Apple Hiring for Wireless 802.11ac System Test Engineers

[needfx]

wifi-enabled-wands at the ready

[Jetson]

This is great news.

I'm happy to see devices, especially connection devices, continuing to get faster.

True, the internet experience may not improve, mainly because of the pitifully slow data rates provided by our bloated, greedy ISPs.

But if you frequently copy large files (hundreds of MB or gigabyte size) across your network, from your iMac to your MacBook for example, then this will be an extremely welcome development.

[jav6454]

Yet this only signals the improvement of Mac to Mac wireless connection as our lovely broadband speeds have plateaued over the past 5 years....

[rdlink]

Originally Posted by D.T.

Like [WRX] pointed out above, the external link speed to your ISP is likely far less vs. even your current gear. Generally internet access is limited by your internet speed not your local network speeds.

This is great for someone moving large files between computers on the same network, backing up (to a local network resource), etc.

[edit]

My reply was a little late since another couple of posts snuck in while I discussed hot chocolate with my 4 year old

Hot chocolate in Florida? What the...?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by paradox22

Yes, you will notice a difference. Previous routers limit the connection because of their wireless nature. Because "ac" uses different technology, the limitations that come with a wireless connection will nearly be eliminated and would be equivalent to hooking your connection up directly in terms of speed and available bandwidth. It also caries a better signal which eliminates dead spots. So while you may notice a difference, that difference may vary. Needless to say, your overall connection will be improved.

Please, explain to us how this improvement will occur over his Internet connection ?

Unless you has enormous latency in the 2.4 GHz frequency band (and 802.11n supports the same 5 GHz band that 802.11ac uses), latency that dwarfs that of his Internet uplink, anywhere in the route between him and the server he's querying, what improvements to you expect to see from your 30 mbps Internet uplink when using a 1.3 gbps local link vs a 600 mbps one ?

Seems to me, the 30 mbps will be 30 mbps, no matter the wireless link in the case of 802.11n vs 802.11ac.

[Peace]

Why is Apple just now hiring for these engineers ? When 802.11n was in it's infancy Apple already had 802.11n draft wireless cards in some of their machines and a simple update brought us 802.11n

You're slacking off Apple.

[unobtainium]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Again folks, unless we're talking streaming multiple Blu-ray disc's, this isn't even going to help really. Bitrates are not that high for digtal content, especially not the kind you download.

(and for music ? completely unnoticeable. A 256 kbps AAC file does not require 150 mbps of bandwidth to stream).

----------



Check the last line of the post you quoted.

But what about backing up to a Time Capsule? That takes much longer over Wifi than via gigabit Ethernet currently, so this might help there. Same for if you're streaming something big (ie 1080p) to the Apple TV at the same time that a wireless time capsule backup is being made AND someone is downloading something from the net. I think it's going to be a welcome improvement even if it doesn't fix the ISP bottleneck.

[cclloyd]

I'm happy with my current 802.11ac netgear router. I just need a network card that has it too. That said, I want faster wifi on the 5S, iPad Mini 2, and updated macbooks, especially since the university I'm going to has ac.

[D.T.]

Originally Posted by rdlink

Hot chocolate in Florida? What the...?

Hahaha, I know right? We were up in PA for Christmas, so her temp sensors haven't totally reset. I think it's mostly about the chocolate, and not so much about the hot.

Yeah, it's barely cold here ... heck, I'm thinking about tossing on a wetsuit and hitting up the surf

[absurdamerica]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Again folks, unless we're talking streaming multiple Blu-ray disc's, this isn't even going to help really. Bitrates are not that high for digtal content, especially not the kind you download.

(and for music ? completely unnoticeable. A 256 kbps AAC file does not require 150 mbps of bandwidth to stream).

----------



Check the last line of the post you quoted.

Tell that to the people who can't stream 1080p content over AppleTV without it stuttering constantly.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally Posted by D.T.

My reply was a little late since another couple of posts snuck in while I discussed hot chocolate with my 4 year old

This put a smile on my face.

[Mike MA]

Let's just hope these will be some masterminds - will all the recent wifi and airplay issues

[stridemat]

Originally Posted by skate71290

YES In Layman's terms this will not improve the speed of web browsing, but it will seriously improve Home Sharing (and related uses) when streaming to multiple devices simultaneously and streaming high bit-rate (high quality) and high resolution videos please include QoS when this is incorporated into your router product line!

That's what I am looking forward too! My wireless N network seems to take ages to copy HD files to my NAS box. If I buy a new Mac and a new router then this would solve my problems. Time to speak to the boss about potential future purchases...

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by unobtainium

But what about backing up to a Time Capsule? That takes much longer over Wifi than via gigabit Ethernet currently, so this might help there. Same for if you're streaming something big (ie 1080p) to the Apple TV at the same time that a wireless time capsule backup is being made AND someone is downloading something from the net. I think it's going to be a welcome improvement even if it doesn't fix the ISP bottleneck.

From your scenario, only the Time capsule backup is improved (and even then, if you look at the bandwidth usage during a Time Capsule backup, you'll notice that the actual sustained transfer is way below your Wi-fi treshold, Time Capsule backups are bursty as most activity is analyzing which files require updates vs which don't).

1080p streams ? Again, Blu-ray, 40/50 mbps. That's even under 802.11g speeds. I don't know of many people who stream Blu-ray quality video/audio to their Apple TV, most of it is much lower bit-rate (10-20 mbps).

And we've covered the net.

Anyway, without QoS, the Time Capsule backup will crush both your stream and download, no matter how much bandwidth you have. You'll just suffer it for a shorter amount of time on a 802.11ac connection vs a 802.11n one.

