or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple to impose 802.11n upgrade fee on Intel Mac owners
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to impose 802.11n upgrade fee on Intel Mac owners - Page 4

post #121 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benton View Post

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

Is this a response to your own post?
post #122 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Ah, another Melbournian to add to the Ai Mix. You've made some very good points. Essentially, we have *no friggin clue* how the 802.11n unlock will take place in Australia. Apple Computer Australia may be a privately held registered Australian company but the peoples in Cupertino, California, USA are the ones making the big calls.

At best though, sorry to say, Apple Computer Australia is a just distributor of Apple, Inc. hardware, software, services. Steve Jobs says: let's unlock 802.11n and also a way to spur Airport Extreme 802.11n sales. Apple Computer Australia says: "OK, just give us a bit of time".... and Apple Computer Australia will figure out some method that will keep Johnny Howard and Peter Costello and all the State Premiers happy. Whether it's free, $2AUD, $5AUD, $10AUD or shouting an employee of Apple Comp. Aust. a beer. 8)

Firstly, thanks for spelling "Melbournian" that way. It seems the Melbourne-based media always spell that word "Melburnian". But I digress...

My argument wasn't that we wouldn't be charged; it was merely that a US law would not apply to Apple subsidiaries around the world, just because the parent company is US-based.

Schmidty.
post #123 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

How then, and I ask this in all seriousness , can Apple give anything away without it being advertised in the specs of something?

Huh? Apple can give away software for free any time it wants. iTunes and QuickTime Player are perfect examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

They add widgets to OSX in FREE service fixes, they add volume control, new playback capability and such to iPod with iPod Updater, they give free OSX updates to those who purchase the system after the launch date (note that their box does not list the new OS as a feature)

To you and me, "upgrades" and "updates" mean pretty much the same thing. But to Apple, they are different.

For Apple, an update adds stability/fixes bugs/improves the functionality of a piece of SOFTWARE - whether its OS X, the software on your iPod, etc. To make you happy and to avoid an accounting nightmare, Apple gives these updates away for free.

For Apple, an upgrade adds NEW functionality to a piece of HARDWARE and/or SOFTWARE. Additional RAM into a Mac, for instance. Or Panther to Tiger. Or QuickTime Player to QuickTime Pro. You always pay* for any legal upgrade.

*(The exception of course are upgrades to software that was free to begin with, such as iTunes and QuickTime Player. Those are free *for now. )
post #124 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

People are welcome to keep saying it is attributable it to Sarbox -- there's no law against it! -- but that does not make it so.

The upgrade fee is definitely a direct result of Sarbox -- or to be more precise, that Apple is scared as heck of becoming a Sarbox target. You may not choose to believe it, but I have yet to see any factual evidence to the contrary: The original post cites a report that claims Apple representatives said it's because of Sarbox. I looked at the accounting implications; it's because of Sarbox. It's silly ... but it's the law.
post #125 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Chord Max View Post

For Apple, an update adds stability/fixes bugs/improves the functionality of a piece of SOFTWARE - whether its OS X, the software on your iPod, etc. To make you happy and to avoid an accounting nightmare, Apple gives these updates away for free.

For Apple, an upgrade adds NEW functionality to a piece of HARDWARE and/or SOFTWARE. Additional RAM into a Mac, for instance. Or Panther to Tiger. Or QuickTime Player to QuickTime Pro. You always pay* for any legal upgrade.

So tell me, what about:
1) 10.2.2 adding journaling support to HFS+
2) 10.3.5(?) allowing you to swap the purpose of the F keys
2) 10.4.6 adding resizing support to HFS+J on GPT
3) 10.4.7 adding two-finger-right-click support to 15-inch MacBook Pros (MacBooks and 17-inch MacBook Pros came with a custom post-10.4.6 version that had it)
4) 10.4.8 adding a 64-bit x86 binary segment of libSystem (Mac Pros came with a custom post-10.4.7 version that had it)?

