PDA

View Full Version : Airport Extreme Air Disk, and 801.11n Upgrades $4.99 [Update]




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jan 15, 2007, 09:22 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/15/airport-extreme-air-disk-and-801-11n-upgrades-4-99/)


OReillynet.com notes (http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/01/airport_disk_easy_network_stor.html) that the quietly updated Airport Extreme Basestation (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/) incorporates a new feature called Airport Disk (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/sharing.html):New to AirPort Extreme, AirPort Disk turns almost any external USB hard drive into a shared drive. Simply connect the drive to the USB port on the back of your AirPort Extreme and voila all the documents, videos, photos, and other files on the drive instantly become available to anyone on the secure network, Mac and PC alike. Its perfect for backups, collaborative projects, and more.
The new Airport Extreme basestations support the faster 802.11n protocol which is now shipping with all new Macs. Unfortunately, existing Mac customers (with inactive 802.11n hardware) need to run a special installer that is only included with the new base stations to activate the "n" portion of their wireless hardware. Apple started quitely shipping a number of their recent Macs with inactive 802.11n hardware:
- iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
- MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
- MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
- Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option

iLounge offers (http://backstage.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/oh-about-that-80211n-card-in-your-c2d-mac/) an unsatisfying explanation for the reason that the installer is only being bundled with the new base stations:
Because of the [Sarbanes-Oxley Act], the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasnt finished delivering the product at that point.
Of interest, surrounding the release of the 802.11n basestation, we heard claims that Apple would eventually be offering the 802.11n installer for $4.99. At that time, the upgrade fee made little sense, but now appears to be due to the account issue described by iLounge.

Update: MacRumors has received confirmation that Apple will be releasing Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler 1.0 for US $4.99 in February.

Article Link: Airport Extreme Air Disk, and 801.11n Upgrades $4.99 [Update] (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/15/airport-extreme-air-disk-and-801-11n-upgrades-4-99/)



Cepe Indicum
Jan 15, 2007, 09:27 AM
Always wanted this feature... thanks Apple!

tyr2
Jan 15, 2007, 09:33 AM
I wander what file systems are supported on the external disk, the linked document doesn't say. NFS+ and FAT32 I'd guess.

EagerDragon
Jan 15, 2007, 09:33 AM
If I remeber correctly at least for a time, you could not install the mighty mouse driver except from the disk that came with it. I thought that was stupid, and I still think the same of this new capability for the unlocking of the 802.11n. I do not believe SOX has anything to do with it. SOX is about reporting and protecting financial data, not about marketing new features.

Modrak
Jan 15, 2007, 09:34 AM
And what about poeple with MBPs at WWDC that saw the 5.8GHz AirPort ? Something else ? Or backwards compatibility of 802.11n with 802.11g ?

purelithium
Jan 15, 2007, 09:35 AM
i thought SOX was about full disclosure and providing internal controls to prevent insider trading and the like, and had nothing to do with enabling computer hardware with a software program...

Whistleway
Jan 15, 2007, 09:35 AM
You missed the most important word: it's draft-n.

EagerDragon
Jan 15, 2007, 09:35 AM
And what about poeple with MBPs at WWDC that saw the 5.8GHz AirPort ? Something else ? Or backwards compatibility of 802.11n with 802.11g ?

Your question is not clear to me. Please elaborate.

mmmcheese
Jan 15, 2007, 09:42 AM
Yeah, I'm not buying it either...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act



Only the Core 2 Duo based machines an beyond have draft-n parts in them, correct?

And what about poeple with MBPs at WWDC that saw the 5.8GHz AirPort ? Something else ? Or backwards compatibility of 802.11n with 802.11g ?

5.8GHz is 802.11a...which was supposed to replace 802.11b because it had faster speeds. The problem was that it wasn't backwards compatible, so people created 802.11g instead, which has the same speed, but runs in the same band as 802.11b and is backwards compatible. One nice thing about it is there is less interference there at the moment since there are fewer devices competing for the spectrum (bluetooth, telephones, other access points, game controllers, etc.)

All the Intel based mac chipsets support 802.11a...not sure if it is actually enabled in the software though.

GekkePrutser
Jan 15, 2007, 09:43 AM
That's a handy feature!! Much handier than that audio gateway thing on the old extremes. I would never use that. But this I can see myself using for sure!

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 09:45 AM
Sarbanes-Oxley has had a wide range of unintended consequenses. It needs to be killed.

Criminalizing CEO's
Exporting IPO's
General consumer product feature control punishment.

The main problem is it criminalized a bunch of stuff that was either already criminal under a different theory, but was not enforced, or was a civil matter.

Worst of all, it makes the chain of command criminally liable for acts underlings do entirely outside of their awareness and control.

Rocketman

T'hain Esh Kelch
Jan 15, 2007, 09:45 AM
It is strange that they can't give out the updater.. Its just an improvement upon an excisting technology.. It would be the same as having those Mac mini's that shipped with better specs, being elligal..

arn
Jan 15, 2007, 09:46 AM
I updated the quote with the updated explanation from the article, if it makes a difference.

arn

guzhogi
Jan 15, 2007, 09:46 AM
The way I understand it, this law prevents Apple from giving away the drivers for "unadvertised features" for free. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have 2 problems with this: 1) if Apple charged the $1600 or whatever for an iMac, not advertise any of its features, would we have to pay more to use these features? 2) Aren't we already paying for these "unadvertised features" when we buy the computer? We're already paying for the feature, but now we have to pay more to use it? Sounds a good way to screw the consumer.

Henriok
Jan 15, 2007, 09:49 AM
It has got something to do with Apple writing of development costs in products. They are writing of the development and advertising costs for product A with features B. They cant later add features C and D to product A+B, since it'll change the cost of developing the products. This have stopped Apple from implementing stuff in their operating system and iPods too, stuff that could have been easily added through software updates.

I know for a fact that they have pushed the envelope here with some stuff in OSX 10.4 that they secretly bundled with security fixes.

They could offer the drivers as free downloads though. Like Boot Camp.
Edit: Boot Camp is a known feature of Intel Macs though.. sorry 'bout that.

combatcolin
Jan 15, 2007, 09:53 AM
STILL CONFUSED

:confused:

Right, if i buy and Apple TV and the new Apple basestation can i plug my ext Lacie into the Basestation and access it via the Apple TV WITHOUT switching my PC on.

Thanks.

etjazz
Jan 15, 2007, 09:56 AM
5.8GHz is 802.11a...which was supposed to replace 802.11b because it had faster speeds. The problem was that it wasn't backwards compatible, so people created 802.11g instead, which has the same speed, but runs in the same band as 802.11b and is backwards compatible. One nice thing about it is there is less interference there at the moment since there are fewer devices competing for the spectrum (bluetooth, telephones, other access points, game controllers, etc.)

All the Intel based mac chipsets support 802.11a...not sure if it is actually enabled in the software though.

doh, some macusers are incredibly ignorant. 11a was never intended to replace 11b - it was developed in parallel because the 2.4ghz band had problems with interference because of the massive amount of devices on that band. However, speed is on par with 11g as long as you stay relatively close to the ap. The higher frequency lowers the penetration power of 11a, and makes it unsuitable unless the AP is in line of sight

Carniphage
Jan 15, 2007, 10:01 AM
The question is "when is Apple going to release an enabler for 802.11g?"

The draft-N Airport adapters in the Mac Pro and the iMac C2D are not able to work at anywhere near the performance levels of 802.11G

Isn't there a law against advertising something and not delivering it?

C.

iNewbie
Jan 15, 2007, 10:06 AM
It has got something to do with Apple writing of development costs in products. They are writing of the development and advertising costs for product A with features B. They cant later add features C and D to product A+B, since it'll change the cost of developing the products. This have stopped Apple from implementing stuff in their operating system and iPods too, stuff that could have been easily added through software updates.

I know for a fact that they have pushed the envelope here with some stuff in OSX 10.4 that they secretly bundled with security fixes.

They could offer the drivers as free downloads though. Like Boot Camp.
Edit: Boot Camp is a known feature of Intel Macs though.. sorry 'bout that.


This really doesn't make sense... otherwise why did they give free updates to Aperture? They've added features.... And didn't a couple of the new iPod features get applied to the previous generation?

SOX is a huge quagmire of positives and negatives but I doubt it has much bearing on this. They likely want to sell more airports....

Copland
Jan 15, 2007, 10:06 AM
Isn't there a law against advertising something and not delivering it?
Probably, but they didn't advertise that the computers had 802.11n wireless adapters: they said 11g.

I too wonder when they will be available for download. I find it kind of annoying that I have this MacBook with the capability to handle 11n but have to stick with 11g until Apple allows everyone to have this software update.

BigPrince
Jan 15, 2007, 10:09 AM
I'd rather have it use Fire Wire since I have more of those.

allenhuffman
Jan 15, 2007, 10:15 AM
I'd rather have it use Fire Wire since I have more of those.

For video editing, I have 11 external drives hooked up using 4 firewire cases. A few of the drives are specifically used for backing up my laptop, and I generally keep them turned off (so accidental/malicious data corruption is less likely to happen). It might be convienient to place my backup drive on the new Airport, allowing me to always have access to them even if my main iMac is powered down.

I'll be curious about the speed (USB 2.0 versus Firewire) over the network, and if it will support multiple drives and any type of Raid. If they build in smarts to allow the Airport Extreme to be a Network Attaches Storage device just by plugging up USB drives, that could be pretty useful. (Much like being able to hook up a printer, and be able to print any time without leaving a Mac powered up.)

Carniphage
Jan 15, 2007, 10:19 AM
Probably, but they didn't advertise that the computers had 802.11n wireless adapters: they said 11g.


That's my point - they said g - but the current cards/drivers do not work at all well in an 802.11g environment. They desperately need an update.

C.

faisal
Jan 15, 2007, 10:19 AM
It's been a few years since I had to deal with revrec rules, so take this stuff with a grain of salt:

For some types of products, GAAP demands that you recognize revenues after delivery of the product*. This gets wierd for software -- if I promise free support forever then I don't get to recognize revenues until forever.

* or spread over the life of it

On the other hand, if I promise free support for a year I can recognize at the end of the year. Similarly if I promise free support "until the next major release," etc. You see the impact of this in products like Symantec Antivirus, where the initial purchase and continuing signature subscription are seperate. "The first hit's free." -> "The first crash costs $59.95. Crashes after that are $29.95 per year."

Giving a free update of this sort could be seen as an delivery beyond the original (presumably already recognized) delivery, which could force Apple to restate earnings for all the secretly draft-n hardware they they already recognized revenue for. I think this is a bit of a stretch, though -- they make plenty of other updaters available for free, and presumably are able to account for all that (although in the case of OSX releases I'm assuming they have it set up for the year or two it takes to get out all the releases).

In any case, I'd be surprised if the 802.11n** support doesn't show up in Leopard. Draft-n hardware has been shipping for something like 9 months, and I imagine Apple doesn't want to be known as the company whose 802.11n hardware cannot work on existing 802.11n networks.

** or draft-n

wmmk
Jan 15, 2007, 10:23 AM
crap. no CD MBPs, right?

indiekiduk
Jan 15, 2007, 10:24 AM
Huh the wired ports are only 100mbps not Gigabit thats stupid for an N router.

dalvin200
Jan 15, 2007, 10:27 AM
STILL CONFUSED

:confused:

Right, if i buy and Apple TV and the new Apple basestation can i plug my ext Lacie into the Basestation and access it via the Apple TV WITHOUT switching my PC on.

Thanks.

i don't see why not - as long as your ext lacie has its own external power supply

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 10:28 AM
I wander what file systems are supported on the external disk, the linked document doesn't say. NFS+ and FAT32 I'd guess.

ZFS under Leopard I bet:cool:

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
Well, I'm not a definitive expert, but I am finishing 2 years of MBA schooling, with a strong dose of SOX education and ethics work. The rationale quoted from iLounge is silly. There is no issue out there with upgrading existing products for free or otherwise under SOX.

And for the record, feeling rather informed about SOX and its affects, I generally think it is a good law. Implementation is a bit costly and burdensome, but it is a law that finally begins a level of government enforcement of corporate america that chips away at the need for class action lawsuits as a primay enforcer of laws towad corporations. When CEO's and management teams can go to jail for screwing the public, there is real accountability.

Right now, a few small fines don't deter most companies from enacting their goals, good or bad, and huge penalties that shut down companies and hurt innocent employees aren't good either. Class action lawsuits that hurt stock performance and create bad PR are the best enforcement of social norms and laws on corporate america, even if attorneys rape the victims a second time in the process. Laws like SOX, however, finally pave the way for true Torte Reform.

cherrypop
Jan 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
I have no information to substantiate this claim, but I think everyone here is on the wrong track.

I suspect Apple will offer to ship out a CD/DVD installer for a handling cost of $4.95, and offer the same updater as a download off their Support site for free.

It's quite likely that Apple didn't "activate" the draft N modules in previously shipped N-endowed Macs because the spec had yet to be approved. Since it appears as though Apple is more or less waiting for n to move from IEEE to Wi-Fi Alliance status, this all adds up to a plausible explanation.

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
Huh the wired ports are only 100mbps not Gigabit thats stupid for an N router.

Why use wires anyway?

aLoC
Jan 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
Huh the wired ports are only 100mbps not Gigabit thats stupid for an N router.

Gigabit would help with the disk speed too. Definitely a major omission...

StrictlyCircus
Jan 15, 2007, 10:31 AM
Does this suggest that older models of the Airport Express cards and base stations could be updated to 'n' with a software update? Just asking because I always assumed there was a hardware configuration that made them different as well.

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 10:32 AM
STILL CONFUSED

:confused:

Right, if i buy and Apple TV and the new Apple basestation can i plug my ext Lacie into the Basestation and access it via the Apple TV WITHOUT switching my PC on.

Thanks.


i don't see why not - as long as your ext lacie has its own external power supply


I watched the keynote and at one point Phil was trying to show his stuff on the apple tv from his macbook.

When he tried to connect he had to enter a passkey.

Which you cannot do with an external drive.

However the drive is directly attached, who knows, i think it should work but the example given above may mean it wont.

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 10:32 AM
Yeah, I'm not buying it either...
Only the Core 2 Duo based machines an beyond have draft-n parts in them, correct?.

Apple have to forge ahead. It is backward compatible.

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 10:36 AM
It's quite likely that Apple didn't "activate" the draft N modules in previously shipped N-endowed Macs because the spec had yet to be approved. Since it appears as though Apple is more or less waiting for n to move from IEEE to Wi-Fi Alliance status, this all adds up to a plausible explanation.

Then why are they releasing the Airport Extreme as far as i am aware N is still draft.


Apple have to forge ahead. It is backward compatible.

Doesnt the speed drop to the lowest on the network. In my house we have 2 Core 2 Duo iMacs (N) 1 Macbook (G) and 1 Dell (B). Which means we will get B speeds?? Or am i misinformed.

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 10:38 AM
Gigabit would help with the disk speed too. Definitely a major omission...


Surely the disk is on the USB port what is the connection to the external few Ethernet ports? Am I missing something here? My only thought is why not two USB2 ports, one for drive and one for printer. I guess an additional USB2 hub is easy enough but it's all extra clutter. I'd be happy with zero external Ethernet and two USB2s.

Then why are they releasing the Airport Extreme as far as i am aware N is still draft.



Doesnt the speed drop to the lowest on the network. In my house we have 2 Core 2 Duo iMacs (N) 1 Macbook (G) and 1 Dell (B). Which means we will get B speeds?? Or am i misinformed.

I doubt it, I think the Wi-Fi would be max for whatever the recieving machine's ability. Assuming the source was at the max speed of course.

Aeolius
Jan 15, 2007, 10:42 AM
So, an Airport Extreme hooked up to an external hard drive filled with DVDs ripped with Handbrake becomes the ultimate home theater? ;)

aLoC
Jan 15, 2007, 10:44 AM
Surely the disk is on the USB port what is the connection to the external few Ethernet ports? Am I missing something here? My only thought is why not two USB2 ports, one for drive and one for printer. I guess an additional USB2 hub is easy enough but it's all extra clutter. I'd be happy with zero external Ethernet and two USB2s.

You plug the disk in to the USB port, but you access it over the network, which is effected by the ethernet (or wireless) speed. I agree they should have had an extra USB, hub is messy.

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 10:45 AM
I doubt it, I think the Wi-Fi would be max for whatever the recieving machine's ability. Assuming the source was at the max speed of course.

Found where i read about this



1.Based on a comparison with Apple’s 802.11g products. Comparison assumes AirPort Extreme network with 802.11n-enabled computer. Speed and range will be less if an 802.11a/b/g product joins the network. Accessing the wireless network requires an AirPort- or AirPort Extreme-enabled computer or other Wi-Fi Certified 802.11a/b/g-enabled computer. Actual performance will vary based on range, connection rate, site conditions, size of network and other factors. Range will vary with site conditions.

