If you use a DAC that creates discrete steps, and feed the output through a perfect 0-22kHz lowpass filter, you get the original signal back.
Because it is impossible to create such perfect filter, a common method is to convert the 44 kHz sample rate to a much higher one, say 1 MHz. Feed that through a DAC, and then use a much simpler lowpass filter to get rid of anything above 500 kHz.
As far as higher harmonics: if you can't hear a pure sine at 30 kHz, you cannot hear the harmonics of a 15 kHz fundamental either.
That would be a Delta-Sigma D/A converter, which is most common nowadays and quite different from the original multibit type (see http://www.rane.com/note137.ht...). I think the point is there is a whole lot of filtering going on, and that is where the subtle differences emerge. That perfect copy is in theory only.
I don't think we even got into the differences between 1-bit (like SACD uses) and multibit D/As. They both have their pluses and minuses (sorry!); but if you crank the sample-rate of the single-bit (Delta-Sigma) converters up high enough, they are essentially the same (until you try to start EDITING in the Digital Domain. But that's another story!).
But I agree: The "Perfect Copy" ONLY applies to Sine Waves, and is ONLY in theory, depending on how "close" you want to look...
But they are not insignificant, as you can hear a very audible difference between the same source on the same system with different DA converters. It may well be you get closer to perfect the more you pay, I would not know, but I know there are big differences even in high end gear.
And I would not be surprised if those same subtle sort of differences were manifested in the original A/D conversion as well, though of course would have no real way to know.
IMHO, once you factor-out the bit depth, dithering, and sample rate, the differences in different D/A Signal-Recovery (Playback) systems are largely due to the reconstruction filter design.
It has been a long time since even the cheapest DACs had any monotonicity (linearity) problems, although I would imagine there are a few that still have some glitching issues.
But I'm talking about the DAC chip itself; not all the stuff around it that audiopiles lump together and call a "DAC".
You totally misunderstand how the DAC recreates the original signal. Watch this educational video linked above: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.sh...
First off, that really only gives you 2 samples per WAVEFORM at 20 kHz.
Watch the video. It demonstrates how 2 samples is enough.
Nice video, thanks! Didn't learn anything I didn't already know, except for the term "Gibbs Effect". I was familiar with the effect, just not the name.
HOWEVER...
The DAC doesn't "recreate the original signal". The DAC puts out Discrete STEPS (despite what the video claimed). That is ALL that a DAC does, period. They do not produce "Lollipop" output.
It is the Dithering (a/k/a digital noise) h/w and the "Reconstruction Filter" that is mostly responsible for attempting to smooth-out those STEPS, and remove aliasing and other artifacts.
So, I guess what I am really trying to point out is best demonstrated by the "Gibbs Effect" demonstration. Because music is very rarely all sine waves, it is the higher than 20 kHz harmonics that suffer from the 44.1 ks/Sec sample rate of CDs, and why cymbals sound like escaping steam, and tambourines make me want to scream on them, too.
IOW, I stand by my original statement that 44.1 ks/Sec is simply NOT enough, period; because we don't listen to sine waves, generally.
A regular 44khz audio CD can't capture the full resolution of a digital master done at e.g 96khz
Mastering at higher resolution is useful for mixing and filtering, but a 44 kHz final output is enough to capture the full range of your ears.
44.1 Ks/Sec is NOT enough to capture the full range of your ears, and I have dozens of recordings with cymbals that sound like escaping steam, and tambourine and bells that have aliasing artifacts down into the mid-bass(!!!) regions, to prove it.
If you accept 20-20 kHz as the range of normal human hearing, then 44.1 ks/Sec just does NOT cut it. Nyquist be damned. First off, that really only gives you 2 samples per WAVEFORM at 20 kHz. Great! But then, there's the so-called "Brick Wall" Low Pass Filter. It itself creates comb-filter artifacts down as far as you want to look. So, the problem is, the playback of that 44.1 ks/Sec produces nasty effects WAY down into the clearly-audible range. 96 Ks/Sec (DVD-A and 5.1) does a MUCH better job, a lot of which is due to the fact that the Brick Wall filtering effects are MUCH less in the audible range.
I'm no analog-snob (FAR from it. My entire entertainment system uses digital (HDMI and TOSLink) interconnects; but I know crap when I hear it. And CDs, while being pretty good sounding for most things, fall FAR short on some material.
