Apple's AirPort grabs 10.6% share of 802.11N WiFi market

[AppleInsider]

While Apple's share of the entire US PC market hovers between 6% and 8% depending on the source, its share of the 802.11n WiFi base station market is even higher.

Stephen Baker, an analyst for market research firm NPD Group, told AppleInsider that Apple took 10.6% of the market in unit volume last month. He added that the company's revenue and profit share on sales of the routers are even higher.

Last year, Apple noted on its website that the AirPort Extreme was ranked by NPD as the top selling 802.11n router. While Apple no longer advertises that, Baker said that the AirPort Extreme has been the top selling 802.11n router for five of the last nine months.

Last week, the analyst told Macworld that the AirPort Extreme lead US retail sales as the top selling router in April, while the new Time Capsule topped sales as the most popular Network Attached Storage device. Despite their overlapping functionality, it was reported that strong sales of Time Capsule were augmenting sales of the AirPort Extreme base station rather than cannibalizing them.

Combined with sales of the compact AirPort Express, which was upgraded to support the faster 802.11n standard in March, Apple took fourth place in overall 802.11n base station sales, behind Cisco's Linksys brand, D-Link, and Netgear.

Apple markets its AirPort base station line to users of both Macs and Windows, which allows it to sell the product beyond its own user base, following the same cross platform strategy of the iPod, iTunes, QuickTime, and the iPhone. Linksys, D-Link, and Netgear also advertise Mac compatibility, but their products do not always deliver flawless support for Safari on the Mac. That helps give Apple a home field advantage in selling to Mac users.

Additionally, Apple's retail and online stores are selling AirPort base stations to new Mac users without any competition. "This stuff is just flying off the shelf in the Apple stores," Baker told Macworld. "They don’t get nearly enough credit for the value proposition that the stores bring."

On the Windows PC side, Apple still faces formidable competition. Baker told AppleInsider that Linksys "has recently delivered a number of new SKUs in the 802.11n segment that have done very well driving their volume." Several years ago, Linksys began using Linux-based software in its wireless routers, a move that compelled it to publicly release its source code under the GPL. That availability enabled Linux users to add previously restricted, high end router software features to low cost Linksys base stations, as well allowing Linksys' competitors to use its router software to compete against it with their own hardware. Linksys has since moved to using the proprietary VxWorks kernel in its flagship router products.

Apple's AirPort line also uses proprietary software, in addition to custom Mac and Windows client software for configuration rather than using a webpage interface as most base stations do. That may limit the appeal of its AirPort line among some Windows users, but it also allows Apple to install support for unique features that differentiate the AirPort line, including Bonjour automatic printer sharing and AirPort shared disk discovery as well as AirTunes audio streaming support from iTunes to an AirPort Express or Apple TV.

Brisk base station sales suggest that Apple's "fourth leg" behind its Mac, iPod and iTunes business, and the iPhone is not the emerging Apple TV but rather AirPort, a business segment that has performed well, albeit almost invisibly, since its introduction back in 1999, two years before the iPod.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[digitalclips]

I must say my AE has proved to be very reliable. Now also running TM wirelessly and a USB printer for a network of 7 computers including a PC.

[Frohike]

I think the high value is more about previous Intel Mac buyers with 802.11n hardware upgrading their networks rather than it particularly penetrating into Windows networks.

For instance, I have both an 802.11n capable Mac Pro and MacBook Pro that were bought some time ago and I have since upgraded two Airport base stations (Extreme and Express) to the new 11n models to complement my Gigabit network. Having to use 11g against a high-speed wired network is painful and 11n is not so much. Plus, selling, or reusing, the older Airport 11g hardware is easy given the huge installed base of 11g capable hardware.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

The fourth leg would be stronger if they merged AppleTV+Airport+TimeCapsule into a single product.
The AppleTV already has WiFi and a hard disk.

[Frohike]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

The fourth leg would be stronger if they merged AppleTV+Airport+TimeCapsule into a single product.
The AppleTV already has WiFi and a hard disk.

While that's true, the AppleTV does already have wireless functionality you have to remember that it would not function well with NAS/Time Machine included. Its small 40GB drive already has to deal with audio and video and many people's libraries surpasses that. Additionally, the AppleTV uses 2.5" drives so potential storage is still limited compared to the 3.5" drives used in Time Capsule.

However, I do agree with you that base station functionality probably should have been added to it. If that were the case I probably would have gone with an AppleTV rather than an Airport Express unit as I need to extend my range from the position it would have been in.

[solsun]

Originally Posted by Frohike

While that's true, the AppleTV does already have wireless functionality you have to remember that it would not function well with NAS/Time Machine included. Its small 40GB drive already has to deal with audio and video and many people's libraries surpasses that. Additionally, the AppleTV uses 2.5" drives so potential storage is still limited compared to the 3.5" drives used in Time Capsule.