Aren't those new functionality?
post #126 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

So tell me, what about:
1) 10.2.2 adding journaling support to HFS+
2) 10.3.5(?) allowing you to swap the purpose of the F keys
2) 10.4.6 adding resizing support to HFS+J on GPT
3) 10.4.7 adding two-finger-right-click support to 15-inch MacBook Pros (MacBooks and 17-inch MacBook Pros came with a custom post-10.4.6 version that had it)
4) 10.4.8 adding a 64-bit x86 binary segment of libSystem (Mac Pros came with a custom post-10.4.7 version that had it)?

Aren't those new functionality?

Absolutely they are new functionalities. But they are not new hardware.
post #127 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Absolutely they are new functionalities. But they are not new hardware.

802.11n on Core 2 / Xeon Macs isn't either.
post #128 of 206
I just ordered a new MacBook yesterday from the Apple Store. Will I still have to pay the $4.99 to get 802.11n even though I ordered after this all was announced???
post #129 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

802.11n on Core 2 / Xeon Macs isn't either.

I understand that the 802.11n is hardware.

And for those that can't get past the Apple bashing, perhaps a read of the iLounge comment 25, Wikipedia reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

And if anyone can point me to an official announcement from Apple that they are in fact going to charge for the enabler, I would appreciate it.

I think that we should keep in mind that Apple has just conducted a major forensic audit and the legal auditors, accountants and lawyers have advised that due to the current atmosphere, i.e., being sued by shareholders for whatever, being investigated by the US attornies offices, or being castigated by a bunch of bloggers who immediately pounce on everythng that they do, that their postition may be tenuous at best, and advise to air on the side of caution.

In particular, consider also how the introduction of Apple TV will impact on the present situation seeing that the the its functionality will be dependent on your computers also having a wireless standard to yield maximum performance, and as yet to be ratified.

Just consider for a moment where this discussion would have gone if Apple had announced that the Macs are being shipped with a non-accepted wireless standard in preparation for the Apple TV introduction. From those that are intending to buy the Apple TV the minute it is released to those who have absolutely declared 'never'. By shareholders/ambulance chasers looking for any possible reason that may affect stock performance and dividends. To those that scream disparity because Apple is not retrofitting older Macs with the new technology for free.
post #130 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Chord Max View Post

The upgrade fee is definitely a direct result of Sarbox -- or to be more precise, that Apple is scared as heck of becoming a Sarbox target. You may not choose to believe it, but I have yet to see any factual evidence to the contrary: Apple says it's because of Sarbox. I looked at the accounting implications; it's because of Sarbox. It's silly ... but it's the law.

Apple says it is because of Sarbox? Can you please give me a link or a cite.

The reason I ask is, the AI story that started this thread says:

"Reasons behind the move -- and such a small obnoxious fee -- are not necessarily clear at the moment. However, iLounge's Jeremy Horwitz is offering an explanation from some Apple representatives present at last week's Macworld Expo.

According to the editor, the fee stems from a law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which supposedly prohibits Apple from giving away an unadvertised new feature of an already sold product without enduring some onerous accounting measures.

"Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasnt finished delivering the product at that point," he wrote."
post #131 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I understand that the 802.11n is hardware.

But it is hardware that the machines already ship with. All the "Enabler" does is provide a driver for it.
post #132 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Apple says it is because of Sarbox? Can you please give me a link or a cite.

Sorry, I was sourcing the original iLounge article. I should've wrote. "A report claims that Apple says it is because of Sarbox." I haven't seen any official statement from Apple directly.

Hope that makes you feel better.
post #133 of 206
Shouldn't we wait until Apple actually announces this before we all get our panties in a twist?

I admit, it *sounds* like something Apple would do, and the explanation sounds like something that could have happened--but it is still just a rumor.
post #134 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Have you noticed that most times when you buy some hardware there is a notice to the effect that the company reserves the right to improve the product without making that improvement available to current owners of the product?

I wonder how many times a software update will do that.

Now, the other question is whether this only involves hardware. I wouldn't think so. Quicktime Pro comes to mind, though we do pay for that.

I would assume a difference. Mostly because there is a real cost to manufacturing and distributing hardware.