[easy4lif]

at this point, my internet speed (20Mbps) is less then the throughput of my time capsule so i think I'm gonna skip these offerings.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

There is no indication of when Apple will begin introducing the new standard into existing products.

You know, except this news.

ac and ad may be a software upgrade on systems that are built with hardware that support both and have three antennas. Since the prior Broadcom announcement (without mentioning Apple) and the financial industry announcement that mentioned the Apple purchase of Broadcom chips that support ac, it's pretty clear by now.

These sorts of announcements are made post facto to suit public announcement standards set by SEC. These are public companies. So much for secrecy.

BTW streaming needs cache. Deal with it Apple. It will cost $8 more per unit and improve the consumer experience 1000%. BTW I told you so.

We have to live in a world where internet speeds are uber-crippled and the local network is all that matters to the user. Local storage is mandatory in that world. Our world.

Fusion drives in all media servers please.

[powers74]

Originally Posted by iRCL

What's all this "Likely" weasel word crap? Name a single ISP who has a commercial line even purely downstream above 150-600mbps. Nobody asking about whether or not it will affect them at home has that kind of connection, so give them the right answer.

The answer is no, this isn't going to improve your Internet experience one bit

"Our packages start at 50 Mbps, delivering super-fast performance for everything you do online. And we built our network so it will easily meet your bandwidth demands in the future--even up to 1,000 Mbps!"

https://epbfi.com/internet/

So, 'Nooga does if you want to pay for it.

[Neodym]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

This is more for network backups/transfer of large files in your home, basically replacing your Gigabit Ethernet.

While I appreciate the improved signal coverage coming with wireless "ac" at least as much as the higher speeds, I try to have my devices (computers, NAS, printer, AppleTV etc.) on cabled Ethernet whenever possible, as the 2.4GHz band is already overcrowded and the 5GHz band is catching up already.

I somehow doubt "ac" can be a real substitute for Gigabit Ethernet, unless one lives pretty lonesome without neighbors crowding the wireless bands from all sides.

I also dislike transmitting too much private information over wireless, as it can be tapped much easier than cabled communication - WPA2 notwithstanding.

Not to mention that cabled will probably allow for decent priced 10Gbit components by the time "ac" is widely adopted...

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by iRCL

What's all this "Likely" weasel word crap? Name a single ISP who has a commercial line even purely downstream above 150-600mbps.

Over here, Gen-i and FX both offer 1 Gb/s services.

Having said that, most residential users won't be seeing more than 100 Mb/s any time soon.

[fastlanephil]

Originally Posted by Builddesign

http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/...6953&ctx=topic

I want to see what fiber optic will bring.

I've had fiber at my house for several years when our local PUD began a fiber back bone project in selected areas with your choice of a local ISP retailer. It was originally 12Mbps download speed and is now 20 Mbps download speed. The upload speed seems to be about 2Mbps. I had Comcast at another residence which showed 24 Mbps download speed but I think that was their "Boost" speed which is not sustainable.

It's running me about $72 total per month which includes a VOIP business line but not long distance calling. A residential VOIP would be $10 less per month.

[rmatthewware]

Originally Posted by mattopotamus

could someone put those speeds in laymen terms? Would an average user notice any difference when surfing the web?

If any of the ISPs in the US actually had fiber service like they should have ten years ago, this might matter for surfing. The only place this might make a difference is in Kansas City where Google is starting to put in gigabit fiber, but they have a pretty fast router they're including.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by powers74

"Our packages start at 50 Mbps, delivering super-fast performance for everything you do online. And we built our network so it will easily meet your bandwidth demands in the future--even up to 1,000 Mbps!"

https://epbfi.com/internet/

I clicked around for a while and it refuses to let you select internet only. I set up a house in CA to 30mbps for $40 a month internet only. It has unlimited free (3.50/mo taxes) ooma VoIP, Roku TV (other boxes later), and of course internet itself. In conversation with technical the provisioning is the same for 30 and 100 mbps so the guaranteed access is not real, as I expected and believe. I had cable internet in another CA location and at times my speed was astounding. Download porn now and fast! Or in my case rocket videos.

[nickn]

Originally Posted by iRCL

What's all this "Likely" weasel word crap? Name a single ISP who has a commercial line even purely downstream above 150-600mbps. Nobody asking about whether or not it will affect them at home has that kind of connection, so give them the right answer.

The answer is no, this isn't going to improve your Internet experience one bit

In 2005, the Hong Kong ISP HKBN, started offering gigabit fiber service for $26 a month. By 2012, 85% of homes in Hong Kong had subscribed to the service. For businesses, even earlier in 2004, competing ISP Cyberport started installing 10Gigabit fiber lines. Notice, i'm not just naming a single ISP, i'm naming an entire country that could benefit from this technology...

[unplugme71]

Originally Posted by mattopotamus

could someone put those speeds in laymen terms? Would an average user notice any difference when surfing the web?

You can surf the web fine on 802.11b. Going to 802.11g is not that much quicker, if even noticeable for surfing. The bigger difference between b/g/n/a/c is the range for web surfers.

For downloading, file transfering, etc - yes it does make a big difference going with the faster wireless tech.

I'd like to get a dedicated line to Apple's servers, so when I want to use my Apple TV, I get a solid stream going. Plus if one day I can convert myself into bits, I can take a sneak-peak inside Apple's datacenters.

[blackhand1001]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

On my base 150 mbps 802.11n wireless (I have a 20$ AP), I get about 8 MB/sec transfer, vs 10 MB/sec transfer over 100 Mbps Ethernet to my NAS.

So it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

Yeah but they advertise it as 150/300mbps, so its should at a minimum get faster than fast ethernet. Its not slow by any means but I doubt that even AC will provide anything close to gigabit. Maybe it will handle multiple users better.