2. The AirPort Extreme Base Station is based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification and is compatible with IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b and IEEE 802.11g. The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom.

What is wide channel operation, what will i be missing out on.

combatcolin
Jan 15, 2007, 10:46 AM
I watched the keynote and at one point Phil was trying to show his stuff on the apple tv from his macbook.

When he tried to connect he had to enter a passkey.

Which you cannot do with an external drive.

However the drive is directly attached, who knows, i think it should work but the example given above may mean it wont.

Still confused then.

:confused: :p

Ah well, not like i have any spare money to pay for anything, and 1st gen kit always has its "fun" aspects.

Maybe next year.

tattoo99
Jan 15, 2007, 10:46 AM
While the shared disk capability started being reported, what hasn't been is the new ability to support USB hubs and hence multiple shared disks and printers (or, for that matter, both printers and disks at the same time). This is a very exciting capability in my mind, and serves to really leverage bonjour.

It would have met my needs perfectly if they had also developed an iTunes music server within the device -- as it is, I plan to put all my music files on a shared drive and point iTunes to it as my music library, but such an approach makes it more difficult to have that be a shared resource.

Support for USB hubs is described on the "Sharing" Airport Extreme product page (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/sharing.html) in a section on the lower right hand corner:

Do everything.
What if youd like to exchange files over your wireless network and still have access to a network printer? Easy. Just connect a USB hub to AirPort Extreme and attach your devices to the hub. Share both a printer and a hard drive, multiple printers, or multiple hard drives.

aristobrat
Jan 15, 2007, 10:46 AM
Someone brought this up on another thread, but I wonder if Time Machine will be able to use an Air Disk as a place to backup to.

Right, if i buy and Apple TV and the new Apple basestation can i plug my ext Lacie into the Basestation and access it via the Apple TV WITHOUT switching my PC on.
From what I've seen so far, I don't think so. In the keynote, the Apple TV acted very much like an iPod, in that it needs iTunes to get users content over to it.

Gigabit would help with the disk speed too. Definitely a major omission...
If the disk is plugged in to the Airport Extreme's USB2 port and the Macs are all wireless (which is how I think 95% of people will have it setup), then GigE ports don't add much value. I know my TiVo and Vonage box (the only things I'll be plugging into the AE) won't notice the difference.

nagromme
Jan 15, 2007, 10:47 AM
I choose to believe the accounting issues have workarounds :)

Like: charge for the update, but give everyone a free coupon anyway; then take the bandwidth as a tax writeoff. Everybody wins :)

Then again, I have nothing (yet) that I would send data to/from at g speeds, much less n.

swishyfresh
Jan 15, 2007, 10:49 AM
ok so I'm confused. I purchased my iMac in October/November 2006... how do I know if I have the "n" hardware?

aLoC
Jan 15, 2007, 10:51 AM
If the disk is plugged in to the Airport Extreme's USB2 port and the Macs are all wireless (which is how I think 95% of people will have it setup), then GigE ports don't add much value. I know my TiVo and Vonage box (the only things I'll be plugging into the AE) won't notice the difference.

Well Apple put 3 ethernet ports on there, so they must be anticipating some people using it as a traditional wired router.

mrmma
Jan 15, 2007, 10:53 AM
So I just ordered a MacBook. Will it come with N-enabled? By this SOX logic it should, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed...I wonder if my university has N access. Probably not...

arn
Jan 15, 2007, 10:54 AM
ok so I'm confused. I purchased my iMac in October/November 2006... how do I know if I have the "n" hardware?


List is here:

http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/

These Mac computers support 802.11n in the new AirPort Extreme Base Station using the included enabler software:

iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 10:57 AM
So I just ordered a MacBook. Will it come with N-enabled? By this SOX logic it should, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed...I wonder if my university has N access. Probably not...

See here (http://www.apple.com/uk/wireless/80211/)


Does my Mac support 802.11n?

These Mac computers support 802.11n in the new AirPort Extreme Base Station using the included enabler software:

iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option



Edit: Need a faster internet connection, (see above). Well i need to sort out my mac harddrive, been having lots of problems with lots of stuff recently and it is results in painfully slow internet.

mrmma
Jan 15, 2007, 11:09 AM
See here (http://www.apple.com/uk/wireless/80211/)


Ah. Thats too bad, though I just looked and there's no where that I would connect that has N, so I'm not too disappointed (yet)...

Le Big Mac
Jan 15, 2007, 11:12 AM
This really doesn't make sense... otherwise why did they give free updates to Aperture? They've added features.... And didn't a couple of the new iPod features get applied to the previous generation?

SOX is a huge quagmire of positives and negatives but I doubt it has much bearing on this. They likely want to sell more airports....

It does seem like a goofy interpretation. I could see how one might get there--some company selling a vaporware product for a lot of money in Q1, only to finish and truly deliver the product in Q2--it's that kind of accounting shenanigan that caused Sarbox in the first place. But it seems pretty strained when dealing with basically an upgrade. How is this different from software updates to Tiger? E.g., better functionality in iSync, or iChat, or Safari?

As for the b/g/n debate, isn't the n-standard supposed to allow multiple types on the network and not slow overall speed, just drop down for the nodes using the b/g technology?

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 11:14 AM
The way things look if one buys a new Airport Extreme you'd get a CD with drivers and a firmware for the Airport Extreme AND firmwares for your brand of Mac.So I'm guessing that CD will have files for all the C2D and MacPro's 802.11n wireless..

From this I'm guessing it will take about 20 seconds for the firmware for your Mac to be on the internet.

TheBobcat
Jan 15, 2007, 11:17 AM
Man they better find a way to get N onto the first wave Intel Macs. This stinks! :mad:

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 11:21 AM
Man they better find a way to get N onto the first wave Intel Macs. This stinks! :mad:

That equates to "They better find a way to put the C2D in the rev. A Intel Macs".

gogoman
Jan 15, 2007, 11:41 AM
Does this mean you MUST have their new Airport Extreme to use the Apple TV. Shouldn't you be able to go directly from your computer TO Apple TV or does it have to go thru network router. I'm wanting to get that D-link draft-n router with gigabit ports to use with my Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo. I'm hopin they unlock this feature on my machine and it works with other routers.

dongmin
Jan 15, 2007, 11:41 AM
I'll be curious about the speed (USB 2.0 versus Firewire) over the network, and if it will support multiple drives and any type of Raid. If they build in smarts to allow the Airport Extreme to be a Network Attaches Storage device just by plugging up USB drives, that could be pretty useful. (Much like being able to hook up a printer, and be able to print any time without leaving a Mac powered up.)I'd wait 'til you see some benchmarks. Apple claims 5x speed with the new draft-N. That's about 250 Mbps, which is significantly less than either USB 2 or FW. Your transfers will still be limited by your network.

appleguy
Jan 15, 2007, 11:42 AM
What I wanna see is an 802.11n USB adapter so I can use my older macs on the n network until I can upgrade them

SiliconAddict
Jan 15, 2007, 11:48 AM
Well that is a steaming pile. :mad:

I give it a few weeks and the CD will be on bittorrent and rightly so.

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 11:51 AM
It would have met my needs perfectly if they had also developed an iTunes music server within the device -- as it is, I plan to put all my music files on a shared drive and point iTunes to it as my music library, but such an approach makes it more difficult to have that be a shared resource.


Maybe an alias of the iTunes Library on the server will do the trick?

obsoletepower
Jan 15, 2007, 11:56 AM
Give it some time, it will be available on torrent sites....

MacVault
Jan 15, 2007, 11:58 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

OReillynet.com notes (http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/01/airport_disk_easy_network_stor.html) that the quietly updated Airport Extreme Basestation (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/) incorporates a new feature called Airport Disk (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/sharing.html):



The new Airport Extreme basestations support the faster 802.11n protocol which is now shipping with all new Macs. Unfortunately, existing Mac customers need to run a special installer that is only included with the new base stations to activate the "n" portion of their wireless hardware.

iLounge offers (http://backstage.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/oh-about-that-80211n-card-in-your-c2d-mac/) an unsatisfying explanation for the reason that the installer is only being bundled with the new base stations:



Of interest, surrounding the release of the 802.11n basestation, we heard claims that Apple would eventually be offering the 802.11n installer for $4.99. At that time, the upgrade fee made little sense, but now appears to be due to the account issue described by iLounge.

Arn, Could you update your article to reflect the fact that Apple made a HUGE mistake by NOT including Gigabit ethernet in the new Airport Extreme? I think we all need to presure Apple to not insult us by NEUTERING their products as they often do - this being a great example. So close, yet, due to one or two things, SO far from perfect.

Also, we CANNOT let Apple get away with thinking this (Airport Extreme + USB drive) is in any way a solution to our need for an inexpensive high performance "home network storage server" with mirroring, remote encrypted syncing over the internet, remote access to files, etc, etc.

appleguy
Jan 15, 2007, 12:02 PM
I'd wait 'til you see some benchmarks. Apple claims 5x speed with the new draft-N. That's about 250 Gbps, which is significantly less than either USB 2 or FW. Your transfers will still be limited by your network.

Do you mean 250Mbps? or 250Gbps?
5x54Mbps=270Mbps
Firewire=400Mbps
USB2=480Mbps



Also, we CANNOT let Apple get away with thinking this (Airport Extreme + USB drive) is in any way a solution to our need for a high performance "home network storage server" with mirroring, remote encrypted syncing over the internet, remote access to files, etc, etc.

and what could be wrong for a small home 2-3 machines
just to plug in a USB drive to have as a backup device?

combatcolin
Jan 15, 2007, 12:03 PM
and what could be wrong for a small home 2-3 machines
just to plug in a USB drive to have as a backup device?

Fine by me.

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 12:04 PM
Does this mean you MUST have their new Airport Extreme to use the Apple TV. Shouldn't you be able to go directly from your computer TO Apple TV or does it have to go thru network router. I'm wanting to get that D-link draft-n router with gigabit ports to use with my Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo. I'm hopin they unlock this feature on my machine and it works with other routers.

No you can do directly from your Mac to the Apple TV

http://www.apple.com/uk/appletv/sync.html


Sync through walls.
Your computer is in your office. Your TV is in your living room. Apple TV brings them together using its built-in 802.11 wireless capability and your existing wireless network. Pair Apple TV with your computer and your music, music videos, podcasts and photos sync automatically. Through the air. Like magic.

gogoman
Jan 15, 2007, 12:04 PM
hopefully the iphone has N in it as well and will be unlocked. i see iphone controlling and integrated into Apple TV in the future and if it has G then it will bring the whole network down to G speed correct?

fustercluck
Jan 15, 2007, 12:06 PM
Arn, Could you update your article to reflect the fact that Apple made a HUGE mistake by NOT including Gigabit ethernet in the new Airport Extreme? I think we all need to presure Apple to not insult us by NEUTERING their products as they often do - this being a great example. So close, yet, due to one or two things, SO far from perfect.

Also, we CANNOT let Apple get away with thinking this (Airport Extreme + USB drive) is in any way a solution to our need for an inexpensive high performance "home network storage server" with mirroring, remote encrypted syncing over the internet, remote access to files, etc, etc.

That's one way of looking at it. Another - and one that I submit is probably more fair - is that Apple could have shipped just the 11g and been done with it. The fact that they even allowed the switch to be flipped to 11n was in a way an act of charity in itself. Wouldn't you be more pissed if you bought a machine incapable of taking advantage of the n in the first place?

I'm not happy about having to pay $5 for an upgrade (or spending a whopping 2 minutes to find the driver on LimeWire if I'm feeling subversive and dishonest), but it's better than having to replace the whole airport card, right?

I don't know - I'd rather it be a software upgrade than a hardware upgrade - is my point.

MacVault
Jan 15, 2007, 12:07 PM
and what could be wrong for a small home 2-3 machines
just to plug in a USB drive to have as a backup device?

No redundancy, for one thing. Lack of performance. Cables everywhere, drives dangerously sitting here and there, etc. It's cheap and it's a "neat" capability, but overall it just is not a good answer to the problem of home network data storage & archiving, etc. It definitely does not conform to best practices.

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 12:09 PM
i would buy one this second if it had a modem in it!

but it doesnt so i will stick to my linksys

Same here but it seems that these devices in the US dont come with built in modem (adsl) but over here (UK) everyone i have dealt with does.

timmillwood
Jan 15, 2007, 12:10 PM
i would buy one this second if it had a modem in it!

but it doesnt so i will stick to my linksys

mahonmeister
Jan 15, 2007, 12:11 PM
Air disk looks sweet. No Gigabit Ethernet is puzzling. They should enable your draft-N card for free; the reasoning for not doing that seems ridiculous to me.

jbstew32
Jan 15, 2007, 12:12 PM
This might be a stupid question, but I just bought a MacBook last week from an Apple store. How do I know if it has the 802.11n capability built in, since it is 'inactive'?

Is there any way to know? I will be a little upset if I could have gotten this capability had I waited a few more days to make the purchase


Thanks!

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 12:14 PM
This might be a stupid question, but I just bought a MacBook last week from an Apple store. How do I know if it has the 802.11n capability built in, since it is 'inactive'?

Is there any way to know? I will be a little upset if I could have gotten this capability had I waited a few more days to make the purchase


Thanks!

See posts 48, 49

If your Macbook is Core 2 Duo then it does have the Draft N card

jbstew32
Jan 15, 2007, 12:15 PM
Oh ok, thanks. Sorry I must have missed it when I was reading through the thread!

Thanks again!

appleguy
Jan 15, 2007, 12:17 PM
No redundancy, for one thing. Lack of performance. Cables everywhere, drives dangerously sitting here and there, etc. It's cheap and it's a "neat" capability, but overall it just is not a good answer to the problem of home network data storage & archiving, etc. It definitely does not conform to best practices.

What do you mean by dangerously here and there
they will be by your Airport Extreme Basestation, like on top of a bookcase or something like that.
its just a home backup..

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 12:22 PM
Implementation is a bit costly and burdensome, but it is a law that finally begins a level of government enforcement of corporate america that chips away at the need for class action lawsuits as a primay enforcer of laws towad corporations. When CEO's and management teams can go to jail for screwing the public, there is real accountability.

No benefit will be realized until GOVERNMENT employes can go to jail for screwing the public. Does this law exempt government or treat government workers exactly like corporate citizens?

Cite please.

Rocketman

Chupa Chupa
Jan 15, 2007, 12:23 PM
Assume Apple is being cautious and wants to abide by SOX to the letter. OK.

But how does that stop Apple from adding the driver into 10.4.9 or Leopard. Going this route the "new feature" would be in OS X, not the hardware. Heck, the 802.11n chip is already physically in Macs. Since Apple adds new features to software updates all the time (at no additional charge to owner), there shouldn't be an issue since Apple can charge the cost to OS X.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 12:25 PM
Assume Apple is being cautious and wants to abide by SOX to the letter. OK.

But how does that stop Apple from adding the driver into 10.4.9 or Leopard. Going this route the "new feature" would be in OS X, not the hardware. Heck, the 802.11n chip is already physically in Macs. Since Apple adds new features to software updates all the time (at no additional charge to owner), there shouldn't be an issue since Apple can charge the cost to OS X.

That would be great if the airport card in your Mac was a piece of software but it isn't.It's a piece of hardware.

twoodcc
Jan 15, 2007, 12:26 PM
Always wanted this feature... thanks Apple!

yeah me too.....i might have to get one of these eventually.....

fustercluck
Jan 15, 2007, 12:29 PM
That would be great if the airport card in your Mac was a piece of software but it isn't.It's a piece of hardware.

Your comment makes no sense. Apple is charging the $4.95 for a software driver, not a hardware upgrade. If the issue is an R&D issue and how to expense it, it can be rolled into the driver cost, and as the poster pointed out, that can in turn be rolled into an OSX upgrade.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 12:31 PM
Your comment makes no sense. Apple is charging the $4.95 for a software driver, not a hardware upgrade. If the issue is an R&D issue and how to expense it, it can be rolled into the driver cost, and as the poster pointed out, that can in turn be rolled into an OSX upgrade.

A firmware upgrade to a piece of hardware in your computer is considered a hardware upgrade.

Makes perfect sense to me.Although I don't know why they MUST charge for it.

Ha ze
Jan 15, 2007, 12:34 PM
What do you mean by dangerously here and there
they will be by your Airport Extreme Basestation, like on top of a bookcase or something like that.
its just a home backup..

I'd have to agree with this, i don't see these wires as being "dangerous"

the new airport is 6.5x6.5 just like the Mini, it will sit perfectly on top of the LaCie 320GB mini Hard Drive & Hub. then the laCie has 4 usb ports on the back.

