Very totally correct - any new module needs to be approved. Have they been changing their WiFi components lately? Is it still called WiFi? I suspect that it's the same as in all the other lumps of WiFi plastic coming out of China no? Or are they using that new Snowflake WiFi I've been hearing about, where no two WiFi are the same. S'true because the way to keep costs down - is to reinvent every component possible.
That's good business - with laser-cats duct taped to it.
MEW PEW!
I'm not following your assumption that WiFi is some standardized module across all devices and has already passed all necessary US testing a long time ago. All current iDevices with WiFi have 802.11b/g, while the iPad uses 802.11a/b/g/n. I doubt that they module is the same as in any Mac product.
I think every iPhone has had FCC testing and approval on the WIFi chip. If so, then it's either per device type or per module/component. If it's the device type then the iPad will get it for WiFI, too. If it's just the module/component -AND- every WiFi-capabable iDevice has had it so far it's safe to assume that the iPad will have a different 802.11a/b/g/n module than what is found in other Macs.
Since I'm sure these modules are used in other products outside of Apple but in the US, since they are usually off the shelf components I have to conclude that it's likely for each unique device type.
PS: Someone with more time than me can Google the other devices to see if the WiFi module is identical across devices and if it's been retested for that new device.
The amount of people on Macrumors who literally believe these "delays" are due to a camera is staggering
Denial is a frightening thing.
2 reasons for camera lacking that haven't been cited yet.
1- Hospitals and govt sites are prime customer targets for the ipad - and boy - do they hate cameras.
2- Forget unflattering camera angles - have you heard the screams from people finding crusty snot-bergs and unkempt nose hairs filling their video conferencing screens? "So Bob here has the TPS reports ready to present - GAAAAH!"
Wall size nose-camera presentations via real-time transglobal internet - this IS the 21 century by god - and why ask shoulda when you're too busy doing coulda.
I see that Tekstud, even with the most recent "spelling" of his name has been banished into cyberland again .... hopefully never to be heard from again .... all of his previous posts have been erased, ... for the second time .... that must be a record.
Actually if he were to use the same name twice only and be banished to the land of misfit Applelites yet others have joined multiple times over with different monikers multiplied, how would that be any record whatsoever?
But in your post - you basically nailed it (really) but by contradicting yourself. If they're off-the-shelf - why bug the FCC (again)? I'm not an expert but given the released (in limited amounts) pads, and the date fast-approaching (including packaging and the product's own laser-etched text), I suspect the WiFi is a previously already done-deal. The 3G less-so, but again unless they're using some unknown parts, or we all get instant product development insight (and a big fat pay raise to go with it) then we're all exercising our finger bones.
Which, as I mentioned earlier - is an occupational hazard on slow-days where I'm surfing my brains out for blog-related inspiration to add to my layouts.
But in your post - you basically nailed it (really) but by contradicting yourself. If they're off-the-shelf - why bug the FCC (again)?
Nope, not contradicting myself. I gave an either/or scenario in my post.
Let's look at this logically, why would a company like Broadcom make a component that wasn't tested by the FCC for use in the US but then require every company to retest it? You'd think that they'd put it through the paces for much cheaper and using "FCC approved" as a marketing strategy to sell more. Same goes with the cellular modules we see in phones and data cards.
The only likely scenario is the FCC requires additional testing per device. Why? Maybe because it's sending out radio waves, not just occupying a set physical space, which can easily affected by the completed device's power to the component so each device type has to tested individually.
If that is the reason, but unlikely to be an issue today because it's a rule set up in a different time before advanced integrated circuits and/or a reason for the FCC (read: government) to make more money in unknown, but it looks like it is required.
2- Forget unflattering camera angles - have you heard the screams from people finding crusty snot-bergs and unkempt nose hairs filling their video conferencing screens? "So Bob here has the TPS reports ready to present - GAAAAH!"
Still, what an opportunity for an iPad official accessory - iSnip nasal hair clippers!
Oh dear lord - I thought we were past the hygiene jokes. Is that anything like 802.11o/b/g/y/n?
and this
Quote:
Last edited by DoctorBenway; Yesterday at 10:33 PM.. Reason: I don't remember maxi-pad gigglers when NASA announced "launch pads" - strange given giant phalluses flew from them
...is pretty damn funny stuff! is that you Macalope?
If not... keep it up. We could use some humor on this site
You mean a trade publication that says they have sources close to the manufacturers.
The trade publication has at least in business for a while and relies on credibility to stay in business. That's why I am distrustful of some source no one's heard of before. Believe what you like.
Comments
Very totally correct - any new module needs to be approved. Have they been changing their WiFi components lately? Is it still called WiFi? I suspect that it's the same as in all the other lumps of WiFi plastic coming out of China no? Or are they using that new Snowflake WiFi I've been hearing about, where no two WiFi are the same. S'true because the way to keep costs down - is to reinvent every component possible.
That's good business - with laser-cats duct taped to it.
