Russell Shaw is a specialist in mobile computing, telephony, networking and covers these fields regularly for numerous print and online publications. Russ writes the popular IP Telephony blog on ZDNet and contributes regularly to The Industry Standard blog as well. Author of seven books, Russ' latest book is Wireless Networking Made Easy.
John Yunker is president of Byte Level Research. He closely tracks emerging wireless technologies and their impact on consumers and carriers alike. Over the years he has written a number of major reports on technologies such as Wi-Fi, WiMAX and cellular technologies.
About this blog
Unwired studies emerging wireless technologies and how they complement and conflict with one another. Technologies covered include: Wi-Fi, WiMAX, Ultra-Wideband, Zigbee, EV-DO, UMTS, HSDPA and whatever else comes along.
According to CNET News, Apple will be announcing a migration to Intel chips on Monday.
And it looks like they'll be starting with the low-end computers first, gradually working their way up to the high-end Macs.
So it looks like this move was all about the chips and not about WiMAX, as I speculated. Now that doesn't mean that we won't see Intel's wireless strategy change over the next few years. For instance, will Centrino be used in the Mac Minis? If so, where does this leave Apple's Airport gear?
As for WiMAX, I guess we'll see how this IntelApple marriage progresses. I still think something is going to happen along these lines.
About a week ago I wrote a blog about the possibility of Apple embracing WiMAX. That blog was followed soon after by a MacObserver story.
Needless to say, I've gotten an earful from readers -- some good, some bad, and some a little bit ugly. I should have known that any article that combined lightning-rod topics like Apple and WiMAX would attract attention.
So I wanted to summarize the comments received and make a few corrections. Here goes...
Comment: Apple launched Airport in 1999, not 1997. Apple launched it at the Boston Macworld show, alongside Apple's launching of the iBook.
-> I stand corrected. For a handy Apple timeline check out this site.
Comment: It should be noted that Apple does use Intel chips in its xRAID product.
-> This was one of several comments I received that noted that Apple is already using Intel chips. Some folks also stressed that porting the Mac OS over to Intel would not be a major production, while others said the exact opposite. I'd love to get more input on this as I am no expert.
Regardless, I still cannot help but think that the wireless folks within Apple aren't at least a little intrigued by the business potential of WiMAX. Intel bet big on Wi-Fi a few years back and certainly did well as a result; any potential partner and OEM is taking Intel's WiMAX gamble very seriously.
Comment: WiMax would not be affordable for an everyday technology. Heck, Alvarion, one of the largest players in the game does not hardly sell anything less than $1000, with the exception of their low-end access units.
-> Alvarion has been selling proprietary fixed wireless gear in low quantities, hence the relatively high costs. WiMAX gear, produced in large quantities by multiple vendors, will be affordable. And Intel isn't going to be the only player making WiMAX silicon. Everyone currently producing Wi-Fi components is either already investing in WiMAX or keeping a very close eye on it. Wi-Fi wasn't particularly cheap in 1999 either.
Comment: Just because WiMAX is a "new" technology, does not mean Apple will adopt it, especially if it is the wrong tool for the job.
-> Agreed. But my point here is that there are new "jobs" that wireless technology will be expected to perform in the years ahead and WiMAX might be a very good fit for those jobs. Not all jobs. I don't believe Wi-Fi is threatened in the least by WiMAX.
Finally, a number of people made it clear that WiMAX is a "last mile" technology and not a "last hundred feet" technology. While I agree that this is how WiMAX is being positioned, it is by no means the only way that WiMAX may ultimately be used. Wi-Fi certainly wasn't originally envisioned as a technology for unwiring city blocks via a mix of mesh and MIMO technologies. I think we're going to see all kinds of unintended applications emerge from WiMAX.
Anyway, that's it for me. Keep those comments coming...
So I have a few thoughts on why Apple is talking to Intel. First, let me quote this Reuters article to provide context:
"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.
Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."
So I'm going to assume that porting the Mac OS is not a high priority at Apple these days. What I think is a high priority is wireless. Apple launched its Wi-Fi-power Airport way back in 1997. Here we are eight years later and Wi-Fi is everywhere, particularly in the home.
There have been lots of speculation about Apple launching an A/V equivalent of iTunes. Now, connecting the cable or DSL modem to the TV is a hurdle we're seeing lots of companies tackle, with limited success.
I've spoken to a number of techs who see WiMAX as the next-generation home wireless technology. That's because only WiMAX can stream multiple streams of HDTV content in difficult RF environments to all ends of the home.
Apple is also rumored to be getting into the smart phone business. I'd certainly love to see how they could simplify my Palm Treo 650. But what wireless technology are they going to support if and when they do get into this business? I wouldn't bet on EV-DO and I don't think they want to bother with EDGE or HSDPA either. Apple likes to lead with wireless technology, not follow.
I think Apple sees a lot of opportunities with WiMAX. And I think Intel sees a lot of opportunity in getting Apple to support WiMAX. Because the applications that WiMAX will support don't really exist yet. Sure, we're going to see wireless last-mile proliferate using WiMAX, but that's the easy part.
Perhaps all that Apple and Intel are talking about right now is processors. But I have to believe that there are people on both sides of the room thinking WiMAX.
David Isenberg gave us the the Rise of the Stupid Network. Ambient Devices is giving rise to the stupid device.
