WiMAX is cool!

I'm calling it. Digitalism's Pogo is going to be the song for MacWorld 2008. It fits the tagline perfectly.

"A Computer for the Home? Who Would Want a product like that???"

WiMax - Get Onboard or get left behind,,,,

Yes, the same way that it has saved FireWire!!! Ha Ha Ha...

I'd like this.

UNPROVEN? Uh, tell that to most of Korea who use it in the WiBro version.

And there is more to it than just Intel and Sprint.

I suggest you check out this link:

[www.wimaxforum.org]

I dunno. It's not like WiMax is gonna cover the whole of Europe or the rest of the world. It doesn't seen like something that's worth doing if you want to to sell it outside of America. I don't want to pay extra for a piece of tech that I won't even be able to use.

@ihavenoimaginationwhenitcomestopickingausername:

Google "wimax europe" before posting stuff like this. There is more Wimax in Europe than there is in the US at the moment. Granted, some of them are still pilot projects, but it's most certainly not a US only standard.

I doubt it. Too unproven and not enough coverage. Apple doesn't even have 3g or blu in their products.

when this happens, and believe me it will, you can kiss the cellular market goodbye. apple's plan for the iphone has always been to use wimax (or successor technologies). what you think that 5-year exclusive with AT&T was AT&T's idea? jobs & co needed the time to grok the ins and outs of running a telco and wait for technology to catch up.

mock and scoff all you want - but pick up some apple stock it's a fricken bargain at $175.

@Brian Lam: We're talking in the US, not korea.

USB? Didn't that compete with Apple's own Firewire/IEEE1394 /iLINK?

Apple might just switch to 802.11pre-n in all products.

Nope this definetly just killed any chances of apple saving anything- [www.apple.com]
Apples One to one service HA!

Ha, Apple popularized USB? If by popularized you mean tried like hell to kill it so that their proprietary Firewire standard would be adopted, then I guess you're right.

@jsmjr816:

they've had procare for a while now, and although it may not be beneficial for many it is still a really good deal (esp. if you're near an apple store with creatives that specialize in pro apps)

Why on Earth would it be risky? A sleek, new Mac, with or without WiMax is still a sleek, new Mac. It isn't like they would toss bluetooth or WiFi. I see no downside. If it doesn't take off they don't really lose anything.

As far as Blu-Ray, I seriously doubt we'll ever see that technology in anything beyond the Mac Pros possibly. Blu-Ray runs counter to what Apple is trying to achieve with their entertainment model.

They don't want *either* optical format to succeed on any DVD-like scale.

@sine23: I think you better check your history. Apple put USB on the map with the original iMac when it was the only connection allowed to printers and mice and keyboards and things. The rest of the PC world as still using PS/2.

well, duh... wimax is the next generation to wifi and apple is simply developing products that work better, wimax will give there products such as the iphone, itouch, there laptops, and hopefully soon a new apple newton (which may now be the iphone/itouch)

apples getting closer to something I may actually buy. once they develop a product that can replace my laptop, phone, and snapshot camera then that will be the day that apple becomes three times bigger then they already are.

"Ha, Apple popularized USB? If by popularized you mean tried like hell to kill it so that their proprietary Firewire standard would be adopted, then I guess you're right."

What do you mean? Apple jump started USB when they put it in the original iMac. They even essentially forced consumers to use it by leaving off all of the legacy Mac ports.

And fire wire isn't proprietary in any real sense. It has been on hard drives and video cameras for years.

@sine23: Uh. Wrong.

Apple singlehandedly forced entire industries to start making USB devices. Epson had to make a printer just for people with an iMac, there were ISDN modems, webcams and other devices that only worked on the mac for ages. It wasn't another 2 years till it really started appearing in PC's. Apple never tried to push Firewire for desktop peripherals.

Way too early for baked in Wimax. Not because the technology is "unproven", (the data radio works just fine), but it will take a year or two to get the network built out.

Even AT&T's #G HSPDA is hardly ubiquitous. Also, keep in mind that the National Carriers have an incentive to migrate off the circuit switched channel architecture that divides voice and data, and really want to go with an all data bearer regimen. Everything over the data channel.

BTWm Wimax is not, "the next gen wifi":

Wifi is an unlicensed band technology and will continue ti dominate access points in residences and internal plant. Wimax is a carrier level technology.

There will never be Wimax access points - modems and access gear, yes. Wimax supports a much better raoming and handoff protocol for metropolitan area nets.

Man, as someone who works for a competitor, I really DO hope Apple takes on WiMAX. Why? Well, when customers take home their shiny WiMAX-enabled Macbooks and try to access Sprint's XOHM service, only to be told that service in their area won't be active until the middle of 2009, the angry customer service calls to Apple are going to be priceless!

WiMax can use licensed spectrum, right? Apple's sitting on 30 billion in cash, probably throwing in with Google on the spectrum auction. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to get a head start. Once they own their own chunk of the 700mhz spectrum, they can start their own nationwide Apple-only WiMax ISP.

@mattjumbo: Yup, and the original USB spec was never designed for HD connectivity. High bandwidth was the domain of Firewire also known as IEEE 1394 (meaning its an open standard, and not proprietary). The competition only emerged in the successor specifications. And really, if you think that battle is about what's good for the end consumer, think again. It's only about hardware manufacturers trying to maximize profit margins on their products.

Apple did indeed put USB on the map, and allow peripheral markets to have a base to sell to.