I'm going to find out if there is anyway to store the iTunes movie of there, and if there is, the old airport is probably gonna go.

I do like having the old one hang on the wall though

cherrypop
Jan 15, 2007, 12:35 PM
Then why are they releasing the Airport Extreme as far as i am aware N is still draft.



Apple's not shipping it today. If you check the keynote, and Apple's online store, you'll see that it will ship sometime in February. I understand that it will move away from draft status at that point.

longofest
Jan 15, 2007, 12:39 PM
Update: MacRumors has received confirmation that Apple will be releasing Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler 1.0 for US $4.95 in February.

sworthy
Jan 15, 2007, 12:43 PM
I think the revrec problem here is SOP 97-2, not SOX.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/405/essentials/p38.htm

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 12:44 PM
Shame was hoping it would be free.

This with the lack of a built in modem will probably put me off from buying it.

bilingual
Jan 15, 2007, 12:44 PM
That would be great if the airport card in your Mac was a piece of software but it isn't.It's a piece of hardware.

I wonder if Airport Express cards in CD MBPs can be upgraded? What would prevent Apple from selling N-enabled cards to be installed in older systems?

Analog Kid
Jan 15, 2007, 12:45 PM
I don't understand how this would be any different from multi-threaded OpenGL, or any other performance improvement for that matter...

SOX gets blamed for everything because companies don't like the law. My IT department tried telling me they couldn't increase my email quota because of SOX-- I linked them to the text of the law and asked what section covered my email quota. Never heard back...

It's more likely because they're using the draft standard and don't want a bunch of incompatible systems out there unless they have something to talk to. They don't want the complaints when someone's 802.11n draft Macbook won't talk to Cisco's 802.11n draft access point.

Assume Apple is being cautious and wants to abide by SOX to the letter. OK.

But how does that stop Apple from adding the driver into 10.4.9 or Leopard. Going this route the "new feature" would be in OS X, not the hardware. Heck, the 802.11n chip is already physically in Macs. Since Apple adds new features to software updates all the time (at no additional charge to owner), there shouldn't be an issue since Apple can charge the cost to OS X.
I suspect that may happen if the draft gets finalized.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 12:47 PM
I wonder if Airport Express cards in CD MBPs can be upgraded? What would prevent Apple from selling N-enabled cards to be installed in older systems?

I'd be willing to guess this will happen.You will need to take it to an authorised Apple repair place though.Unless you have a Mac that allows for self repair.Then you would be able to just buy a new airport card with draft-n and put it in yourself.

fustercluck
Jan 15, 2007, 12:48 PM
A firmware upgrade to a piece of hardware in your computer is considered a hardware upgrade.

Makes perfect sense to me.Although I don't know why they MUST charge for it.

Is it in fact firmware? From what I have read, those using Bootcamp/Parallels already see it as 11n.

I admit, I don't understand the distinction between a software driver and a firmware upgrade.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 12:50 PM
Is it in fact firmware? From what I have read, those using Bootcamp/Parallels already see it as 11n.

I admit, I don't understand the distinction between a software driver and a firmware upgrade.

It is reported as a .N in Windows.I know because I'm the one that found it and let the cat out of the bag.
This doesn't mean it's "enabled" which would require a firmware update.

apple_iBoy
Jan 15, 2007, 12:51 PM
Update: MacRumors has received confirmation that Apple will be releasing Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler 1.0 for US $4.95 in February.

If they have to charge some nominal fee, why not make it $0.99 like a iTunes track.

Me1000
Jan 15, 2007, 12:53 PM
ok,

someone please correct me if im wrong...

I have a C2D macbook
it came with a n card. apple restricted it to g. now they have a n base, I can either buy a base to enable the n (as it comes with a CD) or I could buy a 3rd party n router, and pay $5 for my n card to be upgraded? even though its already built in??

Why doesnt apple just put something in software update?

Analog Kid
Jan 15, 2007, 12:54 PM
Update: MacRumors has received confirmation that Apple will be releasing Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler 1.0 for US $4.95 in February.
My understanding is that you only need to restate earnings if they're "material" to your bottom line, where "material" is some percentage. If they really peg the value of 802.11n as $5 (and I don't think the feature is worth more than that), I don't see how offering it free on a $1000 Macbook would have a material impact.

Is Apple just being gun shy after all the SEC investigations?

There's got to be an accountant on this list somewhere... Can anyone explain this?

etjazz
Jan 15, 2007, 12:55 PM
A firmware upgrade to a piece of hardware in your computer is considered a hardware upgrade.

Makes perfect sense to me.Although I don't know why they MUST charge for it.

A firmware upgrade can not in any way be considered a hardware upgrade, and is in fact by definition just a little peace of software. It´s just an update to the software that interfaces with the driver - Apple is charging money for a driver update....


Edit: and as far as we know, it´s not even a firmware upgrade.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 01:00 PM
A firmware upgrade can not in any way be considered a hardware upgrade, and is in fact by definition just a little peace of software. It´s just an update to the software that interfaces with the driver - Apple is charging money for a driver update....


Edit: and as far as we know, it´s not even a firmware upgrade.

I know for a fact that it is a firmware update.

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 01:01 PM
No you can do directly from your Mac to the Apple TV

http://www.apple.com/uk/appletv/sync.html

Sync is one thing but I wonder if a Mac on an older wi-fi router (I have a Netgear) can stream live 720p to the Apple TV? Perhaps for that we may need this new Base station? Anyone know the answer? If has it been already posted I missed it, sorry.

mmmcheese
Jan 15, 2007, 01:07 PM
doh, some macusers are incredibly ignorant. 11a was never intended to replace 11b - it was developed in parallel because the 2.4ghz band had problems with interference because of the massive amount of devices on that band. However, speed is on par with 11g as long as you stay relatively close to the ap. The higher frequency lowers the penetration power of 11a, and makes it unsuitable unless the AP is in line of sight

Oh picky picky...it was a generalization. Eventually people stick with the whatever is fastest...in other words, it would have replaced it. Because of the shortcomings of a, they developed g (infrastructure costs, physical properties as you mentioned, etc.). This person asked what 5.8GHz was for, and I gave him a basic idea of what it was (if he wanted more details, he could have looked up 802.11a in wikipedia or something).

I know everyone on here likes to look down on others because they think they know everything, but it's getting ridiculous. People just try to be helpful and they get bashed by everyone else. I also enjoyed how you assumed that because I didn't mention something, I didn't know...and that because I'm posting on here, that I'm a mac user... I guess the general consensus about message boards are correct...they are filled with immature and elitist nerds who have nothing better to do with their time.

Westside guy
Jan 15, 2007, 01:08 PM
It is reported as a .N in Windows.I know because I'm the one that found it and let the cat out of the bag.
This doesn't mean it's "enabled" which would require a firmware update.

I'm not sure if you're incorrect, because I'm not sure exactly what you meant here. :)

If the card reports itself as 802.11n under Windows and can be used at 802.11n speeds under Windows, then there will be no firmware upgrade involved on the OS X side since the card already has the n-capable firmware installed (firmware is installed on the device itself, not as part of the OS). In this case you're wrong. ;)

However if the card is only currently capable of 802.11g speeds under Windows, and it's an n-capable card just based on the reported card name... then what you said is correct. Of course this is trickier to determine than one might think, since we're using Apple-provided drivers on the Windows side for many/most of the devices.

hokullani
Jan 15, 2007, 01:09 PM
im a little confused, does this mean that my powerbook, only a year and a half old, will be able to use the 802.11N after this update or will i have to wait to buy the new airport card (if they make one) to enable the N

Westside guy
Jan 15, 2007, 01:10 PM
I wander what file systems are supported on the external disk, the linked document doesn't say. NFS+ and FAT32 I'd guess.

I'd guess HFS+ is a given - Apple will want to support their own journaled filesystem. What filesystem is attached, though, doesn't matter so much on a network device (although I'd argue that journaling is important, whichever filesystems are available).

AlmostThere
Jan 15, 2007, 01:12 PM
Are there actually 802.11n adapters for non Core 2 Duo Macs?

I have had my NAS drive attached to my pre-N router and 802.11n adapters in my PC for some time ... and it works fantastically. Unfortunately, my G4 PowerBook and Intel Mini are currently the weak links in the chain. I hope Apple release Airport cards for older hardware.

Digitalclips
Jan 15, 2007, 01:13 PM
I'd guess HFS+ is a given - Apple will want to support their own journaled filesystem. What filesystem is attached, though, doesn't matter so much on a network device (although I'd argue that journaling is important, whichever filesystems are available).

Don't forget ZFS :)

aswitcher
Jan 15, 2007, 01:14 PM
I cand see allot of Mac WLAN parties in February as people meet up with the C2D Books to "get the patch" :o

Whats the best choice of format for an attached HDD for this AE?

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 01:16 PM
I'm not sure if you're incorrect, because I'm not sure exactly what you meant here. :)

If the card reports itself as 802.11n under Windows and can be used at 802.11n speeds under Windows, then there will be no firmware upgrade involved on the OS X side since the card already has the n-capable firmware installed (firmware is installed on the device itself, not as part of the OS). In this case you're wrong. ;)

However if the card is only currently capable of 802.11g speeds under Windows, and it's an n-capable card just based on the reported card name... then what you said is correct. Of course this is trickier to determine than one might think, since we're using Apple-provided drivers on the Windows side for many/most of the devices.

The broadcom wireless card in the C2D iMac is according to Broadcom draft-n.
Windows reports it as 802.11n because thats what is in broadcoms firmware on the card.This does not mean it is running at .n speeds.It simply means broacom put out a draft-n device.

I tested it and it runs a tiny bit faster than .g but not as fast as .n
In order to get the draft-n speed there needs to be a firmware update AND.The most important thing.
ANY device that the broadcom wireless card networks with.e.g. other routers.the AppleTV etc..MUST also be .n "enabled" otherwise it drops back to the speed of whatever it is networked with.

This is why we are going to see "enablers" for the AppleTV and the C2D and Mac Pro's in February.

Stella
Jan 15, 2007, 01:19 PM
Instead of a paid CD why don't apple just release it as a free or paid download?

kalisphoenix
Jan 15, 2007, 01:23 PM
Worst of all, it makes the chain of command criminally liable for acts underlings do entirely outside of their awareness and control.

That's what a chain of command is. That's what responsibility is. That's what management gets paid for -- managing. Given that the average CEO makes, what, 350 times as much as the average worker(?)... it sort of balances out that the average CEO is as responsible for as much as 350 average workers.

It's pretty common knowledge.

Mikeybass
Jan 15, 2007, 01:25 PM
Will my AirPort Express Base Stations work with the new Airport Extreme??

Aeolius
Jan 15, 2007, 01:31 PM
With Apple's pending new releases, I think a new line of commercials is in order.

Envision a new line of Macintosh commercials which actually showcase the hardware and software we all use. Lets begin with three teens playing with GarageBand and a USB Keyboard on an iMac. Their song becomes the background track for the commercial, as they put their song in iTunes and use an Airport Express to listen to the music on their stereo.

Pan back and zoom in on their mother, who is using her MacBook Pro wirelessly on the front porch, courtesy of the Airport Extreme. Mom is using iPhoto to download pictures from her camera. She uses iChat AV with Bonjour, to videochat with her daughter upstairs, to tell her about the photos. She then uses an Apple TV, to watch the slideshow on the TV in the living room.

The daughter upstairs uses some of moms pictures in her iWeb blog, adding some video footage she was editing in iMovie. She sends e-mail in Mail, to tell her friends, before using iDVD to save the video footage for her grandmother.

SiliconAddict
Jan 15, 2007, 01:34 PM
A firmware upgrade to a piece of hardware in your computer is considered a hardware upgrade.

Makes perfect sense to me.Although I don't know why they MUST charge for it.

So what you are telling me is Apple is charging me twice for a piece of hardware. Any which way you read this you are paying for something that should be a free upgrade. :mad:

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 01:36 PM
So what you are telling me is Apple is charging me twice for a piece of hardware. Any which way you read this you are paying for something that should be a free upgrade. :mad:


hehehehe..Something like that..

HEY! I don't run Apple,Inc.
Don't blame me :)

Dagless
Jan 15, 2007, 01:45 PM
I paid 800 for my iMac and they want more?

I've never done it before but - hello piracy.

a new router is just what I need in my house. The USB/HDD extra sounds absolutely brilliant. I've got so many USB2 HDD's floating around!

T'hain Esh Kelch
Jan 15, 2007, 01:45 PM
This is sooooo gonna be all over the warez sites.. Stupid decision of Apple. they could sell it for 0.01$.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 01:47 PM
Its not the problem because Apple wasn't selling .11n capability to be delivered later.

If anything, after pondering this for some time, the issue is most likely that Apple is concerned that it would be "giving away" something of economic value for free. If it did, either the end user would have to pay taxes on it, like if you were to win a lottery jackpot, or Apple would be liable for the taxes. Since it is unreasonable to the IRS that everyone (the millions) who download the upgrade would actually pay the dollar or two in taxes, with its value effectively being considered ordinary income to the consumer, Apple instead has charged a nominal fee to cover admin and taxes for providinf the value to you. It is almost a steal that we are getting .11n technology for $5, versus what everyone else would have to pay to add it to their equivalently priced laptops, without the card already available for "n" installed in them.

This is surely the answer.


I think the revrec problem here is SOP 97-2, not SOX.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/405/essentials/p38.htm

Grimace
Jan 15, 2007, 01:48 PM
Which would you rather have:

1. $5 enabler update for your already installed N card OR
2. $49 for a new N card to upgrade the G card that Apple would have had to ship 2 months ago with your Mac.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 01:59 PM
Whether software driver, hardware, firmware, it doesn't matter in this case. The deal is that you didn't buy a computer with .11n capability. Apple is an integrated and relatively closed hardware software platform, so my argument is different that if we were talking about Windows PCs. With Apple releasing this software to enable .11n, they are in effect giving away .11n ability, which right now has a market value associated with it beyond the value of the purchase price of the laptop. There are tax implications to giving something away of value, and apple has to account for it. $5 is a steal. And they probably could care less if the driver was pirated and distributed for free unofficially.

And for the record, R&D is a capital expense off the income statement up until a product becomes market viable, which in Apple's case, with their traditional treatment as stated in their 10-K's is when a product is announced. Then all R&D after announcement is a tax deductible operating expense...which is great, but it lowers earnings.

Apple likes NOT providing roadmaps for their products and keeping tons of secrecy for this reason in addition to their market position, because it keeps their earnings higher. Not having to expense (on an income statement) almost ANY R&D until a product is announced, which is typically about when it ships, makes Apple look much more profitable.

Hope this answers a lot of people's questions.

MtnT

Your comment makes no sense. Apple is charging the $4.95 for a software driver, not a hardware upgrade. If the issue is an R&D issue and how to expense it, it can be rolled into the driver cost, and as the poster pointed out, that can in turn be rolled into an OSX upgrade.

evilgEEk
Jan 15, 2007, 02:02 PM
Update: MacRumors has received confirmation that Apple will be releasing Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler 1.0 for US $4.95 in February.

Yeah, it's a lot better than buying a new card, but that's still pretty lame that they're charging you to enable hardware you already paid for.

panoz7
Jan 15, 2007, 02:02 PM
Which would you rather have:

1. $5 enabler update for your already installed N card OR
2. $49 for a new N card to upgrade the G card that Apple would have had to ship 2 months ago with your Mac.

or Option 3: Apple provides the update for free since we already payed for the N hardware.

I just can't believe that apple would charge money for something like this. Aren't all firmware updates "giving away" something of economic value for free? How would this be any different? I really hope that the previous poster who suggested that the $4.99 would be to cover postal delivery of a physical update CD and that a download off the website would be free.

SiliconAddict
Jan 15, 2007, 02:07 PM
Which would you rather have:

1. $5 enabler update for your already installed N card OR
2. $49 for a new N card to upgrade the G card that Apple would have had to ship 2 months ago with your Mac.

I find it hysterical that if MS, who at one point did make their own brand of WIFI router, or Dell did this most Apple fans would be on them like a moth to a flame. But since its Apple. Everyone raise a glass of cool...I mean justification to Apple! Cheers.

I'm sorry but this isn't right period.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 02:07 PM
There are reasonable tests, and every little bug fix, update, enhancement, whatever, are not the same. In this case it is discrete, quantifiable, with verifiable value in the marketplace, which is basically what counts. This can intellectually gamed to death, but after further checking I'm positive this is the deal, you can't over-game accounting and tax issues. You can try, but thats how you get in trouble no matter how smart your comparative argument is.



or Option 3: Apple provides the update for free since we already payed for the N hardware.

