Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?

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?

Apple does like to create the impression that they have the latest and greatest.

Google, who created the Android operating system for mobile phones, is an actual technical pioneer, which is why a number of mobile phone suppliers use their operating system.

You should put in enough work to get past the marketing hype.

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

No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting

Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

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

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

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.

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

Then I buy a phone that can support 802.11ac Wave2 with 160 MHz channel width, and at least 3x3 spatial streams. Assuming, of course:

- that the AP supports those minimum requirements as well, AND - The conditions allow for negotiation of MCS8 (~2300 mbps link rate, ballpark 1gpbs sustained data rate, but WiFi math is "fun") AND - There aren't other devices also requesting airtime (especially ones using slower options -- 2x2 streams, 802.11n, MCS5, etc.) AND - The server has enough bandwidth (incl. read buffers, disk I/O, etc.) to sustain that 1gpbs transfer to my phone. - The phone has enough bandwidth (incl. write buffers, "disk" I/O, etc.) to sustain a 1gbps transfer from the server.

Or, I don't use WiFi (to a phone or otherwise) because if I *need*

It's almost like the whole reason I've repeatedly asked "what do you

- If you're building some form of WiFi access point --> who cares, the phone will negotiate with the AP for the best common mode between them given local conditions (e.g. 802.11n @ MCS2)

- If you're building some form of application that needs some minimum data rate --> you can't really guarantee you're going to get that rate, unless it's less than 1Mbps (802.11a/b/g) or MCS0 (802.11n/ac/ax; exact rate varies depending on available spatial streams).

That sort of continuous datarate would probably overheat many (most?) mobile phones. Some of them can get quite hot when worked hard.

It varies depending on who is using them. There are a lot of people glued to their less than year old super phone 24/7 who have the latest of everything and OLED screens. Then there are the people (typically parents or grandparents of the above) who have the hand me down phones.

And a bunch of Luddites still on completely dumb phones for their extended battery life or other elderly friendly features like large buttons. I reckon there are still a fair proportion of totally dumb phones in the older generation and a bunch of people in the UK who are going to be very surprised when the 3G signals are finally switched off.

I have a feeling that 2.5G will outlive 3G since some remote areas have nothing else. 5G is now common in cities and 4G elsewhere.

You could probably make a fairly safe assumption that any phone in regular use for more than 5 years will be on its last legs now (and/or slowed down from as new performance by battery saver tricks).

Just look back to see what network capabilities were most common in popular models 5 years ago. Secondhand smart phones from a few years back sell for quite low prices these days unless they are iToys.

The annoying thing for me is that with each new generation the mobile phone gets larger which is good from the point of view of the handset being more nearly compatible with the distance form ear to mouth but bad from the point of view of it falling out of a shirt pocket!

All of my smart phones eventually end up with chips in their upper top edge of the supposedly "unbreakable" Gorilla glass...

I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case, i have disabled 802.11b and nobody has complained. The reason for doing this is that some devices such as high-definition cameras and screen sharing devices send large amounts of data using multi-casting. If one WiFi recipient is connected very slowly this uses up all the available WiFi bandwidth causing the whole network to grind to a halt. Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.

John

My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at least in the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support. Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?

The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many people scream at you.