However, I do agree with you that base station functionality probably should have been added to it. If that were the case I probably would have gone with an AppleTV rather than an Airport Express unit as I need to extend my range from the position it would have been in.

Not to mention that location could be a problem for many users... Apple TV needs to be in the living room next to your TV and that's not the ideal place to keep your router.. Particularly if you have a printer attached via USB for the network.

[ajmas]

It should also be noted that one thing going for Airport Extreme is that it is the only Broadband router, generally destined for the home market, that supports IPv6 out of the box.

[melgross]

I've long said that Apple should get into networking more aggressively, and to publicize it much better.

These are serious areas. People didn't use to network, but with many families having more than one computer, and network enabled printers, it's become mainstream.

Macs were the first consumer computers to be networked, with Localtalk, way back when. MS only began that move in the 1991 timeframe. Apple failed to use that advantage, even as they added Ethernet to their machines, by stubbornly remaining dependent on the hub/switch/router manufacturers. I was often frustrated by that.

I would like to see models with more ports built-in at a GHz speed. I know of a number of Mac workgroups within companies who might very well switch to the Apple product if given the chance.

I would also like to see Apple come out with both high speed DSL and cable modem models. Right now, we must accept what those companies offer us, as adding another router to the router that's part of the "internet gateway" package is impossible for most, and difficult for the rest. I believe that if Apple offered these models, companies would supply them to their customers. That's a market of tens of millions here in the US alone. Apple could pick up a fair part of that.

[Carniphage]

I am quite surprised about this because Apple's wireless networking stuff has been a "Charlie Foxtrot" of late.

The 10.5.2 Leopard update, broke wide-channel support for a lot of Macs. The forums are full of users who endured spontaneous connection drops, until we discovered that wide-channel was the problem.

The Airport Extreme's latest firmware update 7.3.1 breaks the most popular VPN software.

And certainly in Europe, Apple's Airport Extreme is really badly suited to the market. All other 802.11n products come with integrated ADSL modems. Which means no one sells suitable stand-alone ADSL modems. I found only one, and it was 60UKP ($120 )!

C.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

The fourth leg would be stronger if they merged AppleTV+Airport+TimeCapsule into a single product.
The AppleTV already has WiFi and a hard disk.

Originally Posted by Frohike

However, I do agree with you that base station functionality probably should have been added to it. If that were the case I probably would have gone with an AppleTV rather than an Airport Express unit as I need to extend my range from the position it would have been in.

Not a good idea. They have specific functions for a reason. Neither device is powerful enough to do both of it's core functions at once. First of all, You are expecting that the internet connection to be where the TV is and the TV is the best place to set up the wireless router and centrally accessed printer for the entire location. Secondly, having a single device that would have to beefed up to allow the simultaneous downloading of HD AppleTV media, the viewing of said media, the TM backup from other devices, the constant internet connection and packet transfer to multiple computers and potential file and print access would make any such device cost prohibitive. Having separate devices makes sense.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Carniphage

I am quite surprised about this because Apple's wireless networking stuff has been a "Charlie Foxtrot" of late.

The 10.5.2 Leopard update, broke wide-channel support for a lot of Macs. The forums are full of users who endured spontaneous connection drops, until we discovered that wide-channel was the problem.

The Airport Extreme's latest firmware update 7.3.1 breaks the most popular VPN software.

And certainly in Europe, Apple's Airport Extreme is really badly suited to the market. All other 802.11n products come with integrated ADSL modems. Which means no one sells suitable stand-alone ADSL modems. I found only one, and it was 60UKP ($120 )!

C.

I haven't had any problems, but the lack of a modem in some models is something I advocated in my post. Apple is very resistant to some concepts. They just don't want to expand into some businesses, even when it would be cheap and easy for them to do so.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

The fourth leg would be stronger if they merged AppleTV+Airport+TimeCapsule into a single product.
The AppleTV already has WiFi and a hard disk.

Actually, I think the AppleTV and/or Airport Express's ability to stream/buy/view media should just be integrated into the iPod itself as a software upgrade. Who needs ANOTHER device with a hard disk, wireless, and video/audio out? Just attach a dock to your sound/video system and stream it through your iPod Touch/iPhone when plugged in.

I'd really like to stream stuff through my iTouch and hook it up to an audio system. Perhaps the SDK will allow someone to write that...

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by melgross

Apple failed to use that advantage, even as they added Ethernet to their machines

Speaking of, Bob Metcalfe had a breakthrough idea 35 years ago today.

• http://www.wired.com/science/discove...ayintech_0522#

I would also like to see Apple come out with both high speed DSL and cable modem models. Right now, we must accept what those companies offer us, as adding another router to the router that's part of the "internet gateway" package is impossible for most, and difficult for the rest. I believe that if Apple offered these models, companies would supply them to their customers. That's a market of tens of millions here in the US alone. Apple could pick up a fair part of that.

