Depends who "us" is. There will be a segment of iPhone 2G and 3G owners that will moan because that is who they are.
I think people like you are the ones with the attitude problem. Moaning about people moaning is FAR worse than moaning about a legitimate user problem. Maybe you enjoy drinking the kool-aid Apple sells, but some of us couldn't care less about Apple, only their products. We owe no special allegiance to Apple what-so-ever. They are a particularly overly greedy corporate entity run by a megalomaniac who seems to think the end user isn't smart enough to know what's best for him so he'll decide it all for him. Apple's innovation is only matched by their greed and arrogance. I moved to Apple in part because I couldn't stand Bill Gates and his company's greed and arrogance, only to find the exact same thing with Apple, only perhaps worse.
Apple's only saving graces are their more elegant interfaces, Unix core in OS X and the foresight to make a sleek phone platform before anyone else. But if they continue to limit consumer choices for both hardware and software, often without any solid foundation for guidelines or reasons for doing so (e.g. application rejects to 'protect' the consumer from himself such as rejecting the South Park iPhone/Touch app, while hypocritically promoting South Park TV episodes on their own iTunes store) then they will find themselves alienating ever more new customers and driving many switchers right back where they came from. I have few doubts that many of the Apple fanaticists would actually prefer that as having a tiny percentage of the market place actually makes them feel all the more "special" and "elitist" instead of welcoming the software selection and support at local retailers that having a larger market share would bring. But the rest of us who currently prefer OS X to Windows (especially Windows Vista) would much prefer open discussion, availability of 3rd party hardware choices and competition to drive down prices while driving up quality (the true heart of Capitalism as opposed to having a virtual Monopoly on hardware and in the case of the iPhone/Touch, software as well).
In the case of iPhone V3.0, we are finally seeing more of the features that SHOULD have been there in iPhone V1.0 and yet Apple also seems to be limiting (artificially as usual) some of the newer options to newer iPhones only, thus trying to force you upgrade to obtain them and pad their wallets some more. Dropping PPC support in Snow Leopard (despite Quad Core G5s being faster than many current dual core Intels), not allowing video capture on pre-iPhone 3.x devices and charging 30% off the top of 3rd party software (and probably soon hardware as well with the introduction of an iPod that requires a chip to control it that only Apple offers...for a price) are all signs that Apple is all about trying to recycle profits from existing customers by forcing them to capitulate and/or upgrade on Apple's time-frame, not their own needs. Why should they want someone making a tower server out of a $50 PowerMac off e-Bay (plus a few upgrades like Sata and USB 2.0) if they can push them to buy a $2700+ tower instead (by removing support for the PowerMac hardware in the next OS)? That's Apple in a nut shell. "Go back to Windows" is Apple Fanatics in a nut-shell. Neither are helpful or constructive to the actual consumer. What Apple SHOULD be doing is opening things up, offering more selection and dropping prices to ATTRACT more users from the Windows and/or Linux markets, not try to drive them away by doing things like selling them a functionally $800 computer equivalent (for most consumer uses) in a $2300 box or telling them the shiny new iPhone model supports video and attaching pictures in e-mail, but the iPhone they currently own is "not supported" even though there is no technical reason it would/could not use those features, even if at lower frames rates, etc. But don't complain. The fanatics will jump all over you.
ThomasJL said:
802.11n is still in draft status, and is expected to be finalized only in January 2010.
If you buy an Apple 802.11n product (such as a MacBook or the alleged upcoming 802.11n iPhone), it will likely only run at 802.11n speeds only on Apple's "AirPort Extreme" Wi-Fi router. On routers by other manufacturers, it will likely run at sub-standard speeds. This is not the fault of the other manufacturers, as their routers are arguably much superior to Apple's (for example, AirPort Extreme does not have wired gigabit ports... there's no gigabit LAN ports, and there's no gigabit WAN port). Many people--especially people outside of the US in countries where FTTH is more common and will soon exceed speeds of 100 Mbps, gigabit WAN and LAN ports are highly important).
This is a good example of poorly informed consumers misleading others. ALL "Draft N" devices currently work with each other. For example, my Apple TV units talk just fine to my NetGear 802.11N router. In fact, they talk to it faster than to my Airport Express 802.11N! All Draft N routers are upgradeable in firmware to support the final 802.11N standard so there are no such issues as you describe. Besides, waiting around for a half decade for them to 'finalize' 802.11N is worse than watching paint dry. They'll probably have 802.11X (or whatever they'll call it) out before N is finalized. That is no reason to not support it in the mean time. The extended range alone is worth the upgrade.
As others have already pointed out, Apple's Airport Extreme has had gigabit ports for some time now so please stop spreading false information.
That's a pretty big advantage if you've got an Apple TV or other networked media.
arn
I only wish they had included Draft N from the start. I'm running two networks right now so that my iPod Touch doesn't slow my N network down. The iPod Touch is being used as a controller for my Apple TV units in my whole house audio/video system. I don't plan to just throw away my iPod Touch if an 802.11N version comes out, though so it looks like those of us with G hardware of any kind will have to keep two networks around for a LONG time to come. It's a shame these routers don't include a G radio option within them for just that purpose. That might have added $10-20 to their overall cost and would have solved the problem for everyone. I would hope that future standards would either do that or find a way to keep older devices from dragging down the newer standards' speeds. That seems like a purely technical problem that one would think some genius could easily solve.