Listen to a good-quality recording that has been mastered at at least 24/96 on a DVD-A, or even SACD. The difference in the far-upper regions (as I said, cymbals, tambourines, and bells), and you will hear what I mean.
44.1 kHz was NOT picked because it was "able to cover the entire range of human hearing". It was, like most engineering decisions, a compromise.
No, it's exactly the same thing when you are talking about Apple fan boys. If any of them had noticed the tiniest change we would definitely have heard about it by now!
So, those who prefer Apple products are more discerning? Is that what you are trying to say?
Open source is keystone to the technology Apple develops. The choice to open source a software which none of its current product line up depends is interesting. Apple is not in the open source business. So why? Why choose open source for a software that Apple API's neither support, integrate nor interoperate?
Interesting point.
Perhaps it will be rolled-out in the next major release of macOS and/or iOS, and this is Apple's way of Beta Testing it.
The thing is, the only reason people get a TimeCapsule is because of that proprietary Time Machine feature. So the vendor lock-in, the proprietary protocol is at the very core of it.
The Airport router is not as bad, I admit, but still, I never met someone getting this router without also having many other Apple devices (usually at least a Mac and an iPhone, often a 3rd device such as an Apple TV). These people are usually vendor locked-in to the bone. They are never going to be able to move away from Apple.
Since there are many NASes that support both AirPlay and Time Machine, it is extremely disingenuous to dismiss those protocols as "Proprietary".
And someone's particular router choice is of no moment. There are MANY all-Apple installations that use third party routers. In fact, my 5th gen. airport AP is the first Apple Router I have owned, which I got because I was upgrading from "g" to "n" at home, and I have never had an interest in a Time Capsule, although they are a pretty nice all-in-one solution for some people.
It may or may not, depending on implementation. Anyways, the web page is blocked by default on the WAN side, which is what matters the most. I guess it's the same thing for Apple's utility.
Airplay and time machine were the two things I had in mind yes. There might be others. Of course you can buy an Apple time machine and use it as a router. You are just wasting money, right?
But they have (just) a Router already. TimeCapsule is just an Apple Router with an HD built-In.
Nope. No other Proprietary Protocols, sorry. Time Machine and AirPlay are the only extra features on an Apple Router or Time Capsule. I can't remember if you can simply plug in a USB Drive to a regular Apple Router and use it for a Time Machine target; but there are several NAS', such as Synology, that support both AirPlay and Time Machine.
I'd take less vendor lock-in choices any day. Dozens of other companies will popup and offer WiFi router. There might even be more choices after Apple leave the segment.
I don't know where you get "Vendor Lock-In" with Apple's Routers. They offer some unique Services; but as far as their Router setup and usage goes, there isn't much in the way of Vendor Lock-In (no more than a lot of other brands). WiFi is WiFi, Ethernet is Ethernet. Can't do too much to "Lock-In" those protocols. The Airport (Setup) Utility is available for Windows, and the Windows version apparently works under WINE on Linux (at least for Ubuntu) :
Now, If you're trying to spin "AirPlay" (AirPort Express) or "Time Machine" (Time Capsule); but there is no reason you HAVE to use those functions. It's still a WiFi Router, afterall. Plus, as far as AirPlay goes, there are plenty of third-party devices and applications on every Platform that support it. So, no real "Vendor Lock-In" there.
So, can you be specific; or, as I suspect, are you just saying there MUST be Vendor Lock-In, because... Apple?
Apple was not even a sane choice in the router segment, so it doesn't remove any choice for the well-informed customer.
Also, less vendor lock-in is better for the consumer. So to see companies trying to vendor lock-in us the most going out of a market segment is always good news.
What you are saying is nothing more than thinly-disguised Apple Hate, and is just a Strawman argument..
The reduction of Choice, even by a brand that YOU (the Lord God Emperor of All Things Digital) do not like, is STILL a Reduction of Choice.
His blind faith in apple and ignorance of all other tech keeps him strong.
Nice try, ignoramus. Take your Apple Hate and GTFO.
It is not "Blind Faith"; it is Experience. And your are sadly mistaken that I have an "Ignorance of all other tech". Just because I like Apple stuff as a general rule, and have had nearly universally good experiences with their products; doesn't at ALL mean I don't deal with, or know about, "other tech".
