Gigabit 802.11ac Wi-Fi may be coming to Apple devices soon

Gigabit 802.11ac Wi-Fi may be coming to Apple devices soon

Apple was the first computer manufacturer to popularize Wi-Fi, pioneering the adoption of the early 802.11b standard, then 802.11g, and raising the speed limit with 802.11n in 2007. Now AppleInsider is reporting that the company is expected to start providing support for the "Gigabit Wi-Fi" 802.11ac standard in 2012.

To provide lightning-fast wireless networking, 802.11ac uses up to four times the frequency bandwidth (up to 160 MHz), more antennas (up to eight; existing Macs use up to three), and hyper-efficient data transfers through more sophisticated modulation schemes.

The standard hasn't yet been approved by the 802.11 Working Group, but things are moving along at a fast clip. Many suppliers, including Apple component manufacturer Broadcom, have announced 802.11ac chipsets. The new equipment not only provides network speeds above 1 Gigabit per second (about three times the speed of existing 802.11n networks), but also offers improved reliability, better power efficiency, and more range.

When the changes come, they'll most likely first appear in the form of new AirPort base stations and a new Time Capsule, and then start rolling out to new Mac models and mobile devices. Where the new technology will have the biggest impact is in the user of other Apple technologies such as AirPlay, AirPlay Mirroring, and AirDrop.

Now aren't you glad you didn't run Ethernet cabling all over your house?

Gigabit 802.11ac Wi-Fi may be coming to Apple devices soon originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.




SourceÂ*|Â*PermalinkÂ*|Â*Email thisÂ*|Â*Comments

Click to expand...

Read more

Oh my. That's FAST. Am I right?

I just hope Apple thinks this through REAL well before adopting it. Current Apple ABGN wireless setups somehow like to bring down networks, whether it be school, or business. I hope they can introduce 802.11ac while fixing whatever is causing users these problems. That, in itself, will be of great help, imo.

While that's nice and all, it doesn't matter much for practical and consumer usage. The broadband companies barely dole out enough bandwidth before capping it at the hub anyway. The only real help that a new wifi technology could make at this point in the consumer market, is one that is able to penetrate several layers of concrete and extend the range. Boasting speed at this point seems rather moot.

Doug

Agree 100% Doug. In rural Australia using ADSL 2+, the max speed is about 9MB/ps out of a possible 24! More speed would make no difference to old copper cables etc.

Doug b said:

While that's nice and all, it doesn't matter much for practical and consumer usage. The broadband companies barely dole out enough bandwidth before capping it at the hub anyway. The only real help that a new wifi technology could make at this point in the consumer market, is one that is able to penetrate several layers of concrete and extend the range. Boasting speed at this point seems rather moot.

Doug

Click to expand...

Not true at all. Some people (me!) enjoy being able to transfer files on their networks. How many business can you think of that make use of a dedicated internal server? Yes it would be nice if broadband was faster, but if no wireless routers can support it why would anyone ever make it?

RONE said:

Not true at all. Some people (me!) enjoy being able to transfer files on their networks. How many business can you think of that make use of a dedicated internal server? Yes it would be nice if broadband was faster, but if no wireless routers can support it why would anyone ever make it?

Click to expand...

You missed my point, entirely. While it would be entirely viable for businesses with commercial applications, Apple for the most part is a consumer grade/brand retail store. It's great that they're pushing the industry and all, but for all intents and purposes, the general consumer will never reap the rewards of such a thing. Do you have a dedicated T1 line? Do most consumers?

Point being: Consumer walks in to Apple, sees pretty new white box on shelf touting amazing new specs claiming, "faster than anything you've experienced before!" But in the meantime, consumer A goes home to same ol' bandwidth experience. Possible outcome? Placebo effect takes hold and the consumer jumps on the Mac Forums arrogantly and ignorantly decrying older versions of the Airport technology.