I just can't believe that apple would charge money for something like this. Aren't all firmware updates "giving away" something of economic value for free? How would this be any different? I really hope that the previous poster who suggested that the $4.99 would be to cover postal delivery of a physical update CD and that a download off the website would be free.

Wender
Jan 15, 2007, 02:08 PM
What I want to know is this: The Apple TV has "n" and the new AirPort Extreme has "n" but my iMac Core "NOT 2" Duo has "g"...

If I plan to use the AirPort disk for tons of movies, to play on the Apple TV, I really hope there is some way for Apple TV to use the AirPort Disk as a source and not my iMac. If it has to be through my iMac then there's a "g" bottleneck, if it can stream from the AirPort Disk then there's no bottleneck.

Sync thing aside - for streaming we don't know how Apple TV will go about accessing content. From iTunes? Well what about my iMovie HD projects that are played in Front Row straight from my "Movies" folder. What about pictures - they are stored in my "Pictures" folder and not in iTunes. I really hope Apple TV can use the AirPort Disk directly and play content straight from the folders: Music, Pictures, Movies...

If Apple TV insists that I have to choose what pictures to sync, using iTunes to do so, like the iPod photo sync, then that's a huge disappointment. And if I have to export my iMovie projects to some kind of Apple TV format before streaming then that will be a disappointment too...

panoz7
Jan 15, 2007, 02:11 PM
Ok... I'm not too familiar with firmware updates so I'm going to steer clear of that issue, but I'm curious how apple gets around this with the software updates and patches to OS X.

There was a patch/update a few months ago that significantly improved Rosetta's performance... it optimized the software to take better advantage of hardware we had already payed for. How is this update any different?

EDIT: Another instance of this was the 15" MBP two-finger right click update. Remember when it first came out the two finger right click wasn't possible even though the hardware was clearly capable. An update fixed that a few months later once the two-finger right click was introduced in the 17" MBP and the MB.

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 02:14 PM
Is Apple just being gun shy after all the SEC investigations?

Yes.

And also making the point enforcement is arbitrary and Apple can show exactly how careful they are wiling to be. In a way that gets the public's attention exactly like this did.

Rocketman

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 02:21 PM
So what you are telling me is Apple is charging me twice for a piece of hardware. Any which way you read this you are paying for something that should be a free upgrade. :mad:

The missing piece is n was not an advertised feature of the hardware when you purchased it.

I think there is also an element of consumer education going on here. Apple may have anticipated this and will use this to test the process of adding features post-release to other planned Apple hardware, say "iPhone" (ATN).

Rocketman

sfwalter
Jan 15, 2007, 02:22 PM
Hopefully 802.11g will be enough bandwidth to access an iTunes library on an AirDisk.

abrooks
Jan 15, 2007, 02:23 PM
Might want to change the title from 801.11n to 802.11n :)

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 02:24 PM
What was the market value of that...nothing. What were competitors selling the same update for? nothing. Maybe that update had value to you, maybe to other people, but in terms of a litmus test...nobody could complain that Apple was giving away something for free that they were providing on their machines for an upgrade fee, or that was available from a third party as an upgrade for a fee. There was no market value to that update beyond what Apple said it was....which was in effect zero.... If Apple could do the same thing now, I'm sure they would.

Ok... I'm not too familiar with firmware updates so I'm going to steer clear of that issue, but I'm curious how apple gets around this with the software updates and patches to OS X.

There was a patch/update a few months ago that significantly improved Rosetta's performance... it optimized the software to take better advantage of hardware we had already payed for. How is this update any different?

EDIT: Another instance of this was the 15" MBP two-finger right click update. Remember when it first came out the two finger right click wasn't possible even though the hardware was clearly capable. An update fixed that a few months later once the two-finger right click was introduced in the 17" MBP and the MB.

c-Row
Jan 15, 2007, 02:27 PM
I like the additional USB port and the Airport Disc feature - I want one! :)

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 15, 2007, 02:30 PM
What was the market value of that...nothing. What were competitors selling the same update for? nothing.

So, if iScroll2 (http://iscroll2.sourceforge.net/) were selling for $25 Apple couldn't do the update?

The theory doesn't make sense.

If they have to charge some nominal fee, why not make it $0.99 like a iTunes track.

Yep, you nailed it. They're money-grubbing.

If anything, after pondering this for some time, the issue is most likely that Apple is concerned that it would be "giving away" something of economic value for free. If it did, either the end user would have to pay taxes on it, like if you were to win a lottery jackpot, or Apple would be liable for the taxes.

By that logic no OS or App updates from any OS vendor from now forward will have any added features unless it's a paid upgrade. XPSP2 is thereby illegal or going to cost Microsoft umpteen billion dollars.

I don't believe it. The theory doesn't work.

bilbo--baggins
Jan 15, 2007, 02:37 PM
I have the Airport Express, and I use my MacBook in the living room to play music that is stored on my PowerMac G5. There are 2 serious restrictions Apple have imposed:

1) iTunes must remain open on the PowerMac G5
2) None of the album art, album art view etc work when streaming from another Mac

I hope these restrictions have been resolved for the Apple TV because if not, storing the iTunes library on a USB hard drive plugged into the new Airport Extreme basestation would NOT allow it to be played on the Apple TV.

mklos
Jan 15, 2007, 02:37 PM
I think some people are misunderstanding this. All Apple is doing is charging a simple $4.99 to activate 802.11n in Macs with Core 2 Duos/MacPro's. If you don't need n speeds, nobody is making you update. If you don't have an n router, then the n speeds will be useless and you'll basically be wasting $5.00. So Apple is just charging you $4.99 to download this 802.11n enabler patch. Apple is not saying that they won't fix any issues with Core 2 Duo Macs not being reliable as they should on wireless networks. All you're being charged for is the n speed.

Apple has done nothing wrong here. They shipped those Macs to work with 802.11b/g networks. The wireless chip in these Macs just happen to also support 802.11n and if you now want that, you're going to have to pay for it. Its just a simple upgrade ONLY if you need it. Again, Apple has done nothing wrong here because they advertised the Macs as having 802.11g wireless networking, NOT 802.11n wireless networking. I assume that once the new AirPort starts shipping, they will advertise any new Macs made from then on (NOT including ones already in the warehouse) as shipping with 802.11n wireless networking and the price for that will be grandfathered into the price of the Mac.

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 15, 2007, 02:39 PM
There are reasonable tests, and every little bug fix, update, enhancement, whatever, are not the same. In this case it is discrete, quantifiable, with verifiable value in the marketplace

What's the verifiable value in the marketplace on an 802.11n upgrade for a MacBook? Oh, there isn't any, it's not upgradeable.

Whether software driver, hardware, firmware, it doesn't matter in this case. The deal is that you didn't buy a computer with .11n capability.

Sure we did. Otherwise it couldn't be 'turned on'. The theory doesn't work because the assumption is false, prima facie.

That's like saying we didn't buy a computer that is DST-2007 capable. But Apple is going to update the computers, for free, to be DST-2007 capable. Should they charge for that? No. Could I charge somebody to change the locale files to make their Mac DST-2007 capable? Yep. Could I sell it for $25? Yep. It has value, Apple is going to sell it, but not take a charge on it. And nobody doing SOX enforcement is going to go after Apple for it.

Same as with the firmware update - nobody is going to go after Apple for it. They're using SOX as a cover to grab an additional $5 from a half million customers.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 02:40 PM
No, it does make sense. Apple sold the exact same machine with the same specs and everything for the same price but it had 2 finger scrolling. Apple effectively said this has no additional economic value to anyone, its just nice, and there was still no market value out there. iScroll2 is in development and costs nothings, but even if it was selling for $25 and a few hundred, or even a thousand people bought it, that a market does not make. Clearly you can see the clear difference in the price of upgrading a computer to 802.11n in the marketplace versus a few sales of some obscure product. Accounting rules are shockingly fair, and consider proportionality and a lot of other issues. Again, people uneducated about accounting typically can't think themselves through the issues correctly. They are what they are, and you either know them and understand how to apply them, or you don't...though on basic levels it is simple arithmetic.


So, if iScroll2 (http://iscroll2.sourceforge.net/) were selling for $25 Apple couldn't do the update?

The theory doesn't make sense.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 02:43 PM
Here's a theory.

Perhaps Broadcom and Atheros are charging Apple to "enable the "N".

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 02:47 PM
Apple doesn't sell spec'd boxes with an OS tacked on. They sell integrated computing systems as a single product when they sell a Mac. If it doesn't have 802.11n it doesn't have it per Apple and their accounting and marketing treatment, period. If they later provide it, they provide it extra, however they do it. I submit you are coming at this from a tech geek everything should be free perspective. Apple doesn't think that way at all, and their accounting treatment reflects it.

And you are right though, that nobody is likely to go after Apple on a SOX or other violation over this, but you don't choose item by item when to follow the rules. You follow the system of rules as you know them, learn them, learn to apply them to your business. That is what Apple is doing right here.

Sure we did. Otherwise it couldn't be 'turned on'. The theory doesn't work because the assumption is false, prima facie.

That's like saying we didn't buy a computer that is DST-2007 capable. But Apple is going to update the computers, for free, to be DST-2007 capable. Should they charge for that? No. Could I charge somebody to change the locale files to make their Mac DST-2007 capable? Yep. Could I sell it for $25? Yep. It has value, Apple is going to sell it, but not take a charge on it. And nobody doing SOX enforcement is going to go after Apple for it.

Same as with the firmware update - nobody is going to go after Apple for it. They're using SOX as a cover to grab an additional $5 from a half million customers.

mklos
Jan 15, 2007, 02:48 PM
I have the Airport Express, and I use my MacBook in the living room to play music that is stored on my PowerMac G5. There are 2 serious restrictions Apple have imposed:

1) iTunes must remain open on the PowerMac G5
2) None of the album art, album art view etc work when streaming from another Mac

I hope these restrictions have been resolved for the Apple TV because if not, storing the iTunes library on a USB hard drive plugged into the new Airport Extreme basestation would NOT allow it to be played on the Apple TV.

1. Obvioulsly that needs to happen. You can't share music out of iTunes if iTunes isn't running. Just like if you have 2 Macs that are shaiing files and/or printers and that Mac isn't on, you can't access the files or the printer either. Its impossible for that not to happen. The only other way to do this is to not have it go through iTunes which Apple would never do.

2. I believe the Album Art works fine through Apple TV. It did seem to appear duing the Keynote Demo.

NightStorm
Jan 15, 2007, 02:51 PM
I hope people realize that this kind of thing happens a lot... companies use chips that are capable of more features than they need, and they are software disabled by the company to match what they need. This especially happens when chips are unavailable and a replacement is needed in a hurry.

Next you're going to complain when you download the draft-n software upgrade (either from Apple or another source) only to find out that it isn't compatible with a non-Apple router. I think this is actually the true reason they are doing this: since the n-spec hasn't been ratified, they don't want to deal with the headaches of dealing with incompatible draft-n hardware.

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 15, 2007, 02:53 PM
Apple effectively said this has no additional economic value to anyone, its just nice, and there was still no market value out there.

So they advertise a feature that has no value? The value of a Mac is that it's "just nice". I actually know some people who bought MacBook Pro's to run Dual-Boot explicitly because they could now do a right-click on a Mac. That's value.

iScroll2 is in development and costs nothings, but even if it was selling for $25 and a few hundred, or even a thousand people bought it, that a market does not make.

What if a hundred thousand people bought it? Show me the rule that determines when a market exists. Or that a company can call a product "just nice" and thereby put a 0 in the 'value' column.

Clearly you can see the clear difference in the price of upgrading a computer to 802.11n in the marketplace versus a few sales of some obscure product.

Most people I know only use their laptops' wireless to access the Internet on sub 802.11b speeds. The value of 802.11g or n for them is zero. Those people I mentioned before think the value of a right-click is $2499. It's going to be different for every user.

Accounting rules are shockingly fair, and consider proportionality and a lot of other issues.

So then how can Apple sell a $5 updater? The market value for an 802.11n ExpressCard is more than $5.

jimthorn
Jan 15, 2007, 02:55 PM
The AirDisk feature alone is a reason for me to replace my old Airport Extreme Base Station. I've been wanting a feature like that for a long time. In fact, I may get one for my office at work too. As several others have mentioned, having two USB ports on the back would've been better, as hubs are just cluttery.

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 15, 2007, 02:55 PM
Apple doesn't sell spec'd boxes with an OS tacked on. They sell integrated computing systems as a single product when they sell a Mac.

OK, we'll see if there are no iTunes, iPod, or QuickTime feature updates in the future and decide then if Apple sells integrated systems that just do what they do and get no new features when it's technically feasible.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 02:56 PM
New features don't necessarily have quantifiable market value, and there is a lot of room for determination of bug fixes vs. enhancement vs. new features. This .11n upgrade is probably one of the few times where the issue is so clear. This isn't something academic to theorize to an extreme. It is what it is in this instance. The same tests apply all the time, but the answers aren't usually as clear and are often more able to be interpreted to a company's agenda.

Also, the deal about MacBooks not being upgradeable...so what. I think that just shows your confusion. In fact, they probably are or will soon be upgradeable with USB external "n" adapters. The functionality still has a cost and a value.

I don't want to offend you, but you are taking an uneducated position and pushing it with anecdotes that don't fit the situation. I know pretty well what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to help you understand. Interesting exercise this has been.


By that logic no OS or App updates from any OS vendor from now forward will have any added features unless it's a paid upgrade. XPSP2 is thereby illegal or going to cost Microsoft umpteen billion dollars.

I don't believe it. The theory doesn't work.

htdefiant
Jan 15, 2007, 03:03 PM
I just called Apple Tech Support. Apparently, Apple will be offering a $4.95 USB Adapter (simply a USB flash looking thing) to plug into computers. If you give them your Wireless N serial, they'll send you one for $5

panoz7
Jan 15, 2007, 03:06 PM
I don't want to offend you, but you are taking an uneducated position and pushing it with anecdotes that don't fit the situation. I know pretty well what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to help you understand. Interesting exercise this has been.

I don't think you were referring to me, but since I was responsible for the two finger click anecdote I guess I should explain anyway. I know you're trying to help us understand, and at least for me, these anecdotes / examples can help us understand.

So here's one more (and I'm providing this only because I'm curious and find this intriguing): Gapless playback on my iPod. My 5g iPod received a software update to enable gapless playback when the 5.5g iPod was released. This seems exactly the same to me as the N thing... it was a strongly desired feature and it is advertised clearly on apple's website. How is this different?

By the way, since this whole accounting thing is a little bit beyond me, how would apple determine that $4.99 is the appropriate amount for this service? If they charge too much isn't that just as bad (accounting wise) as charging too little?

Stridder44
Jan 15, 2007, 03:06 PM
Probably, but they didn't advertise that the computers had 802.11n wireless adapters: they said 11g.

I too wonder when they will be available for download. I find it kind of annoying that I have this MacBook with the capability to handle 11n but have to stick with 11g until Apple allows everyone to have this software update.


Annoying!? Does anyone else think this is outrageous? If I owned a new Mac and I had to pay for a "feature" that was already a part of my computer I'd be pissed as hell. That is bull@#!&@. Maybe I'm missing part of the story here...


That's like buying a car only to later find out you had 800hp this whole time instead of the 400hp you bought it at, only to discover that get this extra 400hp (you know, the stuff you already paid for) is going to cost you extra. This is worse than DRM!

poppe
Jan 15, 2007, 03:07 PM
Well that just sucks... 4.99 might not seem like much but it is and I was really expecting just a free upgrade.... I already have a wireless n router. I don't want to shell out 4.99 for N. on my computer. And I don't want to have to go by an airport extreme....

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 03:08 PM
I just called Apple Tech Support. Apparently, Apple will be offering a $4.95 USB Adapter (simply a USB flash looking thing) to plug into computers. If you give them your Wireless N serial, they'll send you one for $5


That makes no sense..

A USB adapter to enable an internal wireless card???

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 15, 2007, 03:11 PM
The same tests apply all the time, but the answers aren't usually as clear and are often more able to be interpreted to a company's agenda.

Can you please provide a link to these tests? I get all sorts of feature additions to my iPod and Apple doesn't charge for them. Same goes for iTunes, Quicktime, etc.

Also, the deal about MacBooks not being upgradeable...so what. I think that just shows your confusion. In fact, they probably are or will soon be upgradeable with USB external "n" adapters. The functionality still has a cost and a value.

Most people won't accept a USB dongle solution - they'll live with .g speed. An internal card and an external dongle are two separate products. You're making the subjective judgment "USB dongles and internal cards are equivalent" (which the market would disagree with) and thereby "a market value for internal card upgrades exists, if it were possible", and therefore, "charging for it is fair and equitable".

Stridder44
Jan 15, 2007, 03:14 PM
That makes no sense..

