5879051
story
Comments: 135 +- Apple: New iPod Touch Has an 802.11n Chip on Saturday September 12, @02:03PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Saturday September 12, @02:03PM
from the more-and-more-like-a-little-tablet dept.
from the more-and-more-like-a-little-tablet dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwireless.gif); width:37px; height:77px;
wireless
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapple.gif); width:52px; height:64px;
apple
eggboard writes "iFixIt has discovered a Broadcom 802.11a/b/g/n chip in the just-announced iPod touch (32 GB and 64 GB) models that uses single-stream 802.11n. Single-stream doesn't get the full power of N, but it boosts speed enough that — along with space-time block encoding, a feature coming soon to Wi-Fi access points with two or more radios — the iPod touch could be an effective networked media server, for streaming and transfer, possibly through the new iTunes Home Sharing feature."
The best definition of a gentleman is a man who can play the accordion --
but doesn't.
-- Tom Crichton
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Why didn't they tell us? (Score:2)
Why didn't they tell us earlier? Seems odd to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
now that the spec is final, Apple will write a driver and make sure to enable n only via their WiFi access points
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why didn't they tell us earlier?
iFixIt? Because they just found out.
Apple still hasn't told anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Why hasn't Apple told anyone?
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible they may sell another $5 upgrade [digg.com] for N as they did when N first came out, for the macbooks that shipped juuust before N was announced on them.
Parent
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe because this chip really does not support N?
Just because it is from that family of chips doesn't mean it has N.
Look at the designator on the end of the chipset full designation: BCM4329FKUBG That BG at the end may be telling.
I'm sure when Apple calls, Broadcom pays attention, and will burn custom chip sets, omitting any feature Apple does not want.
the full BCM4329FKUBG designation does not appear in Broadcom's catalog. Its a custom chip.
Besides, N requires special antennas. They were not found.
Parent
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Funny)
FKUBG... hmmm. Fuck You Bill Gates?
Parent
Re:Why didn't they tell us? (Score:5, Funny)
Why didn't they tell us earlier? Seems odd to me.
It's part of their marketing. Now, when fanboys say that Apple products are NOT more expensive when you compare them feature to feature with others, the fanboys can also point out that you're also buying features that you don't know about! See how superior Apple products are?!
Parent
Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Wireless! More space than a Nomad! I finally have a reason to get an iPod!
Server? (Score:2)
the iPod touch could be an effective networked media server
I doubt you could call it effective when it would still be tied down by battery life. That could be remedied by plugging it in, but if you have a computer, it seems it would just make more sense to stream from the computer than the iPod.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment makes sense, until the moment you want to take a movie you own over to a friend's house to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment makes sense, except why would you have movies stored on your iPod? Surely you don't try to squint at a 4 inch screen for 90 minutes.. Keep them on an external drive (where space doesn't cost you $25/GB)
Re:Server? (Score:5, Informative)
iPods output to televisions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But then it's not a streaming network server is it, it's a portable device with a shitty composite output.
Re: (Score:2)
Very concise, me likey.
Re:Server? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Server? (Score:5, Informative)
Try a better search term?
Here's a third party example http://www.bestofferbuy.com/AVout-TV-IDChip-Cable-for-iPod-Nano-3ClassicTouchiPhone-1-p-9946.html?currency=GBP&utm_source=gbase&utm_medium=cse&utm_campaign=gbase [bestofferbuy.com]
And apple's official KB article http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1454 [apple.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So what do I do with those weird looking plugs? :P
Do TVs still come with composite inputs? I know all my displays have D-Sub/DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort, so I guess I'd be SOL if I had an iPod...
Re:Server? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm blabbering about the fact that I'd prefer digital content to stay digital on its way to the digital display instead of going through D/A/D conversion, as well as having to pass through a crappy overpriced (probably badly shielded) iPod=>Component cable in analog form.
Or maybe it's the fact that I don't actually know anyone that has a device in their home that accepts component inputs...
Re: (Score:2)
The ipod touch right here would support
2. 480i/576i.
On my nice 1080p TV. I'm so going to downgrade the latest bluray to 480i !
