It's not about transfering from computer to iPhone, it's for example about transfering at home from wireless hard disk to computer which is slowed down from N to G speed because my iPhone also uses my WLAN. That's why it should have N standard. ALWAYS the same "clever" comments here à la: "Why N standard on the iPhone??? You can't use the speed anyway!!!" THAT is why - hope the next time people will finally remember that there are other set-ups out there where it INDEED makes a difference if your iPhone has G or N ...
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.
Third-Generation iPod Touch Teardown Reveals 802.11n-Capable Wi-Fi Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not about transfering from computer to iPhone, it's for example about transfering at home from wireless hard disk to computer which is slowed down from N to G speed because my iPhone also uses my WLAN. That's why it should have N standard. ALWAYS the same "clever" comments here à la: "Why N standard on the iPhone??? You can't use the speed anyway!!!" THAT is why - hope the next time people will finally remember that there are other set-ups out there where it INDEED makes a difference if your iPhone has G or N ...
This is good news. 802.11N is suppose to be finalized this month, or by November. Plus the way broadband internet speeds are increasing, N will definetly come into use. However, as a previous post mentioned, N takes advantage of two antennas for I/O.
It's pretty obvious you don't get it. What I don't get is why someone who clearly has no technical understanding of the issue has the nerve to attack someone else for their supposed lack of understanding on a tech issue (2nd statement).
Here's the deal. Any device on a "N" network that is a "G" device (such as the iPhone and iPod Touch) will *SLOW* down the entire "N" network such that actual "N" devices will not be able to operate at their maximum speeds. The losses are typically somewhere between G and N network speeds, but it's definitely significant if you're trying to exchange large files. For example, I often exchange large files between my PowerMac server in my den (which is wired via Gigabit to both of my N networks) and if I'm using the MBP over wireless N at the time, it will slow WAY down if my iPod Touch is on the same network. Notice that I said "networks" plural above. The reason I have TWO networks running is so that I can make one of them N ONLY and let the G devices connect to the other network. That way I never lose speed as the result of G devices being connected to the N only network.
So whether the iPhone or iPod Touch can make use of the extra bandwidth (in terms of drive speeds, etc.) is beside the point. It is the network device that determines whether or not your N network will be slowed down or not. It's very presence alone determines whether you are providing a bottleneck to your network or not. Being able to change the iPod Touch to a "N" device would eliminate that bottleneck for that device as it would no longer choke the life out of the N network just by being logged onto it.
I think people have a right to be upset that the new iPod Touch HAS the N chip in it but Apple has decided not to enable it. Why they have chosen that is unclear, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with charging iPod Touch users a fee later on (after enough people buy it without it) to enable it, like they did with a certain Macbook. You may not think that $5 (or whatever they might end up charging) is much money, but if you end up with 1 million new users in a year and charge them $5, you just made $5 million dollars for simply delaying the release of a feature that already exists in the product. In short, if Apple charges to enable that chip, they are basically just milking the user base once again. They COULD have put in a user replaceable battery, but why do that when they can make a small fortune and a new business from charging users $80 for a new battery install (which in some cases is almost half the value of the device to begin with at current prices...so why not just buy a newer iPod Touch instead??? Gee, that sounds like yet another attempt by Apple to force people to buy newer hardware (or pay through the nose to keep their old hardware; either way Apple WINS big time).
http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=2984&tag=btxcsim
Details about 802.11n capabilities of Broadcom chip.
Rocketman
Details about 802.11n capabilities of Broadcom chip.
Rocketman
If you combine that link with this one:
Broadcom brochure for Bluetooth 3 and others.
You get statements that future standards are built into the current silicon.
Rocketman
Hmm...
1080p playback, maybe?
FM tuner/transmitter...
I've noticed the iPT always has better specs than the contemporary iPhone. Hmm...
Are we EVER getting 5GHz support?
If they have the 4329 in them then why don't the devices support the 5GHz radio band? The 5GHz band allows wide channels which would double the throughput and probably save battery life when using Wi-Fi so why aren't the idiots at Apple using that band? The only way to get 50Mbps of actual 802.11n throughput on a single stream 802.11n device is on a wide channel in the 5GHz band. Apple has always been so forward thinking in terms of Wi-Fi, why are they crippling this device? Is it because they were unwilling to change the industrial design in order to fit a dual-band antenna into it? If so, that's just plain stupid.
