Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Network Hardware Apple

Apple Abandons Development of Wireless Routers, To Focus On Products That Return More Profit (bloomberg.com) 238

Posted by msmash 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Abandons Development of Wireless Routers, To Focus On Products That Return More Profit More

Apple Abandons Development of Wireless Routers, To Focus On Products That Return More Profit

Comments Filter:

  • great news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:02AM (#53331221) Homepage
    as someone who supports consumer grade routers, this is the best news I could get today. these airports are the worst

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by 605dave ( 722736 )

      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?

      • Re:great news (Score:5, Informative)

        by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:26AM (#53331367) Homepage
        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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 605dave ( 722736 )

          Thanks Ganjadude, good info to have.

        • Re:great news (Score:5, Informative)

          by gmack ( 197796 ) <gmack@noSpAM.innerfire.net> on Monday November 21, 2016 @11:45AM (#53331871) Homepage Journal
          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
          • I have not tried any of the asus branded stuff. Ive always liked them for mobos but i simply havent given them any tests personally. glad to see some more love for asus though
            • You need to have a look at the Asus-merlin [lostrealm.ca] project as well. It's a custom firmware for Asus routers. It includes a persistant JFFS partition and a raft of other cool features. I've had three, and the only complaint that I have is that, under load, they can get up to 50 C. The lower memory 520gU was the only one that I encountered a lock up issue with (when downloading several files from a CDN with Download-them-all) and video streaming, and that was only 1-2x per year. All of the others have been extre

          • Agreed. Off the shelf firmware is very dumbed down and often buggy or slow. Sometimes putting new firmware on, even without any extra customization or using new features, can result in a big improvement in performance.

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

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          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 au

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nucrash ( 549705 )

        This is a bit of a kick in the shorts to me as well. I have a 2 TB Time Capsule which has done a great job over the years. I plan to beef up it's storage, but if they call it quits, I am going to have to abandon ship and move over to something else.

        I am thinking I want a Check Point Wireless 730 unit. If I am going to have to upgrade, I might as well look ton security and VPN as well.

      • From my personal experience Airport units have been a god send.

        This has been my experience as well. In my experience, Airport routers have been more problem-free than the various D-Link and Linksys routers I'd previously owned.

      • I have gotten to like the MikroTik routers. Easy to set up if you use the defaults, yet incredibly configurable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        I found the Ubiquiti UniFI AC access point (UAP-AC) and the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite quite effective.

        The EdgeRouter is my router; The wireless access point is mounted inside on the ceiling in the middle of the house at the apex
        it's powered using Power over Ethernet from a TP-Link switch, and from that one access point, there is full coverage with several hundred megabits
        of throughput from anywhere in the building, which is about 4000 square feet....

    • 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.

      • Re:great news (Score:4, Informative)

        by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:25AM (#53331353) Homepage
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

          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.

          R

          • I have to support non technical users and swap probably a few a week. any other brand is literally drop and play but their airports take alot more time. which is why i said they are great....just not from an admin point of view

          • I wonder what kind of cheap shit you're comparing them to. I mean you've just described every router i've ever had be it Netgear, Linksys, or whatever rebadged thing an ISP ships me.

            Reboot a wifi router? Really. Hell even my TPLink which I bought for $30 to extend wifi coverage to my shed has never been rebooted and it spends it's life in a hot shitty dusty environment.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Bongo ( 13261 )

        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. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • Re:great news (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @11:11AM (#53331637) Journal

        . 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          The routers speak SNMP, so you can use a third-party tool if you prefer.

          If you're a normal consumer, your chances of configuring a device over SNMP without the hardware vendor's software
          are about the chances of flipping a quarter and having it miraculously land standing on its side, perfectly balanced so you get neither head nor tails, and have that repeat 3 times in a row..

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by skids ( 119237 )

      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.

      • i still prefer different SSIDs for each stream, makes troubleshooting a little easier when you got a bunch of different equipment from different vendors

      • or telling you to put different SSID names on different bands.

        Lots of devices are bad about selecting the "right" band, not just Apple ones. And lots of devices don't have any interface to select a band, so you just get whatever you get.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by skids ( 119237 )

          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.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by swb ( 14022 )

          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

          • 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!