It costs Apple hundreds (and often thousands) of dollars to manufacture a Mac. Giving away a new hardware feature is effectively an expense. I realize the pre-n cards were already installed, but Apple was previously under no obligation to provide one of those. (For instance, before now, they would've been perfectly justified in swapping them for b/g cards as a part of warrantee service, and now they can't.)

For software, the manufacturing cost is virtually zero - it's just the cost of a CD, or the bandwidth of a download. The entire price goes to cover R&D expenses, which are ongoing and are not directly tied to the price. So I could see free software upgrades as being less of an issue.

But despite this, I don't buy Apple's explanation. I think it may be to avoid lawsuits, but not due to SOX or any of the arguments that have been posed so far.

I remember reading that IBM used to ship big-iron equipment as different models with different capabilities (like printers that were available in different speeds.) Many times, the different models were all physically the same - moving a switch or opening a relay would often be sufficient to get the higher speed from the slow models. And if you paid IBM for an upgrade, that's just what the tech would do.

Clearly, if IBM would make the details of this "upgrade" known to the general public, they'd be sued. People who bought the expensive model could sue, saying that they got the same hardware as the cheap model. As long as IBM kept the "upgrade" technique a secret, they could say "no user serviceable parts inside" and be OK, but they wouldn't dare give away this technique.

This may be similar, even though Apple isn't selling two different model MacBooks with different speed WiFi cards.

(Of course, in this example, most of those IBM devices were rented, not purchased. Customers were paying for capacity, not the physical hardware. But the general principle may still apply.)
post #135 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

But it is hardware that the machines already ship with. All the "Enabler" does is provide a driver for it.

Yes, but if this is all correct, it's the fact that the feature wasn't announced, and working, at the time of sale.
post #136 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

I would assume a difference. Mostly because there is a real cost to manufacturing and distributing hardware.

It costs Apple hundreds (and often thousands) of dollars to manufacture a Mac. Giving away a new hardware feature is effectively an expense. I realize the pre-n cards were already installed, but Apple was previously under no obligation to provide one of those. (For instance, before now, they would've been perfectly justified in swapping them for b/g cards as a part of warrantee service, and now they can't.)

For software, the manufacturing cost is virtually zero - it's just the cost of a CD, or the bandwidth of a download. The entire price goes to cover R&D expenses, which are ongoing and are not directly tied to the price. So I could see free software upgrades as being less of an issue.

But despite this, I don't buy Apple's explanation. I think it may be to avoid lawsuits, but not due to SOX or any of the arguments that have been posed so far.

I remember reading that IBM used to ship big-iron equipment as different models with different capabilities (like printers that were available in different speeds.) Many times, the different models were all physically the same - moving a switch or opening a relay would often be sufficient to get the higher speed from the slow models. And if you paid IBM for an upgrade, that's just what the tech would do.

Clearly, if IBM would make the details of this "upgrade" known to the general public, they'd be sued. People who bought the expensive model could sue, saying that they got the same hardware as the cheap model. As long as IBM kept the "upgrade" technique a secret, they could say "no user serviceable parts inside" and be OK, but they wouldn't dare give away this technique.

This may be similar, even though Apple isn't selling two different model MacBooks with different speed WiFi cards.

(Of course, in this example, most of those IBM devices were rented, not purchased. Customers were paying for capacity, not the physical hardware. But the general principle may still apply.)

We don't know if those costs you are talking about, exist.

If a chip Apple uses has a new feature that doesn't raise the price of the chip, then there is no cost.

Even if the chip costs somewhat more because of that feature, but Apple wants the chip for other reasons, then it still hasn't raised Apple's cost.

If the chip costs more than another chip from the same manufacturer that is otherwise exactly the same, but costs the same, or less, that the chip Apple was using berfore that didn't have the feature, then Apple's costs are the same as they were before, though they may be slightly higher than they would be.

How do you account for that?

It's not that simple.

And software updates do cost Apple, so does internet distribution, though not much.
post #137 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

Look here: http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/

Apple lists the following models:
  • iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
  • MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
  • MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
  • Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option
Anything else doesn't have the 'n' hardware.

