huh ? it happens all the time , its called the early adopter tax , hell look at the just released linksys half its features are not enabled yet but will be added in future firmware releases as it states on its web page , hardware wise hggomes is correct in that small changes happen all the time and we often see v2 , 3 and 4 of hardware , i have seen a tp link with version 10 of one of their modem/wireless routers
I'm a bit confused at your response; I never stated that this sort of 'revision' doesn't occur on occasion or that it has never occurred in the past. I was referencing Hggomes' reply to Sm00thPapa's post espousing his belief that this practice is basically 'ripping' off the customer. Hggmoses disagrees, and from what I can tell, interprets this as the company doing what is necessary to improve a product as improvements are developed, and the lack of retroactive customer support being an acceptable concession in the contract between a company and the customer. Basically, I'm not arguing that Asus' lack of support for the older chip 88u model isn't to be expected-- just that in this case it should be. And yes, they are screwing those that are in my position.
My argument was and is: when a company releases a product, advertising features (features that were plastered all over the box and website) that will not function barring a hardware revision to subsequent models-- it results in consumers with the original product bearing an unacceptable cost. This is simply false advertising regardless of intention, and when you consider the majority of casual consumers, most of whom are not experts on every obscure wireless protocol and feature (or whatever gimmicky name the manufacturer has given it this year), it hardly amounts to an early adopter tax. This isn't the AMD 400 series card under performing for a few months until the correct driver revisions are released, or a CPU not supporting h265 until the latest firmware is available; this is a product that will never be able to perform as advertised no matter how many firmware revisions are released.
Yes, I'm aware that manufacturers typically won't grant a return for an issue like this. But the fact that we tacitly accept this makes suffering an issue like this more obnoxious. I'm not sure if you misinterpreted my post, or if you have some loyalty or attachment to ASUS, either way I'd be surprised if you would blindly support a company that (everything from Motherboards to routers) has become progressively more unsatisfactory in customer service and quality control. Like others on this thread, I've had numerous issues with my 88u-- some of them were cleared up by other users and were the result of my own unrealistic expectations, however, other glaring issues remain. If not for this community and the willingness of everyone who shares their technical knowledge, I would have had a much harder time in getting my router functional.
A few years ago, prior to the 88u I was using the 68U and the ac-68 adapter. I've used third party, Merlin and Asus firmware without any problems and have learned a lot through my first major wireless setup (mainly by lurking on this forum for years). A year ago, I swapped to the 88u and the AC88 for the benefits of using a broadcom chip (nitro/turbo-Qam) and MU-MIMO, as well as numerous other features. My AC-88 adapter turned out to be a lemon and failed to power on after two weeks of ownership. After a couple of weeks of dealing with Asus customer support and claims of a month turn around time to fix the adapter, Amazon agreed to soak up the refund. Needless to say, none of that matters now-- since I have the original RT-88u I won't be able to even attempt MIMO and despite a working AC88 adapter the broadcom features don't work.
To get the most out of the router, I've disabled Qam and MIMO following Merlin's advice, and the router works for the most part. For some reason I am still stuck with erratic power levels and signal strength, noticeably worse on the 5g side than my AC-68U. I apologize for the wall of text, but at times I've been baffled by posters who admonish those feeling slighted for having paid for a product that doesn't do what amounts to a
major selling point and the fact that there is zero recourse to correct the issue! Low expectations? Brand loyalty? I mean, don't get me wrong, I still think ASUS makes great routers... but I would think that with this particular situation it would be easy to understand someone's frustration. The 68 was great, the adapter is great as well... perhaps the early iteration of the 88u wasn't worth the $300?
---------
Maybe I wrote all of that for no reason, and your reply was simply emphasizing that this sort of thing happens frequently (i.e., I shouldn't be shocked so stop bitching). You understand that broadcom functionality with a compatible adapter doesn't work and that MU-MIMO will not work for those with the older adapter, you aren't arguing that an individual should not experience frustration at bearing the cost, or that consumers being active in complaints could elicit change from ASUS is unreasonable. If that is the case, sorry for my misunderstanding, AND I'll quit my complaining
yes using it now and all is good here
Thanks, I'll give it another shot. I know this initially was implemented due to low throughput on the 2.4 end with nearby Bluetooth signals. Any idea if the 2.4 band was also interfering significantly with local Bluetooth devices? If so, would compatibility correct this?
