Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?

On 5/20/2024 4:37 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

On 2024-05-20, Don Y wrote:

On 5/20/2024 4:02 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:

On 5/17/2024 5:55 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:

For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming?  ac?  ax?

>
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

>
There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
>
The most commonly referenced include:  802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and, most recently, 802.11be.  The

>
It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.
>

[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020.  Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]

>
No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
>
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

>
I am trying to figure out what the "basic" WiFi capabilities
of "the vast majority" of cell phones currently in use are
likely to be.

 802.11a/b/g/n.  Flagship models (or former flagships) will have 802.11ac
or ax; as appropriate for their release date.
 

The most basic support is still 802.11b; and that'll probably be kind of
"forever" (at least until 2.4 GHz is completely abandoned), same as how
10mbit is still the most basic ethernet-over-twisted-pair support.

>
But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.

 It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
 

Designing for the lowest POSSIBLE vs. LIKELY means unnecessarily
limiting the capabilities that you can exploit.

 Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.

And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...

You're missing the point, completely.
You're going to shoot a movie for direct-to-consumer distribution.
IF YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH IT, you shoot in black & white,
with monophonic sound, 10KHz bandwidth in a 4:3 aspect ratio.  The old
geezer in east bumphuck will be able to watch it on his VHS attached to
his 1950's Philco -- and, the yuppie on Park Avenue will also be able to
watch it on his 120" 4K set with 5+1 surround sound!
Or, you shoot it in a wide format and then (pay to) post-process it (pan&scan)
to fit that ancient VHS/CRT viewer.
*OR*, you decide you can *ignore* some portion of your POSSIBLE market
and just shoot in a more modern format with better sound on the assumption
that your REAL market will likely now -- or RSN! -- have one of those
new-fangled TVs and will appreciate the capabilities in that medium THAT
YOU EXPLOITED DURING FILMING/PRODUCTION.
    "Let's make N different productions to fully exploit the capabilities
     of the various ages of technology that folks MIGHT use... and, folks
     using older/cheaper/less capable technology will be disappointed with
     the product because it is so crippled TO THEIR TECHNOLOGY!  ('Gee,
     this looks SO much better on YOUR screen than on mine...')"
When you want to install W11 on a PC, doesn't it REQUIRE a certain level
of capability in the PC's hardware/configuration?  Why can't it install
on my 1990 vintage lunchbox??  Obviously, MS looked at their LIKELY
market and felt it a safe bet to set the minimum/base requirements
where they did -- KNOWING that it would exclude some machines (that may
even have been purchased "recently")