802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi experts sought by Apple

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
With Apple rumored to be interested in releasing new Macs with superfast 802.11ac wireless connectivity this year, a new job listing by the company advertises a position for engineers experienced with Gigabit Wi-Fi.

Job


The mention of 802.11ac comes from a new job posting listed by the company on Sunday, first highlighted by AppleBitch. The role of "System Test Engineer" will be based at Apple's corporate Campus in Cupertino, Calif., and focuses on Wi-Fi connectivity.

In the job listing, Apple notes that the position requires "technical knowledge" of the Wi-Fi standard in all forms, including the next-generation 802.11ac. The ideal candidate will include "experience on consumer-facing hardware/software products."

The new job posting comes only days after a rumor surfaced claiming that Apple plans to add Gigabit Wi-Fi to its 2013 Mac lineup. The so-called "5G Wi-Fi" standard offers up to 1.3Gbps data transfers with a three-antenna design.

Current Macs and other Apple devices feature 802.11n networking, the current industry standard for Wi-Fi. That allows transfers of up to 450Mbps with three antennas ? a feat that 802.11ac can accomplish with just one antenna.

Time Capsule


Apple is rumored to have struck a deal with Broadcom to potentially debut 802.11ac in this year's Macs. The Broadcom chips reportedly remain in development and are not yet available to use.

Apple has a history of being on the cutting edge with Wi-Fi ? it was among the first to bring Wi-Fi to the masses in 1999, while Apple secretly included support for the "Draft-N" specification in some of its devices in 2006 before the 802.11n standard was officially ratified.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,155member
    I wonder how many years it will be before we look back and 'remember' when there was a concept of band width or any form of limit on what we can send or receive?
  • Reply 2 of 35


    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

    I wonder how many years it will be before we look back and 'remember' when there was a concept of band width or any form of limit on what we can send or receive?


     


    If the telecoms have their way?



    Millennia. 

  • Reply 3 of 35
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member
    I am curious how this line in the job description "Technical knowledge of WiFi (802.11a,b,g, ac) and Ethernet network environments", turns into the headline "802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi experts sought by Apple"?

    Judging by the listing, 802.11ac knowledge is no more important than any of the other requirements they listed.

    Gotta get those clicks?

    -kpluck
  • Reply 4 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,155member
    If the telecoms have their way?


    Millennia. 

    I wasn't thinking about that aspect, rather technologically speaking. It maybe in Scandinavia not here for the reasons you give of course. I was thinking as in the way we don't watch conventional TV and think about how much data is coming down that wire or if it will stutter ... one day there will simply be so much available band width it will be like traditional TV to a user in those terms. Perhaps that can only happen when we get better and more spectra made available.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I wasn't thinking about that aspect, rather technologically speaking. It maybe in Scandinavia not here for the reasons you give of course. I was thinking as in the way we don't watch conventional TV and think about how much data is coming down that wire or if it will stutter ... one day there will simply be so much available band width it will be like traditional TV to a user in those terms. Perhaps that can only happen when we get better and more spectra made available.

    Even TV bandwidth is constrained. VHF is 30 to 300MHz, and if I remember correctly, each channel has a 6MHz band. The only way we have so many channels now is digital and IP.

    I can't see how there will ever be too much bandwidth. If we get to a point where the speed is so fast we aren't utilizing it we'll likely always find ways to use it. We don't even have 4K video at 48fps to our homes yet.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Of course Apple is interested. Of course they would like it to be as soon as is feasible under their quality standards. Of course they are looking for folks with knowledge.

    And when even faster wifi standards are created they will want to use that. same with better video and audio compression, more efficient processors and displays, better batteries.

    Tell us something we don't know
  • Reply 7 of 35
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Even TV bandwidth is constrained. VHF is 30 to 300MHz, and if I remember correctly, each channel has a 6MHz band. The only way we have so many channels now is digital and IP.

    I can't see how there will ever be too much bandwidth. If we get to a point where the speed is so fast we aren't utilizing it we'll likely always find ways to use it. We don't even have 4K video at 48fps to our homes yet.


     


    I think you're missing the poster's original point.  TV bandwidth may be constrained but the end user does not know about it nor have to experience any problems related to it.  For instance, one of the dirty secrets about things like Netflix is that sometimes it has bandwidth problems and just won't work for a few minutes while some cache is being accessed somewhere on some part of the network between you and the source.  


     


    It rarely if ever happens that the TV stops halfway through a show while it buffers, but with Netflix, Hulu etc., it does fairly regularly.  The same with the app store or iTunes etc. 


     


    One also has to worry about data caps and compression as well.  


     


    I believe the poster was wondering how long it will be before these little pauses, glitches, and other worries will disappear, thus making the new stuff seem as reliable and invisible to the end user as the old TV is/was. 

  • Reply 8 of 35
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,572member
    I really hope Apple's next Airport Extreme supports an iOS-compatible VPN. It is really a pain that you have to use a computer to do it now... or buy a Cisco ASA.
  • Reply 9 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member


    OSX is a bit of failure as far as connecting to free WiFi networks goes.  Apple really should fix this before they concentrate on faster WiFi.

