Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
Um... not sure your math is sound here. Looks like you forgot compression. HEVC streams for damn good picture quality are in the 6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60 at the packager egress for HLS so that's with with overhead. So... your single stream Apple TV has zero need for NbaseT.
Now the next flavor of the AirPort Extreme with ac wave 2, that may be useful, or Mac Pro for SAN connections... do they still do a Mac Pro?
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
Um... not sure your math is sound here. Looks like you forgot compression. HEVC streams for damn good picture quality are in the 6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60 at the packager egress for HLS so that with with overhead. So... your single stream Apple TV has zero need for NbaseT.
Now the next flavor of the AirPort Extreme with ac wave 2, that may be useful, or Mac Pro for SAN connections... do they still do a Mac Pro?
1) How did I forget compression when HEVC is, itself, a video compression standard?
2) Your "6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60" is erroneous has it allowed no variance for different profiles. I didn't even think those ranges would even account for the complexity range of a say 1 second of an image with all pixels being the exact same color to another second with all pixels being a different color, which a single, basic profile.
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
Um... not sure your math is sound here. Looks like you forgot compression. HEVC streams for damn good picture quality are in the 6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60 at the packager egress for HLS so that with with overhead. So... your single stream Apple TV has zero need for NbaseT.
Now the next flavor of the AirPort Extreme with ac wave 2, that may be useful, or Mac Pro for SAN connections... do they still do a Mac Pro?
1) How did I forget compression when HEVC is, itself, a video compression standard?
2) Your "6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60" is erroneous has it allowed no variance for different profiles. I didn't even think those ranges would even account for the complexity range of a say 1 second of an image with all pixels being the exact same color to another second with all pixels being a different color, which a single, basic profile.
Nope, my numbers are spot on for a high profile, bit rate (and picture quality) go down from there, not up.
I get my info from 10 years in the industry... what do you do?
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
What content does an AppleTV or other like appliance serve up? Why is FDX relevant?
UltraHD (Blu-ray 4K_ is 128Mbs including 7.1 channel up to ATMOS audio. Is the suspicion here that Netflix or Apple rental streams will match or need to exceed that? I think it's safe to say buffering will be here for a long while.
Percentage of homes with >100Mbps sustained internet speeds? >100Mbps sustained Wifi?
Gig will more than cover what current content and Internet transport can deliver.
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
What content does an AppleTV or other like appliance serve up? Why is FDX relevant?
UltraHD (Blu-ray 4K_ is 128Mbs including 7.1 channel up to ATMOS audio. Is the suspicion here that Netflix or Apple rental streams will match or need to exceed that? I think it's safe to say buffering will be here for a long while.
Percentage of homes with >100Mbps sustained internet speeds? >100Mbps sustained Wifi?
Gig will more than cover what current content and Internet transport can deliver.
1) Why is Full Duplex relevant? Is that what you're asking?
2) The point is to reduce buffering so that video playback, as well as scrubbing, and skipping through content can feel more instantaneous.
3) I'm not sure what WAN speeds have to do with your LAN speed. With that argument, you may as well claim that anything beyond 802.11g is pointless or that anything past USB 2.0 is not needed. Are you also claiming that switches should drop back to 100Mbp/s because it's "good enough" for most people because of their WAN speeds?
Sure you do, when you don't even know that HEVC is a compression standard.
You can continue to believe that we will never need more than 100mbi/s, but if that were true, then there would be no 10GigE, or this article detailing a new standard of 2.5–5x the current transfer rate over the same cabling.
Having wired my house with cat 6 wire, I'd like to see faster speeds. I'm pretty much maxing out my network transferring a bunch a large files restoring files on my NAS. Jumping to say 5 gigabit using the same wires would be great. Wireless is great, but it has its limitations. When I have a choice, I'll always pick wired over wireless.
Same here, wired every single room (but two) in the house with Cat6 when I built it, at least attempting a bit of future-proofing. I'd love to see faster speeds since I'm demanding a lot more from it than I had originally anticipated.
Having wired my house with cat 6 wire, I'd like to see faster speeds. I'm pretty much maxing out my network transferring a bunch a large files restoring files on my NAS. Jumping to say 5 gigabit using the same wires would be great. Wireless is great, but it has its limitations. When I have a choice, I'll always pick wired over wireless.
Same here, wired every single room (but two) in the house with Cat6 when I built it, at least attempting a bit of future-proofing. I'd love to see faster speeds since I'm demanding a lot more from it than I had originally anticipated.
Likewise.
I have retrofit my 70s rambler with cat 5e (and some cat 6 in the later drops) before I closed up the ceilings when I finished the walkout basement. I run my business from home which is a graphic design and photography operation. I have a NAS (which has a bonded pair of gigabit ports now, newer models offer 10 gigabit ports) where my work & near-line backups live. I'm also a nerd (duh) so there is Backblaze, Plex, Sonos, 4K TVs, and all kinds of gratuitous bandwidth-sucking gear.
While I don't need better than gigabit Ethernet, I will definitely enjoy it.
go ahead and call me dumb for caring, I am still interested.
