My wife keeps looking at the Apple TV Remote and saying how Apple seems to be the only company that is moving towards something like the Monolith from 2001. Looks like the new Time Capsule and Mac Pro are heading that way too!
My wife keeps looking at the Apple TV Remote and saying how Apple seems to be the only company that is moving towards something like the Monolith from 2001. Looks like the new Time Capsule and Mac Pro are heading that way too!
The Apple remote is not ergonomic for my hands. It's great for portability, but that's usually not the point with AppleTV.
It's the exact same material as it has been for years. Yes- it attracts dust- but it will attract less than the current model as the footprint is smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
Who really cares about the design. But bitches always gotta bitch.
Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigminah
The new Time Capsule and Mac Pro both have horrible designs where Apple seems like they're trying to prove something. Yuck. Hopefully they don't FUBAR the pending Mac Mini refresh.
I hope the Mac Mini looks just like it- it will be better in my situation, because it will save me 75% more space. And more importantly, if the design (once one of these are torn down) allows for better cooling capacity (particularly for the Time Capsule)- then it is a brilliant design move. Just because it doesn't fit "your" specification means absolutely nothing to anyone. Too bad, so sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984lars
What about the signal strength/range? Is there an improvement compared to the 5th generation of the APE?
This is the most important question brought up so far. All I care about is the improved range. If all these people are worrying about is aesthetics on a frikkin' router- then they are morons. Plain and simple.
It will also be compatible with the new Mac Pro. I'd like to HOPE there will be ethernet dongles that will adapt previous Macs to the new protocol. Even if they don't go at full 11.ac speeds, if they're faster than the current wireless systems it will be good.
I'd like to HOPE there will be ethernet dongles that will adapt previous Macs to the new protocol.
I don't understand. Do you want to plug a wifi adapter into your ethernet port so you can get 802.11ac? Apple released one of those adapters yesterday (http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/). Set it on your desk and run an ethernet cable from the device to your computer.
I love the new design. Less of a foot print, improved range, and better antennas. I do wish they would have added a fourth LAN port to it, but its not a deal breaker.
I'm guessing the next time capsule will also be smaller, to match, and quite possibly the mac mini server will be smaller as well.
One nice touch of the new design is the apparent, integrated AC/DC power supply. I don't really care much what the device looks like, but at least for me it is great to have one fewer box and one fewer cord.
"Another downside is the polycarbonate body's predilection to attracting dust."
What the huh? Is this thing made out of something different then the old model?
Funny that so many are unable to appreciate that this thing is form-follows-function (the way it should be.) Guess Ive should have just slapped a half-dozen basket antennas onto the old design
Yes, form should follow function (not that Apple always follows this theory). But my question is if the form of the Extreme is following its function? Or it is simply following the form, and thus the function, of the Time Capsule, which requires an internal hard drive? Is it only the antenna array that is causing the Time Capsule to be so tall? Or is it also due to the hard drive (which I'm assuming is a vertial 3.5" drive mounted diagonally inside the case) which the Extreme doesn't have. I'll be curious to see the teardowns of both of the new Airports.
The USB 2 spec is a bit disappointing. Almost as if Apple doesn't really want you to hook up a hard drive to these things. Between the gigabit Ethernet and AC wi-fi, it would be relatively easy to overwhelm USB 2.
But it seems that it has real, full sized hard drives in it so the version without a hard drive would have a lot less weight and be less stable overall. For those of us that don't need the hard drive (most), it seems silly to use the same housing. I have the same thoughts as "Wiggin" above in that I would rather it be shorter and not have the hard drive, and wonder if it really needs to be that tall shape for the aerials or if it's for the giant hard drive that I don't need.
Edit: I know they make it stand on a table because they consider the design to be a "work of art" that one wants to show off, but most folks I know still put it behind the couch or shop for a wall mount so they can put it in a wiring closet with the other network gear. Wall mounted routers and wireless hubs are pretty much the standard.
Apple will-fully ignores that "standard" and therefore the wish of the majority of their customers.
And again, many are underestimating Apple and their design forward thinking (and obsessive attention to detail). The shape is unusual, but the footprint is much smaller and the vertical shape probably adds to the antenna functionality.
You can see the vertically elongated/ square (or round) base/ small footprint trend also in the new Mac Pro design. Even the iPhone is stretched.
Is there anyone at the conference that can ask Apple people if there will be an Airport Express with 802.11ac? Possibly the extra antennas may not allow an 802.11ac express design.
