Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 15:17:11 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v2kupb$17b87$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v26sfc$222ek$1@dont-email.me> <slrnv4ekt6.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v280o0$2994u$2@dont-email.me> <slrnv4mbdg.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v2fbr4$3usaf$2@dont-email.me> <slrnv4mdf8.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v2fhfu$7f5$2@dont-email.me> <slrnv4n0jc.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v2g5cr$4fiq$2@dont-email.me> <v2hr8q$hmr3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2htpi$ggbj$1@dont-email.me> <v2j73h$pvqr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2kcka$13sih$1@dont-email.me> <v2kija$151bh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 16:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aacfc37cc8405ac73fc30d2653f115ec";
	logging-data="1289479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ji/2oxb8YfzvjfKK3c3cek5no/5TCkxKQt50nAzuLcw=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QnxI/nqdHFRFIkWtrntWk8G4RWE=
In-Reply-To: <v2kija$151bh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4748

On 22/05/2024 11:49, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/22/2024 2:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 21/05/2024 23:26, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2024 3:43 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
>>>> I can offer some real-world data that may be of use.  I manage
>>>> WiFi access points in offices around the world.  In every case,
>>>
>>>> Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
>>>> at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.
>>>
>>> But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
>>> folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?
>>
>> My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at 
>> least in the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support.
>> Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some 
> 
> Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?

Not necessarily. I suspect the market will diversify between those who 
value respectable battery service life and those that insist on 
streaming full 4k video onto an 4" OLED screen. They must have 
incredible eyesight is all I can say!

> Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell
> phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up
> being the new "commodity level"?

We have sort of reached that stage with the consumer grade PCs. 
Improvements for single threaded usage are now very slow indeed.

>> Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?
> 
> No; that was the point of my "1950's Philco" anecdote.
> 
> BUT (!), I don't want to restrict the market to only folks who like
> gold-plating!
> 
> Think of the disappointment you feel when something you want isn't
> compatible with "what you have".  E.g., why can't I run Windows
> on my ______.  Or, why can't I keep using my 5 year old printer
> (has marking technology advance to the point that 5 years makes
> something obsolete??)   Or...

Pretty much. You can extend the life of some kit with third party 
drivers or other tricks but the OS has a nasty habit of prohibiting 
useful things to make life easier for the lowest common denominator of 
user. Windows Safe mode or whatever it is called Lock In for instance.

Many things today are clipped and glued together on a one time basis 
with no reasonable prospect of safely prizing it apart again even though 
the glue used is nominally thermoplastic.
> 
>     "For 'nominal' cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
>      that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest), ..."
> 
> It's a balancing act; if you extend your support "backwards"
> (in time/capabilities), then you potentially address more users.
> But, you offer a product with diminished capabilities.

Famously IBM got it completely wrong insisting that OS/2 must run on the 
then shipping 286 models even though it was dire on that hardware. 
Conflating the OS/2 launch with lockin PS/2 MCA hardware didn't help.

It opened a Window for MS to take market share with Win3 that targetted 
the 386 only. We all know the outcome of that monumental IBM cock up. It 
united all of the PC clone makers to produce the EISA standard bus.

-- 
Martin Brown