Apple Reportedly Strikes Deal with Broadcom to Add 802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi to 2013 Macs

[MacRumors]

TheNextWeb reports that Apple has struck a deal with wireless chip firm Broadcom that will see high-speed 802.11ac 5G "Gigabit Wi-Fi" come to the company's Mac lineup later this year.

While it's believed that Apple's 2013 Mac lineup will feature the same designs as their late-2012 counterparts, they are set to include a range of updated internal features and hardware. We've learned about one such chipset change - the inclusion of 802.11ac networking - providing Apple's updated Mac range with super-fast WiFi connectivity.

Sources familiar with Apple's plans have told The Next Web that Apple has struck a deal with chip maker Broadcom to outfit its new Macs with 802.11ac chips.

The report notes that 802.11ac will roughly triple the speeds seen with the current 802.11n standard, supporting up to 450 Mbps on one antenna and up to 1.3 Gbps when used with three antennas as on Apple's latest Macs.

According to our sources, the WiFi chip isn't currently available and is still in development. As for availability, we have been told that if work goes according to schedule, they should be part of the new line of Mac computers. There is no word on whether Apple will introduce similar chipsets in the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Time Capsule or other products.

A similar report from nearly a year ago claimed that 802.11ac would be coming to Macs in 2012, but the development failed to occur as Broadcom has apparently continued to work on its chips supporting the forthcoming standard.

Article Link: Apple Reportedly Strikes Deal with Broadcom to Add 802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi to 2013 Macs

[MH01]

Nice. More speed!

[hleewell]

The Best News Ever !!!

[Laird Knox]

5G? Enough with the marketing.

[Rocketman]

http://www.google.com/search?q=802.1...w=1280&bih=608

802.11ac routers. I got the Buffalo and it is pretty good for the price and there are cheaper alternatives too.

Rocketman

[adrian.h]

Macbook Air Retina with super fast Wifi? Yes please!

[pgiguere1]

With the small capacity of flash storage in Mac laptops unless you have an insane budget, it's good to know we'll be able to rely on a (relatively) speedy wireless NAS.

I tried hooking a USB hard drive to my Airport Extreme but 802.11n is just too slow.

Also, I hope that the "5G Wi-Fi" term doesn't catch on. There's enough confusion about those marketing terms already.

[adildacoolset]

This 4G, 5G, 3G marketing terms are getting annoying now.

Whenever a company wants to hype it's product, just slap on an increment of the previous number and add a 'G' at the end. Lo and behold, people will assume it's awesome.

[basesloaded190]

Originally Posted by adildacoolset

This 4G, 5G, 3G marketing terms are getting annoying now.

Whenever a company wants to hype it's product, just slap on an increment of the previous number and add a 'G' at the end. Lo and behold, people will assume it's awesome.

This time the "G" has actual meaning and not just marketing.

[adildacoolset]

Originally Posted by basesloaded190

This time the "G" has actual meaning and not just marketing.

I've seen some examples of just marketing:
1. My local carrier calls their HSPA+ connection "3.75G". HSPA+ is NOT 75% the speed of LTE and so holds no meaning. It just deceives people.

2. Even 4G LTE is a marketing term. At the beginning, it was agreed on the 4G would be a cellular connection of 1000 mbps or over. Now, LTE was developed but it could only go to 100. How could they persuade customers that it's a difference? Market the damn thing.

[dbernie41]

Excellent news. I will be replacing my 2008 MBP soon and wanted to be sure the machine I buy has AC as I keep mine for a relatively long time.

[mscice]

Originally Posted by dbernie41

Excellent news. I will be replacing my 2008 MBP soon and wanted to be sure the machine I buy has AC as I keep mine for a relatively long time.

same reason and in same boat as you

[name99]

Originally Posted by adildacoolset

I've seen some examples of just marketing:
1. My local carrier calls their HSPA+ connection "3.75G". HSPA+ is NOT 75% the speed of LTE and so holds no meaning. It just deceives people.

2. Even 4G LTE is a marketing term. At the beginning, it was agreed on the 4G would be a cellular connection of 1000 mbps or over. Now, LTE was developed but it could only go to 100. How could they persuade customers that it's a difference? Market the damn thing.

(a) LTE IS a technical, not a marketing term. It indicates that the signal is modulated using some form of OFDM rather than some form of CDMA.

(b) I have no interest in the idiocies of whether something is or is not "real" 4G vs 3.75G or whatever. However to claim that HSPA+ is not "75% of the speed of LTE" is a deeply misleading statement. All other things being equal, CDMA has about 84% of the goodput of LTE. SOME carriers have decided to switch to LTE aggressively, and so have not improved their HSPA+ infrastructure, so they are not using features like MIMO or dual-carrier. But this is a statement about the particular business choices they have made, it is a statement that THEIR implementation of HSPA+ is substantially slower than THEIR IMPLEMENTATION of LTE.
Don't confuse such statements with claims about the underlying technology. There are various good reasons to switch to OFDM (not just that 16% improvement over WCDMA, but also that it is much easier to enable various future advanced technologies --- which are, however, not yet enabled). However there is no reason to sneer at networks that, for whatever reason, stay on the HSPA+ track rather than switching to LTE. There is not that much practical difference between 42 and 50Mbps or 84 and 100 Mbps.

[1251division]

Originally Posted by name99

(a) LTE IS a technical, not a marketing term. It indicates that the signal is modulated using some form of OFDM rather than some form of CDMA.

