Radio spectrum allocation is not a quick and easy process. It must be coordinated worldwide, especially now with global markets and people expecting their shiny toys to work wherever they take them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Says Apple Can Use Faster 6GHz Spectrum for Headsets, CarPlay, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps the most important thing is not what it looks like to an outside observer but the experience of the actual user?
The question I was going to ask (but better phrased than I would have managed).
Everything in this book, that I could find, was modeling by engineers, not medicine by doctors.
Nothing about the medical safety on humans that I could find in a quick scan.
But using Climate Change where a 1 to 2 degree change in temperature destroys the world when we know temperatures routinely vary 100+ degrees, I see no reason to believe that a 5 degree change in blood temperature is not dangerous to the human body when a fever (6 degrees above normal) is known to have a significant negative impact on health.
I'll repeat my statement, there is no research that indicates repeated brain and eye exposures to milliwatt microwave power is safe long term.
That’s why everyone in Apple’s demos are alone in dark rooms with melancholy expressions.
This will be a great device for listening to The Cure on.
Even Apple’s premier demo appeared to show a video of a guy sadly watching a clip of his wife and kids who presumably left him because of the dorky headset.
And I say these things as someone who is willing to give it a chance. Apple’s own marketing doesn’t seem to be getting the message across all that well.
I understand you want to go back to a wired world, but the wireless devices are coming regardless. The more spectrum available for them to spread out on, the less interference you're going to have.
I think I can clarify the confusion a little bit.
Up until now, 6GHz (i.e. Wifi 6e) has been permitted for indoor use only.
That means, access points on 6 GHz MUST NOT be able to work on battery. They must have a connection to the grid (power over Ethernet is allowed).
Client devices like notebooks or phones can be battery operated, obviously. But such devices are not allowed to work as an access point on 6 GHz. They may only connect to 6 GHz access points (routers). If you are in the garden, your phone may still connect to your 6 GHz wifi through the window, but this regulation prevents entire outdoor networks on that band (more or less).
The new regulation lifts that restriction a bit. Now battery powered devices may freely connect to each other on 6 GHz everywhere, no need for fixed access points, but only at much reduced power (25 mW).
That's totally fine if you want to connect apple vision pro to an iphone in close proximity. You will get much faster speeds compared to 2.4/5 GHz .
For comparison: Indoor networks on 6 GHz (those using fixed routers) may use up to 1000 mW.
Up until now, 6GHz (i.e. Wifi 6e) has been permitted for indoor use only.
That means, access points on 6 GHz MUST NOT be able to work on battery. They must have a connection to the grid (power over Ethernet is allowed).
Client devices like notebooks or phones can be battery operated, obviously. But such devices are not allowed to work as an access point on 6 GHz. They may only connect to 6 GHz access points (routers). If you are in the garden, your phone may still connect to your 6 GHz wifi through the window, but this regulation prevents entire outdoor networks on that band (more or less).
The new regulation lifts that restriction a bit. Now battery powered devices may freely connect to each other on 6 GHz everywhere, no need for fixed access points, but only at much reduced power (25 mW).
That's totally fine if you want to connect apple vision pro to an iphone in close proximity. You will get much faster speeds compared to 2.4/5 GHz .
For comparison: Indoor networks on 6 GHz (those using fixed routers) may use up to 1000 mW.
Last edited:
Do either of you use or have used a VR headset? Were you wanting Apple to release something like this or were you thinking ahead of launch that it was "pointless"?
I am asking because I have never used a VR headset. For some reason in the past 10 years it has changed where I can get motion sick just playing video games on a TV. So I am not a "VR" person nor get excited about it. I also was not super excited about any Apple announcement because we all know a true seamless Google Glass type solution with high resolution, etc... is still a long way away.
However, the funny thing is, the more I see this thing the more excited I get. So I am wondering if maybe since I had ZERO expectations going in my perspective is different? Maybe you guys had higher expectations that weren't met so it seems disappointing?
I am not sure why, so I can't say it is Apple's marketing, but I am truly excited for it. Obviously I have to be able to use it without getting sick, but if this could be my new home computer with massive size screens everywhere I look...seems pretty great!
I have used a VR headset within the last year, oculus (quest?) 2. I don’t own one.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think Apple is on to something here and will succeed, at least as well as the iPad in the first few years. Where it goes from there I don’t know. Price obviously has to come down one way or another.
All I was really saying is it does not demo well and even Apple doesn’t seem to be able to pull that off, at least they haven’t yet.
Most of the objections seem to be (aside from price) more about what it looks like from the outside than what it does from the inside, and whether there will be enough compelling software to make it worth a lot of people buying.
The motion sickness changing with age thing is real. I think that’s why Apple is being very conservative on that front with hardware and the interface, and is probably part of why they are not directly talking about games yet.