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skids ( 119237 )

              Another, though costly, solution to this is to dense up your APs and turn the 2.5 radios down so low that even Apples choose the 5GHz. Not that I'm suggesting it for your setup, but it's what we have to do on enterprise these days.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by swb ( 14022 )

              There is, but what I notice is that 5 Ghz availability varies greatly depending on where I am. More than a couple of walls, and I'm in 2.4 Ghz. If I had picked only the 5 Ghz SSID, I'd get no wireless at all in some locations.

              And the stupid devices are never smart enough to associate with 5 Ghz SSID over 2.4 Ghz SSID if I have autoconnect for both, even when 5 Ghz only works fine.

              So for at least my local house structure, AP locations and use cases it makes more sense to create a single SSID on both bands

    • They used to be fantastic, a couple generations ago. Now they are garbage that deserves to be wheeled out the back door to the dumpsters. Between the restrictive "utility" at may or may not show you the options you want, and the completely fucked 802.1x support... good riddance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by no1nose ( 993082 )

      Agreed. Their routers were so bad.

  • Circa 2010 (IIRC) the Airport was the best selling router on the planet. Now it's not selling.

    • When they only sell for $180 and they're expected to last for 5 years or more, that's less than $40/year per household gross... not even iPod territory, not worth the time and support hassles.

  • Really? (Score:4, Funny)

    by trevc ( 1471197 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:07AM (#53331251)
    Glad they explained what they are /s "Routers are access points that connect laptops, iPhones and other devices to the web without a cable."

  • Airport (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:12AM (#53331285)
    I'm so glad my Airport router died. In true Apple fashion, you needed external software to configure it. Totally bizarre.
    • Look at me I'm on my IInternet

    • How exactly do you think Ubiquiti's access points are configured?

      • I guess if you consider a web browser or SSH client to be "external software" then your comment isn't amazingly stupid, but most people don't.

        • Ah yes, SSH clients, the favorite program of the core Apple demographic.

          And you can't control a Ubiquiti access point through a web browser until you setup the controller. Which is a 'wonderful' java app that you need to leave running on a machine 24/7.

          • Actually, an ssh client is on every Mac in the last 15 years. Terminal.app

            Unlike windows. Where the default Putty ssh client is a shit interface.

            • I know that. It's how I got into Linux/BSD back in early 2000. OS X was the gateway to the command line for me.

              I don't think my sister would even know what to do in a terminal if you opened it for her.

              The core Apple Demographic is not going to be opening a terminal and configuring anything. How is it so hard for Slashdot to understand that these people exist and purchase things?

        • There was no http console on the airport I had.

  • Time Capsule (Score:3)

    by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:14AM (#53331295)

    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?

    • 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 pro

      • Re:Time Capsule (Score:5, Insightful)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:38AM (#53331455) Homepage

        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.

        • 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.

          That's a totally reasonable sentiment, although it's a bit amusing to examine how you chose to truncate that quote.

      • and get over your childish tech tribalism--hopefully you'll learn that technology is supposed to "automagically work together". The point of technology is to make peoples' lives easier, not to serve as a basis for chest-thumping.

        • The tribalism isn't mine; it's yours. If you can't admit it when Apple makes a mistake, let alone admit that maybe their products are just the tiniest bit overhyped, you're part of the problem. It's not a problem that will sink Apple (at least, not in my lifetime), but in the absence of a strong effort to maintain, innovate and expand their walled garden, people will very, very slowly begin to realize that Apple is just another tech company.

          You overlook my thesis entirely in your rush to defend the 80

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      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 [bytesandbolts.com] using FreeNAS (which I am just starting to play with right now)

      • The demographic that wants Time Machine to work out of the box doesn't have a large overlap with the demographic that is going to setup a FreeNAS machine.

        This is going to come back and bite Apple again. Jobs wanted a set of devices that was plugin, turn on, work. My video processing machine is a MacMini core solo. I've forgotten about how easy Snow Leopard was to use as an OS. I plugged my DV cam in via firewire, it showed up in iMovie.