  • Reply 10 of 35
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by cnocbui 

    OSX is a bit of failure as far as connecting to free WiFi networks goes.


     


    This has to be trolling.

  • Reply 11 of 35
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,780member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    This has to be trolling.



     


    Yep.

  • Reply 12 of 35
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member


    Originally Posted by cnocbui

    OSX is a bit of failure as far as connecting to free WiFi networks goes.  Apple really should fix this before they concentrate on faster WiFi.



    Care to explain how OS X can only connect to paid WiFi networks?

  • Reply 13 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    This has to be trolling.





    No, I wish it were.


     


    I recently went on a trip via two Airports that offered free WiFi.  I couldn't connect to either Airports WiFi with my 15" Macbook pro Retina running ML.  My son tried with a 13" Macbook Pro running Leopard, but it failed too.  However, when he booted it into Linux, he got a connection.  My Daughter tried with her ancient Toshiba laptop running Windows 7 and had no problem connecting.  I was able to get a connection on my Samsung Phone, and my son likewise.  The two phones run diffferent OSs, so 4 different OS's could connect without problem, yet two different versions of OSX couldn't.

  • Reply 14 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Care to explain how OS X can only connect to paid WiFi networks?




    I have no idea.

  • Reply 15 of 35
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

    I have no idea.


     


    Then don't claim there are any problems!


     


    ???????????

  • Reply 16 of 35


    Forgive me for my ignorance. But if something like this is to be included into new Mac-Book Pros, will the older version be upgradeable? Not upgradable from a stance of taking it back for a newer one. But actually opening up the MBP and changing out whatever needs to be changed out to attain the Gigabit Wifi. Hopefully this post makes since. Just curious because I just purchased my first Mac-Book Pro a couple weeks ago.

  • Reply 17 of 35
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    I think you're missing the poster's original point.  TV bandwidth may be constrained but the end user does not know about it nor have to experience any problems related to it.  For instance, one of the dirty secrets about things like Netflix is that sometimes it has bandwidth problems and just won't work for a few minutes while some cache is being accessed somewhere on some part of the network between you and the source.  


     


    It rarely if ever happens that the TV stops halfway through a show while it buffers, but with Netflix, Hulu etc., it does fairly regularly.  The same with the app store or iTunes etc. 


     


    One also has to worry about data caps and compression as well.  


     


    I believe the poster was wondering how long it will be before these little pauses, glitches, and other worries will disappear, thus making the new stuff seem as reliable and invisible to the end user as the old TV is/was. 



    Not quite, it may not stop, but it frequently starts doing those classic, squares and rectangled areas of the screen (pixelating) of hdtv signals  which is essentially the same thing especially during high action and sports oriented filming.



    Pixelation on HDTVs is not always caused by the set's inability to keep up with the images it receives; television producers often use pixelation to obscure images deliberately to cover up nudity on non-adult programming or to hide someone's face to protect his identity on a news segment or interview.


    Other causes of pixelation include bad weather; the HDTV set is older or a lower-end model; the HDMI cable is low quality; and faulty or substandard cable boxes.






    Read more: What Causes Pixelation in HDTV? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8370250_causes-pixelation-hdtv.html#ixzz2HKOKuJYh
  • Reply 18 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Then don't claim there are any problems!


     


    ???????????





    Your lack of logic escapes me.  It smacks of the Emperors new clothes.  'There is no problem unless you can explain why it exists.'  Try again. You explain why 4 different OS's were able to connect without issue, while two versions of OSX couldn't.

  • Reply 19 of 35
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by kaptivator View Post

    But if something like this is to be included into new Mac-Book Pros, will the older version be upgradeable?


     


    Not a chance. But welcome!






    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

    You explain why 4 different OS's were able to connect without issue, while two versions of OSX couldn't.



     


    You're doing it wrong.


     


    That's as accurate an explanation as anyone can give, since you've offered zero information about the situation.

  • Reply 20 of 35
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kaptivator wrote: »
    Forgive me for my ignorance. But if something like this is to be included into new Mac-Book Pros, will the older version be upgradeable? Not upgradable from a stance of taking it back for a newer one. But actually opening up the MBP and changing out whatever needs to be changed out to attain the Gigabit Wifi. Hopefully this post makes since. Just curious because I just purchased my first Mac-Book Pro a couple weeks ago.

    Simple answer: no.

    Complex answer: The newest MBPs use this card for WiFi (and BT). That could technically be removed and replaced with one that also included 802.11ac but there is no guarantee such cards or the proper drivers will be available for those MBPs.

    There is one example of Apple including the chips that support 802.11b/gn but only advertising and selling the units as supporting 802.11b/g. Once the driver was ready they sold it for $1.99. Based on card info that seems unlikely this time around.

    Because the card is easily swapped Apple could start selling all their Macs with 802.11a/b/g/n/ac as soon as the new AirPort routers announced with a silent HW upgrade to these machines, but that would affect anyone who already owns one unless one of the other options are available.

    In the end it doesn't really matter right unless you really need two or more PCs to have faster connections to each other on a Wireless LAN. Most people still have the internet as their bottleneck.
Sign In or Register to comment.