I have looked for a review of the product from someone who has used it and had negative things to say, but I can't find one. I mean reviewers always give pros and cons, but all of the reviews I have seen tend to be 90% this thing is amazing and 10% they don't like tiny elements of it (aside from the price which is a whole separate thing).
Could you point me to a video or something where people didn't like the demo? I would love to get a more critical viewpoint on the product and understand some good practical issues that I know must be there.
There are no unbiased reviews yet. Everyone who has tried one was handpicked by Apple and will never speak ill against it lest they no longer receive special treatment. The developers who test it are under extreme NDA.
We won’t get any honest opinions until it goes on sale. And critical reviews aren’t really fair yet anyway since it’s still unreleased.
What on earth are you even talking about? Humans currently live in temperatures ranging from -40C to 50C. Hell, even when you shower, the water temperature difference is > 5F. Humans can certainly tolerate this difference in temperature, and implying a phone can heat the body by 5F is insanity - basic physics, there is nowhere near enough energy in a phone battery to provide this amount of heat to a human body. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
You keep claiming there are no studies, yet EM radiation is quite literally one of the most studied topics on the planet. We’ve had people carrying phones in their pockets for 30 years and not a single case of cancer linked to it.
First it was “GSM causes cancer”. Then it was “Oh, GSM doesn’t cause cancer, but 3G causes cancer”. Then it was “Oh, 3G doesn’t cause cancer, but 4G causes cancer”. Then it was “Oh, 4G doesn’t cause cancer, but 5G causes cancer. Now it’s “Oh, 5G doesn’t cause cancer, but 6G causes cancer”. Are you seeing the pattern yet?
Even if there was a lack of evidence (which there isn’t, you’re just selectively ignoring it), it still doesn’t mean EM waves are dangerous as you’re implying. Things aren’t automatically true just because they haven’t explicitly been proved false. We don’t assume that Autobots and Decepticons are real because they haven’t been proved not to exist.
The human body is made to be about 98 degrees F and any variance which you admit microwaves cause can cause problems.
Just like smoking was fine, until it wasn't. Oh the number of research papers published proving it was OK.
Just like the original polio vaccine was fine (1955 Cutter incident), until it wasn't.
Or on the other side the 1975 swine flu that never existed.
Or how about 1/3 of new drugs had safety problems after FDA approval (https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-drugs-had-safety-problems-after-fda-approval). Published by NPR. I imagine the issues are really much larger since they are a government mouthpiece.
You should read about the Replication Crisis in scientific research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) and or Andrew Gelman of Columbia who theorizes that significant percentages of published research papers are bad and don't prove the paper's conclusion.
How about "Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade." https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics
Or how about this paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
The conclusion is that a large percentage of published research is just false. Unfortunately, the research is bought and paid for by the companies it benefits. And almost all published research proves what the source of the money wanted proved.
After all, if the entity funding the research gets a result it does not want two things happen. The research is cancelled, never published, and the researchers are under non-disclosure agreements. Then the university or lab producing the research never gets any more funding in the industry. There is no freedom of speech in the research industry. Blindly believing in scientific research today is sadly a quick way to ruin.
If you source any published scientific studies that indicate microwave energy at a level above ambient to the head and eyes is not harmful, I'll be glad to take a look at them. Chances are that a K-12 student that is reasonable bright could falsify them using common sense.
Humans are vain. Apple Vision Pro is an ugly, bulky headset that will mess up your hair and make you a laughing stock amongst your friends while it isolates you from the real world and possibly damages your eyesight in the long run.
This thing is dead on arrival.
I tend to be the glass half full kind of guy so right now I like to believe it is such an outstanding product that it truly only garners the better than worse types of reviews.
Ballmer laughed at no keyboard and $400.
Many of the things you list sadly don’t matter in today’s world. Isolation from the world and damaged eyesight are table stakes today.
I’m cautiously optimistic. Dead on arrival seems like a bold assessment. I expect around iPad levels of success.
I tend to be the glass half full kind of guy so right now I like to believe it is such an outstanding product that it truly only garners the better than worse types of reviews.
I tend to agree but Apple is also remarkably effective at making people take half full views.
So what? Who cares what Steve Balmer said about a completely different product over a decade ago?
Tim Cook’s sad attempt to innovate is a failure before it even hits shelves.
It’s called an example. The point is that people don’t always see the potential in new technology. And that they tend to see things in the way that benefits them which leaves a blind spot. Ballmer didn’t want the iPhone to succeed so he pointed out things that then seemed like real problems, but which now seem very quaint. It seems to me to at least be possible that people are making the same mistake about the Vision Pro.
It’s important to remember history because it gives us clues about what might happen next. Or at the very least, as warnings of potential mistakes.