First USB, then HDMI, now Wi-Fi! Here comes Wi-Fi 6 Release 2!!

[YoungBlade]

13 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Because it's not needed? Because you fail to understand the confusion this would bring to the consumer?

If it's just a software update that's fine but if this requires new hardware (which it shouldn't since these features were in the WiFi 6 spec to being with) then it's an even bigger issue. And HEAVEN FORBID tech people have a little fun with a stupid name pattern that's been seeing an uptick lately.

To me, the problem with both USB and HDMI was the retroactive naming schemes, where USB 3.0 became USB 3.1 Gen 1 and then USB 3.2 Gen 1, so devices that only support USB 3.0 speeds and features are able to be advertised as "USB 3.2" without the benefits that that entails. The same with HDMI 2.0 now being called "HDMI 2.1" with a list of supported features that most consumers probably won't read.

 

While a somewhat cumbersome name, it shouldn't lead to any confusion. And as mentioned, this is very similar to the AC and AC Wave 2 standards, which didn't really cause a problem, as consumers looking for a feature like MU-MIMO or higher speeds would be looking for those features specifically. Whereas, to a novice consumer, HDMI 2.1 and USB 3.2 sounds like it's supposed to be the better, faster one that people have been talking about.

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, YoungBlade said:

To me, the problem with both USB and HDMI was the retroactive naming schemes, where USB 3.0 became USB 3.1 Gen 1 and then USB 3.2 Gen 1, so devices that only support USB 3.0 speeds and features are able to be advertised as "USB 3.2" without the benefits that that entails. The same with HDMI 2.0 now being called "HDMI 2.1" with a list of supported features that most consumers probably won't read.

 

While a somewhat cumbersome name, it shouldn't lead to any confusion. And as mentioned, this is very similar to the AC and AC Wave 2 standards, which didn't really cause a problem, as consumers looking for a feature like MU-MIMO or higher speeds would be looking for those features specifically. Whereas, to a novice consumer, HDMI 2.1 and USB 3.2 sounds like it's supposed to be the better, faster one that people have been talking about.

That's a fair point, at least WiFi 6 is still WiFi 6 and 6E still 6E, my main concern still remains is this software capable changes or do they require now more hardware? I'm also still trying to figure out if these were pulled at the last minute from the WiFi 6 spec because I know TWT for sure was a touted feature of WiFi 6 when it first started coming out.

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, Lurick said:

There was a comment I made about these being codified or not originally, they were supposed to be part of the spec but if they didn't make it in I would at least like to know that.

Those things were never part of the Wi-Fi 6 certification standard.

They were part of the 802.11ax specification, and there were plans for them with Wi-Fi 6, but they were never made a requirement for the certification. Here is a quote from Qualcomm regarding it (emphasis added by me):

Quote

Wi-Fi 6, the latest generation of ubiquitous wireless technology, is about one thing above all else: multi-user traffic management. It’s a collection of features and protocols aimed at driving as much data as possible to as many devices as possible simultaneously. A key component of this features-and-protocols combination is MU-MIMO (multi-user multi-in multi-out). Wi-Fi 6 includes downlink MU-MIMO as part of the standard and will evolve to support uplink operation (on a timeline the Wi-Fi Alliance will determine). 

 

That's why this is still called Wi-Fi 6. Because the vendors and/or testing methodology for these particular features were not done/ready yet back when Wi-Fi 6 launched. So now they have gotten everything ready for these additional features, so they updated the specs slightly and calls it "release 2". Because it's still Wi-Fi 6, just with all the features they initially planned to launch with.

 

Wi-Fi 6 release 2 is basically "Wi-Fi 6.1", because it's Wi-Fi 6 with some extra features. It's still part of the "Wi-Fi 6" release though since they haven't made any major changes that warrants changing the revision to 7, and changing it to 7 would just cause more confusion since some Wi-Fi 6 devices will be upgraded to Wi-Fi 6 release 2 certification in the future. Retroactively reclassifying things with higher numbers are exactly what people make fun of the USB organisation for doing, so I don't really see why people are upset with this. It's like people will be confused regardless of how you name things.

Personally, I think these names make perfect sense. Although I think the HDMI and USB names also makes sense (and have explained the logic behind them in this thread) so maybe I'm just weird.

 

 

Also I hope you don't feel attacked by this. I have seen plenty of people and media outlets say this is confusing so you're not alone and it's not my intention to single you out.

Maybe this is super confusing if you don't understand the relationship between 802.11ax, the Wi-Fi Alliance, what Wi-Fi certification entails or the likes. Maybe some people are in your situation where you know part of the story (like how these features were planned for Wi-Fi 6) but not some other parts (like how they were never made a requirement for the initial certification process) and that causes confusion. Maybe some users who are confused are like my grandad who struggles with understanding that Wi-Fi 6 is newer and faster than Wi-Fi 5.

There are plenty of reasons for why things might seem confusing to someone. I just don't think we should go around saying organisations are confusing on purpose, or that they are stupid for not naming things a certain way. There is a big chance that things are named the way they are for a reason, and that reason is often not malicious when it's from organisations like the Wi-Fi Alliance or the USB forum.

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Those things were never part of the Wi-Fi 6 certification standard.

They were part of the 802.11ax specification, and there were plans for them with Wi-Fi 6, but they were never made a requirement for the certification. Here is a quote from Qualcomm regarding it (emphasis added by me):

 

That's why this is still called Wi-Fi 6. Because the vendors and/or testing methodology for these particular features were not done/ready yet back when Wi-Fi 6 launched. So now they have gotten everything ready for these additional features, so they updated the specs slightly and calls it "release 2". Because it's still Wi-Fi 6, just with all the features they initially planned to launch with.

 

Wi-Fi 6 release 2 is basically "Wi-Fi 6.1", because it's Wi-Fi 6 with some extra features. It's still part of the "Wi-Fi 6" release though since they haven't made any major changes that warrants changing the revision to 7, and changing it to 7 would just cause more confusion since some Wi-Fi 6 devices will be upgraded to Wi-Fi 6 release 2 certification in the future. Retroactively reclassifying things with higher numbers are exactly what people make fun of the USB organisation for doing, so I don't really see why people are upset with this. It's like people will be confused regardless of how you name things.

Thanks for that, the call out is what I was missing earlier

Definitely shouldn't be called WiFi 7 since that's actually going to be a new release in another year or two from what I remember.

[AnonymousGuy]

Someone just wake me up when wifi can reliably replace an ethernet cable re: latency and jitter at home.  I don't care what the fuck the branding is...just if it exists.

[Forbidden Wafer]

Is it that hard to slap the year the Wi-Fi revision came out? 

 

e. g.

IEEE

802.11g = Wi-Fi 2003 

802.11n = Wi-Fi 2009

802.11ac = Wi-Fi 2013

802.11ac wave2 = Wi-Fi 2016

802.11ax = Wi-Fi 2020

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

Is it that hard to slap the year the Wi-Fi revision came out? 

 

e. g.

IEEE

802.11g = Wi-Fi 2003 

802.11n = Wi-Fi 2009

802.11ac = Wi-Fi 2013

802.11ac wave2 = Wi-Fi 2016

802.11ax = Wi-Fi 2020

I don't really see how that would make things any better.

What do you do if you make extensions to the standard like with this? Are consumers just expected to know that Wi-Fi 2020 and Wi-Fi 2022 are 99,9% the same and that some Wi-Fi 2020 devices will retroactively get updated to Wi-Fi 2022? From which date do you even set the year? Do you set it when the IEEE standard was drafted or finalized? Do you go by when the Wi-Fi Alliance certification started? Do you go by when the first product with the standard launched? I think people would be confused if the first device with "Wi-Fi 2022" was released in like 2024. They would think their Wi-Fi support was outdated even though it would be the latest standard.

 

What about things like Wi-Fi 6E?

802.11ax was finalized on September 1, 2020, but wasn't approved as a standard until February 1, 2021. Wi-Fi 6E was standardized by IEEE but not approved by the US government until on 23 April 2020. So what do you name Wi-Fi 6E then? Wi-Fi 6E was finalized and approved before Wi-Fi 6 was approved... Should Wi-Fi 6E be called "Wi-Fi 2020" and Wi-Fi 6 be called "Wi-Fi 2021"? That would be hell of a lot more confusing than what we got today.

 

Here is another problem with your idea. A lot of Wi-Fi products are released based on the draft specs, which means they are released before the spec is even finalized. How are we suppose to label those products? Let's say I release a Wi-Fi product in the year 2023, but I use the draft for what will become Wi-Fi 7. Do I just assume Wi-Fi 7 will be finalized in 2024 and name my product "Wi-Fi 2024"? What if someone else is making a product based on the same draft but think that standard will be finalized in 2025? Do they name their product, based on the same draft, "Wi-Fi 2025" even though it's the same as my "Wi-Fi 2024" device? What if there are delays in the standardization and all of a sudden both of products should be called "Wi-Fi 2026"? Do we retroactively change the naming? That would be very confusing, especially if someone else has a "Wi-Fi 2023" device that doesn't get changed but "Wi-Fi 2024" and "Wi-Fi 2025" gets changed to "Wi-Fi 2026".

It's not just small SOHO equipment makers designing products based on drafts either. Apple, Asus, HP, Cisco, Fortinet, etc all have released products based on drafts that may or may not have become the finalized version. 

 

 

I think that people just need to sucker it up and realize that things are named the way they are because creating standards for extremely complex technologies with various features is in and of itself a complicated process. They aren't being confusing because they want to trick you. They are being confusing because no matter how you name things it will be confusing to some people, since we are dealing with very complicated subjects.

Same goes for USB and HDMI.

[Stahlmann]

7 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Someone just wake me up when wifi can reliably replace an ethernet cable re: latency and jitter at home.  I don't care what the fuck the branding is...just if it exists.

Right? I'm not using WiFi 6 at home but even when i'm sitting DIRECTLY IN FRONT of my AP my phone still has a less reliable internet connection than if i'd just use 4G mobile data. Idk what it is with Wifi but it's just garbage in this regard.

[LAwLz]

54 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Idk what it is with Wifi but it's just garbage in this regard.

Wi-Fi has (or had, before Wi-Fi 6E) very limited spectrum. As a result, it was always more or less noisy, and there isn't much you can do about it. 

 

Think of it as being in a nightclub with 100 people and loud music, and trying to hold a conversation with your friend. 

With Wi-Fi 6E, we are making the club more than twice as large. So hopefully you'll be able to find a quit place to talk at. Instead of having to repeat every second word because your friend couldn't hear you. 

[Rauten]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Think of it as being in a nightclub with 100 people and loud music, and trying to hold a conversation with your friend. 

With Wi-Fi 6E, we are making the club more than twice as large. So hopefully you'll be able to find a quit place to talk at. Instead of having to repeat every second word because your friend couldn't hear you. 

You immediately made me remember this:

 

 

Mehdi is such a treasure.

[RejZoR]

Why not just call it WiFi 6.2 ?! Almost everyone understands numbers as versions and first one is the big one and following ones are smaller changes. It's a no nonsense numbering that everyone forgot about after Google started their big numbers changes for everything insignificant with stupid Chrome.

[tikker]

16 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

To me, the problem with both USB and HDMI was the retroactive naming schemes, where USB 3.0 became USB 3.1 Gen 1 and then USB 3.2 Gen 1, so devices that only support USB 3.0 speeds and features are able to be advertised as "USB 3.2" without the benefits that that entails. The same with HDMI 2.0 now being called "HDMI 2.1" with a list of supported features that most consumers probably won't read.

The confusion there has come from, in maybe a somewhat nuanced way, wrongly using those version numbers to refer to the ports, which they aren't/weren't intended to be used for. It's the version of the reference to build an HDMI device, which is not a reference to build an "HDMI X.Y device". If that "HDMI 2.0" device satisfies the HDMI Specification 2.1, then it is an "HDMI 2.1" device and will continue to be a future "HDMI X.Y" device as long as it complies with those specifications. There is logic, but consumers and marketers have applied it wrongly.

 

 

So something I didn't quite catch, or maybe just missed as I'm not following internet standards at all really, will (some of) this roll out as software updates or is this new hardware? Power consumption tweaks sounds like it might be possible through a sofware/firmware update?

[Forbidden Wafer]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What do you do if you make extensions to the standard like with this?

Update, just like 802.11 has its own letter soup, increment the year in the revision.

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are consumers just expected to know that Wi-Fi 2020 and Wi-Fi 2022 are 99,9% the same and that some Wi-Fi 2020 devices will retroactively get updated to Wi-Fi 2022? From which date do you even set the year? Do you set it when the IEEE standard was drafted or finalized? Do you go by when the Wi-Fi Alliance certification started?

No. They're supposed to know there is something new on the market. If they can be retroactively updated with firmwares, sure.
Probably makes more sense to use the Wi-Fi Alliance certification, since they don't require everything set in 802.11.

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think people would be confused if the first device with "Wi-Fi 2022" was released in like 2024. They would think their Wi-Fi support was outdated even though it would be the latest standard.

From a manufacturers point of view, that is exactly the goal.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What about things like Wi-Fi 6E?

802.11ax was finalized on September 1, 2020, but wasn't approved as a standard until February 1, 2021. Wi-Fi 6E was standardized by IEEE but not approved by the US government until on 23 April 2020. So what do you name Wi-Fi 6E then? Wi-Fi 6E was finalized and approved before Wi-Fi 6 was approved... Should Wi-Fi 6E be called "Wi-Fi 2020" and Wi-Fi 6 be called "Wi-Fi 2021"? That would be hell of a lot more confusing than what we got today.

Wi-Fi 2021. We don't have that many Wi-Fi revisions coming out.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Here is another problem with your idea. A lot of Wi-Fi products are released based on the draft specs, which means they are released before the spec is even finalized. How are we suppose to label those products?

You label them as Beta/early access support for the standard. And make sure it's written that it may end up being incompatible with the final standard if hardware changes are required. Or obligate manufacturers to disable that mode if they can't make it compliant.

 

[AnonymousGuy]

Quote

How are we suppose to label those products? 

In 2007 my laptop was sold with "preN" labelling to say it was N based on draft spec that was close enough to being final.

[AnonymousGuy]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Wi-Fi has (or had, before Wi-Fi 6E) very limited spectrum. As a result, it was always more or less noisy, and there isn't much you can do about it. 

 

Think of it as being in a nightclub with 100 people and loud music, and trying to hold a conversation with your friend. 

With Wi-Fi 6E, we are making the club more than twice as large. So hopefully you'll be able to find a quit place to talk at. Instead of having to repeat every second word because your friend couldn't hear you. 

Thing is: AC 5Ghz was supposed to have all this extra channel space but then it seems like every router piled up on the same couple channels when I look at the analyzer.

 

2.4Ghz has been fucked for a long time though in dense areas.  I  sat in an apartment courtyard where it was literal 10 seconds of scrolling on my phone to go through all the wifi networks that were visible.  Hundreds of them.  I was more impressed the phone could even manage tracking that many.  It's still fine though if you live in a house by virtue of houses being pretty separate from each other.

[Kisai]

16 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

Is it that hard to slap the year the Wi-Fi revision came out? 

 

e. g.

IEEE

802.11g = Wi-Fi 2003 

802.11n = Wi-Fi 2009

802.11ac = Wi-Fi 2013

802.11ac wave2 = Wi-Fi 2016

802.11ax = Wi-Fi 2020

 

Because that puts pressure on the marketing when a device only supports Wifi "2003"

 

Microsoft already learned why calling Windows 95 and 95, and server 2003, etc was a bad naming convention. "oh my gawd, it's old"

 

Where is if you just stick to a name, any changes should not change the name.

 

So in an ideal situation, we would just be calling WiFi, WiFI, and demanding that all devices that support WiFi, support the "current standard, and all compatible standards", eg 802.11b/g/n on 2.4.

 

If something is a breaking change, then we should stop calling it WiFi.

 

Same with USB. Type C should have just been called Thunderbolt, and DP/HDMI over Type C should have just been called Thunderbolt Video.  The entire reason we have these version numbers and other stupid terms like 2x2 (which yes, WiFI was also using at some point for MIMO) is because they describe optional functionality that only high end devices would have that low end and most consumers may never need.

 

AKA, this is how we send this device to the landfill faster, by preventing any forward compatibility.

 

At this point, I'd just appreciate it if we stick with the Type-C connector for everything but low-voltage+low-signal rate devices (eg Keyboard, Mouse, Printer, etc) and push anything that contains it's own processor to have both a Type C WiFi or Type-C Ethernet support, and if you would rather plug it into your own computer, just Type-c to type-c thunderbolt mode. Do I really need my printer and scanner to be sitting there wasting a USB port while I don't use it for months on end? No. I could put it on Ethernet or WiFi and use it when I need it. Give me at least the option to do this. 

 

 

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

-snip-

You only replied to like 1/3 of the issues I brought up with your naming scheme, and I really don't see how "Wi-Fi 2020 version 2" or whatever you want to call it would be any less confusing than "Wi-Fi 6 release 2".

 

7 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

No. They're supposed to know there is something new on the market. If they can be retroactively updated with firmwares, sure.
Probably makes more sense to use the Wi-Fi Alliance certification, since they don't require everything set in 802.11.

But they wouldn't know there was something new on the market... Wi-Fi standards are rarely updated, so putting the name on them just makes it MORE confusing for people. How are people in 2024 suppose to know that "Wi-Fi 2021" is the latest standard? It sounds like an old standard.

 

Honestly, I think your suggestion is awful and would create waaaay more confusion than the naming we got right now. The naming we got right now isn't even complicated. I have no idea how people think it is complicated to be frank. 

[snipy67]

My thoughts on usb naming scheme.

Edit: I made a separate generate discussion thread because I got a little passionate and felt a bit off topic for a reply. it's also got a pretty juicy hook

 

[Thaldor]

Still better than "Fast Ethernet", the worst naming ever.

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Thing is: AC 5Ghz was supposed to have all this extra channel space but then it seems like every router piled up on the same couple channels when I look at the analyzer.

 

2.4Ghz has been fucked for a long time though in dense areas.  I  sat in an apartment courtyard where it was literal 10 seconds of scrolling on my phone to go through all the wifi networks that were visible.  Hundreds of them.  I was more impressed the phone could even manage tracking that many.  It's still fine though if you live in a house by virtue of houses being pretty separate from each other.

 

 

Earlier versions of wifi (including 5Ghz) have more problems than just bandwidth congestion.    There can be issues between devices depending on the channel they use and how the router deals with it.  Don't ask me for technical details of that because I have NFI.  What I can tell you that wifi analyzers only tell you half the story,  they can't tell you how busy a spectrum is, only how many wifi devices are trying to use that spectrum on which channel.  Sometimes you can get way more stable connections using busy channels than you can otherwise simply due to the interference of non wifi devices.

[DavidKalinowski]

On 1/5/2022 at 3:07 PM, StDragon said:

Nope. Not confusing enough. WiFi 6 will now have to be renamed WiFi 6.1 and 6.1E.

Honestly Wifi 6.1 would make more sense than Wifi 6 Release 2 (hell, I preferred when we just used 802.11a ,b ,g, n.) but for real, a standard should be set in stone, wifi 6 should have feature XYZ as default, anything added later would be a Wifi 6.1 then .2 then .3 etc. until get to .9, at which point the next iteration should be Wifi 7.

[DavidKalinowski]

On 1/8/2022 at 5:56 AM, Thaldor said:

Still better than "Fast Ethernet", the worst naming ever.

super speed usb