not just a matter of parallel channels but a matter of receive / transmit power and certain tricks you can do with 4x4 that you can't do with 2x2 (or at least in a limited way) to improve signal quality (and therefor range, speed and efficiency). 4x4 is much, much more than 2x2 + 2x2. BTW, that's a lot of what 5G (or 5G in its higher bands of mm-wave with its massive antenna contraptions) is all about.

But of course, it's simpler to advertise not the other advantages of having more antennae but the theoretical PHY transmission rate for the layman.

So it is not 'inferior' but really inferior in what the word implies. Had I seen this I would have second thoughts buying an XR, but that's probably just my perspective as an electrical engineer / developer.

Thanks for the article, we don't get to see such interesting things (and the reporting around these things) in Europe ^^

robin huber said:

Yes, because Apple knows nothing about long term service and support.