Thanks for the link. However; Apple says that list covers models "now shipping", there are still core 2 duos from a few months back still available sitting on shelves. I'm wondering if these all have the N standard or just the currently shipped core 2 duos.
post #138 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelb View Post

It's not unprecedented, as all of the MPEG Fraunhofer encoding license fees are taken care of by a QuickTime Pro license, which many (self included) feel should be part of an Mac OS X box purchase.

Apple might have actually preferred the arrangement to enable encoding for everyone
at a pre-negotiated flat rate (for a user base growing at 20-30%+ per year).

However, perhaps MPEGLA and Fraunhofer never thought they could budge from
a "per user" royalty arrangement. So Apple correctly demurred that only a tiny fraction
(even now in the post-You Tube, post-iLife, and post video iPod era) of its user base ever does
encoding, so why should they pay unnecessary encoding fees? The unbundling
into a separate product suits this encoder royalty arrangement. Since Fraunhofer
either allows giving away the *de*coder for free (or more likely caps the fees to
corporations), this argument doesn't apply for decoders.

Do you posit that Mac users would gladly pay $29.95 extra for each release of MacOS X
for these fees? Perhaps wholesale cost is only $5, and the amortized development
costs of MacOS is only (say) $25 -- no company wants to pay even 10%, let alone
20% of its cost for a single patented component controlled by another company, unless that
feature is extraordinarily compelling. Now .mp3/H.264 encoding may be insanely great
for many Mac users, but for the vast majority?
post #139 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We don't know if those costs you are talking about, exist.

If a chip Apple uses has a new feature that doesn't raise the price of the chip, then there is no cost.

Even if the chip costs somewhat more because of that feature, but Apple wants the chip for other reasons, then it still hasn't raised Apple's cost.

If the chip costs more than another chip from the same manufacturer that is otherwise exactly the same, but costs the same, or less, that the chip Apple was using berfore that didn't have the feature, then Apple's costs are the same as they were before, though they may be slightly higher than they would be.

How do you account for that?

It's not that simple.

And software updates do cost Apple, so does internet distribution, though not much.

I'm not talking about specifics here. You wrote "Now, the other question is whether this only involves hardware. I wouldn't think so" - claiming that there should be no difference between giving away a free hardware feature vs. a free software feature.

I pointed out several examples of why hardware and software are very different items, and the biggest one is that the per-unit cost of software is minuscule (tens of cents for CDs, fractions of cents for downloads) compared to hardware.
post #140 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiarius View Post

Do you posit that Mac users would gladly pay $29.95 extra for each release of MacOS X for these fees?

People buying one license might pay an extra $30 on top of the $130 price, although a 23% price hike seems pretty steep for just one feature.

People buying a family pack, however, would be really shafted. After all, 5 encoding licenses ($150), added to the $200 price would be a 75% price hike. No single feature is worth that much. Especially when it's a feature that most customers aren't willing to pay for a-la-carte today.
post #141 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

People buying one license might pay an extra $30 on top of the $130 price, although a 23% price hike seems pretty steep for just one feature.

People buying a family pack, however, would be really shafted. After all, 5 encoding licenses ($150), added to the $200 price would be a 75% price hike. No single feature is worth that much. Especially when it's a feature that most customers aren't willing to pay for a-la-carte today.

Is DVD encoding done under a different licence? iLife is $79, family pack is $99. It's the same codec, just that the encoder is limited to only DVD use. I think there is the HDV export feature, which uses MPEG-2 as well. The DVD player is MPEG-2.

The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.
post #142 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

I'm not talking about specifics here. You wrote "Now, the other question is whether this only involves hardware. I wouldn't think so" - claiming that there should be no difference between giving away a free hardware feature vs. a free software feature.

I pointed out several examples of why hardware and software are very different items, and the biggest one is that the per-unit cost of software is minuscule (tens of cents for CDs, fractions of cents for downloads) compared to hardware.