A USB adapter to enable an internal wireless card???



Exactly! Who the hell wants to buy a $5 USB dongle for a feature they already have? God forbid this is Apple's doing...

Chef Medeski
Jan 15, 2007, 03:21 PM
That makes no sense..

A USB adapter to enable an internal wireless card???

a USB key:

a device that enables a software function to occur only when the device is onncected through USB

Its quite old school, serial keys have been around for a long time. Most people dropped the key in USB, cause there are so many more clean ways to do this w/o a device.

fustercluck
Jan 15, 2007, 03:25 PM
Whether software driver, hardware, firmware, it doesn't matter in this case. The deal is that you didn't buy a computer with .11n capability. Apple is an integrated and relatively closed hardware software platform, so my argument is different that if we were talking about Windows PCs. With Apple releasing this software to enable .11n, they are in effect giving away .11n ability, which right now has a market value associated with it beyond the value of the purchase price of the laptop. There are tax implications to giving something away of value, and apple has to account for it. $5 is a steal. And they probably could care less if the driver was pirated and distributed for free unofficially.

And for the record, R&D is a capital expense off the income statement up until a product becomes market viable, which in Apple's case, with their traditional treatment as stated in their 10-K's is when a product is announced. Then all R&D after announcement is a tax deductible operating expense...which is great, but it lowers earnings.

Apple likes NOT providing roadmaps for their products and keeping tons of secrecy for this reason in addition to their market position, because it keeps their earnings higher. Not having to expense (on an income statement) almost ANY R&D until a product is announced, which is typically about when it ships, makes Apple look much more profitable.

Hope this answers a lot of people's questions.

MtnT

Your logic is fallacious if you stop for a moment and consider all of the enhanced functionality that I didn't pay for that I get for free from Software Update. There is certainly R&D costs associated with security patches, with iTunes updates, and so on. A move from .g to .n can be seen as another type of software upgrade, unless there is a real legal or accounting distinction between software and firmware, in which case maybe there is a valid reason other than your faulty supposition.

Furthermore, I did buy a computer with .n capability (but not that functionality since Apple crippled it). The wireless card I have in my computer has a cost associated with it, and I'm sure it was more expensive than a simple .g card.

Peel
Jan 15, 2007, 03:25 PM
...if it has G then it will bring the whole network down to G speed correct?

No, this is a misconception, that has been spreading around the forum. A mixed network doesn't bring the entire network down to the lowest common denominator, it does create additional overhead, that slows the newtork a little from it's top theoretical speed.
I've had a mixed B+G network at home for a couple years (the only B device is my network printer). I've done some tests and the best throughput i can get when the network is in mixed mode is about 24Mbps. When I take the printer off-line, I can get around 26 (have never been able to hit the full 54Mbps rate).

I presume that A+B+N+G mixed mode will be the same; you will take a small hit from running non-N devices, but you won't drop down to the lowest speed device on the network.

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 03:26 PM
a USB key:

a device that enables a software function to occur only when the device is onncected through USB

Its quite old school, serial keys have been around for a long time. Most people dropped the key in USB, cause there are so many more clean ways to do this w/o a device.


Thats great and all but has nothing to do with an internal wireless card.Not only that but where on Apples site does it show or say "includes USB key/device" ??

I call bunk on this rumor.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 15, 2007, 03:27 PM
SOX gets blamed for everything because companies don't like the law. My IT department tried telling me they couldn't increase my email quota because of SOX-- I linked them to the text of the law and asked what section covered my email quota. Never heard back...

Not a SOX expert here but to take a stab at this, I would assume they are limiting you because they are archiving 100% of all corporate emails in an attempt to not get charged with destroying evidence in the case of a law suit. Many companies are doing this as an overreaction to SOX and the Enron/Tyco suits that were it's genesis.

Source: Google for "SOX email quota" and read a couple links :)

Chef Medeski
Jan 15, 2007, 03:32 PM
Thats great and all but has nothing to do with an internal wireless card.Not only that but where on Apples site does it show or say "includes USB key/device" ??

I call bunk on this rumor.

actually has a lot to do.

At this point its purely a software hindering 802.11n support. A USB key would allow that software to run.

Now I dont know about the validity of the rumor, but I can tell you how and why it could potentially work even though it seems quite an archaic solution.

psionic001
Jan 15, 2007, 03:49 PM
With all of this wireless speed and Air Disk capacity, I hope they fix Aperture so you can back up over a network.

Zargot
Jan 15, 2007, 03:53 PM
Perhaps this is the way Apple intends to keep the enabler off the torrent sites. The USB key is programmed to only enable a specific MAC address, the one you give them when you order...

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 03:57 PM
No I wasn't referring to you, there is another guy here who has no knowledge of the subject matter and seems intent on insisting his personal reasoning through the issue has some special validity, when it doesn't at all. This isn't a debate and if complicated accounting issues could be looked up on a website we wouldn't have leagues of highly educated accounting and MBA's trying to determine appropriate accounting treatments for various business issues. I am trying an educated perspective from a lot of familiarity with Apple's 10-K's and their analysis.

In an attempt to be somewhat defferential and inclusive here, I'll say that I see a significant difference in a small enhancement to iPod functionality versus the "n" speed networking upgrade. Was anyone else selling the iPod enhancement? What did it cost? Was there a market for getting that enhancement? No, Zero, No would be the answers. Was the feature valuable to consumers? Maybe. What was the feature worth? Who knows. Those questions and answers are all opposite of the same asked about the "n" upgrade we're discussing. Does that help point you in the direction of recognizing how the accounting treatment would be different? If it is different, then I can't tell you how Apple decided to charge a few dollars, but can you start to see how a fee for one versus the other might be reasonable and streamline accounting?

I don't think you were referring to me, but since I was responsible for the two finger click anecdote I guess I should explain anyway. I know you're trying to help us understand, and at least for me, these anecdotes / examples can help us understand.

So here's one more (and I'm providing this only because I'm curious and find this intriguing): Gapless playback on my iPod. My 5g iPod received a software update to enable gapless playback when the 5.5g iPod was released. This seems exactly the same to me as the N thing... it was a strongly desired feature and it is advertised clearly on apple's website. How is this different?

By the way, since this whole accounting thing is a little bit beyond me, how would apple determine that $4.99 is the appropriate amount for this service? If they charge too much isn't that just as bad (accounting wise) as charging too little?

dernhelm
Jan 15, 2007, 04:02 PM
I like the additional USB port and the Airport Disc feature - I want one! :)

I'm getting one! Wish they'd release sooner! I'll let you know how it works...

blybug
Jan 15, 2007, 04:05 PM
1. Obvioulsly that needs to happen. You can't share music out of iTunes if iTunes isn't running. Just like if you have 2 Macs that are shaiing files and/or printers and that Mac isn't on, you can't access the files or the printer either. Its impossible for that not to happen. The only other way to do this is to not have it go through iTunes which Apple would never do.
Third party software can access the iTunes database (~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music Library.xml) just fine without iTunes running. Elgato's EyeHome (which will die an unceremonious death with the release of AppleTV), AccessTunes and MyTunes RSS, both of which stream your iTunes over the internet, can all access the iTunes Library (playlists and all) from a host while iTunes is not running. I'm sure there are others as well.

Clearly it's possible, and Apple could obviously do it if they wanted. All that's needed is an iTunes daemon that runs in the background of the host computer, the prefs could be set from an "iTunes" tab in the "Sharing" preference pane at the system level. Maybe it's because there would be no consisent way to mirror this behavior in Windows??

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 04:06 PM
All I know is any law that requires Apple to charge (against their will) for enabling a feature they have preinstalled should be changed.

IF that is the case.

Rocketman

francism
Jan 15, 2007, 04:18 PM
I really hope putting the iTunes and iPhoto Libraries on an "AirPort Disk" shared drive will work. I would like to update iTunes and iPhoto from multiple computers in my house. This would be the only reason I'd upgrade to an Airport Extreme.

Phil A.
Jan 15, 2007, 04:25 PM
Annoying!? Does anyone else think this is outrageous? If I owned a new Mac and I had to pay for a "feature" that was already a part of my computer I'd be pissed as hell. That is bull@#!&@. Maybe I'm missing part of the story here...


That's like buying a car only to later find out you had 800hp this whole time instead of the 400hp you bought it at, only to discover that get this extra 400hp (you know, the stuff you already paid for) is going to cost you extra. This is worse than DRM!

If you buy a BMW M5, you'll find it's artificially limited to 155mph. To get the full benefit of the engine, transmission, etc, you've paid for would require the installation of a 3rd party engine management chip, which will cost you $$ ;)

hopejr
Jan 15, 2007, 04:30 PM
Just another person who hates SOX with a vengeance. I encounter it nearly every day at work because we have customers who are listed on Wall Street and the Canadian Stock Exchange. We need SOX authorisation just to do software updates or fix a problem on their servers! But then again, it's just they way they have interpreted SOX. That's what it's all about. If you interpret it like Nazis it gets bad, otherwise it's not so bad.

NightStorm
Jan 15, 2007, 04:45 PM
If you buy a BMW M5, you'll find it's artificially limited to 155mph. To get the full benefit of the engine, transmission, etc, you've paid for would require the installation of a 3rd party engine management chip, which will cost you $$ ;)
That is the best analogy I've seen on here yet. And it isn't only the BMW that has this... are we all going to demand these be removed by the auto manufacturers because they are crippling something that we paid for?

I'll say it again; one of the main reasons for this has got to be the fact that Apple doesn't want to have to handle all the calls stemming from incompatible draft-n hardware.

Switched2aMac
Jan 15, 2007, 05:07 PM
Sorry if this is a duplicate post but I don't have time right now to read 7 pages.

Does anyone know if 802.11n works with Powerbooks? I have a G4 Powerbook and I would like to buy the new airport extreme base station and buy a new airport 802.11n card.

Thanks

Willis
Jan 15, 2007, 05:32 PM
US$ 4.99 to unlock my N card?!

How much for UK users... Apple do rip us off like the iPod games. Thats a joke!!

Nicky G
Jan 15, 2007, 05:39 PM
Sarbanes Oxley (sp?) is going to force a LOT of companies to charge for software that used to be bundled. It's not a joke, so the story should be updated to not reflect the idea that this is something Apple is making up. They are not.

weg
Jan 15, 2007, 05:48 PM
[url=http://www.macrumors.com]
Of interest, surrounding the release of the 802.11n basestation, we heard claims that Apple would eventually be offering the 802.11n installer for $4.99. At that time, the upgrade fee made little sense, but now appears to be due to the account issue described by iLounge.

Oh, is that the reason why QuickTime always reminds me that I should buy the pro version? I wonder why we don't have to pay for Apple Software updates..

Will micropayments be the new business concept of Apple?

EDIT: Hmm.. SOX only applies in the US, so we'll see if Apple also charges for those updates in Europe and Asia.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 06:01 PM
Apple doesn't have to charge anything. But they are more compelled to because beyond a simple low cost software patch they have to pay taxes based on the value of the upgrade that millions of people are enabling. So they charge enough to establish a defensible value and pay the taxes on it per person who upgrades. Apple could always eat the costs. If those costs were $100k maybe, sure. But at millions owed in taxes, why not pass that on to the consumer. Especially if we are getting so much more than $5 out of the new functionality.

All I know is any law that requires Apple to charge (against their will) for enabling a feature they have preinstalled should be changed.

IF that is the case.

Rocketman

Peace
Jan 15, 2007, 06:14 PM
All I know is any law that requires Apple to charge (against their will) for enabling a feature they have preinstalled should be changed.

IF that is the case.

Rocketman

Thats the thing Rocketman.

This new feature is NOT pre-installed.

Another theory for folks.

What if like folks are saying.iLife comes included with OS X Leopard due to tighter intergration?
How are they to help recover the cost?

Charge for the update to the .n cards.

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 06:28 PM
Just another person who hates SOX with a vengeance. I encounter it nearly every day at work because we have customers who are listed on Wall Street and the Canadian Stock Exchange. We need SOX authorisation just to do software updates or fix a problem on their servers! But then again, it's just they way they have interpreted SOX. That's what it's all about. If you interpret it like Nazis it gets bad, otherwise it's not so bad.

With all due respect it is prosecutors who interpret it like NAZI's and lawyers have their own chat websites to share experiences. The result is this new layer of SOX crap, and that is exactly what it is.

Rocketman

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 06:33 PM
Thats the thing Rocketman.

This new feature is NOT pre-installed.

Another theory for folks.

What if like folks are saying.iLife comes included with OS X Leopard due to tighter intergration?
How are they to help recover the cost?

Charge for the update to the .n cards.

I agree, the firmware and possibly even part of the software is not installed, but the hardware is, and I have updated both firmware and software without fees in the past. This particuar case is the exception. The law has changed. Apple has not.

Rocketman

mntentman
Jan 15, 2007, 06:34 PM
OReillynet.com notes that the quietly updated Airport Extreme Basestation incorporates a new feature called Airport Disk:

This was what Apple announced last week, and why I put an order in for one. Not sure why it is being considered "news" now.

TESEV
Jan 15, 2007, 06:49 PM
What I want to know is now that it is public that the new Macs have wireless-n, will they come enabled?

SC68Cal
Jan 15, 2007, 06:51 PM
I think they're using the law to their advantage in this case :-\

I've never ever heard of this before.

fustercluck
Jan 15, 2007, 07:00 PM
Thats the thing Rocketman.

This new feature is NOT pre-installed.

Another theory for folks.

What if like folks are saying.iLife comes included with OS X Leopard due to tighter intergration?
How are they to help recover the cost?

Charge for the update to the .n cards.

I disagree. The new feature IS pre-installed. It is just disabled. Otherwise, you would need new hardware. Everyone who bought a C2D machine paid for an 11.n card. It's built into the cost of the hardware.

As for the software driver to "uncripple" it, as I keep pointing out, it's no different than the drivers we get in Software Update, the security patches, the upgraded functionality for the OS and software (e.g. iTunes, QuickTime).

in summary, I'm happy on the one hand that the cost is only $5 rather than having to buy a new card. On the other hand, it's ******** that we're being asked to pay period.

Bregalad
Jan 15, 2007, 07:11 PM
I think Apple hardware and software got badly out of sync on the new computers: the draft n hardware was ready, but the software wasn't.

Thus Apple had three choices:
(1) sell computers with the n hardware, but advertise they only had g because the n software wasn't ready and then deal with this PR nightmare.
(2) sell computers with the n hardware, but advertise they only had g and never unlock the n feature because the units were sold as only b,g compatible.
(3) sell computers with g hardware and wait until all the n pieces were in place before including them.

So you could:
(1) whine about having to pay $5 to get a new feature
(2) get really pissed off when you discover your Mac has hardware you can't use
(3) spend months whining about how your "state of the art" Core2 Mac only has 802.11g

Maxx Power
Jan 15, 2007, 07:17 PM
FYI, for those using Bootcamp or just booting straight windows with no OS X - the draft-n drivers for the core duos are already out for a while now, so if you want to try the .11n spec with your .11n spec router, you can do that already in windows xp or 2000.

fishoutofagua
Jan 15, 2007, 07:37 PM
so do core duo macbooks support the n.

chubad
Jan 15, 2007, 07:42 PM
Everyone has Quicktime Pro on their machine. When you "upgrade" they simply SELL you the code to unlock it. I don't understand all the whining over $5.00. :rolleyes:

poppe
Jan 15, 2007, 07:50 PM
Everyone has Quicktime Pro on their machine. When you "upgrade" they simply SELL you the code to unlock it. I don't understand all the whining over $5.00. :rolleyes:

Well for me it's because i'm in college and 5.00 is my lunch when my class goes from 1p.m. - 11.p.m. So 5.00 is pretty important to me. But really mostly it's not about having to spend 5.00 or even 1.00. It's the fact that we have to pay for N even though it's in our computer. If I had to take it to the Apple store for someone to manually and physically turn on a switch or something I could understand (maybe) but a software update I have to pay for... just blows...

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 07:54 PM
so do core duo macbooks support the n.



According to apple, no. See posts 48,49 for more details or here (http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/)

Analog Kid
Jan 15, 2007, 08:07 PM
Not a SOX expert here but to take a stab at this, I would assume they are limiting you because they are archiving 100% of all corporate emails in an attempt to not get charged with destroying evidence in the case of a law suit. Many companies are doing this as an overreaction to SOX and the Enron/Tyco suits that were it's genesis.

Source: Google for "SOX email quota" and read a couple links :)
:D Now, you see, if they explained it like that it would have made more sense... You might be right-- at least that implies that logic made it a little further through the process.

I still think it's a lousy excuse, though...

Maxx Power
Jan 15, 2007, 08:16 PM
so do core duo macbooks support the n.