Removing a device does make trouble shooting easier but the the current broadband modems are pretty simple and usually free. This seems like it would add cost to the device (though minimal) and force people to use one method over another because they purchased a certain type modem. Would it be easy to have a single device to function on both cable and ADSL networks? Are there any performance benefits of having an all-in-one device?

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by Frohike

While that's true, the AppleTV does already have wireless functionality you have to remember that it would not function well with NAS/Time Machine included. Its small 40GB drive already has to deal with audio and video and many people's libraries surpasses that. Additionally, the AppleTV uses 2.5" drives so potential storage is still limited compared to the 3.5" drives used in Time Capsule.

However, I do agree with you that base station functionality probably should have been added to it. If that were the case I probably would have gone with an AppleTV rather than an Airport Express unit as I need to extend my range from the position it would have been in.

AppleTV really should have been designed with a 3.5" drive. Maybe in the next revision? I won't hold my breath.

If AppleTV came in 500GB and 1TB sizes and could be used as Time Capsules, they would be flying off the shelf. Time Machine could suspend backups while the AppleTV is in heavy use and then resume when you are finished using it.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Removing a device does make trouble shooting easier but the the current broadband modems are pretty simple and usually free. This seems like it would add cost to the device (though minimal) and force people to use one method over another because they purchased a certain type modem. Would it be easy to have a single device to function on both cable and ADSL networks? Are there any performance benefits of having an all-in-one device?

The current broadband modems are usually not modems alone, but modems with a router. That's why they are called Internet Gateways. They are the whole thing together. It's also why it's difficult to add Apple's product to the mix. You shouldn't add another router. You would have to disable the Apple products router function, and only use it as a switch, or wireless add-on.

If Apple offered an Internet Gateway for the DSL and cable markets, those companies could offer them to their customers. I'm not talking about SELLING them to their customers, but offering them for free as they do now with the various products available. It's the companies that buy them.

Cable modems and DSL modems are different beasts.

That's a big market, and a steady one.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

AppleTV really should have been designed with a 3.5" drive. Maybe in the next revision? I won't hold my breath.

If AppleTV came in 500GB and 1TB sizes and could be used as Time Capsules, they would be flying off the shelf. Time Machine could suspend backups while the AppleTV is in heavy use and then resume when you are finished using it.

There is one 500 GB 2.5" drive available, and there will be more. I'm sure that larger drives will become available before too long. You can upgrade your drive yourself,if you have some technical ability. There are ways to use the USB port as well, though I don't remember if it is Fast, or just 1.1.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by melgross

The current broadband modems are usually not modems alone, but modems with a router. That's why they are called Internet Gateways. They are the whole thing together. It's also why it's difficult to add Apple's product to the mix. You shouldn't add another router. You would have to disable the Apple products router function, and only use it as a switch, or wireless add-on.

If Apple offered an Internet Gateway for the DSL and cable markets, those companies could offer them to their customers. I'm not talking about SELLING them to their customers, but offering them for free as they do now with the various products available. It's the companies that buy them.

Cable modems and DSL modems are different beasts.

That's a big market, and a steady one.

Correct and they are typically 4 port 10/100 BaseT.

Example: http://www.zoom.com/products/adsl_overview.html#5590

Solid Product, works flawlessly with Linux and OS X. It's still hosed by being a 4 port 10/100 BaseT router even if it's got the lastest ADSL2+ offering.

[reidconti]

Quite frankly, this blows my mind. I don't know anyone who owns one. Everyone I know uses cheapo Linksys and Netgear routers for their Macs, including myself. I once had an Airport Base Station (snow, not graphite, so the second model they made) and it worked okay, but wasn't worth the price premium. Some of the cheapo ones have occasionally had problems where they need to be restarted on a regular basis, so you toss it in the trash and buy a different $50 model that'll actually work well.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by reidconti

Quite frankly, this blows my mind. I don't know anyone who owns one. Everyone I know uses cheapo Linksys and Netgear routers for their Macs, including myself. I once had an Airport Base Station (snow, not graphite, so the second model they made) and it worked okay, but wasn't worth the price premium. Some of the cheapo ones have occasionally had problems where they need to be restarted on a regular basis, so you toss it in the trash and buy a different $50 model that'll actually work well.

The extra is worth it to me for .11n with USB for printer and the ability to attach a wireless hard drive for remote back ups. I have several Linksys and Netgear models lying around but they are collecting dust since I got an AE. Plus it is seamless with Apple TV, I am not sure if anything else would work, not that I have tried that to be honest.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

The extra is worth it to me for .11n with USB for printer and the ability to attach a wireless hard drive for remote back ups. I have several Linksys and Netgear models lying around but they are collecting dust since I got an AE. Plus it is seamless with Apple TV, I am not sure if anything else would work, not that I have tried that to be honest.

When it came out it was a good price for an 802.11n router. The 802.11g was definitely pricey. But as you state, having a built in network print server and the ability to add external storage is huge benefit.

