I thought Airplay would be great until I found out Apple were doing one of their usual greed maneuvers and disabled the Touch and iPhone from being on the receiving end. Back to using DNLA via the Samsung phone. This also sounds like just a scheme to sell licenses to manufacturers of audio equipment. Again, more about the money than end user convenience.
While I don't agree with your usual cynical interpretation, it would be a great thing for lectures and classrooms to be able to "broadcast" to multiple personal devices, but including video, of course. I imagine Apple is working on this, but working for their usual perfection, not out of greed.
So would the new iDevices have Wifi that can connect to two devices, Internet and these new ad-hoc ones?
Doubt it. Effectively, iDevice will form a network with the speakers, and will therefore be unable to connect to another network without dropping the first one.
Doubt it. Effectively, iDevice will form a network with the speakers, and will therefore be unable to connect to another network without dropping the first one.
You might be right but note this is the opposite of how AirDrop functions and this seems right in line with its fundamental concepts.
Doubt it. Effectively, iDevice will form a network with the speakers, and will therefore be unable to connect to another network without dropping the first one.
You might be right but note this is the opposite of how AirDrop functions and this seems right in line with its fundamental concepts.
I think it makes more sense to do that over Bluetooth, at least the audio Airplay. Then it would be WiFi-free in any sense of the term, consume less power, and if you have a WiFi chip, you leave it available for a data connection. I think the nano already implements Bluetooth in a limited way for Nike+, so it's not a stretch, nor does it involve more electronic components.
While I don't agree with your usual cynical interpretation, it would be a great thing for lectures and classrooms to be able to "broadcast" to multiple personal devices, but including video, of course. I imagine Apple is working on this, but working for their usual perfection, not out of greed.
Well I have some sympathies with both views. I am somewhat annoyed that despite owning three iOS devices, Apple do not allow me to print directly to my printer via either of my Airport Expresses. Come on, Apple, you're already the richest company in the world (due to OUR patronage), give us a break!! aka look after your customers...
I think it makes more sense to do that over Bluetooth, at least the audio Airplay. Then it would be WiFi-free in any sense of the term, consume less power, and if you have a WiFi chip, you leave it available for a data connection. I think the nano already implements Bluetooth in a limited way for Nike+, so it's not a stretch, nor does it involve more electronic components.
A few things to consider...
AirDrop creates an Ad-hoc WiFi network without affecting your LAN WiFi connection.
Bluetooth uses 802.11 (id est, WiFi) for higher bandwidth.
I doubt Apple is thinking about just BT headphone quality audio. I would imagine they are considering HD audio and video which then falls under higher bandwidth needs.
Bluetooth range is much shorter than WiFi.
On top of that, I have seen no evidence that BT is a more power efficient transport medium for functions that both BT and WiFi can perform, especially for higher bandwidth operations. I think the 802.11 rumour is most plausible.
AirDrop creates an Ad-hoc WiFi network without affecting your LAN WiFi connection.
Doesn't it do that with a second WiFi device in the notebook? If it's using the same device, I don't see why it won't impede the other WiFi connection in some way, you would have to at least time-share it, reducing bandwidth available.
Bluetooth range is much shorter than WiFi.
On top of that, I have seen no evidence that BT is a more power efficient transport medium for functions that both BT and WiFi can perform, especially for higher bandwidth operations. I think the 802.11 rumour is most plausible.
I've found 10 meters to be quite sufficient for anything I needed Airplay to do.
The article mentions an ambiguity concerning whether it is only audio or audio and video. Then there's the idea that somehow "WiFi-free" is still WiFi, which is, quite frankly, bozo.
Doesn't it do that with a second WiFi device in the notebook? If it's using the same device, I don't see why it won't impede the other WiFi connection in some way, you would have to at least time-share it, reducing bandwidth available.
I'm not sure. It would seem like there would have to at least a dual channel system in place. All I know is that when I've tested it AirDrop's ad-hoc network has been much slower than the standard WiFi through the router.
I've found 10 meters to be quite sufficient for anything I needed Airplay to do.
10 meters for BT AirPlay or 10 meters with WiFi AirPlay?
The article mentions an ambiguity concerning whether it is only audio or audio and video. Then there's the idea that somehow "WiFi-free" is still WiFi, which is, quite frankly, bozo.
It is ambiguous and incomplete. As I mentioned previously ad-hoc is network type so calling it network free is also erroneous when you get down to the nuts and bolts.
I'm not sure. It would seem like there would have to at least a dual channel system in place. All I know is that when I've tested it AirDrop's ad-hoc network has been much slower than the standard WiFi through the router.
10 meters for BT AirPlay or 10 meters with WiFi AirPlay?
You mentioned that Bluetooth has a smaller range. The 10 meters available with Bluetooth signalling has been more than sufficient for me. With BT audio, I can usually be two rooms away before I start dropping out.
Comments
While I don't agree with your usual cynical interpretation, it would be a great thing for lectures and classrooms to be able to "broadcast" to multiple personal devices, but including video, of course. I imagine Apple is working on this, but working for their usual perfection, not out of greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges
So would the new iDevices have Wifi that can connect to two devices, Internet and these new ad-hoc ones?
Doubt it. Effectively, iDevice will form a network with the speakers, and will therefore be unable to connect to another network without dropping the first one.
You might be right but note this is the opposite of how AirDrop functions and this seems right in line with its fundamental concepts.
I think it makes more sense to do that over Bluetooth, at least the audio Airplay. Then it would be WiFi-free in any sense of the term, consume less power, and if you have a WiFi chip, you leave it available for a data connection. I think the nano already implements Bluetooth in a limited way for Nike+, so it's not a stretch, nor does it involve more electronic components.
Well I have some sympathies with both views. I am somewhat annoyed that despite owning three iOS devices, Apple do not allow me to print directly to my printer via either of my Airport Expresses. Come on, Apple, you're already the richest company in the world (due to OUR patronage), give us a break!! aka look after your customers...
A few things to consider...
On top of that, I have seen no evidence that BT is a more power efficient transport medium for functions that both BT and WiFi can perform, especially for higher bandwidth operations. I think the 802.11 rumour is most plausible.
Doesn't it do that with a second WiFi device in the notebook? If it's using the same device, I don't see why it won't impede the other WiFi connection in some way, you would have to at least time-share it, reducing bandwidth available.
I've found 10 meters to be quite sufficient for anything I needed Airplay to do.
The article mentions an ambiguity concerning whether it is only audio or audio and video. Then there's the idea that somehow "WiFi-free" is still WiFi, which is, quite frankly, bozo.
I'm not sure. It would seem like there would have to at least a dual channel system in place. All I know is that when I've tested it AirDrop's ad-hoc network has been much slower than the standard WiFi through the router.
10 meters for BT AirPlay or 10 meters with WiFi AirPlay?
It is ambiguous and incomplete. As I mentioned previously ad-hoc is network type so calling it network free is also erroneous when you get down to the nuts and bolts.
You mentioned that Bluetooth has a smaller range. The 10 meters available with Bluetooth signalling has been more than sufficient for me. With BT audio, I can usually be two rooms away before I start dropping out.