Depends, i'm not sure of your revision number. iMac Core Duo since rev. B has included the draft-n radio. I haven't taken apart my iMac yet, so I don't know if the Rev. A's can be upgraded, since these things are usually connected via a mini-pci (common standard) connector shared with laptops. If you are not sure, just boot into windows xp and look under device manager for actual wifi card and then check google for n-compatibility and if so, you can use the n-drivers.

Analog Kid
Jan 15, 2007, 08:24 PM
Everyone has Quicktime Pro on their machine. When you "upgrade" they simply SELL you the code to unlock it. I don't understand all the whining over $5.00. :rolleyes:

This raises one other possibility that's been going through my head-- it could be to cover royalties. I'm pretty sure the QT Pro fee is to cover royalties on some of the features included (codecs or whatever). I can't remember if it was iTunes or another app that only worked with built in optical drives until the licensing changed, because there was a royalty on one of the encoders. Maybe there's a royalty issue with 802.11n that needs to be covered?Sarbanes Oxley (sp?) is going to force a LOT of companies to charge for software that used to be bundled. It's not a joke, so the story should be updated to not reflect the idea that this is something Apple is making up. They are not.

Can you please point me to the part of the SOX law that has anything to do with this? I assume you know something about it-- just point me to the section of the law, or quote the provision, or something... please...

Apple doesn't have to charge anything. But they are more compelled to because beyond a simple low cost software patch they have to pay taxes based on the value of the upgrade that millions of people are enabling. So they charge enough to establish a defensible value and pay the taxes on it per person who upgrades. Apple could always eat the costs. If those costs were $100k maybe, sure. But at millions owed in taxes, why not pass that on to the consumer. Especially if we are getting so much more than $5 out of the new functionality.

Hey-- thanks for taking the time to try and explain all of this. I don't know that it's the "adding value" bit that's really the reason for it, but your explanation has been educational.

retroneo
Jan 15, 2007, 08:33 PM
Yeah, I'm not buying it either...
All the Intel based mac chipsets support 802.11a...not sure if it is actually enabled in the software though.

But unfortunately the 5.8GHz antenna socket on the Airport Card is not connected to anything :-(

izzle22
Jan 15, 2007, 08:41 PM
Any chance Apple will come out with an Airport Extreme - n card for older Powermac G5s or Powerbook G4s?

Maxx Power
Jan 15, 2007, 09:35 PM
But unfortunately the 5.8GHz antenna socket on the Airport Card is not connected to anything :-(

Hmm, the antennas aren't hard to get, OEM parts I guess, and tuck it away somewhere inside the iMac's plastic interior.

I have yet to check mine...

MacGuffin
Jan 15, 2007, 09:52 PM
Sarbanes-Oxley has had a wide range of unintended consequenses. It needs to be killed.

Criminalizing CEO's


You're quite right. CEOs need no help at all criminalizing themselves.

Inkling
Jan 15, 2007, 10:37 PM
It has got something to do with Apple writing of development costs in products. They are writing of the development and advertising costs for product A with features B. They cant later add features C and D to product A+B, since it'll change the cost of developing the products. This have stopped Apple from implementing stuff in their operating system and iPods too, stuff that could have been easily added through software updates.

This may explain why someone at Adobe told me that couldn't add even minor new features to Adobe software along with the bug fixes. At the time, I thought she was crazy and pointed out all the improvements Apple sticks in between versions. Now it sounds like it is true. For their big products, we have to wait 18 months are longer for even minor improvements in a user interface or something.

This is really, really, really dumb. Congress goes weird after a scandal and writes a new law so bad, it creates a tax accounting mess when software companies simply want to reward users with minor improvements. Who cares when an expense gets written off, as long as it does, the IRS will eventually get the right amount of money.

What has that got to do with the sorts of schemes being done at Enron, schemes there were already illegal under existing law anyway?

Maybe it's time we gave our local member of Congress a hard time about this.

Mtn Tamale
Jan 15, 2007, 10:54 PM
What's really funny is that SOX isn't causing this at all. What is causing this and many similar fees is simply awareness of ethical, consistent, and enforced accounting treatments by many corporations that had either been very lax or just thought a few "white lies" wouldn't be any big deal. SOX isn't specially causing any of this. Good accounting and ethics are causing it.

They cause it because if Apple accounts correctly for its actions, it owes money, and if it owes too much money giving away freebies then it will charge us instead of making things free. If Apple could just give things away fee at no real cost to itself, hurting the marketplace, that wouldn't be right would it? Think Microsoft and bundling...

That is the only effect SOX has on this issue.

matticus008
Jan 16, 2007, 05:36 AM
It is strange that they can't give out the updater.. Its just an improvement upon an excisting technology.. It would be the same as having those Mac mini's that shipped with better specs, being elligal..
Not quite. The 'upgraded' Mac minis were fully functional and disclosed their performance when assessed. Standard disclosures such as "actual appearance may vary" and "specifications are subject to change at any time" etc. cover supply-chain changes and periodic upgrades. What they don't cover are substantive changes--they couldn't secretly switch to Intel processors in the minis from G4s without disclosing it. With the minis, you just got incrementally better equipment than what was specified. This is not the case here. 802.11n represents a material change.

This may explain why someone at Adobe told me that couldn't add even minor new features to Adobe software along with the bug fixes. At the time, I thought she was crazy and pointed out all the improvements Apple sticks in between versions. Now it sounds like it is true. For their big products, we have to wait 18 months are longer for even minor improvements in a user interface or something.
No, that's just nonsense. If Photoshop 6 shipped with the features of Photoshop 7, just disabled, that would be applicable. But evolutionary software application updates are irrelevant and generally not subject to this act. It is expected that software is a fluid product and as such only the major function is reported (e.g. OS, image editor, music player).

What's really funny is that SOX isn't causing this at all. What is causing this and many similar fees is simply awareness of ethical, consistent, and enforced accounting treatments by many corporations that had either been very lax or just thought a few "white lies" wouldn't be any big deal. SOX isn't specially causing any of this. Good accounting and ethics are causing it.
The issue is actually PCAOB auditing, based on what I can see. I'm not a lawyer on this case or representing any interested parties. However, new accounting rules and strict records compliance require action to avoid what are called "material misstatements" which include substantial differences in products. Apple reported its products as having a complete feature set including 802.11b and g support. In order to support 802.11n, additional hardware and software is needed to enable a substantially different interface. In terms of interoperability, the difference between 802.11g and 802.11n is the same as the difference between ethernet and wireless networking cards. They are not interoperable and constitute a material change. Special hardware is needed to take advantage of and to construct an n-capable network.

The fact that the hardware has disabled capabilities is not novel (processors are often crippled and sold as inferior products [Celeron v. Pentium; GeForce MX vs. 4; et al.]), but Apple as a company cannot simply announce a latent feature in preexisting products that was not disclosed in their accounting documents previously. The way around this is to issue the update as a paid "upgrade" which implements the new feature. They can then report this material change to their products in their accounting and disclosure filings.

If this were a purely software change, then this would not apply, as software features are not disclosed in the detail that hardware is. Also, if this were an extension of an existing product that was simply bigger or faster or cheaper, it would slide by as well. This isn't a faster 802.11g card; it's a different device implemented in hardware and software both internal (the Airport card) and external (requiring compatible switches/routers/gateways/etc.) to the product. It happens to be faster and roughly similar. But then again the Pentium M is faster and roughly similar to the Pentium III and was also a material change.

ultimatemac
Jan 16, 2007, 06:26 AM
maybe someone mentioned it before, but ive found out why new airport extreme just fires up 2,5 times in UK, Spain, Germany, Austria et. al. ! For these countries, the 802.11ns capability to transmit on a 40mHz wide channel is forbidden!

how sad, will there nerver be theoratical 600 mbps :mad: ?

see further: http://www.dailywireless.org/2006/11/20/ 80211n-restricted-to-20mhz-channels-at-24-ghz/

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 06:34 AM
Was anyone else selling the iPod enhancement? What did it cost? Was there a market for getting that enhancement? No, Zero, No would be the answers.
Rockbox, sure its free. Yet no one discredits the Linux market cause its free.

4np
Jan 16, 2007, 06:38 AM
As that Act is US-only, why does the rest of the world still need to pay that $4.99 for a mere software update?

hopejr
Jan 16, 2007, 07:09 AM
As that Act is US-only, why does the rest of the world still need to pay that $4.99 for a mere software update?

Because the company is listed on the NYSE and/or Canadian Stock Exchange (at least that's what my boss explained to me).

I work for an Australian software company that deals with mining companies here in Australia. Some of these companies are listed on NYSE, so we have to abide by their SOX compliance policies. Some of them are absolutely ridiculous, others we don't even hear about. For example, to fix a printer set up on one of our customer's servers, we need the person who noticed the problem and logged the call with us to register a change request with their superior which works it's way back to their accountants. Then, they send it back to the person saying that they can now ask us to get authorisation from them to make the change. So we need to contact them and goes through the same chain again to get permission to make the change. When we make the change, we send them all the details, how long it took, what time, which server, etc, and then that's it. Other companies, we just let them know we're doing it, make the change, and tell them it's done, even without having to go to the superior. Funnily enough, even some of our SOX-compliant customers let us do that, because their SOX compliance policies aren't so strict.

Thankfully we aren't listed on NYSE.

4np
Jan 16, 2007, 07:32 AM
I disagree. The new feature IS pre-installed. It is just disabled. Otherwise, you would need new hardware. Everyone who bought a C2D machine paid for an 11.n card. It's built into the cost of the hardware.

As for the software driver to "uncripple" it, as I keep pointing out, it's no different than the drivers we get in Software Update, the security patches, the upgraded functionality for the OS and software (e.g. iTunes, QuickTime).

in summary, I'm happy on the one hand that the cost is only $5 rather than having to buy a new card. On the other hand, it's ******** that we're being asked to pay period.

I totally agree with you on this... it's absurd

Chupa Chupa
Jan 16, 2007, 07:47 AM
Bottom Line here is that when Apple charged $49 for the Intel Final Cut Pro Studio sidegrade, and got away with it, it learned it can shakedown customers with impunity. And the Intel FCP Studio sidegrade didn't even add features, just compatibility. How's that for thanks to the Intel early adopters.

Back in the day (just a few years ago) users yelled that the $129 Apple charged for an incomplete Mac OS X 10.0 was robbery. Apple relented and GAVE AWAY copies of 10.1 to all 10.0 owners. Obviously Mac users have morphed into wimps since then and now just turn their backsides to Jobs and yell "thank you Steve, may I have another."

I believe Apple's SOX accounting rationale. It's one of those unantcipated consequences that broad legislation creates. Even still SOX does not prohibit companies from adding new features to pre-sold products, it just requires them to account for it in a special way. Now seems to me if Apple can go to all the trouble to back date Jobs' stock options it can find a legal and legit way to account for some two-bit firmware for loyal customers $1000-3000 computers, rather than nickel and dime them.

The fact is Apple is becoming as greedy and oppressive as M$. I won't be too shocked if Leopard requires activation like Windows. Steve probably wants the $5 per so he can fill up the Apple Gulfwing for a weekend sortie.

htdefiant
Jan 16, 2007, 08:11 AM
OK. The guy from Apple called me back. This was surprising, because they ususally don't do that. The tech guy, ironicly named Steve, said that any computer (intel) with a built-in G card can have it's n feature "activated". This is free when you buy a router, it comes with an "enabler cd". If you are not getting a new router, or if you just want N enabled, you have to pay apple $5 for the CD.

eluk
Jan 16, 2007, 09:32 AM
maybe someone mentioned it before, but ive found out why new airport extreme just fires up 2,5 times in UK, Spain, Germany, Austria et. al. ! For these countries, the 802.11ns capability to transmit on a 40mHz wide channel is forbidden!

how sad, will there nerver be theoratical 600 mbps :mad: ?

see further: http://www.dailywireless.org/2006/11/20/ 80211n-restricted-to-20mhz-channels-at-24-ghz/

Re-read it.
Last week the IEEE 802.11 voted for a ban on 40Mhz wide channel bonding on the 2.4 Ghz spectrum. The vote was 40 for, 31 against. A 75% majority is needed to pass a technical motion, however, so the ban did not pass.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 09:41 AM
Re-read it.

Re-read it.

A ban on 40 MHz wide channels would not apply to the 5 GHz band. Meanwhile, companies may well sell 2.4 GHz access points with ganged channels but dont expect N compliance and compatibility. A standard 802.11n spec may not emerge for another year.

That ban was about 2.4GHz which is B and G. A and N use the 5GHz band. UK's 2.5x speed is due to the country's ban of 40Mhz wide channels at 5GHz probably due to military or something. Either way. It has nothin to do with the ban the IEEE was discussin.

Chupa Chupa
Jan 16, 2007, 10:46 AM
OK. The guy from Apple called me back. This was surprising, because they ususally don't do that. The tech guy, ironicly named Steve, said that any computer (intel) with a built-in G card can have it's n feature "activated". This is free when you buy a router, it comes with an "enabler cd". If you are not getting a new router, or if you just want N enabled, you have to pay apple $5 for the CD.

Are you sure he didn't mean when you buy an Apple router (AKA Airport Extreme)? I don't know of any non-Apple wireless products that come with Mac compatible CDs. Plus, the "n" enabler has to originate from Apple. If Apple is licensing the enabler to other companies that IS news to me.

goosnarrggh
Jan 16, 2007, 11:03 AM
Hum. This sort of plays out to me like this:


Harrumph!
My Mac already has the capability in hardware to do everything that iLife 2007 offers! All you need to do is put the 1's and 0's in the right places. So why do I have to pay money to have this capability enabled?

It feels good to say that Apple is guilty of some bad practise with the 802.11n enabler. But that argument just cannot stand up to common sense analysis.

A more valid question might by something like:

Harrumph!
My 5G iPod didn't have the capability to play back consecutive continuous tracks without adding a gap between the two. Apple added a new feature which makes this possible. It's been made freely available to all previous 5G iPod owners, despite the fact that 5G iPods had been on the market across two different calendar nd fiscal years at the time that the new feature was added.
Why couldn't they have done the same thing with the 802.11n enabler?

And the answer to that one is, as far as I can tell: Because they felt like it.

ultimatemac
Jan 16, 2007, 11:32 AM
The education store for Austrian universities liftet the secret with the additional information, that wide channel would be banned!

So I love the new airport extrem with its NAS funtionality, but this uncertainty in future compatibility makes me a bit thinking about spending 164,4 bucks (Edu-price) for this!

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 11:45 AM
The education store for Austrian universities liftet the secret with the additional information, that wide channel would be banned
IN AUSTRIA. This has been reported previously. Wide band is not currently banned in the US but in a number of European countries including England, Germany, and Austria it is. No secret. :rolleyes:

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 12:08 PM
Six pages of people whinning about consciously buying computers with 802.11g and then having the option to drop a 5ver to upgrade to 802.11n. I have never seen ANY hardware manufacturer guarantee free upgrades for life. Instead, shouldn't you be happy in the knowledge that Apple didn't drop in a cheaper 802.11g chip that would not permit a firmware upgrade? You all need to consider yourselves lucky that Apple didn't box you in with a non-n-draft chip in those MacIntels. The reality is, if this patch were not offered by Apple, and a 3rd party provided one at twice the price most people would gladly drop the $10. This is hardly an injustice or another example of Apple greed, instead it is an example of Apple looking just far enough into the future to think the right decision by its customers was to put in upgradable chips.

Ibjr
Jan 16, 2007, 12:17 PM
This is sooooo gonna be all over the warez sites.. Stupid decision of Apple. they could sell it for 0.01$.

They have to charge something to deal with the credit card processing fees and other things related to conforming to SOX.

fustercluck
Jan 16, 2007, 12:26 PM
Six pages of people whinning about consciously buying computers with 802.11g and then having the option to drop a 5ver to upgrade to 802.11n. I have never seen ANY hardware manufacturer guarantee free upgrades for life. Instead, shouldn't you be happy in the knowledge that Apple didn't drop in a cheaper 802.11g chip that would not permit a firmware upgrade? You all need to consider yourselves lucky that Apple didn't box you in with a non-n-draft chip in those MacIntels. The reality is, if this patch were not offered by Apple, and a 3rd party provided one at twice the price most people would gladly drop the $10. This is hardly an injustice or another example of Apple greed, instead it is an example of Apple looking just far enough into the future to think the right decision by its customers was to put in upgradable chips.

What you and everyone else arguing this point ad nauseum fail to acknowledge is that we did pay for an 11n card. I'm sure that a card capable of only 11g would have been less expensive, dropping the overall price of the computer by whatever amount comprises the difference.

Furthermore, by the time I bought my computer, it was very clear that these cards were 11n capable, but that they were temporarily crippled by OSX to comply with industry standards & practices. As Peace pointed out quite early on, the .n functionality was and is available in Windows should you use Boot Camp or Parallels.

