Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Abandons Development of Wireless Routers, To Focus On Products That Return More Profit (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the killing-things dept.

Apple has disbanded its division that develops wireless routers in a move that further sharpens the company's focus on consumer products that generate the bulk of its revenue, Bloomberg reports. From the article:Apple began shutting down the wireless router team over the past year, dispersing engineers to other product development groups, including the one handling the Apple TV. Apple hasn't refreshed its routers since 2013 following years of frequent updates to match new standards from the wireless industry. The decision to disband the team indicates the company isn't currently pushing forward with new versions of its routers. Routers are access points that connect laptops, iPhones and other devices to the web without a cable. Apple currently sells three wireless routers, the AirPort Express, AirPort Extreme, and AirPort Time capsule. The Time capsule doubles as a backup storage hard drive for Mac computers.

36 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. great news by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as someone who supports consumer grade routers, this is the best news I could get today. these airports are the worst

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:great news by 605dave · · Score: 2

      Curious, what routers do you recommend then? From my personal experience Airport units have been a god send. And I even create my own basic firewall rules. This is not say you are wrong, you seem to suggest you have more experience in general. And since my preferred solutions seems to be going away, what should I look at next?

      --
      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    2. Re:great news by peragrin · · Score: 2

      The worst for an admin yes I agree. But speed wise airport express stack up against low cost commericial routers well.

      That siad even though I am primarily Apple I switched to unbiquiti unifi routers and aps at home. Expensive to setup for a home user but so damn reliable and I can overpower my neighbors garbage wifi routers.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      My favorite AirPort-ism is that in order to apply port forwarding changes, you have to restart the entire router.

      That's really all you need to know about how they're designed. Setting up a port forward is hard enough (you have to use a special Apple program to do it, there is no browser-based interface), and then to apply the newly forwarded port the entire router needs to reboot.

      Hope you remembered to set the IP on the forwarded device to be static, or you're going to have a lot of reboots in your future.

    4. Re:great news by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      agreed i should have been clearer, as someone who is admining. they are a pain. they are great for a user once configed tho.

      everytime i have to swap one out i have alot more work to do because apple thinks a MAC address check when connecting to an access point is a good idea (and it is in locations where someone can spoof a network easily) but when swapping out a bunch its either reflash wifi profiles on a number of devices, or change the network name due to mac not matching

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:great news by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Informative

      right now i find the easiest to work with are for a plig and play option i like the netgear nighthawk line. and for a little more customability (not to say the nighthawk cant be customized i simply have not done any) I like the linksys wrt 1900AC flashed with tomato

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:great news by skids · · Score: 2

      Exactly this. Yay! Apple will now have to actually make its devices play nice with inter-vendor standards instead of doing crazy shit like telling you to blank an entire channel out of your spectrum so their AppleTV can be autodiscovered or telling you to put different SSID names on different bands.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    7. Re:great news by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having used multiple routers from many vendors, I'll say this: the Airport Extremes are pretty darn awesome with an admittedly slightly more difficult setup for certain rules you'd like. However, they are rock solid, don't require reboots hardly ever, and connectivity actually works, versus the drops I've had on every other brand I've used, with the sole exception of the wireless that comes on the Verizon Quantum gateway modem which also has been relatively decent, although it has required a few reboots.

      Regarding the wifi profiles on devices, I'm not sure it matters with Apple routers or not. I've had issues swapping out other modems as well, but it's as simple as re-entering your password. Since I have swapped out exactly 1 extreme in about 7 years, I don't think that's a huge hassle.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:great news by skids · · Score: 2

      You should be aware of the 4-SSID rule of thumb.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    9. Re:great news by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . Setting up a port forward is hard enough (you have to use a special Apple program to do it, there is no browser-based interface)

      It's true that there's no browser-based interface (and needing a restart is stupid), but it's not true that you need an Apple program. The routers speak SNMP, so you can use a third-party tool if you prefer.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:great news by Bongo · · Score: 2

      I am primarily Apple I switched to unbiquiti unifi routers and aps at home.

      Thanks, I've heard those recommended before. When I switch from all-apple-wifys to something else... it'll be those.

      I originally stuck with Apple years ago because I wanted something to just work, and they all have, but do agree the whole "what, you want to configure it in a way Apple didn't cater for? MWAHAHAH!!" So unbiquiti it'll be. :)

    11. Re:great news by skids · · Score: 2

      Yeah but Apple is the worst, or at least most prevalent, offender in this area. If Apple ends up having to fix their crap to deal with the fact that most enterprise networks -- and without their APs/advice, more home networks in the future, run a single SSID across bands, out of necessity for clean roaming, we all win.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    12. Re:great news by swb · · Score: 2

      The idea of manually choosing a band seems rather primitive when most devices boot up in an RF soup of APs, generic 2.4Ghz devices, and god knows what else blasting away. Unless you have a spectrum analyzer of your own, you won't get a great idea of what band to choose anyway.