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I certainly don't see a USB port on my television.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment makes sense til you say that he owns the movies. They're actually being licensed.
iLinkIt (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the story mentioned above:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPod-touch-3rd-Generation/1158/2 [ifixit.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't go as far as to imply that the slashdot editors even read submissions to the point that they could tell if it's about Apple.
Not how Home Sharing works (Score:3, Informative)
Home sharing is just a way of automatically keeping multiple iTunes libraries up to date with new purchases when they are all tied to the same iTunes store account. It's not any kind of actual sharing service, just a synchronization service.
Re:Not how Home Sharing works (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Silly (Score:5, Interesting)
This is silly. There would be so many other bottlenecks on a mobile device of this nature that the speed of the connectivity isn't an issue. I bet the iPod can't even consume (let alone serve) data at 802.11g speeds.
Re:Silly (Score:4, Interesting)
It's vastly easier to shovel bytes than to do something intelligent with them. Serving the files to another device is well within the capabilities of the iPhone. I have a DT Research DT168 with a 500 MHz Geode chip, and hooking up a 1TB MyBook to it via USB2 gives me real-world transfer rates of about 7MB/sec to assorted clients (all of which are more than powerful enough to receive the data much faster) over good old 100Mbps ethernet. I'm positive the iPhone or iPod Touch is capable of saturating 802.11g if its storage can handle it; and why not?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem I can see with it is battery life. How much fun is it if you have to stop your movie in the middle because the iPod ran out of battery? You would probably want to keep it charging, although with every computer these days having a USB port, that might not be too much o
Re: (Score:2)
... I've heard a 486 serving static pages can manage to fill a T1 line.
It isn't _that_ hard to saturate 1.544Mbps. Most cable/DSL downlink speeds are faster than that. Now, a T3 is a bit more challenging, but nothing a single decent machine can't handle.
Wait a Minute Here... (Score:3, Interesting)
So is this something that just came out in the final standard yesterday that all of the pre-standard devices don't implement properly, if at all?
All this means (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All this means (Score:5, Informative)
just as they won't activate the bluetooth chip inside older Ipod Touches.
Er, they did...
If you pay Apple 10 bucks for the 3.0 OS upgrade, that unused bluetooth chip in the second-gen iPod Touch will spring into action... [tomsguide.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it's only 4.99$ for the 3.1 upgdade.
At least that's what it cost me to go from 2.x to 3.1.
Re: (Score:2)
GP is probably reporting Australian Dollars or something similar
Nah. GP was mentally converting £6 to dollars and negligently used the actual exchange rate rather than Apple's fantasy £1=$1 rate.
802.11N hardware OTHER than the chip? (Score:4, Informative)
The chip is one thing but without any other supporting hardware, it doesn't make much difference. The chip could have been chosen for better power characteristics or a few other reasons. Time will tell if apple enables any N style features but I am not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes 5GHz would be very nice for the reason you mention. I've moved my home wifi net to 5GHz to get it out of the 2.4 muck and it would be nice if I could get an iPod touch that would operate there.
However it won't be until they show up with a camera too.
Yet still no FM radio. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you might want to check out the new iPod nano.
Link to stories (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, I didn't properly include the link.
My analysis about how the 802.11n stuff works related to an iPod touch, such as explaining what single-stream 802.11n means as a media server is here at TidBITS. [tidbits.com] The iFixIt tear down is here [ifixit.com].
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not surprising, and now that it's confirmed, we can expect Apple to release an 802.11n enabler for iPod touch in the future and charge $.9.95 for it. They're so predictable these days...
What's more interesting than this is that the new iPod touch, while almost identicial to the old one aside from a faster processor and some other things, is almost the exact same inside except for one small change [macrumors.com]: a space big enough to fit the same camera found on the iPod nano (in previous generations there was an antenna cable socket, which has been moved and, in its absence is now just plastic spacer).
There were rumors of an iPod touch camera before it came out, even rumors that pinpointed the camera to this exact location in the device, and there was also a recent rumor that they pulled it due to some problems at the last minute. Looks like this confirms that, and I'm sure we can expect an updated iPod touch in the future with a camera. That, in my opinion, is far more interesting.