If they have the 4329 in them then why don't the devices support the 5GHz radio band? The 5GHz band allows wide channels which would double the throughput and probably save battery life when using Wi-Fi so why aren't the idiots at Apple using that band? The only way to get 50Mbps of actual 802.11n throughput on a single stream 802.11n device is on a wide channel in the 5GHz band. Apple has always been so forward thinking in terms of Wi-Fi, why are they crippling this device? Is it because they were unwilling to change the industrial design in order to fit a dual-band antenna into it? If so, that's just plain stupid.
Well, then perhaps their decision to rip the camera out occurred much more than two weeks ago, and the news that they were having problems only trickled down to the public recently, well after it was already a done deal.
I mean, how else do you explain these pictures and videos?
-- Nathan
Many of the home routers that use 5GHz ( Netgear 3000 series, Linksys , etc.) have multiple antennas. How are you going to do 2.5GHz and 5GHz wide spectrum on one antenna. To get more bandwidth with 11n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n#Number_of_antennas) often means more antennas.
5GHz is also going to draw more power. Something have of limited quantity on an handheld.
You can also run 11n in tthe 2.4-5 range.... you are just likely though to stomp on another transmit/receive service though.
5GHz is "better" because it is relatively unoccupied not because there is a more bandwidth up there. It is also handy if can use both 2.4 and 5 to spread conversations out to multiple devices ( so less partyline stomping on bandwidth).
I've actually been a bit surprised Apple has done as well building a decent radio on the iPhone. They've often done RF impeding things with their designs with laptops and desktops when it comes to WiFi. So much of the hype around the iPhone revolves around it not acting as a phone it is hard to tell if it is a really good phone/radio or not versus a very mediocre one with losts of stuff to take you attention away from that limitation. (http://www.smartdevicecentral.com/article/Apple+iPhone+3G/228425_2.aspx) In a quirky location probably more likely a good Motorola phone will do a better job than an iPhone. They have been building radios for a very long time.
Even more true if throw an old 'b' device onto the network.
However the following is of limited pragmatic use.
For a handheld, mobile device if the primary WiFi usage is in a carefully managed and limited client location (e.g., a house) .... what is the point??? Afraid of wires or what? It is like saying a cellphone that is used when standing less than a block away from a cell tower is the primary usage.
In a random coffeeshop/Internet cafe/Airport/etc hotspot ... you will have a wide variety of devices of different ages all using the network at the same time. "g" is the middle of the curve right now. Most likely the base station is capped at "g". Most likely the majority of the other devices are now "g" at this point. So if want to be part of the mainstream crowd than a "g".
[ not to say couldn't have a "power user setting" that kicked it up to "n" when knew was in a primary "n" setting and the utility as future proofed hardware when "n" becomes more ubquitous. ]
That would be called being hustled. Sure folks would be pissed at that.
If N got turned on with a signficant 4.0 update ( N + 22 other updates ) for $10 I don't think folks would be as pissed. There is no reason that an update which still leaves "g" as the default setting and turns on optionally "n" would not be a 'major feature'. The hardware was already there. All needed to do is turn it on.
The bigger problem seems more likely is dealing with multiple "N" bands with the several other radios/antennas on a small device (and large amounts of metal casing limiting antenna function on the small space you do have. )
Even access points that do N and are in a random device network will likely segregate the "b" stuff to 2.4 and the "n" stuff to 5 to keep them from stomping on each other. That is yet another antenna or a dual/tri/quad purpose one for the iPhone/Touch .
Apple's Airport Extreme is dual band specifically to address this issue. Based on what I read today the new Broadcom chip in the iPod Touch 32/64 is dual band capable (simultaneously) as well as simultaneous BT 2 or 3 at the same time as 802.11 a/b/g and n.
So if you have a n router and an iPhone 2G enters the room on wifi then N keeps going but a/b/g lives on another frequency.
Whether n is able to be enabled in broadband mode in a handheld the size of a touch (or a Nano!!) is another issue.
I remember when n came out and you could order a MacPro with it. So I went to the parts department and saw the upgrade kit for a PowerMac to n. It is huge! And best factory installed.
If you get n at all in a handheld you should kiss the ground Apple "walks" on.
One upgrade option wanted on iPhone and iPod Touch. A double battery option for not much more thickness.