The Time Capsule is also competitively priced for what you get.

[ajmas]

While the Airport Extreme might appear to be expensive, the price is not that out of whack when compared to other routers that support Gigabit ethernet.

[Dick Applebaum]

Originally Posted by melgross

Macs were the first consumer computers to be networked, with Localtalk, way back when. MS only began that move in the 1991 timeframe. Apple failed to use that advantage, even as they added Ethernet to their machines, by stubbornly remaining dependent on the hub/switch/router manufacturers. I was often frustrated by that.

Just a minor point: The first computer network was installed in June 1980 at Saratoga High School, Saratoga, CA. The network consisted of 7 Apple][ computers sharing a 5 MB (that's right 5 megabyte) hard drive using a Corvus Network. This was years before LocalTalk on the Mac.

The Corvus system was also able to network computers of different manufacturers on a single network-- e.g., Apple][, Apple///, TRS80, S100 bus machines like Northstar, and IBM/PC

[Carniphage]

Originally Posted by ajmas

While the Airport Extreme might appear to be expensive, the price is not that out of whack when compared to other routers that support Gigabit ethernet.

The Apple advantage is providing good or great hardware, with a best-in-class user experience.
I think they could do better with networking.

Networking is really hard for the average consumer. Even grizzled industry veterans are caught out by firewalls, port-forwarding, DNS server addresses and NAT.

Imagine a network-designer application, which allowed users to layout and configure a network with drag and drop ease. It could really help Apple shift more product especially if ran on PC.

C.

[guinness]

Originally Posted by reidconti

Quite frankly, this blows my mind. I don't know anyone who owns one. Everyone I know uses cheapo Linksys and Netgear routers for their Macs, including myself. I once had an Airport Base Station (snow, not graphite, so the second model they made) and it worked okay, but wasn't worth the price premium. Some of the cheapo ones have occasionally had problems where they need to be restarted on a regular basis, so you toss it in the trash and buy a different $50 model that'll actually work well.

Pretty much my take, not to mention 802.11N still hasn't been finalized.

I already have a network printer at home, and if I wanted to add a HD, I would probably go with the HP Media Vault mv2120 NAS server, which is similar to their WHS device, but runs Linux, and costs half as much.

Setting up routers just isn't that hard, Netgear has a great walk through for newbies, and it can automatically update itself when you log into it. On the downside, I've read that Netgear support is useless.

I use Linksys 802.11b (setup as an AP) and a Netgear Draft N routers, and they haven't given me any problems. Comcast on the other hand...

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by guinness

Pretty much my take, not to mention 802.11N still hasn't been finalized.

I already have a network printer at home, and if I wanted to add a HD, I would probably go with the HP Media Vault mv2120 NAS server, which is similar to their WHS device, but runs Linux, and costs half as much.

Setting up routers just isn't that hard, Netgear has a great walk through for newbies, and it can automatically update itself when you log into it. On the downside, I've read that Netgear support is useless.

I use Linksys 802.11b (setup as an AP) and a Netgear Draft N routers, and they haven't given me any problems. Comcast on the other hand...

If all you need it an 802.11b/g router then the choices available for $50 are fine. Over the years the premium of the AEBS has dwindled. Now it's very competitive if you are looking for an 802.11n device with Gigabit ethernet, a built in file and print serving.

[obiwan]

Originally Posted by reidconti

Quite frankly, this blows my mind. I don't know anyone who owns one. Everyone I know uses cheapo Linksys and Netgear routers for their Macs, including myself.

I dont know anyone who owns an 802.11 router at all. Most people use integrated DSL modems/802 routers , I guess. At least here in Germany you get them for free from your DSL provider when you subscribe to service.

The article does not state the volume of the router market , compared to the PC market, which is pretty small, I think.

So the 10% vs. 6% probably just means that slighty more Mac users buy standalone 802 routers, than Windows users do.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by obiwan

I dont know anyone who owns an 802.11 router at all. Most people use integrated DSL modems/802 routers , I guess. At least here in Germany you get them for free from your DSL provider when you subscribe to service.

The article does not state the volume of the router market , compared to the PC market, which is pretty small, I think.

So the 10% vs. 6% probably just means that slighty more Mac users buy standalone 802 routers, than Windows users do.

I got one as part of my FiOS package, but I disable its wireless and use my Apple Airport base station. Why? Well, I already had it around and it's really nice to configure it from the Mac desktop. It also serves my USB printer. Nothing ever goes wrong with it and it just works... something that's rarely true of the DLink or NetGear

[obiwan]

Originally Posted by Booga

I got one as part of my FiOS package, but I disable its wireless and use my Apple Airport base station. Why? Well, I already had it around and it's really nice to configure it from the Mac desktop. It also serves my USB printer. Nothing ever goes wrong with it and it just works... something that's rarely true of the DLink or NetGear

Maybe. I can remember setting up a DLink about 2 years ago, which was really a painful process.
In additon, for a Mac user it is probably more tempting to use Apples WiFi equipment, for example to employ AirTunes.
But so far I am pretty happy with the AVM FritzBox supplied by my DSL provider. Works flawlessly with my Mac.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Just a minor point: The first computer network was installed in June 1980 at Saratoga High School, Saratoga, CA. The network consisted of 7 Apple][ computers sharing a 5 MB (that's right 5 megabyte) hard drive using a Corvus Network. This was years before LocalTalk on the Mac.