For example, I work for a small software Consultancy, developing Microsoft-based business s/w, and I assist in some of the IT. A couple of years ago, I spec'ed a Zyxel VPN/Firewall/Router (we don't use the Router part so much) for our Corporate network, and spec'ed a TP-Link Managed Switch (this was before all the controversy surrounding Chinese Back-Doors in their products) to hang the Synology NAS we backup-to (the first of two Synology NASes I have spec'ed for my employer) off of (before I realized the Synology could do its own Port-Throttling). I also spec'ed and Setup and Admin. our corporate Backups, which are using a somewhat unique backup strategy (thanks, Microsuck, for not bothering to maintain the "Last Modified" or "Archive" flags on your SQL DB Files!), because of the huge number of MS-SQL databases we develop-in and maintain.
I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point.
Now, does THAT sound like I have an "ignorance of all other tech?"
However, I still like Apple's Routers because they are the ONLY people I trust not to slipstream-in NSA backdoors into the Firmware.
That's not true. Huawei, for example, doesn't install NSA back doors. More seriously, how do you know that the NSA hasn't injected vulnerabilities into Apple's firmware? If you've followed the story of how the Juniper backdoor was introduced, you'll know that it doesn't necessarily require anyone in the company to be aware...
The truth is, I don't know.
But, I at least am fairly certain that Apple would at least not be COMPLICIT, based on their Corporate History. But you raise a good point.
Apple entered the wireless access point market because it wasn't competitive. There were few players and there was a big premium for 802.11g parts (many of which were crap), and Apple wanted to sell support for 802.11g as a feature on the PowerBooks. This feature was largely worthless if the expensive 802.11g WiFi interface on the laptop was always running in downgraded 802.11b-compatible mode. Something similar happened with 802.11n. By the time 802.11ac came along, the market was competitive enough that there was no need for Apple to do anything: if they did nothing, people were still able to get 802.11ac working well. In addition, 802.11ac was much less of a selling point. The jump from.11b to.11g was the difference between nice toy for demos and generally useful. The jump from.11g to.11n meant that the WiFi was typically not the bottleneck for most users. The jump to.11ac means that WiFi is even less of a bottleneck, but it's well past the point where most people care.
Interesting bit of history, thanks!
However, I still like Apple's Routers because they are the ONLY people I trust not to slipstream-in NSA backdoors into the Firmware.
Sounds like a plausible explanation of how you might break compatibility. However, given that the new protocol had no noticeable effect on the user experience - and given how quickly they reversed it probably no non-noticeable benefits either - that still suggests a dubious motivation for making it.
How do you KNOW it had no noticeable effect on User Experience? Have you horse-raced all the combinations of firmwares and displays?
Maybe Apple just decided that the difference wasn't worth the negative press. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know.
So what becomes of orphaned technologies like Time Machine and AirPlay? Do they plan to finally license them out to other vendors?
Neither of those technologies depend on Apple Routers.
Time Machine doesn't do anything other technologies do, anyway. They just made it drop dead simple to implement, and built the backup-browser into MacOS.
As for AirPlay, it does use some semi-proprietary texhnology, I guess; but considering there are already multiple third-patty AirPlay broadcasters and receivers, on multiple platforms (including Android, frinstance), I don't think that the loss of Apple Routers makes any difference.
I will say, however, that I have had several different non-Apple routers, and one of the things I like about my Apple Router is how simple it is to set it up in Bridge Mode. Yes, I have had other Routers that can do Bridge, but it is often non-obvious how to set it up.
Yes, but that would generally mean that they would never have worked. This is a situation where a display worked absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped working after a software update. Clearly, the display could communicate at a hardware level.
Maybe Apple implemented a part of the Comm. Protocol that THEY had planned-for, but not yet implemented; so when the Grey Market Engineers Sniffed the Protocol out of a working phone (how else?), they didn't get what wasn't being used yet (or was being transmitted with a dummy value).
To me, that sounds MUCH more likely; but what do I know? I'm just an Embedded Systems Dev.;-)
The the shipments of 3rd-party (not Apple branded) parts they keep having Customs seize as "counterfeit" (which would require that the parts carry Apple branding, which they do not) and the 3rd-party repair shops they keep suing aren't part of a crackdown? They're Apple's way of saying they approve?
Show me an example where NON-Apple-Branded (but not Apple manufactured) parts were Seized at the behest of Apple.
... so all the screaming of bloody murder over Apple doing this deliberately to hurt people who use 3rd party spares was completely unwarranted.