Some of you people don't understand what an analogy is. Instead there are these straw man examples of what you think are analogies, like the moron with the iLife example or the twit with the BMW example.

My computer did not come with iLife. I didn't pay for iLife. It's not figured into the price of the computer UNLIKE THE HARDWARE which I did pay for once already.

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 12:48 PM
What you and everyone else arguing this point ad nauseum fail to acknowledge is that we did pay for an 11n card. I'm sure that a card capable of only 11g would have been less expensive, dropping the overall price of the computer by whatever amount comprises the difference.

Furthermore, by the time I bought my computer, it was very clear that these cards were 11n capable, but that they were temporarily crippled by OSX to comply with industry standards & practices. As Peace pointed out quite early on, the .n functionality was and is available in Windows should you use Boot Camp or Parallels.

Some of you people don't understand what an analogy is. Instead there are these straw man examples of what you think are analogies, like the moron with the iLife example or the twit with the BMW example.

My computer did not come with iLife. I didn't pay for iLife. It's not figured into the price of the computer UNLIKE THE HARDWARE which I did pay for once already.


Did you, or did you not know before you bought your particular Mac that when you opened the box and turned on the machine it would operate using the 802.11g standard? Was there a guarantee anywhere in the enclosed literature or on Apple's website that Apple would enable 802.11n on your computer and that they would do so for free? I'll answer for you... "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second.

In fact, Apple still does not "officially" acknowledge they use 802.11n compatible chips, this factiod was identified by third parties. So you gambled that they would enable the chip and that they would do it for free. You're 50% ahead of the game, stop stewing in your juices and bitching at others for pointing out that Apple owes you nothing more than what they promised to deliver when you gave them your cash... 802.11g compliant connectivity. That you get to move to a whole new draft and the associated advantages for $5 is a bargain.

Maxx Power
Jan 16, 2007, 12:52 PM
What you and everyone else arguing this point ad nauseum fail to acknowledge is that we did pay for an 11n card. I'm sure that a card capable of only 11g would have been less expensive, dropping the overall price of the computer by whatever amount comprises the difference.

Furthermore, by the time I bought my computer, it was very clear that these cards were 11n capable, but that they were temporarily crippled by OSX to comply with industry standards & practices. As Peace pointed out quite early on, the .n functionality was and is available in Windows should you use Boot Camp or Parallels.

Some of you people don't understand what an analogy is. Instead there are these straw man examples of what you think are analogies, like the moron with the iLife example or the twit with the BMW example.

My computer did not come with iLife. I didn't pay for iLife. It's not figured into the price of the computer UNLIKE THE HARDWARE which I did pay for once already.


A law which is unsensible is not worthy of obeying. Apple should just stand up for the little guys, there are numerous ways of doing it legally - claim typos, release it as part of the next OS X major update, release it as beta software (draft-n is forever beta)....

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 01:03 PM
Did you, or did you not know before you bought your particular Mac that when you opened the box and turned on the machine it would operate using the 802.11g standard? Was there a guarantee anywhere in the enclosed literature or on Apple's website that Apple would enable 802.11n on your computer and that they would do so for free? I'll answer for you... "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second.

In fact, Apple still does not "officially" acknowledge they use 802.11n compatible chips, this factiod was identified by third parties. So you gambled that they would enable the chip and that they would do it for free. You're 50% ahead of the game, stop stewing in your juices and bitching at others for pointing out that Apple owes you nothing more than what they promised to deliver when you gave them your cash... 802.11g compliant connectivity. That you get to move to a whole new draft and the associated advantages for $5 is a bargain.
It not about what was promised but what was paid for. N cards are significantly more expensive than G cards. No matter what is promised, the consumer pays for what is inside not what was promised. Look now that Apple admits that the new Macs have 802.11n, they didnt increase the price. Same hardware, same price. Its worth more based on what they promised. But not based on what is there, what they charge off of.

Peace
Jan 16, 2007, 01:08 PM
[snip]



Furthermore, by the time I bought my computer, it was very clear that these cards were 11n capable, but that they were temporarily crippled by OSX to comply with industry standards & practices. As Peace pointed out quite early on, the .n functionality was and is available in Windows should you use Boot Camp or Parallels.



[/snippet]

When I found out about the Airport being 802.11n in Windows Vista I never said it was N functional.I merely said Windows reported it to be a Broadcom 802.11n wireless card.I further tested it and found that there was a minimal increase in speed.Nothing close to actual draft-n speeds.

Please keep these facts straight :)

NightStorm
Jan 16, 2007, 01:09 PM
What you and everyone else arguing this point ad nauseum fail to acknowledge is that we did pay for an 11n card. I'm sure that a card capable of only 11g would have been less expensive, dropping the overall price of the computer by whatever amount comprises the difference.
When you are talking about the volume of chips that Apple orders, the price difference is negligible (if anything at all). In fact, it could simply be that when the chips were initially ordered, they were unsure if they could secure enough 802.11g chips, so they substituted a compatible chip.

sblasl
Jan 16, 2007, 01:12 PM
I actually did purchase the 3rd party upgrade for my BMW, the guy with the BMW example was spot on in his analogy.

You don't understand.:rolleyes:


Some of you people don't understand what an analogy is. Instead there are these straw man examples of what you think are analogies, like the moron with the iLife example or the twit with the BMW example.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 01:19 PM
I actually did purchase the 3rd party upgrade for my BMW, the guy with the BMW example was spot on in his analogy.

You don't understand.:rolleyes:
ACTUALLY....

Let me ask you something. Is Speed hardware? Is it a physically buyable product that you can install in your car. Nope. If you had bought a legendary BMW V-6 but found out it was really an 8 cylinder where two of the cylinders were disabled (which wouldnt make any sense I know). And then later down the road, BMW said theres actually 8. Youd be like :eek: . It was just disabled. Now there is an analogy. Speed is not something you pay for. Cylinders are. That V8 costs more than that V6 and you pay for that when you buy the car. Even if they only disclose it to be a V6. Its an odd situation since usually companies always disclose the best possible descriptions instead of under emphazing their features. Weird.

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 01:41 PM
Its not about what was promised but what was paid for. N cards are significantly more expensive than G cards. No matter what is promised, the consumer pays for what is inside not what was promised. Look now that Apple admits that the new Macs have 802.11n, they didnt increase the price. Same hardware, same price. Its worth more based on what they promised. But not based on what is there, what they charge off of.

Sorry, I disagree and your own behavior would seem to indicate you are not being honest with yourself. You may have told yourself you were paying for 802.11n, but Apple sold you 802.11g. If you had turned on the Mac and it only provided 802.11b, (or only CD-ROM playback despite containing a super-drive) you would have taken it back, but you still have not returned you Mac despite no 802.11n. You paid for and received 802.11g... n was not included in the price despite the rationalizations you are making now.

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 01:54 PM
ACTUALLY....

Let me ask you something. Is Speed hardware? Is it a physically buyable product that you can install in your car. Nope. If you had bought a legendary BMW V-6 but found out it was really an 8 cylinder where two of the cylinders were disabled (which wouldnt make any sense I know). And then later down the road, BMW said theres actually 8. Youd be like :eek: . It was just disabled. Now there is an analogy. Speed is not something you pay for. Cylinders are. That V8 costs more than that V6 and you pay for that when you buy the car. Even if they only disclose it to be a V6. Its an odd situation since usually companies always disclose the best possible descriptions instead of under emphazing their features. Weird.

Umm, haven't you ever heard of speed limiters? Most performance cars have them and most require a third-party crack to remove them. It is actually a great analogy. Law requires them, a firmware "upgrade" is required to remove them. I do not have access to 100% of the inherent capabilities of my vehicle's power-plant and transmission but I do not feel the manufacturer has ripped me off even though I might have to plunk down a couple hundred to get the firmware. It is actually your analogy that is seriously flawed.

fustercluck
Jan 16, 2007, 02:05 PM
You may have told yourself you were paying for 802.11n, but Apple sold you 802.11g.

...at 11n pricing. It might have been advertised as 11g, I will grant you that, but please - the argument that there should be an extra cost for a capability that we already paid in hardware cost for but which is artificially crippled by software is patently ridiculous.

Maxx Power
Jan 16, 2007, 02:14 PM
Umm, haven't you ever heard of speed limiters? Most performance cars have them and most require a third-party crack to remove them. It is actually a great analogy. Law requires them, a firmware "upgrade" is required to remove them. I do not have access to 100% of the inherent capabilities of my vehicle's power-plant and transmission but I do not feel the manufacturer has ripped me off even though I might have to plunk down a couple hundred to get the firmware. It is actually your analogy that is seriously flawed.

You are thinking of the speed limiters which apply to all vehicles sold in North America, not performance cars.

Just to contest to that we in the North America gets the worst of the worst, we can't police our own behaviour, so we need speed limiters, and now, ESP functions. Speed limiters.... how american, nowhere else in the world has this, or made it mandatory (Europe, Asia, etc). But hey, supposedly we passed these laws to protect ourselves, just like the copyright laws, right ?

I fail to see how limiting the speed of ethernet network chipsets using software is protecting anything ?! That example you mentioned is applicable where safety is concerned, which doesn't apply to computers.

More importantly, why does the US just bend over and accept crap ?

I think the direction people are arguing this is a bit short-sighted. The fact of the matter is, for windows compatible products using the draft-n technology, the upgradability is advertised but not promised, ie, when the draft-n becomes finalized-n, a firmware will be made available to mandate this upgrade for routers, wifi cards, etc. And, since Apple computers have been using x86 compatible hardware (and paying the same money for the same wifi cards), it doesn't make sense for apple to charge money for this firmware upgrade, to draft-n, not even finalized-n, when the Windows platform users get their driver upgrades for free to enable that functionality.

fustercluck
Jan 16, 2007, 02:25 PM
Umm, haven't you ever heard of speed limiters? Most performance cars have them and most require a third-party crack to remove them. It is actually a great analogy. Law requires them, a firmware "upgrade" is required to remove them. I do not have access to 100% of the inherent capabilities of my vehicle's power-plant and transmission but I do not feel the manufacturer has ripped me off even though I might have to plunk down a couple hundred to get the firmware. It is actually your analogy that is seriously flawed.

No, it's a flawed analogy. In your example, the user is trying to break the law with that little "workaround." The car is disabled from going that fast for a reason and it costs money to circumvent the legal limits. Apple is incurring no cost from this firmware/software installer to enable .11n on hardware that already supports it.

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 02:31 PM
...at 11n pricing. It might have been advertised as 11g, I will grant you that, but please - the argument that there should be an extra cost for a capability that we already paid in hardware cost for but which is artificially crippled by software is patently ridiculous.

Actually, the idea that you think pricing is simply some multiple of the cost to manufacture is patently ridiculous.

fustercluck
Jan 16, 2007, 02:46 PM
Actually, the idea that you think pricing is simply some multiple of the cost to manufacture is patently ridiculous.

*I* don't. But people who are arguing that the differential is negligble (or $4.95) are.

I'm arguing the opposite: that I already paid the difference in cost between an .11g and an .11n PLUS MARKUP when I bought the computer. Secondly, it probably cost Apple more to disable the stupid .n functionality than it will to restore it.

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 02:47 PM
No, it's a flawed analogy. In your example, the user is trying to break the law with that little "workaround." The car is disabled from going that fast for a reason and it costs money to circumvent the legal limits. Apple is incurring no cost from this firmware/software installer to enable .11n on hardware that already supports it.

"No Cost" is a false statement. Someone has to write the code, someone has to write the installer, someone has to QA and debug the firmware, someone has to pay to distribute it, and someone will have to provide the customer support when there are problems, in this instance it is Apple.

The law and legality has nothing to do with the argument as presented. The argument is, "If someone buys something they know to be limited, are they entitled to the full potential at no additional cost." I argue they are not, you get what you pay for as stated in the original agreement.

fustercluck
Jan 16, 2007, 03:56 PM
"No Cost" is a false statement. Someone has to write the code, someone has to write the installer, someone has to QA and debug the firmware, someone has to pay to distribute it, and someone will have to provide the customer support when there are problems, in this instance it is Apple.

The law and legality has nothing to do with the argument as presented. The argument is, "If someone buys something they know to be limited, are they entitled to the full potential at no additional cost." I argue they are not, you get what you pay for as stated in the original agreement.

In which case, Apple will be absolutely DELIGHTED to hear that you, flipperfeet, are volunteering to pay for security updates and anything else you get "for free" via Software Update.

I have Steve Jobs on hold - can I get your serial # please?

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 04:22 PM
Sorry, I disagree and your own behavior would seem to indicate you are not being honest with yourself. You may have told yourself you were paying for 802.11n, but Apple sold you 802.11g. If you had turned on the Mac and it only provided 802.11b, (or only CD-ROM playback despite containing a super-drive) you would have taken it back, but you still have not returned you Mac despite no 802.11n. You paid for and received 802.11g... n was not included in the price despite the rationalizations you are making now.

LOL. Ok so who paid for the card? Apple just swallowed the cost. Forget about the promise made between the customer and the manufacturer. Think about realistically. Sure I thought I was only getting g. But I was paying for n. Whether you disagree or now, and whether I"m honest or not with myself :rolleyes: . Since I have a PB I dont see how, but.... neverthless no matter what the consumer pays for all the parts. We dont pay for what they say is in there. We pay for WHAT IS IN THERE.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 04:27 PM
Umm, haven't you ever heard of speed limiters? Most performance cars have them and most require a third-party crack to remove them. It is actually a great analogy. Law requires them, a firmware "upgrade" is required to remove them. I do not have access to 100% of the inherent capabilities of my vehicle's power-plant and transmission but I do not feel the manufacturer has ripped me off even though I might have to plunk down a couple hundred to get the firmware. It is actually your analogy that is seriously flawed.

REALLY!?!?! Speed limiters is that what those things are called that limit speeds? Thank you sir. I never knew. :rolleyes:

You are getting 100% of the capabilites of the power plant and transmission. Its not like its controlling your revs to a certain RPM. Its controlling your speed. Now before bashing me, think about it. Ok. If you got a V8 but they only allowed you to rev to 4000 RPM for no reason.... well that would be odd. It would be cutting off performance at every second of your drive, not allowing you to utilize 100% of the capabilites. Now if you are talking about speed. Whens the last time you went 150. Personally Ive only been 150 once. I really see no reason to go that fast when I cant legally be even CLOSE to the speed limit. But irrelevant. You get 100% of the capabilites of this car up until 150 mph. Yes or no?

Is any part of the engine, transmission, chassic not used to its fullest under 150 MPH?

And please sir tell me. Is speed a hardware purchasable upgrade? Can I go down to my local mechanic at purchase speed? Can you install 150 MPH in there for me, I dont like the current 140 MPH I have installed?

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 04:32 PM
Actually, the idea that you think pricing is simply some multiple of the cost to manufacture is patently ridiculous.

Yes, pricing is not a multiple of the cost to manufacture. The cost to manufacture should be a certain percentage of the final pricing. So along side development, research, bureaucratic, adminstrative all those fees, you get to a final price. Generally, I'm not sure about the computer industry, but in manufacturing a product is supposed to cost 10% of what you sell it for. The idea here is proportions. Its not that the cost has to be 10x what it costs to manufacture but it should generally be to create a well proportioned cost to profit ratio. So, if the manufacture cost increase the final price should increase. Maybe not 10x but atleast to cover the cost of the product.

flipperfeet
Jan 16, 2007, 04:32 PM
REALLY!?!?! Speed limiters is that what those things are called that limit speeds? Thank you sir. I never knew. :rolleyes:

You are getting 100% of the capabilites of the power plant and transmission. Its not like its controlling your revs to a certain RPM. Its controlling your speed. Now before bashing me, think about it. Ok. If you got a V8 but they only allowed you to rev to 4000 RPM for no reason.... well that would be odd. It would be cutting off performance at every second of your drive, not allowing you to utilize 100% of the capabilites. Now if you are talking about speed. Whens the last time you went 150. Personally Ive only been 150 once. I really see no reason to go that fast when I cant legally be even CLOSE to the speed limit. But irrelevant. You get 100% of the capabilites of this car up until 150 mph. Yes or no?

Is any part of the engine, transmission, chassic not used to its fullest under 150 MPH?

And please sir tell me. Is speed a hardware purchasable upgrade? Can I go down to my local mechanic at purchase speed? Can you install 150 MPH in there for me, I dont like the current 140 MPH I have installed?

N = more bandwidth which translates into speed of transfer you are arguing both sides. I'm done. you want to whine about your choices then drink from that cup of bile all you want.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 04:39 PM
"No Cost" is a false statement. Someone has to write the code, someone has to write the installer, someone has to QA and debug the firmware, someone has to pay to distribute it, and someone will have to provide the customer support when there are problems, in this instance it is Apple.