The Corvus system was also able to network computers of different manufacturers on a single network-- e.g., Apple][, Apple///, TRS80, S100 bus machines like Northstar, and IBM/PC

While I don't know anything about that Saratoga network, I do remember networking available at that time. Until the Mac came along it was a rare beastie indeed. After the Mac arrived, they became networked quickly. By the late '80's, it was estimated that more Macs were networked around the world than all other computer systems put together.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Carniphage

The Apple advantage is providing good or great hardware, with a best-in-class user experience.
I think they could do better with networking.

Networking is really hard for the average consumer. Even grizzled industry veterans are caught out by firewalls, port-forwarding, DNS server addresses and NAT.

Imagine a network-designer application, which allowed users to layout and configure a network with drag and drop ease. It could really help Apple shift more product especially if ran on PC.

C.

Networking on a Mac is still pretty easy.

All most people have to do is to add a router, and hook up. DHCP is normally already on. They then just have to go to the network from the drop down "Go" menu, and select the machine. After that, they can either just use the drop boxes, or supply a name and password. Pretty simple. There's rarely any need need to do anything further.

On my home network, I just use the names and passwords of my family to access their machines. They have privileges on mine as well.

It's only when you have special needs that you have to go deeper into it, and then, you already know more than the average person.

[Dick Applebaum]

Originally Posted by melgross

While I don't know anything about that Saratoga network, I do remember networking available at that time. Until the Mac came along it was a rare beastie indeed. After the Mac arrived, they became networked quickly. By the late '80's, it was estimated that more Macs were networked around the world than all other computer systems put together.

Mmm... I don't necessarily agree with your data. Do you have a source?

Even if your figures are accurate, this does not necessarily mean that these were "AppleTalk" networks. Corvus Ominet was a twisted-pair 1 Mbps network as opposed to AppleTalk special (expensive) shielded cable 230.4 Kbps. Not only that, the AppleTalk protocols were so complex and inefficient that actual performance was about 10% of Omninet.

My company, Computer Plus, sold both. But for networks of any length or size we sold Omninet. We sold and installed thousands of Omninet networks (Mac, Mixed, and other). Our clients included EMI-Thorne, Daimler-Benz, Piper-Jaffery brokers Minneapolis, US Army Command and Control College Ft. Levenworth, KS, lots of schools, 2 networks at the IBM San Jose, CA. plant., and even 11 networks at Apple Headquarters in Cupertino (Including the Public Relations Department).

So, at least to us, networking before/after the Mac was not a rare beastie!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Mmm... I don't necessarily agree with your data. Do you have a source?

Even if your figures are accurate, this does not necessarily mean that these were "AppleTalk" networks. Corvus Ominet was a twisted-pair 1 Mbps network as opposed to AppleTalk special (expensive) shielded cable 230.4 Kbps. Not only that, the AppleTalk protocols were so complex and inefficient that actual performance was about 10% of Omninet.

My company, Computer Plus, sold both. But for networks of any length or size we sold Omninet. We sold and installed thousands of Omninet networks (Mac, Mixed, and other). Our clients included EMI-Thorne, Daimler-Benz, Piper-Jaffery brokers Minneapolis, US Army Command and Control College Ft. Levenworth, KS, lots of schools, 2 networks at the IBM San Jose, CA. plant., and even 11 networks at Apple Headquarters in Cupertino (Including the Public Relations Department).

So, at least to us, networking before/after the Mac was not a rare beastie!

There were many thousands of networked computers out there other than Mac localtalk, to be sure. But Localtalk still had far more computers wireed up than anything else, hundreds of thousands, which for the time, dwarfed anything else.

IBM had Token Ring, and there were others as well.

256 Kbs was by far, the fastest networking most people saw. I'm not talking about comparing those speeds to that for the military, or large business, or university, installations

We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users. for that, other than for Mac LocalTalk networks, few users saw, heard of, or used networks for themselves until MS introduced it with Windows 3.1.1. That was around 1992-3.

I haven't looked these numbers up now, because I'm going by articles in Byte, and other magazines that wrote about at the time. so this is knowledge from back then that I'm recalling. I suppose it's around somewhere on the net.

[Dick Applebaum]

Originally Posted by melgross

There were many thousands of networked computers out there other than Mac localtalk, to be sure. But Localtalk still had far more computers wireed up than anything else, hundreds of thousands, which for the time, dwarfed anything else.

