I imagine many already exist. But the system should be designed to fail safe with WiFi in mind.

I don't know about manufacturing environments but I deal with laboratories a lot, and I'm a bit baffled at how quickly lab operators have jumped on battery-operated wifi sensors for lab monitoring systems. I have like three room sensors attached to my EcoBee thermostat at home and I can barely be assed to change the batteries in those things, I cannot imagine dealing with batteries and connectivity troubleshooting for a building full of sensors whose reliable operation is often critical for regulatory compliance. Seems like the perfect application for PoE systems, to me

as a software developer, that example screams bad design

I really hope nobody is planning on building safety-critical real-time systems on top of WiFi!

Are you new to the planet? Let me tell you about this thing we have called capitalism...

Better hope staff don’t Microwave their lunch at the wrong time….

If your robot moves around, then it needs a wireless connection. And it doesn't really get any more reliable than wifi. I'm certainly not going to outsource that to a Verizon cellular connection.

And even for things that can be wired - ethernet is far from reliable. Cables are easily damaged or simply unplugged.

Wifi can work really well, especially with high end networking gear (and not, for example, the wifi access point you get for free from Verizon).

This sounds like they're talking about something specific. There was a guy that was picked up/crushed by a robot recently that is eerily similar.

As long as they have a delay counter which immediately shuts the robot down when it hasn't been answered within a certain time period it shouldn't pose much of a problem if it has an E stop. Just inconvenient when it keeps shutting down all day.

Then you can buy a bunch of repeaters and the economy is saved

Yes but WiFi 7 FINALLY lets devices connect to multiple BANDS at the same time with a new feature called Multi-link operation (MLO).. IE the device can hold on to a longer range but slower band and more seamlessly transmit data over the best one at the time.

That's an advantage if you utilize it right. Less range means your neighbor's wifi is less likely to interfere with your own. Multiple access points are a superior way to get coverage of your whole house than some octopus antenna monstrosity.

The inverse square law doesn't have to be a problem.

I think the prevalence of mesh systems is intended to remedy this. Instead of a single AP that can cover your entire house you can mesh two or three (or more) APs to get the coverage desired.

I feel like this is really dependent upon the game. Guilty Gear Strive for instance uses roll back net code and my personal experience playing it online over wifi is that it feels practically identical to playing locally. Here and there I might have minor issues if the person I'm playing against has horrible Ping but for the most part wifi is flawless.

Back when 5G cellular was first rolling out, a professor brought in a Qualcomm senior level manager and the topic was how 6G was being developed for long distance low latency capabilities.

How much of that was industry bullshit, no idea but it sounds like they had a pulse on the tech now that we hear about it years later.

I agree when it comes to average usage, but having >=1Gbps headroom for bursty traffic, e.g., when moving files locally between devices, is awesome.

Wireless VR has been a thing since wifi 5ghz. And from first hand experience, it works great.

Yeah, but you'll need to be within 5 feet of the access point. I kid, but i am curious how range will be.

Why do you think the routers wouldn't support 2.4?

Currently gigabit Ethernet is faster and more reliable than WiFi, despite WiFi theoretically being equivalent. The benefit of increased speed and scalability is never needing wired infrastructure at the home/office.

We’re in a race: on one side WiFi7 had great potential, but on the other side 2.5gE is becoming more common on new PCs. Who will win? Will consumers care, if they don’t have a home lab and can’t get an internet connection to match?

For those claiming current bandwidth is more than people need, I would agree in theory but it just doesn’t pan out in reality. There are always network glitches and irregularities, there’s ever more tracking and advertising, there’s ever more Interference.

Recently my fiber provider had issues and my connection was downgraded to 350/150 with 44ms: theoretically still way faster than I need yet even “simple” web pages were noticeably slower.maybe I’m spoiled but I couldn’t imagine trying to game on that

You might just have a crappy router in general...? Not as in, you need the newest router with fastest speeds to tide over the slower times. What I mean is that there's lots of cheap, no-name routers that are just extremely unreliable. Many ISPs hand them out.

Investing into a more expensive router from a widely known brand is usually well worth the money, in my experience. You can probably even buy a used one and still have a better experience.