Rocketman
So if you have a n router and an iPhone 2G enters the room on wifi then N keeps going but a/b/g lives on another frequency.
Whether n is able to be enabled in broadband mode in a handheld the size of a touch (or a Nano!!) is another issue.
I remember when n came out and you could order a MacPro with it. So I went to the parts department and saw the upgrade kit for a PowerMac to n. It is huge! And best factory installed.
If you get n at all in a handheld you should kiss the ground Apple "walks" on.
One upgrade option wanted on iPhone and iPod Touch. A double battery option for not much more thickness.
Rocketman
Personally, I think it has enough antennae, based on the fact that there are many routers that are n, and have only two external antennas. Heck my media center extender supports wireless n, and has only two antennas.
I don't care about a flimsy camera, i would like that FM receiver/transmitter enabled though. Its actually surprising to see how many people think 'production issues' were the cause of having no camera. Well, there are many holes in that theory, and I happen to believe what Steve Jobs said because it sounds more realistic.
I'm pissed.
I bought a 3GS thinking I was getting (on top of a great phone, portable GPS and PMP) a great gaming console but now Apple releases the CHEAPER touch3G that probably has a beefier CPU and GPU.
So, I payed double the price (in Portugal a 16GB 3GS costs 600€ w/o contract and the new 32GB touch3G costs 279€) to get a good phone, GPS and an always-online portable console and end up with inferior hardware. If the touch is "an iPhone without the phone" why the f*ck does it get superior hardware? What do they expect us to do? Buy an iPhone and then buy the iPod touch to get the best graphical hardware?
It's not fair that the customers that pay the most and expect the most from their devices are the ones that get less.
Great way to treat your customers, Apple.
I bought a 3GS thinking I was getting (on top of a great phone, portable GPS and PMP) a great gaming console but now Apple releases the CHEAPER touch3G that probably has a beefier CPU and GPU.
So, I payed double the price (in Portugal a 16GB 3GS costs 600€ w/o contract and the new 32GB touch3G costs 279€) to get a good phone, GPS and an always-online portable console and end up with inferior hardware. If the touch is "an iPhone without the phone" why the f*ck does it get superior hardware? What do they expect us to do? Buy an iPhone and then buy the iPod touch to get the best graphical hardware?
It's not fair that the customers that pay the most and expect the most from their devices are the ones that get less.
Great way to treat your customers, Apple.
There's already enough differentiation as it is. Camera, microphone, GPS, compass, phone...
Why do they need to differentiate the CPU/GPU as well?
I really hope it's not a significant increase in speed or a new GPU altogether because that would be a dick move by Apple. Whether they want to admit it or not, there are a LOT of gamers who own the iPhone and they should not feel forced to buy the touch just to get the ultimate graphical experience.
The touch should be an iPhone without the phone as stated endlessly by Apple. It shouldn't have superior/faster hardware. Regardless of the way people try to spin it, it's not fair for iPhone users.
The problem is, the iPhone is also a ... phone.
The lack of a replaceable battery and/or the size of the battery, is probably the major factor in Apple's mind.
Same reason Apple leaves out multitasking. They think the user must be protected from themselves. Or rather, Apple must be protected. Think of the complaining if the phone only lasted one hour, while being as hot a game platform as the standalone touch.
Your grasp of radio physics is staggeringly inaccurate.
The number of antennas is due to the multi-radio configuration of multi-stream 802.11n device like the computers that have 802.11n. Single stream 802.11n only requires one antenna as long as that antenna is designed to resonate both 2.4GHz and 5GHz radio bands. Making an antenna which can do both is easy to do, it just requires a slightly larger antenna than one which only does 2.4GHz.
My guess is that this would have required them to make that little black plastic area on the back of the iPod Touch a bit larger and I'm sure Jonny Ive and his cooler-than-us minions in Apple's design group decided that it didn't look pretty enough when they were forced to make that black plastic patch larger so they didn't put a multi-band antenna in. Why they don't just put a plastic back on the thing like the iPhone has is completely mystifying.
Apple used to have a nice balance of engineering and industrial design but it looks like over the last couple of years that the designers insistence on what they think is pretty is winning out too much and this is a prime example of that.
And as for your power claim, 5GHz might only take more power given the same distance to an access point as a 2.4GHz device but given the fact that a 20MHz wide channel would allow you to transmit the same amount of data in half the amount the time, your claims of using more power are also spurious at best.