IBM had Token Ring, and there were others as well.

256 Kbs was by far, the fastest networking most people saw. I'm not talking about comparing those speeds to that for the military, or large business, or university, installations

We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users. for that, other than for Mac LocalTalk networks, few users saw, heard of, or used networks for themselves until MS introduced it with Windows 3.1.1. That was around 1992-3.

I haven't looked these numbers up now, because I'm going by articles in Byte, and other magazines that wrote about at the time. so this is knowledge from back then that I'm recalling. I suppose it's around somewhere on the net.

Ahh... You can't (or won't) back up your assertions. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in the trade-mags!

You say "we're talking about personal computers, here and their personal users". I assume that means individually-owned and used at home-- as opposed to those provided at the workplace.*

If so, just how many homes of that era had more than 1 computer? More than 1, $2,500 Mac? Networked using LocalTalk? For what purpose? To connect to that $7,000 LaserWriter in the closet? In 1980 Dollars?

C'mon, you can't believe that makes sense!

*If you mean personal computers provided at the workplace... these were not provided for personal use, rather for the benefit of the enterprise. Now, you are talking about my area of expertise and experience and AppleTalk was Not the network of choice for networks over 3-4 computers-- AppleTalk just didn't bring enough to the table-- Ease of software installation, sure, because it was built into the Mac. But, physical cable installation, speed, flexibility, device support (HDD, Printers, Backup, etc), application and file sharing-- not even close!

I was at the Apple meeting at Flint Center when SJ introduced AppleTalk... Nice preso, but I think most of the people there new it was a non-starter (especially the Apple people).

A highly-respected Apple technician (to be unnamed) once described AppleTalk protocol to me, something like this:

Mac A: Hey, Mac B,
Mac B: Ya, Mac A?
Mac A: Mac B, I want to send you some data.
Mac B: OK, Mac A, Let me know when you're ready to send:
Mac C: Hey, who is out there?
Mac A: I'm here.
Mac B: I'm here too!
Mac A: Mac B, can you receive the data?
Mac B: Yes I can, how big is the data?
Mac A: 1KB in 2 512KB packets.
Mac B: OK, Let me know when You are ready to send the first packet!
Mac A: Will Do!
Mac D: Hi Guys! Who's out there?
Mac A: I'm here.
Mac B: I'm here too!
Mac C: I'm here too!
*
*
*
Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 1st packet
Mac B: Yes, Mac A, I'm ready.
Mac A: OK Mac B, here comes the data on the next message.
Mac B: OK Mac A, ready?
Mac A: Mac B, Here's that 1st data packet
Mac B: Mac A, Whew, got it OK!
Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 2nd packet
*
*
*
As opposed to a more efficient network protocol(oversimplified):

Mac A: Mac B, I have 2 512K packets to send to you... let me know when you are ready
Mac B: Mac A, I'm ready
Mac A: Mac B here's the 1st 512K packet
Mac B: Mac A, Got it, ready for the second packet.

God forbid there were an error...

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Ahh... You can't (or won't) back up your assertions. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in the trade-mags!

You say "we're talking about personal computers, here and their personal users". I assume that means individually-owned and used at home-- as opposed to those provided at the workplace.*

If so, just how many homes of that era had more than 1 computer? More than 1, $2,500 Mac? Networked using LocalTalk? For what purpose? To connect to that $7,000 LaserWriter in the closet? In 1980 Dollars?

C'mon, you can't believe that makes sense!

*If you mean personal computers provided at the workplace... these were not provided for personal use, rather for the benefit of the enterprise. Now, you are talking about my area of expertise and experience and AppleTalk was Not the network of choice for networks over 3-4 computers-- AppleTalk just didn't bring enough to the table-- Ease of software installation, sure, because it was built into the Mac. But, physical cable installation, speed, flexibility, device support (HDD, Printers, Backup, etc), application and file sharing-- not even close!

I was at the Apple meeting at Flint Center when SJ introduced AppleTalk... Nice preso, but I think most of the people there new it was a non-starter (especially the Apple people).

A highly-respected Apple technician (to be unnamed) once described AppleTalk protocol to me, something like this:

Mac A: Hey, Mac B,
Mac B: Ya, Mac A?
Mac A: Mac B, I want to send you some data.
Mac B: OK, Mac A, Let me know when you're ready to send:
Mac C: Hey, who is out there?
Mac A: I'm here.
Mac B: I'm here too!
Mac A: Mac B, can you receive the data?
Mac B: Yes I can, how big is the data?
Mac A: 1KB in 2 512KB packets.
Mac B: OK, Let me know when You are ready to send the first packet!
Mac A: Will Do!
Mac D: Hi Guys! Who's out there?
Mac A: I'm here.
Mac B: I'm here too!
Mac C: I'm here too!
*
*
*
Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 1st packet
Mac B: Yes, Mac A, I'm ready.
Mac A: OK Mac B, here comes the data on the next message.
Mac B: OK Mac A, ready?
Mac A: Mac B, Here's that 1st data packet
Mac B: Mac A, Whew, got it OK!
Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 2nd packet
*
*
*
As opposed to a more efficient network protocol(oversimplified):

Mac A: Mac B, I have 2 512K packets to send to you... let me know when you are ready
Mac B: Mac A, I'm ready
Mac A: Mac B here's the 1st 512K packet
Mac B: Mac A, Got it, ready for the second packet.