I currently use my Airport Extreme with several external hard drives hooked up to it, and: transfer files back and forth, edit RAW files in PS 5 and Lightroom, watch videos etc etc.... All wirelessly. The ONLY thing that would make any difference in how quickly those things get done right now, is: Having a faster RPM external drive, using thunderbolt or FW vs. USB as the bridge (or E SATA) or plugging the drive directly in to the computer.

I get the same download speeds via wifi as I do directly through ethernet. I'm capped at about 30 mbps, and no amount of magic pixie dust or router magic is going to change that. Fact. Again, MY point is that people will see this, and think that they're going to have faster download speeds, and they won't.

Doug

P.S. What do you mean "why would they ever make it if they don't make routers that can support it" ? OC 768 can trasmit 40 Gbps! Lol

I wouldn't want a T1, my cable's faster than the 1554kbps of a T1, what I don't get is the SLA, nor do I get a symmetrical connection

Both of which are primarily useless (ok, I'd like the SLA) for a consumer. Although I agree, I'd really like the increased speed internally (which is why all the 'fixed' work locations in my house have cat6 drops).

Oh and I just finally shed the last usable 'g' device (ok, cept the wii, which doesn't really count). How long will it be before I've got enough 'ac' devices to make it worthwhile... feh. I hate technology.

Doug b said:

You missed my point, entirely. While it would be entirely viable for businesses with commercial applications, Apple for the most part is a consumer grade/brand retail store. It's great that they're pushing the industry and all, but for all intents and purposes, the general consumer will never reap the rewards of such a thing. Do you have a dedicated T1 line? Do most consumers?

Point being: Consumer walks in to Apple, sees pretty new white box on shelf touting amazing new specs claiming, "faster than anything you've experienced before!" But in the meantime, consumer A goes home to same ol' bandwidth experience. Possible outcome? Placebo effect takes hold and the consumer jumps on the Mac Forums arrogantly and ignorantly decrying older versions of the Airport technology.

I currently use my Airport Extreme with several external hard drives hooked up to it, and: transfer files back and forth, edit RAW files in PS 5 and Lightroom, watch videos etc etc.... All wirelessly. The ONLY thing that would make any difference in how quickly those things get done right now, is: Having a faster RPM external drive, using thunderbolt or FW vs. USB as the bridge (or E SATA) or plugging the drive directly in to the computer.

I get the same download speeds via wifi as I do directly through ethernet. I'm capped at about 30 mbps, and no amount of magic pixie dust or router magic is going to change that. Fact. Again, MY point is that people will see this, and think that they're going to have faster download speeds, and they won't.

Doug

Click to expand...

You're using zero foresight. It's good you're not on an R&D team, because we'd be stuck with the same technology for years. Thunderbolt, SSD's, USB 3.0... The future is speed. To say that a technology that is in the early stages of development has no practical use with our current setup is just silly.

Doug b said:

P.S. What do you mean "why would they ever make it if they don't make routers that can support it" ? OC 768 can trasmit 40 Gbps! Lol

Click to expand...

Until the masses have access to a capability, they won't realize what's capable and as such they won't clamor to have access to it. Apple is for the masses - let people know their wireless access point and their computers are setup for faster connectivity, and they'll start to demand it from their ISP's.

iggibar said:

I just hope Apple thinks this through REAL well before adopting it. Current Apple ABGN wireless setups somehow like to bring down networks, whether it be school, or business. I hope they can introduce 802.11ac while fixing whatever is causing users these problems. That, in itself, will be of great help, imo.

Click to expand...

I concur. For some strange reason, every now and then I'll kick my Dad's Windows computer off the internet...or something else in the house will kick me off.

Same sometimes happens with my iPod touch.

I'm fascinated by this. Surprised that they would adopt a spec that hasn't been ratified yet - but personally - would love to see an 802.11ac MBP and Airport Extreme. Hopefully they'll put USB 3.0 ports on the AE. Can make NAS setups easier and faster.