      It seems like it makes perfect sense for the device itself to listen to the RF spectrum and pick a band based on its own analysis, ideally dynamically to adapt to changing conditions.

      The only time where manual band selection makes any sense is in a highly engineered rollout where you're attempting to do fit a lot of clients and APs into a single space and you adjust band and power in conjunction with standalone RF analysis.

    13. Re:great news by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The only time where manual band selection makes any sense is in a highly engineered rollout where you're attempting to do fit a lot of clients and APs into a single space and you adjust band and power in conjunction with standalone RF analysis.

      Well, no. There's a lot more bandwidth available on the 5 GHz band because of the protocols involved, and I want my lady's laptop and my streaming device to live on it, and all my other devices can use the 2.4 GHz because they don't need as much bandwidth. If I give both of the interfaces on my AP the same SSID that will all suddenly become a big pain in the ass to keep working correctly and then I will have to hear about it. And I only have a handful of clients here, and no IoT crap!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:great news by gmack · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "flashed with tomato" part is key. I find the default Linksys router's stock firmware to be worse than useless. Alternately, I find the newer Asus routers (the ones that can update online) to be flexible out of the box without needing to be flashed

    15. Re: great news by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      they work great when configured initially until they break. it is when it is time to replace them that the major pains come into play because the do a MAC check on top of the SSID and password check. meaning a simply device swap cant be simple either requiring a change to the SSID or deleting the wifi profiles on all devices that connect to the AP

      add in the airport utility tools that leave out basic config options and they are a mess

      but when they work, they do work great

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    16. Re: great news by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 2

      Mikrotik. The best wifi networks however rely on Ubiquiti APs and a wired router, but the best single solution is mikrotik for home use.

    17. Re: great news by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Ubiquiti APs and a wired router, but the best single solution is mikrotik for home use.

      It's worth it to purchase the UniFi solution, even for home use: That is, if you're going to use wireless connectivity for anything critical
      that you may seriously depend on which requires connection reliability.

      I would agree if your applications are just entertainment, occasional use, talking with friends, and messing about on Facebook, then no need to spend $$$ on a Real AP.

      On the other hand, if you're doing home automation, security alarms, wireless cameras, etc.
      The UniFI AP's are not more than 3X as expensive, and the increase in performance, reliability and stability (that I see) is substantial.

  2. Really? by trevc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Glad they explained what they are /s "Routers are access points that connect laptops, iPhones and other devices to the web without a cable."

    1. Re:Really? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      "Routers are access points that connect laptops, iPhones and other devices to the web without a cable."

      Okay, but what the hell is a "cable"?

  3. Airport by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm so glad my Airport router died. In true Apple fashion, you needed external software to configure it. Totally bizarre.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  4. Time Capsule by hackertourist · · Score: 2

    Routers are a dime a dozen, but Time Capsule used to be unusual: it was the only network device usable for Time Machine backups. IIRC this was because Time Machine needs an HFS disk to back up to, and just about all routers don't support HFS.
    iPhoto also had this requirement, and was unusable when you parked its library on a FAT32 disk.

    Has this changed, and do other routers support Time Machine these days? Or does this mean the end for the easiest-to-use backup solution ever?

    1. Re:Time Capsule by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm at a loss as to why they think moves like this are sensible. The hard core of Apple fanboys who want all of their devices to have that same logo and to automagically work together (and, in typical RDF fashion, gloss over those times when they don't) should be kept pampered even if they aren't a huge moneymaker. (It doesn't even matter if other routers support Time Machine; just being the only Official Apple Router that supports it should be enough to keep them in business and at least mildly profitable.)

      Not that Apple has in any way an image problem but it is conceivable, just barely conceivable, that if they slim down too much and force people to buy too many third party products and pay no attention to the sorts of fanboys that kept them alive during the 90s and drove the hype machine during the early iPod / OS X era they might eventually (years from now) have to lower their margins from laughably obscene to head-shakingly obscene in order to keep people interested.

    2. Re:Time Capsule by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Has this changed, and do other routers support Time Machine these days? Or does this mean the end for the easiest-to-use backup solution ever?

      Yep that changed a long time ago. Lots of NAS systems allow you to do Time machine backups.

      Here is one example How to: Configure FreeNAS 9.3 for Time Machine with disk quotas using FreeNAS (which I am just starting to play with right now)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Time Capsule by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm at a loss as to why they think moves like this are sensible. The hard core of Apple fanboys who want all of their devices to have that same logo and to automagically work together

      I don't care about the label, but I emphatically believe that devices I buy ought to "automatically" work together, and that this feature (which I call "functionality") is worth paying extra for.