I currently have an Airport Extreme. The new "footprint" may be smaller but its height is a real problem. Cable management will be terrible if every port is used, in my case they would be. All the cables climbing up the back and and hanging out will look awful compared to the current design where they are low and close to the desk/shelf.
Only have 3 gigabit ports is also a bummer. Most products over $100 have 4, some more.
The new design may help with the antenna(s) but all they are really doing is trying make up for the fact that the antennas are not external and removable. For most people, the ability to swap out the standard omnidirectional antenna for a directional antenna would do far more to help with their wireless signal than this design.
That being said, Apple has a built-in audience for anything they make. Most of their fans ignore the weaknesses of their products and pretend the often questionable benefits and design choices are some giant innovation. If Apple does something differently than every other company, their assumption is that this difference has to be great. I am sure they will sell a lot of these.
It reminds me of the iPod Nano Fatty. A year from now it will be changed to something different and everyone will pretend it never happened.
Nonsense.
Originally Posted by craigminah
The new Time Capsule and Mac Pro both have horrible designs where Apple seems like they're trying to prove something. Yuck. Hopefully they don't FUBAR the pending Mac Mini refresh.
Thanks for proving you don't know anything about anything.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
- What's the black tab thing on the bottom about?
Wrapping that the guy left on for zero reason.
Quote:
- What kind of drives are in the Time Capsule versions?
Given the capacities, they have to be 3.5".
- Are both products the same size?
Yes. Apple.com shows that.
- If it's so light, is it "tippy"?
All the weight is going to be at the bottom. The height is for antennas.
Originally Posted by numba1
Is there anyone at the conference that can ask Apple people if there will be an Airport Express with 802.11ac?
Plenty of people. Apple won't answer that, though. Why would they?
Funny that so many are unable to appreciate that this thing is form-follows-function (the way it should be.)
We won't know if form follows function until someone opens up the new Extreme to show us how it's configured internally. The design is unsightly enough that Apple should have shown the internals at introduction.
What good is that speed test when 802.11n wifi ought to be far faster than the tester's broadband and the test is subject to variability in the broadband?
If the box is any indication of form following function, then this is a fail. The device can easily fall out (on the floor--which it did) when the box is opened. And when the bottom of the now-empty box is inserted into the top, it goes so far inside that its removal is difficult.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdowell
Looks like it will be a dust magnet and fall over.
You're probably right. All of my other objects fall over when dust hits them.
My wife keeps looking at the Apple TV Remote and saying how Apple seems to be the only company that is moving towards something like the Monolith from 2001. Looks like the new Time Capsule and Mac Pro are heading that way too!
The Apple remote is not ergonomic for my hands. It's great for portability, but that's usually not the point with AppleTV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
It looks like it may have a smaller footprint than the current time capsule.
75% less footprint. All specs are found at http://www.apple.com/airport-time-capsule/
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdowell
Looks like it will be a dust magnet
It's the exact same material as it has been for years. Yes- it attracts dust- but it will attract less than the current model as the footprint is smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
Who really cares about the design. But bitches always gotta bitch.
Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigminah
The new Time Capsule and Mac Pro both have horrible designs where Apple seems like they're trying to prove something. Yuck. Hopefully they don't FUBAR the pending Mac Mini refresh.
I hope the Mac Mini looks just like it- it will be better in my situation, because it will save me 75% more space. And more importantly, if the design (once one of these are torn down) allows for better cooling capacity (particularly for the Time Capsule)- then it is a brilliant design move. Just because it doesn't fit "your" specification means absolutely nothing to anyone. Too bad, so sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984lars
What about the signal strength/range? Is there an improvement compared to the 5th generation of the APE?
This is the most important question brought up so far. All I care about is the improved range. If all these people are worrying about is aesthetics on a frikkin' router- then they are morons. Plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108
I'd like to HOPE there will be ethernet dongles that will adapt previous Macs to the new protocol.
I don't understand. Do you want to plug a wifi adapter into your ethernet port so you can get 802.11ac? Apple released one of those adapters yesterday (http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/). Set it on your desk and run an ethernet cable from the device to your computer.
This tells us nothing at all. It's not even really an "unboxing."
Questions:
- What's the black tab thing on the bottom about?
- What kind of drives are in the Time Capsule versions?
- Are both products the same size?
- If it's so light, is it "tippy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
- Are both products the same size?
Yes. Apple.com
One nice touch of the new design is the apparent, integrated AC/DC power supply. I don't really care much what the device looks like, but at least for me it is great to have one fewer box and one fewer cord.
