That's pretty lame, since 5GHz operation is one of the main benefits of 802.11n (eliminates interference from the 2.4GHz bands, etc.). The iPad's 802.11n supports 5GHz operation so this appears to be one difference between the WiFi in the iPhone and the iPad.
That's pretty lame, since 5GHz operation is one of the main benefits of 802.11n (eliminates interference from the 2.4GHz bands, etc.). The iPad's 802.11n supports 5GHz operation so this appears to be one difference between the WiFi in the iPhone and the iPad.
You do realize the battery in the iPad is considerably larger than the iPhone, right? if it's "pretty lame" of Apple to exclude it then which low-power, mobile WiFi chip should Apple have used? I have to think that Apple not using any WiFi with 5GHz means that there isn't one that meets their needs.
The Droid Incredible and EVO 4G both recently came out and I dont' think either of them offer 802.11n in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz spectrums. That begs the questions: What phones do have 802.11n? Are they in both bands?
MicroCell would be faster than Bluetooth and gets around the interference problems in the 2.4GHz band.
First, it would have to be configured to only work with certain phones, I don't remember if it allowed you to set a white list and deny everyone else. Second, they would have to rig the FaceTime program to work over a cellular connection. There may still be interference issues too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux
I can think of two potential solutions to this in the future:
1) Use a local Bluetooth transmitter for network access (although that might suffer the same interference issues.)
Yes, it will probably suffer the same issues. Bluetooth uses the same 2.4GHz band as regular grade WiFi.
Quote:
2) Hack the demo units to get their network access from the same cable bundle that is providing the video-out feed.
I thought they were doing that all along with past presentations, this shows it wasn't. I can imagine that they will probably do that next time.
He shoulda pulled out his Verizon iPhone and tried again.
You never want to put the stock Honda rims on your Porsche, no matter how long the factory delay for the original parts is. It's not only a performance issue, but tacky to boot. Now I'm sure Hondas are fine cars for those looking for a low monthly payment, however the expectation that you can get fine precision engineered sports car parts for the low ball rate is totally unrealistic.
Verizon screwed up by not going with the iPhone before AT&T, not Apple's problem that they sell cheap monkey garbage for smartphones. It's a corporate taste and foresight issue, they don't have the palette for performance vs. cost.
If my biggest problem was AT&T as a partner, life would be pretty sweet. I've had tremendous customer service from them
This is a classic example of basic human behavior. Game theory at work. If everyone has to give up something so that everyone will benefit, chances are nothing will happen since nobody wants to be the only person giving the thing up. See "the prisoner's dilemma," etc.
Good one! Also, explained by the 'Tragedy of the Commons'.
This is a good example for those on this forum who think that bandwidth is free and elastic, and that companies like ATT should only charge a fixed amount for 'unlimited.'
It's Apple's own fault there's so much wireless traffic in the room. Cut out all of the live blogger's feeds to the outside world and all will be well again. And that can be done by WEBCASTING the keynotes like they used to.
We all want to know what's going on, so If Apple lets us in via a webcast, we have no need for the live bloggers.
You do realize the battery in the iPad is considerably larger than the iPhone, right? if it's "pretty lame" of Apple to exclude it then which low-power, mobile WiFi chip should Apple have used? I have to think that Apple not using any WiFi with 5GHz means that there isn't one that meets their needs...
They probably could have used the same chip as in the iPad. It might have impacted battery life but why not offer that option if you really need 5GHz operation. In fact, the problem they had today at WWDC is precisely why you want support for 5GHz. As a case in point, I have an iPad and I've found that just about the only reason why you'd ever want to use 802.11n is for its 5GHz band (because there appears to be no speed benefit on the iPad when using 802.11n).
Anyway, it may not be a battery concern, it could be the antennas, or just lack of space within the iPhone 4 design.
MicroCell would be faster than Bluetooth and gets around the interference problems in the 2.4GHz band.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
First, it would have to be configured to only work with certain phones, I don't remember if it allowed you to set a white list and deny everyone else. Second, they would have to rig the FaceTime program to work over a cellular connection. There may still be interference issues too...
It seems that after the problems that occurred at Google's I/O conference that the people in charge of Apple's WWDC should have been prepared for this issue. MicroCell would have been a good fallback and there is no reason why they couldn't have altered the FaceTime software so that it worked over 3G.