They have multi-band antennas in all of their computers and if they're offering a multi-band 802.11n chip now in their handheld products they should stop worrying about the black plastic window in the back not being pretty enough and widen it so accommodate a multi-band antenna. Crippling the products they offer us for the sake of aesthetics is moronic at best.
If you run a G device on your network where there are two computers filesharing (or somthing like a
TV running) at N speed the computers all drop thier speed down to g speed.That's one of the drivers behind dual network routers.
'N' isn't just about speed - it is about range as well. I couldn't care less about speed; I have a big house and have more range to cover.
They don't even support the "N" mode of operation on the iPhone, so why even bother to bring up 5GHz? Apple IS forward thinking, though. All their regular Wi-Fi products (Airports, Apple TV, laptops) all support 5GHz operation. But like I said, you cannot judge the iPhone or iPod Touch's "N" capability when there is none (mode G only).
What is the point? You're joking, right? LOL. My primary use for my iPod Touch is as a Wi-Fi remote control for my whole house audio/video system. Even if I COULD connect via wire (how do you do that except for Syncing with iTunes???), why would I WANT to? Admittedly, I do dock it to a AC power supply at the main listening location because Wi-Fi eats up the battery fast, but when I roam to another room, it comes with me. It's unreasonable to try and wire a house for Ethernet in every room. I have four family/living rooms in my house. Two of them have Apple TV units and a third has an airport express. All of them have speakers (plus my den has THX Klipsch speakers connected directly to the PowerMac running the system so that's a 4th location. I may add more in the future, such as bedrooms and maybe even the outside deck where my grill and patio is. When my MBP is docked in my den, it IS connected via Gigabit Ethernet (I've got 4-port hub plus three on the router for a total of 6 available Gigabit connections in the den) as Gigabit gives me maximum transfer speeds (I do a LOT of large video file transfers between all three of my computers and speed is nice; N doesn't come close to Gigabit), but it IS a notebook computer and I can and do take it to other rooms at times and even out to the backyard patio. The same goes for the iPod Touch. That's the whole point of mobile Wi-Fi. I can move around without the need for wires. Now if you only have one computer and you do all your computing at your desk, then wired only makes sense, but otherwise, Wi-Fi is quite handy. In fact, as I said in an earlier post, I run TWO "N" networks in my house (one is high-speed only so "G" or "B" devices don't slow it down).
If you run a G device on your network where there are two computers filesharing (or somthing like a
That is not accurate either. They do not drop down to "G" speed. In fact, they end up somewhere in-between on average, but the N devices are slowed down compared to N only operation and quite frankly, N isn't fast enough for large files like video, IMO. On my gigabit network, my hard drive write speeds are the "slow" factor. When moving multiple 4GB files, no hard drive (or network if that weren't the limit) is fast enough for my tastes. I've got over 300 movies on my server plus dozens of home movies and they all had to be moved over from the machines doing the compression and editing. Try moving 4 movies over and suddenly you're waiting 10 minutes just to put them into iTunes.
So with your logic Apple should wait and sit on a product that is ready for release until it can upgrade all products in the same market? I am sure when they release the next iPhone it will be better and faster then the Touch. It is just how technology refresh works.
That's the whole POINT my friend. The 4329 is an "802.11n" (notice the lower case 'n' -- not upper case) chip which supports operation in both frequency bands but Apple has crippled the device in which they put the 4329 chip by only allowing it to operate in one of those two frequency bands. When they put the 4329 into the iPhone (which they likely will) and the iPhone supports only one of the two frequency bands supported by the 4329, that will be a real shame so I hope they don't cripple the iPhone into operating only in the 2.4GHz band the way that have apparently done with this new iPod Touch. There is hope though because the iPhone has a plastic back case unlike the Touch which is mostly metal. But then again in all of the iPhone teardowns I've seen the iPhone may not have enough room either for a dual-band antenna and if that's the case I would rather see Apple modify the industrial design slightly for future iPhones so we can have both frquency bands supported when they put the 4329 into it rather than crippling future iPhones just to preserve their ostensibly sacrosanct industrial design. I mean the current Wi-Fi chip in the phones is an a/b/g chip and they don't support the 5GHz band and that is just a complete bummer. Hopefully they'll learn from the obvious mistakes they made in choosing design over function in this new Touch and not make the same mistake with the next generation iPhone.