"LTE" is a marketing term, short for Long Term Evolution. The summary on Wikipedia says it best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(telecommunication)

[JHankwitz]

Originally Posted by basesloaded190

This time the "G" has actual meaning and not just marketing.

I always thought the 'G' meant it related to telephone data, not WiFi. Mixing the two could become very confusing.

[Quu]

Originally Posted by adildacoolset

This 4G, 5G, 3G marketing terms are getting annoying now.

Whenever a company wants to hype it's product, just slap on an increment of the previous number and add a 'G' at the end. Lo and behold, people will assume it's awesome.

The 5G here stands for 5th generation. And it is.

1st Generation = 802.11
2nd Generation = 802.11b
3rd Generation = 802.11g & a
4th Generation = 802.11n
5th Generation = 802.11ac

They are not as you seem to believe relying on the 3G/4G moniker from mobile phone devices to indicate the speed of 802.11ac

When 802.11n first launched it was referred to as 4th Generation WiFi. And even quite recently I purchased an 802.11n card which said exactly that on the box.

Originally Posted by mattopotamus

Does that mean all of my airport express's will need to be updated too enjoy those speeds =/

You would need a new router to make use of the 802.11ac specification as it uses a new radio.

[discuit]

Originally Posted by Quu

The 5G here stands for 5th generation. And it is.

1st Generation = 802.11a
2nd Generation = 802.11b
3rd Generation = 802.11g
4th Generation = 802.11n
5th Generation = 802.11ac

Didn't 802.11a come out after 802.11b? Or at least devices that could use it did.

Also, I don't understand why the latest one is called "ac", couldn't they just use a single unused letter and avoid confusion with 802.11a?

[Quu]

Originally Posted by discuit

Didn't 802.11a come out after 802.11b? Or at least devices that could use it did.

Also, I don't understand why the latest one is called "ac", couldn't they just use a single unused letter and avoid confusion with 802.11a?

I should note that 802.11a and 802.11b were technically created at the same time, the specifications were made public on the same day. But 802.11a came first (as the a implies) then 802.11b then 802.11g. The problem with 802.11a was manufacturers found it difficult to create reliable 5GHz radios which 802.11a used exclusively. So the 802.11b specification became much more popular as it used 2.4GHz and by the time 802.11a radio production was commercially viable 802.11g debuted utilizing the same 2.4GHz spectrum as previous 802.11b devices making it backwards compatible without requiring a second radio.

So basically 802.11a never really saw wide adoption due to that and many folks here would not have had any 802.11a compatible devices until 5GHz 802.11n showed up as manufacturers decided what the heck we already have a 5GHz radio for 802.11n built in, might as-well make it backwards compatible with the 802.11a specification while we're at it.

[ohbrilliance]

How many megapixels will it have?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by discuit

Didn't 802.11a come out after 802.11b? Or at least devices that could use it did.

The a specification came before the b specification. The 802.11a products came later.

Originally Posted by discuit

Also, I don't understand why the latest one is called "ac", couldn't they just use a single unused letter and avoid confusion with 802.11a?

There are no single unused letters in the 802.11 standard. See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_80...and_amendments

[Michael CM1]

Originally Posted by discuit

Didn't 802.11a come out after 802.11b? Or at least devices that could use it did.

Also, I don't understand why the latest one is called "ac", couldn't they just use a single unused letter and avoid confusion with 802.11a?

There isn't an unused single letter. 802.11 standards cover more than just the big boy wifi. Once the letters were used up to z, the IEEE started double letters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

I do hope some moniker is chosen other than 5G. When companies are just going to treat things like that as marketing terms (see both fake 4G and even 4G LTE), then at least give as a name that doesn't confuse with something real.

[unplugme71]

Apple needs to update their Airport Extreme with this and USB 3.0 so transfers are faster. Time Machine backups are just so slow with the USB 2.0 interface.

[bearda]

Originally Posted by unplugme71

Apple needs to update their Airport Extreme with this and USB 3.0 so transfers are faster. Time Machine backups are just so slow with the USB 2.0 interface.

Backups with a Time Capsule are about the same speed with it's internal non-USB drive. The problem isn't the USB interface. The USB 2.0 bus should be able to just about saturate an 802.11n link, but don't come close on an Airport Extreme/Time Capsule. I don't know if the protocol stack needs work, or if the processor in the router just can't keep up but switching to USB 3.0 alone isn't going to help.

[petsounds]

The biggest problem with 802.11n is the short functional range and susceptibility to interference indoors, as compared to 802.11g. I hope 802.11ac operates at longer ranges and is more robust indoors.

[unplugme71]

Originally Posted by bearda

Backups with a Time Capsule are about the same speed with it's internal non-USB drive. The problem isn't the USB interface. The USB 2.0 bus should be able to just about saturate an 802.11n link, but don't come close on an Airport Extreme/Time Capsule. I don't know if the protocol stack needs work, or if the processor in the router just can't keep up but switching to USB 3.0 alone isn't going to help.

Well if they just slap USB 3.0 in it then yes you are correct. But I would think Apple would provide better support with the USB 3.0 to provide that faster speed where adding it WILL make it faster.

And I don't always backup over WiFi, sometimes over GbE. So USB 2.0 does get saturated. Probably should invest in a linux box with internal drives for faster backup.