        Airport was the same way. Yes, there are 'better' solutions out there bu

      • Note that FreeNAS simply uses netafp, which is not officially supported by Apple and relies on having reverse engineered the protocol. Other commercial NAS offerings do this as well and have occasionally broken when new versions of OS X come out. Netafp also lacks some of the explicit sync and revert parts of the protocol that Time Machine uses, so you will sometimes get backup corruption. I use this approach (with plain FreeBSD, not FreeNAS), but periodically TimeMachine will complain that the backups a

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          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....

    • Most NAS drives have a time-machine mode-- WD, Synology, etc. for Mac backups. In their day, I liked the AirPort routers; solid, well made hardware with good signal. They are grossly obsolete at this point though, and I can't see Apple being able to do anything to innovate in this space.

    • 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 [apple.com]. 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dhaen ( 892570 )
        Useful info, thanks.Should make TM much simpler with non-Apple hardware. Also suggests another reason for the depreciation of AFP.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mlts ( 1038732 )

      Synology and QNAP NAS products offer Time Machine compatibility. It isn't tough to set up (make a directory, share it), but it is an acceptable replacement for a Time Capsule. As an added bonus, you can have units that have RAID protection, and be able to take the TM stash and snapshot/back that up to a separate place (although you are backing up a backup.)

    • Agreed, Time Capsule is the bomb. Best backup and restore system ever invented. I can't believe that dealing with this on Windows is still such a huge fucking pain in the ass, and is one of the reasons I hate Windows. This should be considered basic functionality.

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

    Thanks for clearing that up for me - what is this place now, Facebook?

    • It was a quote, and the only thing wrong in the post was he forgot to omit the trivial (for us /. readers) stuff so that context wasn't lost on the following phrase, which went through the whole yard of router products Apple will stop producing. Arguably not all of us know he entire line (me included) - I had no idea they had an EXTREME version of an airport. I wonder what them Frankfurt folks have to say about it..

  • Routers aren't viewed by consumers as a fashion statement, and therefore cannot command the usual high price that other Apple fashion statements command.

    • Except routers are the one thing between most Mac users at home and the Internet. Apple's routers filled a niche of 'working'. I've had far fewer problems diagnosing Apple router problems of family members than D-Link/Netgear/Etc.

      While I have no problem setting up Ubiquity ERL and Access Points or DD-WRT/OpenWRT on a generic router there are people out there that do have a problem with it. They just want their devices to work together. The AirportExtreme got high marks https://www.cnet.com/products/... [cnet.com] in r

  • Oh Really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dust038 ( 4606581 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @10:45AM (#53331477)
    Like that $300 book of pictures of just their products?

  • Of Course (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MichaelJ ( 140077 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @11:04AM (#53331601)

    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?

  • The annoying part for me when it comes to having to replace them will be finding some new solution for AirPlay; admittedly this will be a nice motivator for finally ditching iTunes.

  • Apple's made this kind of decision before (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gmail.TWAINcom minus author> on Monday November 21, 2016 @11:21AM (#53331717) Journal

    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.

    • They aren't killing off peripherals. They are booming. They are the world's leading supplier of lightning audio and USB-C adapting peripherals.

    • That was a trip, seeing how people inside the reality distortion field view history.

      Apple had a big printer business because they created Postscript - a way to scale fonts to arbitrary size. This is the one thing you got right. Only worked with laser printers though, not the dot matrix printers which were common in those days. (This isn't strictly true, but getting Postscript to work with a dot matrix printer like I had to to print banners was a PITA. You had to hack it so the computer did the font pr

  • Does any other router have this tech? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MichaelJ ( 140077 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @11:32AM (#53331791)

    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?

  • Too bad, I had nothing but good experiences with the Airport line.

  • I can see where Apple would want to stop focusing on making devices like routers...

    However there is one very negative side effect - going forward where will the Time Capsule support be? That is actually a huge selling point AND customer loyalty point, because it works so well for maintaining backups when people are otherwise terrible at it.

    What I'm hoping is that Apple will go the same route they did with the monitors and LG, that they will partner with some other router vender to make new routers that sti

  • Another good product gone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by krray ( 605395 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @12:01PM (#53331979)

    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.

  • The real reason (Score:3)

    by dhaen ( 892570 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @12:47PM (#53332323)
    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?

  • That's too bad... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mad Quacker ( 3327 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @12:55PM (#53332399) Homepage

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close