Or maybe a company backed off after the outrage of their actions and this screaming of bloody murder caused them to release a version of software that didn't screw over consumers who daredeth to not contribute to the Cook retirement fund.
Rather than calling it "unwarranted" a far more accurate term would be "effective".
And maybe if Apple was really cracking down on 3rd party parts use they would have [A] done it accoss their entire product line, iPhones, iPads, Macs inclusive instead of limiting it to the iPhone 8, [B] not put a note on their website (like all other phone makers) warning you that usiing non-OEM spares may cause issues and you do it at your own risk and repair any damage at your own cost and [C] people around here would post articles and scream themselves hoarse in outrage when other device makers rennder 3rd party spares useless with an update because it happens somewhat regularly but only when Apple and Microsoft do it does it seem to warrant a Slashdot shitstorm.
At least SOMEBODY has a damned BRAIN around here...
Funny how 99.9999999999999999999% of the "Apple is teh EVILZ!!!" Posters are ACs?
OS 11.3.1 Fixes Bug Where Third-Party Screen Repairs Made iPhone 8 Touchscreens Stop Working
... so all the screaming of bloody murder over Apple doing this deliberately to hurt people who use 3rd party spares was completely unwarranted. I suppose we'll have to going back to sharpening our teeth now in preparation for the next feeding frenzy.
OS 11.3.1 Fixes Bug Where Third-Party Screen Repairs Made iPhone 8 Touchscreens Stop Working
This headline makes it sound like the third party screens were responsible for the problem, when it was Apple being a bunch of self-righteous assholes and ignoring the law.
It's NEVER just a simple thing with Apple, as far as you Haters are concerned, is it? It ALWAYS just HAS to be some anti-competitive, evil, money-sucking PLOT, right???
Slashdot Mirror
If you use a DAC that creates discrete steps, and feed the output through a perfect 0-22kHz lowpass filter, you get the original signal back.
Because it is impossible to create such perfect filter, a common method is to convert the 44 kHz sample rate to a much higher one, say 1 MHz. Feed that through a DAC, and then use a much simpler lowpass filter to get rid of anything above 500 kHz.
As far as higher harmonics: if you can't hear a pure sine at 30 kHz, you cannot hear the harmonics of a 15 kHz fundamental either.
That would be a Delta-Sigma D/A converter, which is most common nowadays and quite different from the original multibit type (see http://www.rane.com/note137.ht...). I think the point is there is a whole lot of filtering going on, and that is where the subtle differences emerge. That perfect copy is in theory only.
I don't think we even got into the differences between 1-bit (like SACD uses) and multibit D/As. They both have their pluses and minuses (sorry!); but if you crank the sample-rate of the single-bit (Delta-Sigma) converters up high enough, they are essentially the same (until you try to start EDITING in the Digital Domain. But that's another story!).
But I agree: The "Perfect Copy" ONLY applies to Sine Waves, and is ONLY in theory, depending on how "close" you want to look...
But they are not insignificant, as you can hear a very audible difference between the same source on the same system with different DA converters. It may well be you get closer to perfect the more you pay, I would not know, but I know there are big differences even in high end gear.
And I would not be surprised if those same subtle sort of differences were manifested in the original A/D conversion as well, though of course would have no real way to know.
IMHO, once you factor-out the bit depth, dithering, and sample rate, the differences in different D/A Signal-Recovery (Playback) systems are largely due to the reconstruction filter design.
It has been a long time since even the cheapest DACs had any monotonicity (linearity) problems, although I would imagine there are a few that still have some glitching issues.
But I'm talking about the DAC chip itself; not all the stuff around it that audiopiles lump together and call a "DAC".
You totally misunderstand how the DAC recreates the original signal. Watch this educational video linked above: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.sh...
First off, that really only gives you 2 samples per WAVEFORM at 20 kHz.
Watch the video. It demonstrates how 2 samples is enough.
Nice video, thanks! Didn't learn anything I didn't already know, except for the term "Gibbs Effect". I was familiar with the effect, just not the name.
HOWEVER...
The DAC doesn't "recreate the original signal". The DAC puts out Discrete STEPS (despite what the video claimed). That is ALL that a DAC does, period. They do not produce "Lollipop" output.
It is the Dithering (a/k/a digital noise) h/w and the "Reconstruction Filter" that is mostly responsible for attempting to smooth-out those STEPS, and remove aliasing and other artifacts.