Yes. I understand. I'm pointing out that hardware may not involve a cost differential.
post #143 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Is DVD encoding done under a different licence? iLife is $79, family pack is $99. It's the same codec, just that the encoder is limited to only DVD use. I think there is the HDV export feature, which uses MPEG-2 as well. The DVD player is MPEG-2.

The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.

Pro is the kicker to get people to want to pay for it.
post #144 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The only serious part that I object to is the restriction of full screen playback to "pro". I think that's pretty asinine. If I didn't need an encoder, I would have used workarounds to get full screen.

If that's all you need, then you don't need a license. Full screen mode is there, only the menu-bar item in QuickTime Player is disabled. You can trigger that command with the following one-line AppleScript:
Code:

tell application "QuickTime Player" to present movie 1


Use the Script Editor utility to enter and compile this. Then put it in ~/Library/Scripts and enable the Scripts menu-icon using the AppleScript Utility.

Now, when a QuickTime movie is playing in QuickTime Player, go to the Script menu, pick the full-screen script, and it will play full-screen.
post #145 of 206
How about Apple fixes the numerous problems with Mac Pro B/G wireless too? Heck, I might even pay for that.
post #146 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgson View Post

I keep reminding myself we don't KNOW this is true yet. I understand that Apple is enmeshed in legal troubles right now, but this $5 fee seems ludicrous and overcautious.

I also don't know how it counts as a new functionality when you could already access it by running Windows drivers on Boot Camp.

Hopefully this rumor is false. Otherwise, this seems really shady.


If you buy a Airport Extreme 802.11n you get free unlock for all your 802.11n computers:
http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/

"Does my Mac support 802.11n?

These Mac computers support 802.11n in the new AirPort Extreme Base Station using the included enabler software:

* iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
* MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
* MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
* Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option"
post #147 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidty View Post

Firstly, thanks for spelling "Melbournian" that way. It seems the Melbourne-based media always spell that word "Melburnian". But I digress...

My argument wasn't that we wouldn't be charged; it was merely that a US law would not apply to Apple subsidiaries around the world, just because the parent company is US-based.

Schmidty.

Heh. I think it should be Melbournian too, yeah. No worries, I get your point that the US law would not apply to Apple companies around the world. 8) ...Heh. I was today just in NextByte opposite FedSquare service department and there were signs on A4 sheets printed at the reception saying stuff like "We are MyMac, we do not work for Apple... please do not bully or become abusive otherwise we will refuse service outright which is our right....."

Globally it's a very complex interplay between Apple HQ, Apple in other countries, and Apple resellers...

On http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
Check this out, they say "The AirPort Extreme Base Station is based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification and is compatible with IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, and IEEE 802.11g. The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom."

WTF does "does not allow wide-channel operation" MEAN ??

Oh, just on a side note my current physical location in the world is pretty fluid, I am a tragic Citoyen Sans Frontieres
post #148 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo View Post

How about Apple fixes the numerous problems with Mac Pro B/G wireless too? Heck, I might even pay for that.

I've heard bad stuff about 802.11n in general. I hope Apple gets it mostly right. At least it has MIMO without like a hundred aerials sticking out ... Though as a poster pointed out, everything is just rounded rectangles - Cinema Display, iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBookPro, AppleTV, AirportExtreme, iPod, iPodNano, iPodShuffle, iPhone....
post #149 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

I've heard bad stuff about 802.11n in general.

There are two issues here.

The first is the same for all network devices - some brands are better than others. This is true for b, g, and even wired networks. Sometimes this is because of differing quality controls. Sometimes it is because some vendors don't implement the entire standard (figuring that most of their expected customers won't have a need for some feature.)

The second is that 802.11n is still a draft standard. The spec is still in a state of flux. It is expected that IEEE will publish the final spec in April 2008, if nothing unexpected comes up before that.

This means that there's no guarantee everybody is even building their devices to the same spec. A pre-n device designed around a 2006 draft may not be completely compatible with a device designed around a 2005 draft. Since the router makers are all members of the IEEE 802 working group, you may also find one or more using a feature that has been proposed but is not (yet?) in any draft.