The law and legality has nothing to do with the argument as presented. The argument is, "If someone buys something they know to be limited, are they entitled to the full potential at no additional cost." I argue they are not, you get what you pay for as stated in the original agreement.
Well... no where does it state that you get what you pay for. You pay for what the manufacture puts in. Thats realistically how it works. The manufacturer doesn't have to disclose what is in the product. A manufacturer discloses what is inside a product because a consumer wants to know. And then they have an obligation to deliver atleast that much. Since anything above would still give them the same thing. Regardless though. Why don't manufacturers give you more than they usually say? Sure it makes fun surprises, but they have be advertisingly competitive and they always want to maximize what they have. So, underestimating their numbers would be a bad way to beat the competition. So lets review:

If a company discloses their components, they must meet or be better than that otherwise its false advertising.

They aren't obligated to disclose their components, but generally its what the consumer want.

And usually if companies do disclose their components they don't understate.

You pay for whats inside. You bought what they told you is inside.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 04:47 PM
N = more bandwidth which translates into speed of transfer you are arguing both sides. I'm done. you want to whine about your choices then drink from that cup of bile all you want.

No reason to cry. But... this effectively the difference even though technically its not the same since. n is a different protocol. While g works with all n routers. If they made "n" only routers then you would see a remarkable difference in these analogies. Yet, since all N routers include G, it doesnt make as stark as a difference. If they did you wouldnt be arguing with me. Now lets see if we can figure this one out:

And its not only bandwidth. I find more important in n is distance.

And the difference here. Is that this equivalent to putting a slower motor in. The BMW has a speed limiter which stops the top limits of your speed. N is faster at every distance including distances where G doesnt exist. So its not pure speed alone but faster speed everywhere at everytime not just the top speeds. Do you see the difference between a speed limiter and just less horsepower?

Speed limiter is what was in the BMW.

Less horsepower would be closer to what is the problem here since it affects every Rev and Speed (equivalent to transfer loads and distance, respectively).

If it was a speed limiter. It wouldnt be 54 MPBS but 50MBPS. Which would seem ridiculous. Yet, this is totally different ballgame.

See the difference?

rxse7en
Jan 16, 2007, 05:00 PM
I just want to know where I can pay for and download the activator! I have a dlink n-router and two macbook pros and want to test that throughput now!
NOW I TELLS YA! :D Hopefully the n-capable cards will play nice with the D-link n-capable router!

B

matticus008
Jan 16, 2007, 05:19 PM
In which case, Apple will be absolutely DELIGHTED to hear that you, flipperfeet, are volunteering to pay for security updates and anything else you get "for free" via Software Update.

I have Steve Jobs on hold - can I get your serial # please?
Everyone pays for the updates which aren't released for free. It seems to me that his argument is that you buy a product with the features and specifications provided by the manufacturer. If you get any more than that, it's because they chose to give you something better, but they're by no means obligated to do so. There could be a 200MHz faster processor in my computer than I paid for that was intentionally disabled by the manufacturer because it failed the quality testing for the faster rating. Should I insist that the manufacturer send me an update enabling more than I bought?

Did you pay for an n-capable card? No. You bought a computer that was advertised for b/g wireless. You got what was promised to you, and now they're offering you more for $5 (or free with the purchase of an Airport Extreme) instead of charging you the same price initially and asking you to buy a new Airport card later on for $100.

This, of course, has nothing to do with security updates, which are provided for software products free of charge for a certain support period. Fixes for problems in software are part of a different ballgame entirely.

Well... no where does it state that you get what you pay for. You pay for what the manufacture puts in.
and yet...
You bought what they told you is inside.

You get what you were told you were getting, and anything above that is effectively free, because you can't argue that the retail price would have been set lower without it. That's the ONLY part of marketing protected by law. Company A advertises a product with specifications x, y, and z for price C. You must be delivered that much for that price. That's it. Anything else is purely academic conjecture and irrelevant, unless the written rules you're looking for are something other than laws.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 05:25 PM
Everyone pays for the updates which aren't released for free. It seems to me that his argument is that you buy a product with the features and specifications provided by the manufacturer. If you get any more than that, it's because they chose to give you something better, but they're by no means obligated to do so. There could be a 200MHz faster processor in my computer than I paid for that was intentionally disabled by the manufacturer because it failed the quality testing for the faster rating. Should I insist that the manufacturer send me an update enabling more than I bought?

Did you pay for an n-capable card? No. You bought a computer that was advertised for b/g wireless. You got what was promised to you, and now they're offering you more for $5 (or free with the purchase of an Airport Extreme) instead of charging you the same price initially and asking you to buy a new Airport card later on for $100.

This, of course, has nothing to do with security updates, which are provided for software products free of charge for a certain support period. Fixes for problems in software are part of a different ballgame entirely.
What about prices for costs? A n-capable card cost more even if they only give you b/g.

matticus008
Jan 16, 2007, 05:30 PM
What about prices for costs? A n-capable card cost more even if they only give you b/g.
Says who? You're assuming that's the case, but you don't know that the manufacturer installed pre-n hardware on a number of lines and spread the cost of development to do so. Massive scaling is easier than developing a single product to bear the burden.

This is why processor manufacturers "overbuild" GPUs and CPUs. It's cheaper to build them all the same and then partially disable them to create the "budget" products--you don't have to do R&D for two separate products, you don't need tooling for two different production lines, and you don't need engineers to learn more than one design.

You're not paying for the sum of the parts. You're paying one price for one product. Picking it apart for analysis doesn't mean anything since you can't change the individual components and you can't know the actual price paid by Apple.

sblasl
Jan 16, 2007, 05:56 PM
Actually, that is exactly what it is called, a "Rev Limiter" firmware upgrade. It removes the limitation placed on the engine by BMW. There is also a transmission firmware upgrade but I forget what it is called and & how to explain it.

REALLY!?!?! Speed limiters is that what those things are called that limit speeds? Thank you sir. I never knew. :rolleyes:

You are getting 100% of the capabilites of the power plant and transmission. Its not like its controlling your revs to a certain RPM. Its controlling your speed. Now before bashing me, think about it. Ok. If you got a V8 but they only allowed you to rev to 4000 RPM for no reason.... well that would be odd. It would be cutting off performance at every second of your drive, not allowing you to utilize 100% of the capabilites. Now if you are talking about speed. Whens the last time you went 150. Personally Ive only been 150 once. I really see no reason to go that fast when I cant legally be even CLOSE to the speed limit. But irrelevant. You get 100% of the capabilites of this car up until 150 mph. Yes or no?

Is any part of the engine, transmission, chassic not used to its fullest under 150 MPH?

And please sir tell me. Is speed a hardware purchasable upgrade? Can I go down to my local mechanic at purchase speed? Can you install 150 MPH in there for me, I dont like the current 140 MPH I have installed?

matticus008
Jan 16, 2007, 06:04 PM
Actually, that is exactly what it is called, a "Rev Limiter" firmware upgrade. It removes the limitation placed on the engine by BMW. There is also a transmission firmware upgrade but I forget what it is called and & how to explain it.
It's both a speed limiter and a rev limiter, though the rev limiter is more for engine health than for enforcing a top speed. The speed limiter is sometimes called a "governor," for those who enjoy their techno-trivia.

If we have to use this ridiculous car analogy, what's going on here is a high performance engine is designed and built, but it requires engine timings that haven't quite been worked out. They opt to reduce the horsepower, torque, and fuel consumption and retard the timing, so that they can ship the engines using known "safe" values.

Later on, when they work out the correct timings, they issue a new engine computer that will improve the engine. This takes it from 250hp to 400hp, doubles the torque, and substantially improves performance. It's basically the same hardware, but thanks to the new computer, it's a new beast. That company COULD NOT ship the updated computers for free (even if it wanted to) after 2002. However, by charging for the new computers, they can account for the material change to their sales specifications.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 06:18 PM
Says who? You're assuming that's the case, but you don't know that the manufacturer installed pre-n hardware on a number of lines and spread the cost of development to do so. Massive scaling is easier than developing a single product to bear the burden.

This is why processor manufacturers "overbuild" GPUs and CPUs. It's cheaper to build them all the same and then partially disable them to create the "budget" products--you don't have to do R&D for two separate products, you don't need tooling for two different production lines, and you don't need engineers to learn more than one design.

You're not paying for the sum of the parts. You're paying one price for one product. Picking it apart for analysis doesn't mean anything since you can't change the individual components and you can't know the actual price paid by Apple.
Good point.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 06:22 PM
It's both a speed limiter and a rev limiter, though the rev limiter is more for engine health than for enforcing a top speed. The speed limiter is sometimes called a "governor," for those who enjoy their techno-trivia.

If we have to use this ridiculous car analogy, what's going on here is a high performance engine is designed and built, but it requires engine timings that haven't quite been worked out. They opt to reduce the horsepower, torque, and fuel consumption and retard the timing, so that they can ship the engines using known "safe" values.

Later on, when they work out the correct timings, they issue a new engine computer that will improve the engine. This takes it from 250hp to 400hp, doubles the torque, and substantially improves performance. It's basically the same hardware, but thanks to the new computer, it's a new beast. That company COULD NOT ship the updated computers for free (even if it wanted to) after 2002. However, by charging for the new computers, they can account for the material change to their sales specifications.
That would be more accurate. Yet thats not the analogy that was given. A governor was spoke off.

But of course its hard to compare the two since computer components cannot be changed merely by running a richer mix. :D I wish I could just feed my PB more oxygen to get it to go faster, the fans already seem loud enough to suck in enough oxygen to sustain life on mars.

matticus008
Jan 16, 2007, 08:44 PM
That would be more accurate. Yet thats not the analogy that was given. A governor was spoke off.

But of course its hard to compare the two since computer components cannot be changed merely by running a richer mix. :D I wish I could just feed my PB more oxygen to get it to go faster, the fans already seem loud enough to suck in enough oxygen to sustain life on mars.
Maybe the answer is an NO2 tank for your computer!

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 09:52 PM
Maybe the answer is an NO2 tank for your computer!

I was hoping just a big ass spoiler would make my powerbook faster.

poppe
Jan 17, 2007, 12:06 AM
I was hoping just a big ass spoiler would make my powerbook faster.

Heck yeah. That Powerbooik would have so much downforce... oh man... you'd barely be able to pick it up... and maybe on the MBP's where the fan is we could put a coffee can exhaust on the back so it sounds like a weed whacker :cool: :p

MacinDoc
Jan 17, 2007, 01:06 AM
LOL. Ok so who paid for the card? Apple just swallowed the cost. Forget about the promise made between the customer and the manufacturer. Think about realistically. Sure I thought I was only getting g. But I was paying for n. Whether you disagree or now, and whether I"m honest or not with myself :rolleyes: . Since I have a PB I dont see how, but.... neverthless no matter what the consumer pays for all the parts. We dont pay for what they say is in there. We pay for WHAT IS IN THERE.
So I guess everyone who bought a Core Solo computer should go to Intel demanding that Intel enable the second core (since it is on the die, just inactivated). It doesn't cost more to make a Core Duo than a Core Solo, but it does cost more to buy a Core Duo.

The seller is only obligated to provide a minimum of the advertised specs. You can choose to stick with what Apple said it was selling you, at no cost. Alternatively, for a marginal cost that essentially covers the anticipated cost of support (keep in mind that only people wanting to use their Macs at pre-N specs with third-party pre-N routers will need to purchase this), you can choose to upgrade to a higher standard. The choice is yours. It you don't think the upgrade is worth the price, don't buy it...

poppe
Jan 17, 2007, 03:17 AM
Here's my question and i'm sure its been asked:

If someone has multiple macs and gets the airport extreme. does the airport extreme have a limited number of computers it can open the N feature too? or do you have to buy the CD for another computer and the CD for another and so on...

ReanimationLP
Jan 17, 2007, 05:40 AM
So I guess everyone who bought a Core Solo computer should go to Intel demanding that Intel enable the second core (since it is on the die, just inactivated). It doesn't cost more to make a Core Duo than a Core Solo, but it does cost more to buy a Core Duo.

Actually, how they make Core Solos, is when only one of the two processors on the die works, and the other one doesnt, they disable the second one, and poof, one Core Solo to go.

Roy Hobbs
Jan 17, 2007, 06:36 AM
Why is everyone complaining about a $4.99 charge, its $4.99 for gods sake.

If you want it for free order the new Airport Extreme Base Station and you get it for free.

For the life of me I can't understand the big deal of $4.99, sure I would rather not pay it. But its a measily $4.99. Apple doesn't have to enable the card for N but they are for a mere $4.99.

If you don't like it or are too cheap to pay the $4.99 then don't but stop complaining about something so cheap. Its a bit ridiculous

goosnarrggh
Jan 17, 2007, 06:41 AM
Lets wait a while...
If Apple starts advertising new C2D machines as having their 802.11n capabilities *pre-enabled* and open to use with 3rd party base stations, but doesn't change the price or SKU, then I cry "bull".

However, if Apple changes the SKU (which they've always done in the past when a new hardware feature was made available) and sells these new SKUs with the 802.11n capabilities pre-enabled, I'd be satisfied. (Even if they charge the same amount of money as they used to for the older (but physically identical) machines.)

As well, if Apple continues to keep the same SKU, and continues to lock out the 802.11n hardware (still requiring new post-official-announcement purchasers to pay the $4.99 to unlock it), then I'd also accept the legitimacy of the charge.

Similarly, if Apple incorporates the unlocking utility in the next paid upgrade to MacOS for all machines whose hardware can physically handle it, I'll consider the matter satisfactorily closed.

Chef Medeski
Jan 17, 2007, 08:28 AM
The seller is only obligated to provide a minimum of the advertised specs. You can choose to stick with what Apple said it was selling you, at no cost.

I completely agree. They are only obliged to give you this much. However, you paid for the n card. Every Core2Duo Mac you now buy will not need the enabler, is the price $5 more? Nope.... now explain me that one. SOX.... yeah it does sux.

Maxx Power
Jan 17, 2007, 12:03 PM
I completely agree. They are only obliged to give you this much. However, you paid for the n card. Every Core2Duo Mac you now buy will not need the enabler, is the price $5 more? Nope.... now explain me that one. SOX.... yeah it does sux.

That entire SOX thing just another one of those silly benefits to big businesses, they can always advertise something and not deliver it. They can claim the ad was a typo, or have you refer to the fine prints where things "may change without notice" to get away from having to deliver anything promised if necessary to cover their asses, and at the worst, settlement to a class action lawsuit, still cheaper than actually delivering.

On the other hand, as the consumer, do you have that many benefits ? If you bought an item, and after the return period expired, you realize there were things not delivered, or so on and so forth, what can you do ? You'd have to get personally involved, while the big businesses just call up their lawyers.

And at any rate, SOX surely hasn't been ratified by the windows and linux community, it seems. They are always getting new features enabled via firmware updates (bios, routers, even modems and hard drives), cellphones also receive firmware updates to enable new functionality all the time. New drivers are released all the time to enable new features not previously advertised, such as the 802.11n feature. Which doesn't come with a lot of windows n-capable wifi cards (mini pci, pci, PCI-E, or otherwise) and do eventually receive free driver downloads which makes the n functionality available, the question is, why not apple ?

eme jota ce
Jan 17, 2007, 01:31 PM
OK. The guy from Apple called me back. This was surprising, because they ususally don't do that. The tech guy, ironicly named Steve, said that any computer (intel) with a built-in G card can have it's n feature "activated". This is free when you buy a router, it comes with an "enabler cd". If you are not getting a new router, or if you just want N enabled, you have to pay apple $5 for the CD.

I called Apple (not Steve) and was told that Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) machines, which have a built-in G card, can not be upgraded or activated to the N standard.

aswitcher
Jan 17, 2007, 01:37 PM
I called Apple (not Steve) and was told that Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) machines, which have a built-in G card, can not be upgraded or activated to the N standard.

And this is exactly what it says on the Apple site. I am sure the geeks checked it out because they were the ones who found that the C2Ds had the N option when they first came out.

aswitcher
Jan 17, 2007, 01:39 PM
Why is everyone complaining about a $4.99 charge, its $4.99 for gods sake.

If you want it for free order the new Airport Extreme Base Station and you get it for free.

For the life of me I can't understand the big deal of $4.99, sure I would rather not pay it. But its a measily $4.99. Apple doesn't have to enable the card for N but they are for a mere $4.99.

If you don't like it or are too cheap to pay the $4.99 then don't but stop complaining about something so cheap. Its a bit ridiculous


Let me know if I am wrong here. but wont you just be able to connect wirelessly to an Apple N network to get the upgrade (like at an Apple store) or must you physically attach via ethernet?