USB2 was a different story. Apple only adopted USB2 when it was clear FireWire wasn't proceeding fast enough, nor was it cheap enough, to be a solution valuable enough to stave off the adoption of USB2 across the industry.

Only late in the adoption of this technology did Apple jump on the bandwagon, and even then Apple didn't make a big deal out of it...

WiMax is an incredibly cost effective platform. Sprint is spending $5 billion to provide connectivity to 90 percent of the U.S. Fiber carriers spend three times that much to cover a fraction of that, and most people don't need 100Mb/s connections.

WiMax avoids much of telco infrastructure costs and thus is a top solution for developing nations.

@mullingitover: Kooky, but I have to hand it to you, very clever, especially if they actually do it.

It'd also be more retarded than not having the iPhone name before announcing it. Now they would be competing with the likes of cell phone companies for what they need to run their business, not Cisco for a token partnership and a few $$ for a trademark.

Unproven? My internet connection for most of the last ten years has been WiMax. We have a locally owned ISP (beamspeed.net) that uses it. Works great.

WiMax is an incredibly cheap, cost-effective way to get internet out into areas that have no hope in hell of ever seeing highspeed over a dedicated line.

Carriers are going to put their plans for wired highspeed in home on a back burner and just invest in wimax in remote or rural areas. This means millions who are not serviced by highspeed in north america will be major potential customers for this new apple. Risky?

ScoobyDoo, WiBro is to this point a dismal failure in Korea.

[www.techdirt.com]

MULLINGITOVER, So Apple will ship boxes with WiMax installed, then find out if they bid high enough to win spectrum? Then get a network rolling? And BTW the spectrum will not be available to deploy in until 2009.
Methinks you should mull that over some more.
Folks keep talking about WiMax like it is proven to be viable and cost effective and provide dramatically better cost effectiveness than existing 3G networks. It is not and has not.
Apple won't be sticking WiMax in their laptops anytime soon. So says me.

@abmw :- WiMAX certainly does NOT have a "better roaming and handoff protocol for metropolitan nets" as 802.16d and 802.16e doesn't have a ratified method of "mobility" yet, yes 802.16e has room for this in the standard, but it doesn't do it yet.

@mulliingitover :- The WiMAX forum doesn't allow the use of 700MHz (_yet_) so using this technology in this band wouldn't be certified WiMAX, vendors who produced equipment that worked in this way wouldn't be able to use the WiMAX name, but maybe this could change, Apple has used pre-defined and early standards before (802.11G).

@tvgenius :- Beamspeed uses MMDS *NOT* WiMAX, WiMAX hasn't been around for 10 years. Long range internet access using radio isn't a new thing, but WiMAX in its current form has only been with us since 2004.

WiMAX certainly isn't a WiFi replacement, the design of the network is complex (I've designed them) and VERY expensive.

@Scazza: What benefit would wimax offer over licensed microwave links? The only real technical advantage I see is that wimax uses tokens/scheduling.

Can Apple save WiMax? If anyone can, Apple can!

But what does WiMax need saving from exactly? A quick trip to Korea, which is already v2 WiBro, will reveal to you the true potential of this technology.

@all: The biggest benefit of WiMax is the distance/area that a single access point can service. One tower can cover more than 100 miles and still retain broadband speeds. It still requires (as I understand it) some sort of connectivity (Fiber, etc), similar to cell towers, what sets it apart is its carrying capacity to spectrum ratio, and the ease of deploying it in rural areas.

As for Mac integration of WiMax in their product line, that would be a huge win, but Intel and Sprint are not the only ones on board. Samsung, Nokia and Motorola are all partnering with Sprint for the Xohm buildout, and have committed resources to the technology. Sprint already has agreements with Dell, HP, and other PC manufacturers for their EVDO data network, and you can guarantee that these companies are well aware of the tech and have an integration plan in place.

The big question is whether Sprint can make it happen, and if so, when. I personally am praying to the tech gods that it happens, and with Apple's recent success (iphone), an integration of Wimax in their new line might just be the boost the technology needs.

Guys please. WiMax is being used with amazing success in South America where basic phone infrastructure is, well, third-world.

There's no reason why it wouldn't work here. We desperately need *something* that'll give us true high-speed wireless access. What we got now is simply laughable, and the fact that we pay for it dearly, offensive.

WiMax is amazing. But if they're going to do this, they'd better be announcing some plan to partner with someone other than the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers at Sprint for the connectivity, because that would be beyond fucked up. If Apple tells me they're getting in the WiMax game (hey, maybe that's what all that cash on hand was for...) then I'm psyched. But I'll be pissed if I think they're trying to make me shell out money to a company that couldn't find its own ass with both hands and a map.

@ihavenoimaginationwhenitcomestopickingausername: That's why the folks in the United Arab Emirates also recently launched a WiMax Net across Pakistan_

[www.engadget.com]

"Wimax avoids much of the Telco infrastructure cost...."

No it doesn't, if the network operator wants to get paid for the service! They have to have the exact same infrastructure as the Telcos, including a subscriber database, subscriber ID authentication, billing system, base stations, sites they rent, backhaul links, handoff, roaming agreements etc The only difference between Wimax and cellular is that it is a different and unproven over-ther-air waveform, which gives more bits per second (theoretically, downhill with the wind behind you, overhead not included) at the expense of communications range, requiring many more cells and higher backhaul costs.