Buying pre-spec devices is always risky. You may remember the incompatibilities that we had to deal with when 56K modem standards were under development. There were multiple incompatible protocols (USR's X2 vs. Rockwell's K56flex) and you could only get a >33.6 connection if your service provider used the same kind. This mess didn't get resolved for serveral years, when ITU approved the final V.90 spec. Then the service providers upgraded and most consumers were able to get firmware updates.

I think 802.11n is similar. This time, we don't have maverick companies selling completely different high-speed devices (mostly because wireless devices need FCC approval), but there are still bound to be a lot of incompatibilities, simply because the spec isn't finalized, so a device sold last year was probably built to a different spec from a device sold this year.

WRT Apple, hopefully their hardware device is flexible enough that it will be possible to apply firmware updates to support the final 802.11n spec when it is published next year, and hopefully, Apple will make an update available at that time. But I wouldn't assume anything.
post #150 of 206
Will the 11n standard work with Core Duos, such as the MacBook Pro I purchased and received a week before the Core 2 Duo was announced? I have been pleased that the improvement in wireless reception over my PGG4 Pismo on an AirPort Base Station extreme net, but as I am planning to but the new AirPort, I thought I would ask.
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #151 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubit View Post

Will the 11n standard work with Core Duos, such as the MacBook Pro I purchased and received a week before the Core 2 Duo was announced? I have been pleased that the improvement in wireless reception over my PGG4 Pismo on an AirPort Base Station extreme net, but as I am planning to but the new AirPort, I thought I would ask.

I don't think the Core(1)Duo [Yonah] models have 802.11n, AFAIK.
Only the Core2Duos, as listed on http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/

BTW Yeah my MacBook 13" Core(1)Duo has very very good 802.11[b] reception.
Haven't tried it with 802.11[g].
post #152 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

There are two issues here.

The first is the same for all network devices - some brands are better than others. This is true for b, g, and even wired networks. Sometimes this is because of differing quality controls. Sometimes it is because some vendors don't implement the entire standard (figuring that most of their expected customers won't have a need for some feature.)

The second is that 802.11n is still a draft standard. The spec is still in a state of flux. It is expected that IEEE will publish the final spec in April 2008, if nothing unexpected comes up before that.

This means that there's no guarantee everybody is even building their devices to the same spec. A pre-n device designed around a 2006 draft may not be completely compatible with a device designed around a 2005 draft. Since the router makers are all members of the IEEE 802 working group, you may also find one or more using a feature that has been proposed but is not (yet?) in any draft.

Buying pre-spec devices is always risky. You may remember the incompatibilities that we had to deal with when 56K modem standards were under development. There were multiple incompatible protocols (USR's X2 vs. Rockwell's K56flex) and you could only get a >33.6 connection if your service provider used the same kind. This mess didn't get resolved for serveral years, when ITU approved the final V.90 spec. Then the service providers upgraded and most consumers were able to get firmware updates.

I think 802.11n is similar. This time, we don't have maverick companies selling completely different high-speed devices (mostly because wireless devices need FCC approval), but there are still bound to be a lot of incompatibilities, simply because the spec isn't finalized, so a device sold last year was probably built to a different spec from a device sold this year.

WRT Apple, hopefully their hardware device is flexible enough that it will be possible to apply firmware updates to support the final 802.11n spec when it is published next year, and hopefully, Apple will make an update available at that time. But I wouldn't assume anything.

1. Yeah we'll have to see user experiences with the 802.11n Airport Extreme base station and receivers. Last I read a few months ago, in the PC magazines they have been pretty scathing in their reports on the 802.11n gear out there.

2. The standard is in a bit of a mess because it sounds like it won't be rectified for a while. Apple has taken the risk though with their pre-N gear (receivers and base station), so we'll see how the firmware updates and cross-compatibility with PC-related pre-N stuff goes.