"Another downside is the polycarbonate body's predilection to attracting dust."
What the huh? Is this thing made out of something different then the old model?
Funny that so many are unable to appreciate that this thing is form-follows-function (the way it should be.) Guess Ive should have just slapped a half-dozen basket antennas onto the old design
Yes, form should follow function (not that Apple always follows this theory). But my question is if the form of the Extreme is following its function? Or it is simply following the form, and thus the function, of the Time Capsule, which requires an internal hard drive? Is it only the antenna array that is causing the Time Capsule to be so tall? Or is it also due to the hard drive (which I'm assuming is a vertial 3.5" drive mounted diagonally inside the case) which the Extreme doesn't have. I'll be curious to see the teardowns of both of the new Airports.The USB 2 spec is a bit disappointing. Almost as if Apple doesn't really want you to hook up a hard drive to these things. Between the gigabit Ethernet and AC wi-fi, it would be relatively easy to overwhelm USB 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Yes. Apple.com
Yeah, I looked this up afterwards also.
But it seems that it has real, full sized hard drives in it so the version without a hard drive would have a lot less weight and be less stable overall. For those of us that don't need the hard drive (most), it seems silly to use the same housing. I have the same thoughts as "Wiggin" above in that I would rather it be shorter and not have the hard drive, and wonder if it really needs to be that tall shape for the aerials or if it's for the giant hard drive that I don't need.
Edit: I know they make it stand on a table because they consider the design to be a "work of art" that one wants to show off, but most folks I know still put it behind the couch or shop for a wall mount so they can put it in a wiring closet with the other network gear. Wall mounted routers and wireless hubs are pretty much the standard.
Apple will-fully ignores that "standard" and therefore the wish of the majority of their customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Wall mounted routers and wireless hubs are pretty much the standard.
Airport isn't meant to address the needs of enterprise customers, where wall mounting is far less common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
Airport isn't meant to address the needs of enterprise customers, where wall mounting is far less common.
Wall mounting isn't just limited to enterprise customers. I would say most home consumer wireless routers offer wall mounting....
You can see the vertically elongated/ square (or round) base/ small footprint trend also in the new Mac Pro design. Even the iPhone is stretched.
Expect the industry to follow.
I currently have an Airport Extreme. The new "footprint" may be smaller but its height is a real problem. Cable management will be terrible if every port is used, in my case they would be. All the cables climbing up the back and and hanging out will look awful compared to the current design where they are low and close to the desk/shelf.
Only have 3 gigabit ports is also a bummer. Most products over $100 have 4, some more.
The new design may help with the antenna(s) but all they are really doing is trying make up for the fact that the antennas are not external and removable. For most people, the ability to swap out the standard omnidirectional antenna for a directional antenna would do far more to help with their wireless signal than this design.
That being said, Apple has a built-in audience for anything they make. Most of their fans ignore the weaknesses of their products and pretend the often questionable benefits and design choices are some giant innovation. If Apple does something differently than every other company, their assumption is that this difference has to be great. I am sure they will sell a lot of these.
-kpluck
Originally Posted by ascii
It reminds me of the iPod Nano Fatty. A year from now it will be changed to something different and everyone will pretend it never happened.
Nonsense.
Originally Posted by craigminah
The new Time Capsule and Mac Pro both have horrible designs where Apple seems like they're trying to prove something. Yuck. Hopefully they don't FUBAR the pending Mac Mini refresh.
Thanks for proving you don't know anything about anything.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
- What's the black tab thing on the bottom about?
Wrapping that the guy left on for zero reason.
Quote:
- What kind of drives are in the Time Capsule versions?
Given the capacities, they have to be 3.5".
- Are both products the same size?
Yes. Apple.com shows that.
- If it's so light, is it "tippy"?
All the weight is going to be at the bottom. The height is for antennas.
Originally Posted by numba1
Is there anyone at the conference that can ask Apple people if there will be an Airport Express with 802.11ac?
Plenty of people. Apple won't answer that, though. Why would they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
Funny that so many are unable to appreciate that this thing is form-follows-function (the way it should be.)
We won't know if form follows function until someone opens up the new Extreme to show us how it's configured internally. The design is unsightly enough that Apple should have shown the internals at introduction.
What good is that speed test when 802.11n wifi ought to be far faster than the tester's broadband and the test is subject to variability in the broadband?
If the box is any indication of form following function, then this is a fail. The device can easily fall out (on the floor--which it did) when the box is opened. And when the bottom of the now-empty box is inserted into the top, it goes so far inside that its removal is difficult.