Having wired my house with cat 6 wire, I'd like to see faster speeds. I'm pretty much maxing out my network transferring a bunch a large files restoring files on my NAS. Jumping to say 5 gigabit using the same wires would be great. Wireless is great, but it has its limitations. When I have a choice, I'll always pick wired over wireless.
Same here, wired every single room (but two) in the house with Cat6 when I built it, at least attempting a bit of future-proofing. I'd love to see faster speeds since I'm demanding a lot more from it than I had originally anticipated.
I agree, it's a great idea to keep from having to replace hard wired in-wall installations which can be adapted for many other uses. It would be like requiring the electrical wiring in homes to be updated because the US upgraded to a 220v standard.
That said, has there been any discussion of USB-C offering native Ethernet, like it now supports HDMI, with just a simple cable? I could easily see the RJ-45 connector coming out of the wall terminating into a USB-C connector (or simple adapter), rather than an expensive converter, or even being replaced with a USB-C wall plate that would provide so many other functions than just Ethernet. That would actually be an amazing investment for your home as well as corporate offices. USB-C then becomes the universal connector standard for all electronic equipment, A/V, data, power, etc.
At work, the majority of clients are SSD boot drives, and 1000bT on cat 6 & 5e, and it is definitely the bottleneck for our FC arrays - the computers on the 4 Gbps FC network see 440-450 MB/s speeds, the 1000bT (majority of the clients) are only hitting 90-95 MB/s - still good, but when we are accessing 80 TB of data, the difference is very noticeable.
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
But the Apple TV doesn't support 4K anyway?
And the Apple TV doesn't support GigE. What's your point?
I clearly stated in my very first sentence "in the next Apple TV," and only spoke in terms of what the future may hold for the future of Apple's media extender appliance.
In your original post you said "I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s)."
I don't see why you're concerned with the current hardware "still" not supporting a hardware capability that it doesn't need.
Regarding future versions of the Apple TV, fair enough, of course there could be reasons the Apple TV would benefit from GigE or better, but equally it could have those hardware features, so speculation is meaningless. One of things that Apple fans routinely praise about Apple is that they adopt techonologies when they are ready and when they need it, not before. I don't see why there's any reason to be "concerned" about something that doesn't exist, and of which we know zero about the planned featureset.
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
But the Apple TV doesn't support 4K anyway?
And the Apple TV doesn't support GigE. What's your point?
I clearly stated in my very first sentence "in the next Apple TV," and only spoke in terms of what the future may hold for the future of Apple's media extender appliance.
In your original post you said "I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s)."
I don't see why you're concerned with the current hardware "still" not supporting a hardware capability that it doesn't need.
Regarding future versions of the Apple TV, fair enough, of course there could be reasons the Apple TV would benefit from GigE or better, but equally it could have those hardware features, so speculation is meaningless. One of things that Apple fans routinely praise about Apple is that they adopt techonologies when they are ready and when they need it, not before. I don't see why there's any reason to be "concerned" about something that doesn't exist, and of which we know zero about the planned featureset.
Yes, I'm concerned the future of <something> if there's a pattern of <doing nothing or being behind the curve> with their current attempts. This isn't just about CE, or products, but also with people.
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
But the Apple TV doesn't support 4K anyway?
And the Apple TV doesn't support GigE. What's your point?
I clearly stated in my very first sentence "in the next Apple TV," and only spoke in terms of what the future may hold for the future of Apple's media extender appliance.
In your original post you said "I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s)."
I don't see why you're concerned with the current hardware "still" not supporting a hardware capability that it doesn't need.
Regarding future versions of the Apple TV, fair enough, of course there could be reasons the Apple TV would benefit from GigE or better, but equally it could have those hardware features, so speculation is meaningless. One of things that Apple fans routinely praise about Apple is that they adopt techonologies when they are ready and when they need it, not before. I don't see why there's any reason to be "concerned" about something that doesn't exist, and of which we know zero about the planned featureset.
Yes, I'm concerned the future of <something> if there's a pattern of <doing nothing or being behind the curve> with their current attempts. This isn't just about CE, or products, but also with people.
Completely lost me now. Not sure what pattern you're seeing.
In order for 802.3bz standard or 802.11AC Wave2 or Wave3 to take off; Routers/Switches of such technology must come at a attractive price point like current 802.11N devices for home users to replace in masses.
For client devices like iPhone or laptops to add Wave 2 WiFi, infrastructure like home routers and public hot-spots must be available to offer such connectivity, not just inside enterprise.
Not true at all. enterprise usually drives the process. Eventually the prices will fall, but pricing does not need to fall in order for the new standards to take hold. I bet if you ask, many people you know are still running 802.11G routers at home despite the fact that there's been two newer standards for years.
Let's hope to see fast uptake of NBase-T in the consumer device world as well. This will be important to DOCSIS 3.1 modems to take full advantage of speeds right around the corner! Hope to see this also baked-in soon to Apple MacBook Pros, Time Capsule, etc.
Will we ever see this in adopted in Apple's devices? Sure, their Macs are doing away with Ethernet, but with USB-C having more than enough throughput a dongle would be adapted; but I'm more concerned with their routers and, especially, their Apple TV, which is still only at 100BASE-T (100mib/s).