So, I guess what I am really trying to point out is best demonstrated by the "Gibbs Effect" demonstration. Because music is very rarely all sine waves, it is the higher than 20 kHz harmonics that suffer from the 44.1 ks/Sec sample rate of CDs, and why cymbals sound like escaping steam, and tambourines make me want to scream on them, too.
IOW, I stand by my original statement that 44.1 ks/Sec is simply NOT enough, period; because we don't listen to sine waves, generally.
A regular 44khz audio CD can't capture the full resolution of a digital master done at e.g 96khz
Mastering at higher resolution is useful for mixing and filtering, but a 44 kHz final output is enough to capture the full range of your ears.
44.1 Ks/Sec is NOT enough to capture the full range of your ears, and I have dozens of recordings with cymbals that sound like escaping steam, and tambourine and bells that have aliasing artifacts down into the mid-bass(!!!) regions, to prove it.
If you accept 20-20 kHz as the range of normal human hearing, then 44.1 ks/Sec just does NOT cut it. Nyquist be damned. First off, that really only gives you 2 samples per WAVEFORM at 20 kHz. Great! But then, there's the so-called "Brick Wall" Low Pass Filter. It itself creates comb-filter artifacts down as far as you want to look. So, the problem is, the playback of that 44.1 ks/Sec produces nasty effects WAY down into the clearly-audible range. 96 Ks/Sec (DVD-A and 5.1) does a MUCH better job, a lot of which is due to the fact that the Brick Wall filtering effects are MUCH less in the audible range.
I'm no analog-snob (FAR from it. My entire entertainment system uses digital (HDMI and TOSLink) interconnects; but I know crap when I hear it. And CDs, while being pretty good sounding for most things, fall FAR short on some material.
Listen to a good-quality recording that has been mastered at at least 24/96 on a DVD-A, or even SACD. The difference in the far-upper regions (as I said, cymbals, tambourines, and bells), and you will hear what I mean.
44.1 kHz was NOT picked because it was "able to cover the entire range of human hearing". It was, like most engineering decisions, a compromise.
No, it's exactly the same thing when you are talking about Apple fan boys. If any of them had noticed the tiniest change we would definitely have heard about it by now!
So, those who prefer Apple products are more discerning? Is that what you are trying to say?
Why, Thank You for the compliment!
Idiot.
Open source is keystone to the technology Apple develops. The choice to open source a software which none of its current product line up depends is interesting. Apple is not in the open source business. So why? Why choose open source for a software that Apple API's neither support, integrate nor interoperate?
Interesting point.
Perhaps it will be rolled-out in the next major release of macOS and/or iOS, and this is Apple's way of Beta Testing it.
How do you KNOW it had no noticeable effect on User Experience?
Easy - no user has noticed an effect, therefore, there is no noticeable effect.
No.
You have not HEARD OF any User noticing a difference.
BIG difference!
Phew. There are just 2 of them!
The thing is, the only reason people get a TimeCapsule is because of that proprietary Time Machine feature. So the vendor lock-in, the proprietary protocol is at the very core of it.
The Airport router is not as bad, I admit, but still, I never met someone getting this router without also having many other Apple devices (usually at least a Mac and an iPhone, often a 3rd device such as an Apple TV). These people are usually vendor locked-in to the bone. They are never going to be able to move away from Apple.
Since there are many NASes that support both AirPlay and Time Machine, it is extremely disingenuous to dismiss those protocols as "Proprietary".
And someone's particular router choice is of no moment. There are MANY all-Apple installations that use third party routers. In fact, my 5th gen. airport AP is the first Apple Router I have owned, which I got because I was upgrading from "g" to "n" at home, and I have never had an interest in a Time Capsule, although they are a pretty nice all-in-one solution for some people.
It may or may not, depending on implementation. Anyways, the web page is blocked by default on the WAN side, which is what matters the most. I guess it's the same thing for Apple's utility.
I think that is correct.
Haha, first router I know which is not configurable over any web browser. Good one.
That may actually be a security ADVANTAGE.
Think about it.
Airplay and time machine were the two things I had in mind yes. There might be others.
Of course you can buy an Apple time machine and use it as a router. You are just wasting money, right?
But they have (just) a Router already. TimeCapsule is just an Apple Router with an HD built-In.