RONE said:

You're using zero foresight. It's good you're not on an R&D team, because we'd be stuck with the same technology for years. Thunderbolt, SSD's, USB 3.0... The future is speed. To say that a technology that is in the early stages of development has no practical use with our current setup is just silly.


Until the masses have access to a capability, they won't realize what's capable and as such they won't clamor to have access to it. Apple is for the masses - let people know their wireless access point and their computers are setup for faster connectivity, and they'll start to demand it from their ISP's.

Click to expand...

It's weird. You're still missing MY point. What's weirder still, is that you've illustrated that you actually get it, but refuse to concur because of logistics. Let me try this one. more. time.

The masses will never get to utilize this speed. Service providers (at least in the U.S.) will not allow their user base to access such a pipeline. You're confusing my saying this, with thinking that I mean that it has no practical application elsewhere. Which is not what I said. In fact, I said nothing about its application outside of where the general masses are concerned. And the reason for that? Quite simple... and here's the important part you keep seeming to miss:

Who cares if you or I can go out and purchase a new router capable of accessing such bandwidth, when our ISP's will never grant us those speeds to begin with! Apple mainly sells its products to average users. The average user will NOT benefit from this. THAT was my point. And again..... do you have a T-1 line? How many of your friends and family have one? Or an OC line? I didn't think so. Why not? Wouldn't it be "practical" to have one, just in case ?

Heck, I'd love to pay $50 a month for a dedicated T1 line. Give me a call when those are available. Foresight has zero to do with practicality or logic. I fully understand the implications of such technology, and simply want you to realize that even though the general public is used as the guinne pig for such R&D (can you say Thunderbolt, general masses and practical in the same breath right now?) that it's nothing short of deceptiveness on the part of the manufacturer, when there are promises such as "greater bandwidth" yada yada. Perhaps we'll see a gain in terms of range, and that's fantastic. But the rest of it? Not practical (for the masses.)



Doug

FYI: Having a T1 setup does not mean you will have faster speeds of anything. It just means you will be able to support a wider setup of computers.
, and potential faster speeds from whatever internet provider. Actually, I think wasting time talking about T1 is a joke unless you are in the business sector. It will never feasibly become cheap for consumer use due to the fact that every user needs their own line from the provider. If it ever did get cheap, say $50 cheap, can you imagine all the custom wiring going to all the homes? Will never happen.

I'm always a believer in trying to expand the limits of technology, and this is another way of doing that. So what if your own home doesn't provide you with the potential of the ac's capabilities? More than half of my MBP use is out of home, even though I love my cable internet.

Why limit yourself??
Apple is the pusher of wifi technology, let them do it again with ac, is what I say!

Folks - one of the primary goals for the wireless standards - specifically 802.11 is to approach the speeds of wired Ethernet - a bar that moves over time as well. It was this way for 802.11n and is for ac, ad, etc. So when you're asking yourself whether or not there's a use for this - take a look at how wired Ethernet is used. True - this isn't likely to increase your internet browsing speed - but there are a host of other uses in the home these days that can definitely use this kind of bandwidth.

iggibar said:

FYI: Having a T1 setup does not mean you will have faster speeds of anything. It just means you will be able to support a wider setup of computers.
, and potential faster speeds from whatever internet provider. Actually, I think wasting time talking about T1 is a joke unless you are in the business sector. It will never feasibly become cheap for consumer use due to the fact that every user needs their own line from the provider. If it ever did get cheap, say $50 cheap, can you imagine all the custom wiring going to all the homes? Will never happen.

I'm always a believer in trying to expand the limits of technology, and this is another way of doing that. So what if your own home doesn't provide you with the potential of the ac's capabilities? More than half of my MBP use is out of home, even though I love my cable internet.

Why limit yourself??
Apple is the pusher of wifi technology, let them do it again with ac, is what I say!

Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much what I was saying? Well, up until the last paragraph at least. You kind of lost me there.