God forbid there were an error...

You haven't backed yours up either. just your own personal experiences.

And your technical explanations, well, wow!

In a quote from one older history of networking (the URL follows):

Introduced more than a decade ago as Apple's first contribution to the field of networked computing, AppleTalk was designed using the same "computing for the masses" philosophy that had been so completely successful (at least initially) for their Macintosh line of computer systems. It was easy to implement, featured relatively simple administrative requirements, and in general caused fewer headaches for network administrators than did the other network protocols popular at the time. Fortunately, the designers at Apple chose to conform to the OSI open-standards model, which has made it much easier to administer, troubleshoot, and to use networks running AppleTalk as their primary protocol.

http://docs.rinet.ru/NeHi/ch25/ch25.htm

So, no, it wasn't a problem, or unreliable.

[Dick Applebaum]

Originally Posted by melgross

You haven't backed yours up either. just your own personal experiences.

And your technical explanations, well, wow!

In a quote from one older history of networking (the URL follows):



http://docs.rinet.ru/NeHi/ch25/ch25.htm

So, no, it wasn't a problem, or unreliable.

I never said it was a problem or unreliable... just slow, expensive and limited.

OK, earlier you said:

Originally Posted by melgross

There were many thousands of networked computers out there other than Mac localtalk, to be sure. But Localtalk still had far more computers wireed up than anything else, hundreds of thousands, which for the time, dwarfed anything else.

While the link you provided is interesting, it provides no numbers.

My company sold over 1,000 networks-- smallest was 3 computers, largest 99 computers. Many in the 7-10 computer range, many classrooms in the 15-20 computer range. So, rough estimate, I'd say about 10-15,000 networked computers. From just 1 company!

Assuming, we're both trying to be factual, Can you dig up a reference for "Hundreds of Thousands" of LocalTalk networked computers installed? Thousands? Macs Networked in a Computer Store Display don't count, Macs networked in the "back room" do count!

It is particularly frustrating to deal with some one who keeps changing the subject-- we've gone from being the first, the most, the most personal computers for personal use. I have tried to address each of these because i disagree and have facts and personal experience (and good profits) to support me. But you make it a moving target.

I will leave you with these thoughts.

1) If AppleTalk was such a good network, why did Apple pay retail for 11 networks in departments that needed to get work done?

2) What happened to "We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users".

3) Show me a reference (or personal experience) to a total 3,000 (or so) Macs on LocalTalk networks & I'll accept that AppleTalk was a major player.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

I never said it was a problem or unreliable... just slow, expensive and limited.

OK, earlier you said:



While the link you provided is interesting, it provides no numbers.

My company sold over 1,000 networks-- smallest was 3 computers, largest 99 computers. Many in the 7-10 computer range, many classrooms in the 15-20 computer range. So, rough estimate, I'd say about 10-15,000 networked computers. From just 1 company!

Assuming, we're both trying to be factual, Can you dig up a reference for "Hundreds of Thousands" of LocalTalk networked computers installed? Thousands? Macs Networked in a Computer Store Display don't count, Macs networked in the "back room" do count!

It is particularly frustrating to deal with some one who keeps changing the subject-- we've gone from being the first, the most, the most personal computers for personal use. I have tried to address each of these because i disagree and have facts and personal experience (and good profits) to support me. But you make it a moving target.

I will leave you with these thoughts.

1) If AppleTalk was such a good network, why did Apple pay retail for 11 networks in departments that needed to get work done?

2) What happened to "We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users".

3) Show me a reference (or personal experience) to a total 3,000 (or so) Macs on LocalTalk networks & I'll accept that AppleTalk was a major player.

I didn't change the subject—you did.

All I said was the speed for what most peope saw in relation to the speed of the old HDDs, and that it was the majority networking protocall sometime during the '80's.

You changed that to add reliability, etc. I replied to that.

You also don't understand what I'm saying. I said that I wasn't talking about high performance networks, but networking for individuals, and if we like, small business and K-12.

I personally know of many such small networks, having set up quite a few myself, here in the NYC B.O.E, small companies, and for any number of friends.

I've looked in Google, but haven't been able to find ANY information on network percentages for that time period for any network, just some references that Localtalk and Appletalk (which is still being used) was very popular.

[Dick Applebaum]

Originally Posted by melgross

I didn't change the subject—you did.