Nope. No other Proprietary Protocols, sorry. Time Machine and AirPlay are the only extra features on an Apple Router or Time Capsule. I can't remember if you can simply plug in a USB Drive to a regular Apple Router and use it for a Time Machine target; but there are several NAS', such as Synology, that support both AirPlay and Time Machine.
I'd take less vendor lock-in choices any day. Dozens of other companies will popup and offer WiFi router. There might even be more choices after Apple leave the segment.
I don't know where you get "Vendor Lock-In" with Apple's Routers. They offer some unique Services; but as far as their Router setup and usage goes, there isn't much in the way of Vendor Lock-In (no more than a lot of other brands). WiFi is WiFi, Ethernet is Ethernet. Can't do too much to "Lock-In" those protocols. The Airport (Setup) Utility is available for Windows, and the Windows version apparently works under WINE on Linux (at least for Ubuntu) :
https://discussions.apple.com/...
Now, If you're trying to spin "AirPlay" (AirPort Express) or "Time Machine" (Time Capsule); but there is no reason you HAVE to use those functions. It's still a WiFi Router, afterall. Plus, as far as AirPlay goes, there are plenty of third-party devices and applications on every Platform that support it. So, no real "Vendor Lock-In" there.
So, can you be specific; or, as I suspect, are you just saying there MUST be Vendor Lock-In, because... Apple?
Apple was not even a sane choice in the router segment, so it doesn't remove any choice for the well-informed customer.
Also, less vendor lock-in is better for the consumer. So to see companies trying to vendor lock-in us the most going out of a market segment is always good news.
What you are saying is nothing more than thinly-disguised Apple Hate, and is just a Strawman argument..
The reduction of Choice, even by a brand that YOU (the Lord God Emperor of All Things Digital) do not like, is STILL a Reduction of Choice.
His blind faith in apple and ignorance of all other tech keeps him strong.
Nice try, ignoramus. Take your Apple Hate and GTFO.
It is not "Blind Faith"; it is Experience. And your are sadly mistaken that I have an "Ignorance of all other tech". Just because I like Apple stuff as a general rule, and have had nearly universally good experiences with their products; doesn't at ALL mean I don't deal with, or know about, "other tech".
For example, I work for a small software Consultancy, developing Microsoft-based business s/w, and I assist in some of the IT. A couple of years ago, I spec'ed a Zyxel VPN/Firewall/Router (we don't use the Router part so much) for our Corporate network, and spec'ed a TP-Link Managed Switch (this was before all the controversy surrounding Chinese Back-Doors in their products) to hang the Synology NAS we backup-to (the first of two Synology NASes I have spec'ed for my employer) off of (before I realized the Synology could do its own Port-Throttling). I also spec'ed and Setup and Admin. our corporate Backups, which are using a somewhat unique backup strategy (thanks, Microsuck, for not bothering to maintain the "Last Modified" or "Archive" flags on your SQL DB Files!), because of the huge number of MS-SQL databases we develop-in and maintain.
I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point.
Now, does THAT sound like I have an "ignorance of all other tech?"
However, I still like Apple's Routers because they are the ONLY people I trust not to slipstream-in NSA backdoors into the Firmware.
That's not true. Huawei, for example, doesn't install NSA back doors. More seriously, how do you know that the NSA hasn't injected vulnerabilities into Apple's firmware? If you've followed the story of how the Juniper backdoor was introduced, you'll know that it doesn't necessarily require anyone in the company to be aware...
The truth is, I don't know.
But, I at least am fairly certain that Apple would at least not be COMPLICIT, based on their Corporate History. But you raise a good point.
Apple entered the wireless access point market because it wasn't competitive. There were few players and there was a big premium for 802.11g parts (many of which were crap), and Apple wanted to sell support for 802.11g as a feature on the PowerBooks. This feature was largely worthless if the expensive 802.11g WiFi interface on the laptop was always running in downgraded 802.11b-compatible mode. Something similar happened with 802.11n. By the time 802.11ac came along, the market was competitive enough that there was no need for Apple to do anything: if they did nothing, people were still able to get 802.11ac working well. In addition, 802.11ac was much less of a selling point. The jump from .11b to .11g was the difference between nice toy for demos and generally useful. The jump from .11g to .11n meant that the WiFi was typically not the bottleneck for most users. The jump to .11ac means that WiFi is even less of a bottleneck, but it's well past the point where most people care.
Interesting bit of history, thanks!