Is there much need? What does the Apple TV do that needs that much throughput?
There are plenty of benefits for using GigE in the next Apple TV release. First of all, let's remember that it's running full-duplex from your router or switch, unless it's poorly setup, so that means it's 100mib/s in each direction. Now consider that it's not bytes, but bits, so let's divide that by 8 to get a more normalized, maximum throughput in MiB/s. (Note that I'm using the IEC notation, not the JEDEC notion which is confusion as it's the exact same notion as SI, which refers to the original, BASE10 (10^3 +3) instead of the more apt, binary BASE-2 (2^10 +10) that we use in computers for scaling by 1024, not 1000.
That means 100 mebiibit per second is is 12.5 mebibytes per seconds. A 1080p video is 1920×1080 "Full HD" which is 2.07 megapixels. At a 30Hz aka 30 fps, how many colors can you apply to each pixel in High Profile? What is the results for 60fps? What is the data rates for 2160p aka 4K for videos shot on the iPhone? What overhead is there for the video? How would GigE affect buffering times over 100Mib/s?
100BASE-T is doable—which is the case I made when the 4th gen Apple TV came out and people bitched—but GigE would be optimal when 4K, even though you can still get 2160p over Full Duplex 100BASE-T when using HEVC.
Um... not sure your math is sound here. Looks like you forgot compression. HEVC streams for damn good picture quality are in the 6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60 at the packager egress for HLS so that's with with overhead. So... your single stream Apple TV has zero need for NbaseT.
Now the next flavor of the AirPort Extreme with ac wave 2, that may be useful, or Mac Pro for SAN connections... do they still do a Mac Pro?
Comments
Now the next flavor of the AirPort Extreme with ac wave 2, that may be useful, or Mac Pro for SAN connections... do they still do a Mac Pro?
2) Your "6-7 Mbps range for 1080p, and 16-17 Mbps for 4Kp60" is erroneous has it allowed no variance for different profiles. I didn't even think those ranges would even account for the complexity range of a say 1 second of an image with all pixels being the exact same color to another second with all pixels being a different color, which a single, basic profile.
I get my info from 10 years in the industry... what do you do?
UltraHD (Blu-ray 4K_ is 128Mbs including 7.1 channel up to ATMOS audio. Is the suspicion here that Netflix or Apple rental streams will match or need to exceed that? I think it's safe to say buffering will be here for a long while.
Percentage of homes with >100Mbps sustained internet speeds? >100Mbps sustained Wifi?
Gig will more than cover what current content and Internet transport can deliver.
2) The point is to reduce buffering so that video playback, as well as scrubbing, and skipping through content can feel more instantaneous.
3) I'm not sure what WAN speeds have to do with your LAN speed. With that argument, you may as well claim that anything beyond 802.11g is pointless or that anything past USB 2.0 is not needed. Are you also claiming that switches should drop back to 100Mbp/s because it's "good enough" for most people because of their WAN speeds?
You can continue to believe that we will never need more than 100mbi/s, but if that were true, then there would be no 10GigE, or this article detailing a new standard of 2.5–5x the current transfer rate over the same cabling.
I have retrofit my 70s rambler with cat 5e (and some cat 6 in the later drops) before I closed up the ceilings when I finished the walkout basement. I run my business from home which is a graphic design and photography operation. I have a NAS (which has a bonded pair of gigabit ports now, newer models offer 10 gigabit ports) where my work & near-line backups live. I'm also a nerd (duh) so there is Backblaze, Plex, Sonos, 4K TVs, and all kinds of gratuitous bandwidth-sucking gear.
While I don't need better than gigabit Ethernet, I will definitely enjoy it.
go ahead and call me dumb for caring, I am still interested.
That said, has there been any discussion of USB-C offering native Ethernet, like it now supports HDMI, with just a simple cable? I could easily see the RJ-45 connector coming out of the wall terminating into a USB-C connector (or simple adapter), rather than an expensive converter, or even being replaced with a USB-C wall plate that would provide so many other functions than just Ethernet. That would actually be an amazing investment for your home as well as corporate offices. USB-C then becomes the universal connector standard for all electronic equipment, A/V, data, power, etc.
At work, the majority of clients are SSD boot drives, and 1000bT on cat 6 & 5e, and it is definitely the bottleneck for our FC arrays - the computers on the 4 Gbps FC network see 440-450 MB/s speeds, the 1000bT (majority of the clients) are only hitting 90-95 MB/s - still good, but when we are accessing 80 TB of data, the difference is very noticeable.
I don't see why you're concerned with the current hardware "still" not supporting a hardware capability that it doesn't need.
Regarding future versions of the Apple TV, fair enough, of course there could be reasons the Apple TV would benefit from GigE or better, but equally it could have those hardware features, so speculation is meaningless. One of things that Apple fans routinely praise about Apple is that they adopt techonologies when they are ready and when they need it, not before. I don't see why there's any reason to be "concerned" about something that doesn't exist, and of which we know zero about the planned featureset.
http://www.foxsports.com/presspass/latestnews/2016/08/26/fox-sports-go-launches-on-apple-tv