While wireless phones get smarter, other wireless devices are getting dumber.
The Ambient Orb represents what I believe will be a growing segement of wireless devices -- those that do a great deal less, but do it really well.
Ambient Devices is in many ways a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). It owns no network; instead, it leases network access from another carrier (MetroCall's paging network).
The orb literally needs no instruction manual because it ships programmed to do just one thing, such monitor the stock market or the weather. You just plug it in and it does the rest. Now, if you want to the orb to represent different data streams, such as the pollen count or a specific stock, you need to set up an online account with Ambient.
I would like to see Ambient extend this functionality to home wireless networks and consumer devices. For example, I would like to have some orb by the back door that glows if I've left any appliance or light on in the house - so I don't end up leaving that house and then coming back twenty minutes later. I would also like smoke detectors that change color based on how much battery life is left.
Intel has released a few results of a survey of more than 2,000 men and women and their attitudes toward technology. The survey finds that women are more predisposed to wanting wireless-enabled laptops than men. According to the release:
Not often recognized as early adopters, women in the survey are revealed as leading the way with wireless Internet access, as more women than men believe this is one of the most important features for a laptop to have (39 percent women versus 29 percent men). While men (51 percent) and women (48 percent) agree that the airport tops the list of the most useful locations to have wireless Internet access, women (38 percent) are more likely than men (30 percent) to desire a connection in a doctor's office as well.
Wi-Fi isn't mentioned specifically, but I think that's what we're talking about here.
In a recent investor's briefing, Intel says that its Centrino (Wi-Fi) line has generated $5 billion in revenues in just two years. Not too shabby. Now Intel is aiming for the desktop. People may wonder why Wi-Fi would be useful in a desktop since it is a stationary device. For starters, wiring is a pain and always will be. But I think the larger opportunity is home monitoring and control. So many devices are going to be running on the home Wi-Fi grid that it will make sense to have all computers supporting Wi-Fi.
Finally, given such user demand for wireless devices, I wonder if Intel and Qualcomm will learn to play nice and start cranking out a line of Centrino/EV-DO devices. And why not add a Centrino/HSDPA line as well.
Yes, I know WiMAX is coming. But Intel should hedge its bets. It owns the wireless laptop market and should do all it can to keep that lead.
Yours truly is quoted in an article by Jeannette Borzo on some of the creative uses for Wi-Fi networks once they're in place. Wi-Fi isn't just about Internet access anymore. In fact, I was at the Electronic Home Expo recently and was suprised to see just how many home monitoring devices and remote controls that now use Wi-Fi.
TV pundit Philip Swann predicts that Internet TV is the "next big thing." He doesn't say how big exactly, but he points to the Disney launch of Moviebeam and the Netflix/Tivo and SBC/Yahoo! partnerships as a sign that the entertainment industry, like it or not, is going IP.
He writes:
With Internet TV, television will go from being a convenience store to a
giant supermarket. The viewer will scan the aisles for interesting
programming, whether it's from a well-known network or a start-up TV
service based in someone's garage in Silicon Valley. Much like
today's World Wide Web, Internet TV will give an equal opportunity to
the big and the small. Of course, the established media will always
have an advantage due to marketing muscle and recognition factor.
But they will have to work harder to keep their spot in the viewer's
mind.
The emergence of podcasting sheds light on one path IPTV will take - with everyone getting into the home studio business. And as movie studios broaden their focus to global markets, there is going to be a lot more opportunity for local productions. But a more compelling force that Phillip hits on are the actual owners of the premium content -- the NBA, production houses, etc. They would certainly like another channel into the home.
And who's going to give them this channel? Well, everyone it seems. Although I suspect the cable companies maybe the least successful at providing an "unwalled TV garden." It will be very interesting to see what Ed Whitacre, CEO of SBC, will have to say at CES in 2005; I'll be there and I'll be taking notes.
Intel and Microsoft are days away from a national ad compaign to promote the "Entertainment PC" shown here:
The HP Media Center
According to this article the companies seek to "show off how entertainment PCs can be used to view photos, listen to music and watch video throughout the home, not just the den or bedroom where computers are traditionally found."
The campaign is titled "Digital Joy" which alone should set off warnings bells. There is nothing joyous about anything Microsoft has produced over the past five years. Intel and Microsoft are also launching a new Web site, at www.digitaljoy.com (at least that's what the press release says; the Web site is currently blank).
I believe that homes in the future will indeed be streaming all types of A/V content between all types of devices. But I do not believe that Microsoft has enough credibility to succeed in the living room, not yet at least. The XBox is a good first step. But when Microsoft uses the term "PC" in the same sentence as "home entertainment," I just don't see much good coming of it. You don't want to create the impression, no matter how erroneous, that consumers will one day have to reboot their TVs.
I hope I'm wrong because I do want to see home networking get to the next level. But I'm more likely to bet on Sony, Apple and Linksys succeeding in this area than Microsoft.
Russell Shaw is a specialist in mobile computing, telephony, networking and covers these fields regularly for numerous print and online publications. Russ writes the popular IP Telephony blog on ZDNet and contributes regularly to The Industry Standard blog as well. Author of seven books, Russ' latest book is Wireless Networking Made Easy.
John Yunker is president of 