However, I still like Apple's Routers because they are the ONLY people I trust not to slipstream-in NSA backdoors into the Firmware.
Sounds like a plausible explanation of how you might break compatibility. However, given that the new protocol had no noticeable effect on the user experience - and given how quickly they reversed it probably no non-noticeable benefits either - that still suggests a dubious motivation for making it.
How do you KNOW it had no noticeable effect on User Experience? Have you horse-raced all the combinations of firmwares and displays?
Maybe Apple just decided that the difference wasn't worth the negative press. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know.
Nice to see another brand of highly overpriced routers fold up. There are much more flexible and cheaper alternatives.
Yes, less alternatives is ALWAYS better for the consumer.
Fucking idiot.
So what becomes of orphaned technologies like Time Machine and AirPlay? Do they plan to finally license them out to other vendors?
Neither of those technologies depend on Apple Routers.
Time Machine doesn't do anything other technologies do, anyway. They just made it drop dead simple to implement, and built the backup-browser into MacOS.
As for AirPlay, it does use some semi-proprietary texhnology, I guess; but considering there are already multiple third-patty AirPlay broadcasters and receivers, on multiple platforms (including Android, frinstance), I don't think that the loss of Apple Routers makes any difference.
I will say, however, that I have had several different non-Apple routers, and one of the things I like about my Apple Router is how simple it is to set it up in Bridge Mode. Yes, I have had other Routers that can do Bridge, but it is often non-obvious how to set it up.
Yes, but that would generally mean that they would never have worked. This is a situation where a display worked absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped working after a software update. Clearly, the display could communicate at a hardware level.
Maybe Apple implemented a part of the Comm. Protocol that THEY had planned-for, but not yet implemented; so when the Grey Market Engineers Sniffed the Protocol out of a working phone (how else?), they didn't get what wasn't being used yet (or was being transmitted with a dummy value).
To me, that sounds MUCH more likely; but what do I know? I'm just an Embedded Systems Dev. ;-)
It was on the front page last week.
Are you talking about the guy using non-Apple parts for Repair?
The the shipments of 3rd-party (not Apple branded) parts they keep having Customs seize as "counterfeit" (which would require that the parts carry Apple branding, which they do not) and the 3rd-party repair shops they keep suing aren't part of a crackdown? They're Apple's way of saying they approve?
Show me an example where NON-Apple-Branded (but not Apple manufactured) parts were Seized at the behest of Apple.
... so all the screaming of bloody murder over Apple doing this deliberately to hurt people who use 3rd party spares was completely unwarranted.
Or maybe a company backed off after the outrage of their actions and this screaming of bloody murder caused them to release a version of software that didn't screw over consumers who daredeth to not contribute to the Cook retirement fund.
Rather than calling it "unwarranted" a far more accurate term would be "effective".
And maybe if Apple was really cracking down on 3rd party parts use they would have [A] done it accoss their entire product line, iPhones, iPads, Macs inclusive instead of limiting it to the iPhone 8, [B] not put a note on their website (like all other phone makers) warning you that usiing non-OEM spares may cause issues and you do it at your own risk and repair any damage at your own cost and [C] people around here would post articles and scream themselves hoarse in outrage when other device makers rennder 3rd party spares useless with an update because it happens somewhat regularly but only when Apple and Microsoft do it does it seem to warrant a Slashdot shitstorm.
At least SOMEBODY has a damned BRAIN around here...
Funny how 99.9999999999999999999% of the "Apple is teh EVILZ!!!" Posters are ACs?
Now WHY is that?
OS 11.3.1 Fixes Bug Where Third-Party Screen Repairs Made iPhone 8 Touchscreens Stop Working
... so all the screaming of bloody murder over Apple doing this deliberately to hurt people who use 3rd party spares was completely unwarranted. I suppose we'll have to going back to sharpening our teeth now in preparation for the next feeding frenzy.
Precisely.
OS 11.3.1 Fixes Bug Where Third-Party Screen Repairs Made iPhone 8 Touchscreens Stop Working
This headline makes it sound like the third party screens were responsible for the problem, when it was Apple being a bunch of self-righteous assholes and ignoring the law.
It's NEVER just a simple thing with Apple, as far as you Haters are concerned, is it? It ALWAYS just HAS to be some anti-competitive, evil, money-sucking PLOT, right???
You're just fucking RIDICULOUS.
GTFO, COWARD!