MEW PEW!
I'm not following your assumption that WiFi is some standardized module across all devices and has already passed all necessary US testing a long time ago. All current iDevices with WiFi have 802.11b/g, while the iPad uses 802.11a/b/g/n. I doubt that they module is the same as in any Mac product.
I think every iPhone has had FCC testing and approval on the WIFi chip. If so, then it's either per device type or per module/component. If it's the device type then the iPad will get it for WiFI, too. If it's just the module/component -AND- every WiFi-capabable iDevice has had it so far it's safe to assume that the iPad will have a different 802.11a/b/g/n module than what is found in other Macs.
Since I'm sure these modules are used in other products outside of Apple but in the US, since they are usually off the shelf components I have to conclude that it's likely for each unique device type. PS: Someone with more time than me can Google the other devices to see if the WiFi module is identical across devices and if it's been retested for that new device.
The amount of people on Macrumors who literally believe these "delays" are due to a camera is staggering
Denial is a frightening thing.
2 reasons for camera lacking that haven't been cited yet.
1- Hospitals and govt sites are prime customer targets for the ipad - and boy - do they hate cameras.
2- Forget unflattering camera angles - have you heard the screams from people finding crusty snot-bergs and unkempt nose hairs filling their video conferencing screens? "So Bob here has the TPS reports ready to present - GAAAAH!"
Wall size nose-camera presentations via real-time transglobal internet - this IS the 21 century by god - and why ask shoulda when you're too busy doing coulda.
I see that Tekstud, even with the most recent "spelling" of his name has been banished into cyberland again .... hopefully never to be heard from again .... all of his previous posts have been erased, ... for the second time .... that must be a record.
Actually if he were to use the same name twice only and be banished to the land of misfit Applelites yet others have joined multiple times over with different monikers multiplied, how would that be any record whatsoever?
while the iPad uses 802.11a/b/g/n
Oh dear lord - I thought we were past the hygiene jokes. Is that anything like 802.11o/b/g/y/n?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obgyn
But in your post - you basically nailed it (really) but by contradicting yourself. If they're off-the-shelf - why bug the FCC (again)? I'm not an expert but given the released (in limited amounts) pads, and the date fast-approaching (including packaging and the product's own laser-etched text), I suspect the WiFi is a previously already done-deal. The 3G less-so, but again unless they're using some unknown parts, or we all get instant product development insight (and a big fat pay raise to go with it) then we're all exercising our finger bones.
Which, as I mentioned earlier - is an occupational hazard on slow-days where I'm surfing my brains out for blog-related inspiration to add to my layouts.
But in your post - you basically nailed it (really) but by contradicting yourself. If they're off-the-shelf - why bug the FCC (again)?
Nope, not contradicting myself. I gave an either/or scenario in my post.
Let's look at this logically, why would a company like Broadcom make a component that wasn't tested by the FCC for use in the US but then require every company to retest it? You'd think that they'd put it through the paces for much cheaper and using "FCC approved" as a marketing strategy to sell more. Same goes with the cellular modules we see in phones and data cards.
The only likely scenario is the FCC requires additional testing per device. Why? Maybe because it's sending out radio waves, not just occupying a set physical space, which can easily affected by the completed device's power to the component so each device type has to tested individually.
If that is the reason, but unlikely to be an issue today because it's a rule set up in a different time before advanced integrated circuits and/or a reason for the FCC (read: government) to make more money in unknown, but it looks like it is required.
It's illegal if the rumors are untrue.
Ha! So is spitting on the sidewalk.
Ooooh, SEC black-ops are going to swoop in and...
Ha! So is spitting on the sidewalk.
Ooooh, SEC black-ops are going to swoop in and...
gang-rape all the morons working in that dark office tower putting out Verizon-rumors.
A man can dream.
Then again, some people believe right wing semi-literature bloggers know more about science than professional scientists, so anything is possible on the net.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
2- Forget unflattering camera angles - have you heard the screams from people finding crusty snot-bergs and unkempt nose hairs filling their video conferencing screens? "So Bob here has the TPS reports ready to present - GAAAAH!"
Still, what an opportunity for an iPad official accessory - iSnip nasal hair clippers!
Oh dear lord - I thought we were past the hygiene jokes. Is that anything like 802.11o/b/g/y/n?
and this
Last edited by DoctorBenway; Yesterday at 10:33 PM.. Reason: I don't remember maxi-pad gigglers when NASA announced "launch pads" - strange given giant phalluses flew from them
...is pretty damn funny stuff! is that you Macalope?
If not... keep it up. We could use some humor on this site
Who are you going to believe: a couple of analysts you've never heard of, or a trade publication with sources close to the manufacturers?
You mean a trade publication that says they have sources close to the manufacturers.
You mean a trade publication that says they have sources close to the manufacturers.
The trade publication has at least in business for a while and relies on credibility to stay in business. That's why I am distrustful of some source no one's heard of before. Believe what you like.