Apple still sell all models of time capsule and airport routers, even refirbished extreme and express models. If I didn't already have a extremes and time capsules of I would buy one. They have been the most reliable access points I have ever used if Apple stopped making them and I had to purchase something else I would probably go with Ubiquiti access points as they are the only units that are consistently reliable at client sites.
interestingly, I had bad experiences with some of the Amplifi gear a few years ago - amplifi being Ubiquiti's home line.
"With the rumor that Apple is discontinuing Airport and Time Machine Wi-Fi products, it leaves some users looking for new solutions. One new option might be Eero, one of the latest entrants in the field.
A simple two-port switch, and USB you can't use."
This alone means it is NOT a valid replacement for Apple's line-up. I actually would like to see an additional Ethernet port on Apple's current offerings, especially for NAS or NAS/DAS Combo options.
You might well say that if it doesn't have an optical output for audio, it's not a replacement. And you're right, technically (the best kind of correct), but what are a large percentage of users doing?
At least some of them are just trying to connect wirelessly with as little setup pain as possible. If you don't have USB devices connected to an Airport Express, and don't use airplay audio, this is not so different.
It's important to note that wireless signals propagate downward - if it were possible, it would be best to have the main router on an upper floor, and have it bathe the lower floors in signal. That's frequently not possible: when an internet service provider comes to do a job, they come and do things in the way that will optimize install time for them.
I didn't know this, is it always true? Should I be mounting my router high up?
No. It's blatant bullshit. Radio waves are not meaningfully affected by gravity except on a relativistic way, which is only measurable on a galactic scale. The reviewer simply doesn't know any better and made a patently false statement.
No, I didn't write it because gravity has a barely measurable effect. I wrote it because antenna designs make a difference. You presumed gravity, and then said I made a false statement. Look at the antenna maps for routers and how the signal spreads, particularly the elevation map. You'll find ones that propagate mostly out to the sides and downward, some that are mostly out to the sides with only a little up and down, and it all makes a difference.
It's important to note that wireless signals propagate downward - if it were possible, it would be best to have the main router on an upper floor, and have it bathe the lower floors in signal. That's frequently not possible: when an internet service provider comes to do a job, they come and do things in the way that will optimize install time for them.
I didn't know this, is it always true? Should I be mounting my router high up?
No. It's blatant bullshit. Radio waves are not meaningfully affected by gravity except on a relativistic way, which is only measurable on a galactic scale. The reviewer simply doesn't know any better and made a patently false statement.
No, I didn't write it because gravity has a barely measurable effect. I wrote it because antenna designs make a difference. You presumed gravity, and then said I made a false statement. Look at the antenna maps for routers and how the signal spreads, particularly the elevation map. You'll find ones that propagate mostly out to the sides and downward, some that are mostly out to the sides with only a little up and down, and it all makes a difference.
Strictly, that's only "down" if you mount the access point on the ceiling with the logo facing down. You can set the same access point on a table (or the floor) and the signal will propagate up instead.
Also, the description of MIMO is pretty inaccurate. It works for AP-to-STA and for STA-to-AP since access points are fundamentally the same as stations. MIMO capability is usually specified like 2x3:1 where the '2' is the number of transmit chains (encoder, amplifier, antenna), the '3' is the number of receive chains (antenna, amplifier, decoder), and the '1' is the number which can be used simultaneously for a single link. The only capability unique to access points for now is MU-MIMO with 802.11ac "wave 2". That allows you to take a 4x4 radio setup and use two to talk to one station, one to talk to a second station, and one to talk to a third station all at the same time. Last I checked, that currently isn't allowed for all stations, but it works between access points.
Comments
At least some of them are just trying to connect wirelessly with as little setup pain as possible. If you don't have USB devices connected to an Airport Express, and don't use airplay audio, this is not so different.
Also, the description of MIMO is pretty inaccurate. It works for AP-to-STA and for STA-to-AP since access points are fundamentally the same as stations. MIMO capability is usually specified like 2x3:1 where the '2' is the number of transmit chains (encoder, amplifier, antenna), the '3' is the number of receive chains (antenna, amplifier, decoder), and the '1' is the number which can be used simultaneously for a single link. The only capability unique to access points for now is MU-MIMO with 802.11ac "wave 2". That allows you to take a 4x4 radio setup and use two to talk to one station, one to talk to a second station, and one to talk to a third station all at the same time. Last I checked, that currently isn't allowed for all stations, but it works between access points.