In any case, AT&T's standard MicroCell wouldn't have the bandwidth for bi-directional FaceTime (upstream would have been too slow) but that would have only affected the other side of the video conversation (the video stream going to the phone at WWDC should have been just fine).
It's Apple's own fault there's so much wireless traffic in the room. Cut out all of the live blogger's feeds to the outside world and all will be well again. And that can be done by WEBCASTING the keynotes like they used to.
We all want to know what's going on, so If Apple lets us in via a webcast, we have no need for the live bloggers.
I've got agree with this -- it's so damn simple. Livecast the thing and we won't have to sit through liveblogs:
**There's a dude with a Dell notebook, OMG**
**John Mayer is playing over the speaker system -- I wonder what Mayer is doing right now**
**Steve is taking the stage -- lots of applause**
**Steve just cracked a joke about Android -- more applause**
GAHHHH!!!!!!
If it was livecasted, bloggers wouldn't need to jam the Wi-Fi channels -- they'd still be able to get us their hands-on reports after the keynote though.
It's Apple's own fault there's so much wireless traffic in the room. Cut out all of the live blogger's feeds to the outside world and all will be well again. And that can be done by WEBCASTING the keynotes like they used to.
We all want to know what's going on, so If Apple lets us in via a webcast, we have no need for the live bloggers.
I think you misunderstand the means of sending the feeds out. They aren't using Apple's access points or the convention center's, many of the people carried their own pocket cellular devices that are WiFi access points, one report gives Apple reps saying there were 570 access points in the auditorium. You would have to block everyone's cellular connection, you would have to modify the room to do that. And even without an outside connection, I don't know if the MiFi-like devices know to turn off the access point if there is no outside connection.
So far, the last two products; iPad and iPhone 4 have demonstrated problems with wi-fi. What is Apple doing new that it didn't do before with wi-fi?
Nothing... today's problem has more to do with the sudden explosion of popularity of these "personal base stations". And I don't think webcasting the keynote would necessarily quell the use of them -- all the media people present want to get their own words out there. The real answer is to upgrade the Wi-Fi equipment at Moscone, and ban the use of these personal base stations.
...one report gives Apple reps saying there were 570 access points in the auditorium. You would have to block everyone's cellular connection, you would have to modify the room to do that. And even without an outside connection, I don't know if the MiFi-like devices know to turn off the access point if there is no outside connection.
I'm pretty sure there weren't 570 "access points" (meaning MiFi-like devices) they probably meant to say 570 active WiFi devices.
In the U.S. it is against the law to block cellular network devices:
However, it is apparently legal to shield a room from cellular access but as you noted that would require modification of the entire WWDC conference room -- not something that Apple or the city of S.F. would likely be willing to attempt.
Somebody really should buy a license from Paramount to make and sell hardshell cases for the iPhone that look just like oversized communicators, complete with an app providing authentic sounds and a flip-up mesh screen protector. And while they're at it, how about an iPad case that looks like an oversized version of the original tricorders, with a narrow leather shoulder strap.
I am sure they will when they get the, 'beam me up Scotty thing working.'
I think it was more due to wifi pollution - too many hotspots in the same area competing for limited RF spectrum.
With all Apple's experience in WiFi they should have configured their own Secure WiFi hotspot with a private unique frequency at the top of the band band and hard wired to the backbone and they would have had the bandwidth almost to themselves
I'm pretty sure there weren't 570 "access points" (meaning MiFi-like devices) they probably meant to say 570 active WiFi devices.
I see what you mean, but the article says base stations and hot spots several times. 570 WiFi clients would be a very low-ball figure for a room of maybe 5000 attendees. Hopefully a video posting of the presentation will clear it up, though they might cut all that out.
Comments
1) Use a local Bluetooth transmitter for network access (although that might suffer the same interference issues.)
2) Hack the demo units to get their network access from the same cable bundle that is providing the video-out feed.
I can think of two potential solutions to this in the future:
1) Use a local Bluetooth transmitter for network access (although that might suffer the same interference issues.)
2) Hack the demo units to get their network access from the same cable bundle that is providing the video-out feed.
EMP the room before Steve walks in.