3. It's an early-adopter kinda risk, or for that matter, minimal risk for early adopters willing to have a total Apple solution, which is what Apple prefers and is banking on. 802.11n Core2Duos, 802.11n AppleTV, 802.11n Airport Extreme Base Station. Somewhere in there a ethernet connection between the Base Station and a Mac Mini with external RAID1 FW400 for a nice little NetworkAreaStorage deal. For those that go full on with their home networking. MMmmm... EM radiation.... aw yeahhhhhhh.
post #153 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

I don't think the Core(1)Duo [Yonah] models have 802.11n, AFAIK.
Only the Core2Duos, as listed on http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/

BTW Yeah my MacBook 13" Core(1)Duo has very very good 802.11[b] reception.
Haven't tried it with 802.11[g].

Thank you for that reply. I'd missed the Wireless link from Apple I'm really struggling, since I've got Road Runner Cable from Time Warner and they give ZERO help on anything "wireless', but instead try to charge me rent for the cable modem itself before linking to a Base Station.
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #154 of 206
There are two good articles in Sat. WSJ, on the same page. Both are relevant to Apple.

The first one deals with this fee, now set at $1.99.

Here is the deal.

Apple is telling the truth, and fudging at the same time.

According to The Article:

Apple Gets a Bruise by Blaming A $1.99 Fee on Accounting Rules

I'll quote some from the article.
Quote:
"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," says Lynn Turner, managing director of research at Glass Lewis & Co. and a former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"So, why would Apple charge customers if it didn't have to? The company felt it had no choice, based on the accounting outcome that would have resulted had it given the product away, said a person familiar with the matter. In that sense, even if the accounting rules didn't explicitly say such a charge was necessary, that was the result, this person said..."

"Still, Apple's language surprised officials who oversee accounting rules. "Accounting doesn't require any charge for anything," says Edward Trott, a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes the accounting rules. "No, GAAP doesn't tell you to do anything. You need to work out your transaction with your customer, and GAAP will tell you how to reflect your transaction with that customer."

"The accounting rules in this case are analogous, accounting experts say, to income-tax rules affecting the sale of stock. If an investor sells shares less than a year year after buying, gains are taxed at personal income-tax rates that can range as high as 35%. If the investor sells after holding the stock for more than a year, gains are taxed at the capital-gains rate of 15%.
The income-tax rules dictate the amount of tax to be paid, but they don't tell the person when, or whether, to sell."

This is interesting. What is being said, is that Apple gains financially, as far as taxes are concerned, by charging this fee.

It also says (not directly, but by explaining what the rules are) that there is no penalty by NOT charging this fee, just no tax advantage.

Apple therefore, does NOT have to charge this fee. They are doing it because they want to.

I wouldn't mind that, being a stockholder, and all, but I would prefer they "come clean" , and explain WHY they are doing this, rather than making it sound as though they HAVE to.

The other article,

How Expensing for Options Throws Analysts Off Course

is very interesting, and explains why so many analysts are not in ageeement, something we have commented upon here many times.

I won't get into it unless there is interest here, or it's thought I should bring it up somewhere else.

It would be nice if the WSJ website was not paid subscription, or I would simply post links. As it is, sometimes you can read the first couple of lines, whic isnt useful, except to prove to those few natural skeptics here that the article really does exist online as well. But, I didn't look.
post #155 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubit View Post

Thank you for that reply. I'd missed the Wireless link from Apple I'm really struggling, since I've got Road Runner Cable from Time Warner and they give ZERO help on anything "wireless', but instead try to charge me rent for the cable modem itself before linking to a Base Station.

Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.

ISPs don't have to provide support for a product they don't sell, they don't sell the computer or access point, just a wired internet connection, if you make it wireless, then that's your issue. There may be some liability concerns too, because supporting encryption is the right thing to do, but it also costs time, they probably would rather not know.
post #156 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.

ISPs don't have to provide support for a product they don't sell, they don't sell the computer or access point, just a wired internet connection, if you make it wireless, then that's your issue. There may be some liability concerns too, because supporting encryption is the right thing to do, but it also costs time, they probably would rather not know.

Cubit, I'd have to say JeffDM does have a bit of a point. But essentially, you should be able to take your cable modem and then take an ethernet out from the cable modem into your wireless base station. From here on out it's a lot of experimenting and mucking around and all that.