All I said was the speed for what most peope saw in relation to the speed of the old HDDs, and that it was the majority networking protocall sometime during the '80's.

You changed that to add reliability, etc. I replied to that.

You also don't understand what I'm saying. I said that I wasn't talking about high performance networks, but networking for individuals, and if we like, small business and K-12.

I personally know of many such small networks, having set up quite a few myself, here in the NYC B.O.E, small companies, and for any number of friends.

I've looked in Google, but haven't been able to find ANY information on network percentages for that time period for any network, just some references that Localtalk and Appletalk (which is still being used) was very popular.

There you go again... Do a search of the posts for "reliabl" and you will find 5 matches before this post. The only time I used it was quoting you and in response to your post. I never said that AppleTalk was unreliable-- as with most Apple products it is reliable to the extreme.

I don't believe that many "individual" AppleTalk networks existed then-- I pointed out that this assumes at least 2 $2500 Macs in 1980s Dollars. I'd be surprised if (then) there were more than 800 Macs on "Individual" AppleTalk networks.

I don't disagree with small networks using AppleTalk. A small classroom or a small business can be a good "fit"-- especially considering the advantage of a single source.

No mas!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

There you go again... Do a search of the posts for "reliabl" and you will find 5 matches before this post. The only time I used it was quoting you and in response to your post. I never said that AppleTalk was unreliable-- as with most Apple products it is reliable to the extreme.

I don't believe that many "individual" AppleTalk networks existed then-- I pointed out that this assumes at least 2 $2500 Macs in 1980s Dollars. I'd be surprised if (then) there were more than 800 Macs on "Individual" AppleTalk networks.

I don't disagree with small networks using AppleTalk. A small classroom or a small business can be a good "fit"-- especially considering the advantage of a single source.

No mas!

You're insisting that in oreder for you to conisder it to be a "real" network" in order to count, then it must have 100 or more computers on it?

I've had a network at home since the late '80's, but never more than 5 computers and two printers at once. That wouldn't count?

There were many thousands of small Apple networks like that around. There were probably at least 5 thousand of them here in the NYC B.O.A alone, some using Macs, and some using IIE's with Localtalk boards added later.

[Dick Applebaum]

Originally Posted by melgross

You're insisting that in oreder for you to conisder it to be a "real" network" in order to count, then it must have 100 or more computers on it?

I've had a network at home since the late '80's, but never more than 5 computers and two printers at once. That wouldn't count?

There were many thousands of small Apple networks like that around. There were probably at least 5 thousand of them here in the NYC B.O.A alone, some using Macs, and some using IIE's with Localtalk boards added later.

I wasn't going to continue this, argument, but you misinterpret my posts and attribute statements/inferences I never made

1) Our largest network was 99 computers
2) Smallest non-AppleTalk network was 3 computers
3) Our average classroom was 25 computers (printers, HDDs, Backup Tape, etc).
4) Our typical non-AppleTalk network for business was 7-10 computers
5) Our typical AppleTalk network was 3-5 computers (quite a few AppleTalk networks)

You remind me of a customer who used to visit our store. He would bring a set of questions written 1 per card on a stack of 3x5 cards. He would ask the first question, listen to the answer, nod his head and place the card on the bottom of the stack-- and on to the next question,

When the first question bubbled to the top, he started through the stack again.

He obviously wasn't listening or paying attention. Neither are you. You respond to posts with incorrect comments, based on things I didn't post. You choose not to answer questions that directly challenge your "facts",

Since you cannot be reasoned with I will not waste both our time by trying further.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

I wasn't going to continue this, argument, but you misinterpret my posts and attribute statements/inferences I never made

1) Our largest network was 99 computers
2) Smallest non-AppleTalk network was 3 computers
3) Our average classroom was 25 computers (printers, HDDs, Backup Tape, etc).
4) Our typical non-AppleTalk network for business was 7-10 computers
5) Our typical AppleTalk network was 3-5 computers (quite a few AppleTalk networks)

You remind me of a customer who used to visit our store. He would bring a set of questions written 1 per card on a stack of 3x5 cards. He would ask the first question, listen to the answer, nod his head and place the card on the bottom of the stack-- and on to the next question,

When the first question bubbled to the top, he started through the stack again.

He obviously wasn't listening or paying attention. Neither are you. You respond to posts with incorrect comments, based on things I didn't post. You choose not to answer questions that directly challenge your "facts",

Since you cannot be reasoned with I will not waste both our time by trying further.

Sure. don't forget who started this argument. I wasn't me.

I'm not saying the you company set up larger computer networks. I am saying that you seem to think that there are enough of those large networks to make up the difference.

so far, you have made statements that lack any proof as well. They are just something that we have to take as your word.

As far as that goes, we are even.

You can be insulting, but it doesn't work. Next time, don't bother to post unless you have your own facts in hand.

And as you said you were finished with this, I'm assuming that we can trust your word.