Pretty much: "802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi (802.11n 2.4GHz only)"
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
That's pretty lame, since 5GHz operation is one of the main benefits of 802.11n (eliminates interference from the 2.4GHz bands, etc.). The iPad's 802.11n supports 5GHz operation so this appears to be one difference between the WiFi in the iPhone and the iPad.
I can think of two potential solutions to this in the future:
1) Use a local Bluetooth transmitter for network access (although that might suffer the same interference issues.)...
MicroCell would be faster than Bluetooth and gets around the interference problems in the 2.4GHz band.
That's pretty lame, since 5GHz operation is one of the main benefits of 802.11n (eliminates interference from the 2.4GHz bands, etc.). The iPad's 802.11n supports 5GHz operation so this appears to be one difference between the WiFi in the iPhone and the iPad.
You do realize the battery in the iPad is considerably larger than the iPhone, right? if it's "pretty lame" of Apple to exclude it then which low-power, mobile WiFi chip should Apple have used? I have to think that Apple not using any WiFi with 5GHz means that there isn't one that meets their needs.
The Droid Incredible and EVO 4G both recently came out and I dont' think either of them offer 802.11n in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz spectrums. That begs the questions: What phones do have 802.11n? Are they in both bands?
MicroCell would be faster than Bluetooth and gets around the interference problems in the 2.4GHz band.
First, it would have to be configured to only work with certain phones, I don't remember if it allowed you to set a white list and deny everyone else. Second, they would have to rig the FaceTime program to work over a cellular connection. There may still be interference issues too.
I can think of two potential solutions to this in the future:
1) Use a local Bluetooth transmitter for network access (although that might suffer the same interference issues.)
Yes, it will probably suffer the same issues. Bluetooth uses the same 2.4GHz band as regular grade WiFi.
2) Hack the demo units to get their network access from the same cable bundle that is providing the video-out feed.
I thought they were doing that all along with past presentations, this shows it wasn't. I can imagine that they will probably do that next time.
He shoulda pulled out his Verizon iPhone and tried again.
You never want to put the stock Honda rims on your Porsche, no matter how long the factory delay for the original parts is. It's not only a performance issue, but tacky to boot. Now I'm sure Hondas are fine cars for those looking for a low monthly payment, however the expectation that you can get fine precision engineered sports car parts for the low ball rate is totally unrealistic.
Verizon screwed up by not going with the iPhone before AT&T, not Apple's problem that they sell cheap monkey garbage for smartphones. It's a corporate taste and foresight issue, they don't have the palette for performance vs. cost.
If my biggest problem was AT&T as a partner, life would be pretty sweet. I've had tremendous customer service from them
This is a classic example of basic human behavior. Game theory at work. If everyone has to give up something so that everyone will benefit, chances are nothing will happen since nobody wants to be the only person giving the thing up. See "the prisoner's dilemma," etc.
Good one! Also, explained by the 'Tragedy of the Commons'.
This is a good example for those on this forum who think that bandwidth is free and elastic, and that companies like ATT should only charge a fixed amount for 'unlimited.'
It's Apple's own fault there's so much wireless traffic in the room. Cut out all of the live blogger's feeds to the outside world and all will be well again. And that can be done by WEBCASTING the keynotes like they used to.
We all want to know what's going on, so If Apple lets us in via a webcast, we have no need for the live bloggers.
Excellent post!
You do realize the battery in the iPad is considerably larger than the iPhone, right? if it's "pretty lame" of Apple to exclude it then which low-power, mobile WiFi chip should Apple have used? I have to think that Apple not using any WiFi with 5GHz means that there isn't one that meets their needs...
They probably could have used the same chip as in the iPad. It might have impacted battery life but why not offer that option if you really need 5GHz operation. In fact, the problem they had today at WWDC is precisely why you want support for 5GHz. As a case in point, I have an iPad and I've found that just about the only reason why you'd ever want to use 802.11n is for its 5GHz band (because there appears to be no speed benefit on the iPad when using 802.11n).
Anyway, it may not be a battery concern, it could be the antennas, or just lack of space within the iPhone 4 design.
MicroCell would be faster than Bluetooth and gets around the interference problems in the 2.4GHz band.
First, it would have to be configured to only work with certain phones, I don't remember if it allowed you to set a white list and deny everyone else. Second, they would have to rig the FaceTime program to work over a cellular connection. There may still be interference issues too...