I understand Cubit though, if you feel it is challenging and *someone* should support it. But in my experience, it is pretty damn messy finagling the modem side of things and then the wireless router side of things and then encryption, NAT, firewall, etc. etc. etc.

If you are currently accessing your cable Internet via cable modem, with an ethernet connection from the cable modem into your computer, then there is a very very high probability you can go ahead and hook up the cable modem ethernet out into a wireless router... The cable company would have to be very very evil if it asked for extra to somehow "enable" this part of things.

That said, as far as I understand, you get cable coming in, one part obviously goes to set-top-box for TV. You *will* need a "broadband cable modem" (if you don't already have one) for the Internet access side of things. Said "broadband cable modem" should have a simple Ethernet out. If it only has a USB connection, that's nasty, you need to find another broadband provider.
post #157 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Wireless network equipment is just a support headache. I've spent several hours trying to get any form of encryption working on a relatives' system network.

Wireless routers and DSL modems are shite, in my experience. I get it working to whatever level I can, then, best leave it to it's devices (pun unintended)..... ...But when you *do* get it working for the most part it just sits there 24/7, unless, it *is* shite and you have to reset it once every few days/ weeks or a few times a day. \
post #158 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There are two good articles in Sat. WSJ, on the same page. Both are relevant to Apple.

The first one deals with this fee, now set at $1.99.

Here is the deal.

Apple is telling the truth, and fudging at the same time.

etc etc.

Both are excellent articles. And, Lynn Turner's comment is right on: GAAP does not require Apple to charge squat.
post #159 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

I understand Cubit though, if you feel it is challenging and *someone* should support it. But in my experience, it is pretty damn messy finagling the modem side of things and then the wireless router side of things and then encryption, NAT, firewall, etc. etc. etc.

It's not as easy as it should be. Options and controls on wireless standards multiply like those furry floppy-eared rodents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Wireless routers and DSL modems are shite, in my experience. I get it working to whatever level I can, then, best leave it to it's devices (pun unintended)..... ...But when you *do* get it working for the most part it just sits there 24/7, unless, it *is* shite and you have to reset it once every few days/ weeks or a few times a day. \

I've done pretty well with my Buffalo, but it's just an access point with a switch, not a router. It also has simple and expert modes. They might have a router too, but I don't know.

I used to prefer Linksys but I've since had too many problems with too many different models for it to be a fluke. I stayed away from Belkin because some of their hardware had served up ads in the past, and avoided D-Link because they had master passwords that could not be changed. I think one of those two also had hardware that basically DoS'ed a university's time server because of bad coding.
post #160 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's not as easy as it should be. Options and controls on wireless standards multiply like those furry floppy-eared rodents.



I've done pretty well with my Buffalo, but it's just an access point with a switch, not a router. It also has simple and expert modes. They might have a router too, but I don't know.

I used to prefer Linksys but I've since had too many problems with too many different models for it to be a fluke. I stayed away from Belkin because some of their hardware had served up ads in the past, and avoided D-Link because they had master passwords that could not be changed. I think one of those two also had hardware that basically DoS'ed a university's time server because of bad coding.

I don't use cable, so I don't know what you might have. But my Covad DSL provider first gave me a Zyzel gateway (DSL modem + router), then after it died, two years later, a Netopia gateway, which I use. The Netopia comes with wireless, as well as the four 10/100 outputs. Just for the hell of it I set up the wireless, with both encryption methods, as they are allowed.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Wireless works the same way wired Ethernet does, except for the need for encryption. My main network includes a Linksys EG008W gigabit 8 port workgroup switch. That gets plugged into one of the 10/100 ports on the Netopia.The main netwoek works at Gigabit, while pulling the 6 Mb/s DSL from the Netopia router. A laptop can pull from the wireless directly from the Netopia, as can, possibly later, an iPhone.

I've used Linksys over the years, and haven't had any problems.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple to impose 802.11n upgrade fee on Intel Mac owners