    4. Re:Time Capsule by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

      Has this changed, and do other routers support Time Machine these days?

      Yes, the latest version of macOS (Sierra) supports Time Machine backups to SMB 3 volumes. This opens the door to a number of devices, and once Samba fully catches up (and they're almost there), it will be even more. It's also a welcome replacement from NASes and other devices having to support AFP, as their support has always been a bit funky.

    5. Re:Time Capsule by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      There's no reverse engineering involved. Apple documents the AFP protocol publicly. I know this because I wrote the documentation that enabled adding Time Machine support to third-party AFP servers way back in 2009. If netafp doesn't fully support those features seven years later, I have to question whether netafp is actively being maintained....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. Re:Routers are access points by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Funny

    What amazed me is this news:

    Routers are access points that connect laptops, iPhones and other devices to the web without a cable

    Oh... THAT'S what routers are.... I have apparently been holding mine wrong this whole time...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  6. Oh Really? by Dust038 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Like that $300 book of pictures of just their products?

  7. Of Course by MichaelJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because if your Desktop and Documents folders live on iCloud drive, and your music streams from the iTunes store, why would you need a Time Machine backup any more?

    --

    Michael J.
    Root, God, what is difference?
  8. Apple's made this kind of decision before by laird · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple's killed off peripheral businesses in order to strengthen their core businesses before.

    For example, Apple used to have a $1B/year printer business, which was highly profitable. They killed it, because doing so for them to get all the major printer companies to ship their standard printers with support for both PC and Mac, which ultimately grew Mac sales.

    They used to sell a digital camera, the first consumer digital camera that was easy to use with a computer. When the digital camera industry developed some decent standards and became easy for consumers to use, Apple killed their digital camera, and sold Canon, Nikon, etc.

    Same for AppleTalk -> EtherNet, ADB -> USB.

    Apple introduced their routers when routers were extremely consumer hostile with horrible software, and Apple's routers are well made and very easy to set up and use, making it easy for Mac owners to get online. Now, routers have gotten a lot better, to the point where Apple doesn't need to invest R&D in making them usable.

    --
    Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  9. Re:Overpriced for their features and performance by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    The original Airport Extreme was a pretty good 802.11g access point and was pretty good value when it was introduced. .11g was pretty rare then and most APs were buggy crap (I bought a D-Link one about 6 months later and it rarely managed an uptime of a week). The Airport Express was nice if you needed something portable, but if you didn't plan on taking it with you then you were paying a big premium for the size. Now, half-decent APs are dirt cheap and there's no space for differentiation.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Does any other router have this tech? by MichaelJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing Apple routers had was the ability to set themselves up as a Bonjour proxy, so for example your Mac could advertise its iTunes library sharing, but go to sleep. The router would repoint the address to itself, and if you tried to access that library from another device, the router would send a wakeup to the Mac, then repoint Bonjour back at it.

    Also, while the rest of the world uses uPNP, Apple routers use NAT-PMP.

    Are these technologies just dead now?

    And in response to the comments above about more availability for network drives to be used as remote Time Machine backups, instead of requiring a Time Capsule, will Apple decide to kill off remote backups entirely because the experience is no longer guaranteed or even consistent with third-party devices?

    --

    Michael J.
    Root, God, what is difference?
  11. Another good product gone by krray · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find this disappointing. For me the AirPort Express was *THE* choice to use -- and I still use AirPlay on them too.

    My biggest problem was covering 90 thousand square feet area (indoors and out). I bought thousands and thousands of dollars worth of various router brands (and returned them all) trying to do this. Key word would be reliably. They all suck. Except Apple's. The AirPort's ability to relay / extend the network wirelessly made it the winner. They just work...

    Their form factor made them easy to deploy too -- no ugly antenna's all over the place. Sure, lack of antenna may have limited their range ... I just bought more of them.

    Now I'm back to square one again. Ugh.

  12. The real reason by dhaen · · Score: 2

    They're not selling any. Every man and his dog gets a "free" wireless switch/modem from their ISP; Corporates will rarely choose these Apple products; Who's left?

  13. That's too bad... by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 3, Informative

    The only wireless router I've ever owned that didn't need to be rebooted all the time (or ever) and didn't have weird compatibility problems with certain clients that needed their wifi toggled to fix weird performance and latency issues. Yes, you can complain about the configuration and interface, but you do that like once, and the rest of the time you hope to leave the thing alone.

    Now - where can I buy a router this isn't full of sales gimmicks and just works right? Clearly going to the high-end of consumer routers doesn't cover that.

    --
    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush