4 ms·

"Direct" Wi-Fi still shares the same spectrum though, so even without central points it's not equivalent to cables.

wlesieutre 4y ago
Right, that's the part of it I'm worried about in a crowded building
bee_rider 4y ago
But it is a fundamentally different type of problem. Going through a router imposes hard bandwidth limitations at a central point. With direct wifi, each monitor only needs to serve a single user, so the devices can be lower powered -- the broadcast only needs to serve ~a single desk. And they are centrally controlled by the IT department, so unlike a wifi router the in RF mad-max anarchy zone that is a modern apartment building, there shouldn't be concerns about noisy neighbors. I'm not sure there's a point to all this -- the phone being used as a computer is probably going to be plugged in, so why not push everything through USB-C/thunderbolt nowadays? -- but it is almost certainly possible.
- swinglock 4y ago
  The difference between sharing limited spectrum and AP resources in a room and only sharing limited spectrum resources in a room are not a fundamentally different problems. In addition you'd have loads of noisy neighbors, at least everyone close by in the room. I agree the phone ought to be plugged in anyway. Even if it could survive a full day of being your workstation, you wouldn't want a half dead or worse battery at the end of your work day, and regularly draining a significant amount while stationary unnecessarily shortens the total battery lifespan. In addition, if docked into something with a bit of active cooling, the phone could perform better and once again preserve the battery.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I think they are fundamentally different. For the first case, everyone must broadcast with enough power to reach the AP. It introduces a bottleneck. For the second case, everyone only needs to broadcast with enough power to reach their device. Overlapping coverage areas are essentially a side effect.

Right, that's the part of it I'm worried about in a crowded building

But it is a fundamentally different type of problem. Going through a router imposes hard bandwidth limitations at a central point. With direct wifi, each monitor only needs to serve a single user, so the devices can be lower powered -- the broadcast only needs to serve ~a single desk. And they are centrally controlled by the IT department, so unlike a wifi router the in RF mad-max anarchy zone that is a modern apartment building, there shouldn't be concerns about noisy neighbors. I'm not sure there's a point to all this -- the phone being used as a computer is probably going to be plugged in, so why not push everything through USB-C/thunderbolt nowadays? -- but it is almost certainly possible.

swinglock 4y ago
The difference between sharing limited spectrum and AP resources in a room and only sharing limited spectrum resources in a room are not a fundamentally different problems. In addition you'd have loads of noisy neighbors, at least everyone close by in the room. I agree the phone ought to be plugged in anyway. Even if it could survive a full day of being your workstation, you wouldn't want a half dead or worse battery at the end of your work day, and regularly draining a significant amount while stationary unnecessarily shortens the total battery lifespan. In addition, if docked into something with a bit of active cooling, the phone could perform better and once again preserve the battery.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I think they are fundamentally different. For the first case, everyone must broadcast with enough power to reach the AP. It introduces a bottleneck. For the second case, everyone only needs to broadcast with enough power to reach their device. Overlapping coverage areas are essentially a side effect.