BrianLachoreVPI said:

Folks - one of the primary goals for the wireless standards - specifically 802.11 is to approach the speeds of wired Ethernet - a bar that moves over time as well. It was this way for 802.11n and is for ac, ad, etc. So when you're asking yourself whether or not there's a use for this - take a look at how wired Ethernet is used. True - this isn't likely to increase your internet browsing speed - but there are a host of other uses in the home these days that can definitely use this kind of bandwidth.

Click to expand...

Not being snarky or sarcastic. Please point out for me, some of these other uses that we can currently allocate to such a setup? I might be missing something here. In my mind, I see the bottleneck at home, as being the I/O topologies such as USB and Firewire, as well as the speed at which an hard drive is able to be accessed and written to.

When I'm editing large files over wireless to my external hard drive which is hooked up to my Airport Extreme, I honestly don't notice much of a difference vs when I'm editing from my internal HD. Yes, there is a difference, but not enough for me to get ancy about it.

Also, can you be a bit more specific (I'm thick... no secret there) when you say:

specifically 802.11 is to approach the speeds of wired Ethernet

Click to expand...

? I take that to mean that one can not access the web or download files etc as fast via a wireless connection vs ethernet.

Doug

So Doug, here's a good example. We've had several posts about Migration Assistant moving slowly over wifi. At 'n' speeds this type of data transfer is extremely slow, compared to gigabit ethernet, we're talking HOURS for something that's transferred in a manner of minutes. Same is true if you're transferring data from machine to machine. If you want to experience this type of sluggishness, queue up a 100GB copy over wireless, let it complete (time it) then do the same transfer over gigE.

You don't notice a difference because your bottleneck is the USB interface, this is not the case if you're dealing with an internal drive (SATA), then your bottleneck is the network interface. You're also not transferring huge amounts of data obviously.

Not all data transfer is across an Internet connection. While this is especially true in corporate environments, this is also true in many home situations.

Your wireless connection FAR out speeds a T1 (which is, by modern standards slow btw).

Doug b said:

Not being snarky or sarcastic. Please point out for me, some of these other uses that we can currently allocate to such a setup? I might be missing something here. In my mind, I see the bottleneck at home, as being the I/O topologies such as USB and Firewire, as well as the speed at which an hard drive is able to be accessed and written to.

When I'm editing large files over wireless to my external hard drive which is hooked up to my Airport Extreme, I honestly don't notice much of a difference vs when I'm editing from my internal HD. Yes, there is a difference, but not enough for me to get ancy about it.

Click to expand...

Well - you have many to choose from. If the ability to move large files or many small files regularly via wireless doesn't float your boat (it appeals to me greatly) - how about streaming applications. More and more are finding their way into the home - far more than just audio, I'm talking about multiple simultaneous HD video streams. In fact, you can find vendors who have "proprietary" implementations of 802.11n designed to double the BW.

Doug b said:

Also, can you be a bit more specific (I'm thick... no secret there) when you say: ? I take that to mean that one can not access the web or download files etc as fast via a wireless connection vs ethernet.

Doug

Click to expand...

I can find a citation regarding this intent if you really want - I'll need to dig through some notes. The web isn't really relevant to my argument, but yes, I am saying that the fastest wired Ethernet is faster than any wireless connection currently (ratified standards) - and I would expect it to maintain its lead. It'd be nice if every server, node, was evolving as quickly so we could see faster Internet - but obviously that requires infrastructure improvement which requires money which no one wants to spend these days.

Wireless standards did not evolve just to provide mobility - in fact - we don't use it that way as often as we do a fixed location. Depending on your definition of mobility - they may not provide that at all. In the wireless sense we often use it to define continuous movers. Most of us are not that. It turns out that 802.11 does not work very well in that environment for a number of reasons. They evolved as a way to remove the tether which as more and more things have a wireless chipset - becomes intractable. They evolved with Enterprise deployments in mind just as much as how we use them at home. The wired equivalent has always been the bar against wireless is compared. That's true for 802.11, bluetooth, etc.