It seems that after the problems that occurred at Google's I/O conference that the people in charge of Apple's WWDC should have been prepared for this issue. MicroCell would have been a good fallback and there is no reason why they couldn't have altered the FaceTime software so that it worked over 3G.
In any case, AT&T's standard MicroCell wouldn't have the bandwidth for bi-directional FaceTime (upstream would have been too slow) but that would have only affected the other side of the video conversation (the video stream going to the phone at WWDC should have been just fine).
It's Apple's own fault there's so much wireless traffic in the room. Cut out all of the live blogger's feeds to the outside world and all will be well again. And that can be done by WEBCASTING the keynotes like they used to.
We all want to know what's going on, so If Apple lets us in via a webcast, we have no need for the live bloggers.
I've got agree with this -- it's so damn simple. Livecast the thing and we won't have to sit through liveblogs:
**There's a dude with a Dell notebook, OMG**
**John Mayer is playing over the speaker system -- I wonder what Mayer is doing right now**
**Steve is taking the stage -- lots of applause**
**Steve just cracked a joke about Android -- more applause**
GAHHHH!!!!!!
If it was livecasted, bloggers wouldn't need to jam the Wi-Fi channels -- they'd still be able to get us their hands-on reports after the keynote though.
It's Apple's own fault there's so much wireless traffic in the room. Cut out all of the live blogger's feeds to the outside world and all will be well again. And that can be done by WEBCASTING the keynotes like they used to.
We all want to know what's going on, so If Apple lets us in via a webcast, we have no need for the live bloggers.
I think you misunderstand the means of sending the feeds out. They aren't using Apple's access points or the convention center's, many of the people carried their own pocket cellular devices that are WiFi access points, one report gives Apple reps saying there were 570 access points in the auditorium. You would have to block everyone's cellular connection, you would have to modify the room to do that. And even without an outside connection, I don't know if the MiFi-like devices know to turn off the access point if there is no outside connection.
So far, the last two products; iPad and iPhone 4 have demonstrated problems with wi-fi. What is Apple doing new that it didn't do before with wi-fi?
Nothing... today's problem has more to do with the sudden explosion of popularity of these "personal base stations". And I don't think webcasting the keynote would necessarily quell the use of them -- all the media people present want to get their own words out there. The real answer is to upgrade the Wi-Fi equipment at Moscone, and ban the use of these personal base stations.
...one report gives Apple reps saying there were 570 access points in the auditorium. You would have to block everyone's cellular connection, you would have to modify the room to do that. And even without an outside connection, I don't know if the MiFi-like devices know to turn off the access point if there is no outside connection.
I'm pretty sure there weren't 570 "access points" (meaning MiFi-like devices) they probably meant to say 570 active WiFi devices.
In the U.S. it is against the law to block cellular network devices:
http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/413500.html
However, it is apparently legal to shield a room from cellular access but as you noted that would require modification of the entire WWDC conference room -- not something that Apple or the city of S.F. would likely be willing to attempt.
Somebody really should buy a license from Paramount to make and sell hardshell cases for the iPhone that look just like oversized communicators, complete with an app providing authentic sounds and a flip-up mesh screen protector. And while they're at it, how about an iPad case that looks like an oversized version of the original tricorders, with a narrow leather shoulder strap.
I am sure they will when they get the, 'beam me up Scotty thing working.'
I think it was more due to wifi pollution - too many hotspots in the same area competing for limited RF spectrum.
With all Apple's experience in WiFi they should have configured their own Secure WiFi hotspot with a private unique frequency at the top of the band band and hard wired to the backbone and they would have had the bandwidth almost to themselves
I'm pretty sure there weren't 570 "access points" (meaning MiFi-like devices) they probably meant to say 570 active WiFi devices.
I see what you mean, but the article says base stations and hot spots several times. 570 WiFi clients would be a very low-ball figure for a room of maybe 5000 attendees. Hopefully a video posting of the presentation will clear it up, though they might cut all that out.
Surprised they didn't get their own dedicated wifi connection for the demo rather than relying on the centres internet.
Love the new iPhone updates, just a shame that no other product lines were shown some love, 27" Cinema display, Apple TV, Mac Pro etc etc.
Uhm, it was a developers conference? Not a hardware conference. What'd you expect?