Inferior physical design of new AP6 420 vs our older APX 320

For the AP6 420s I used a white ultra thin CAT 6 cable and covered the hole I made in the dropped ceiling for the cable with a white sticker, it would look uglier if I didn't. Too bad I do not have photos of how the APX 320s looked before, but it was a super clean look with no cables and no visible holes.

Another photo comparing both APs

Just to be sure: The design of AP6 is the same of Legacy AP from back in the day. You will find even the same design from AP100. 

So Sophos went back to the original design. 

The AP6 840 is the same design as APX. See: https://www.sophos.com/de-de/products/secure-wifi/tech-specs 

The AP6 840 is overkill and too expensive for our office, one APX 320 would be enough but we had a second one for redundancy. To be honest I regret upgrading to the AP4 420 but now it is too late to return them to CDW and ask for a refund so I will use them. Such a shame cause the APX 320s were only 18 months old and look nicer and now will be unused.

Too bad Sophos decided to go back to the original design, I like better the compact unit, not as nice looking as Unifi APs but clean enough.

I have to admit that I had a similar thought when I upgraded to the AP6 420E. The APX 320's no-ventilation is probably not the best design -- especially for Wifi 6E -- but the ability to run the ethernet straight into the wall/celiing OR to run out out of the side was quite nice. In the future, a hybrid design would probably be best.

On the other hand, Wifi 6E is VERY nice. The whole 5GHz band is so screwed up and fragmented in multiple ways and 6GHz -- with Wifi 6 enhancements -- is the way to go. (The APX 320 also had its quirky two-radio solution, but that's another matter.)

I notice that your device has a barrel power connector, which mine doesn't -- so mine has a slightly cleaner look. Not sure if it's the region or the 420E, but mine seems to be PoE-only.

Mine are AP6 420 (without the E) for the Americas. You mentioned a good point about ventilation so that might be ok. I still don't understand the logic of why the unit needs to be larger and why the ports (ETH, Console, Reset and Power) cannot be on the back of the unit? I haven't even enable 6GHz at this point since I wanted to make sure the WiFi works fine plus the majority of smartphones and laptops in the office are not even 6 GHz compatible. I might enable that frequency in the future.

The E is for WiFi 6E, so if you don't have that, you won't have 6GHz -- as I understand it.

It's larger at least in part because it has 3 radios rather than 2, so it can simultaneously do the full 2.4 GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz ranges. In addition, WiFi 6 (and 6E) support more sophisticated beam-forming, so a larger footprint might support that better. It'll have at least 6 antennas -- two per radio/frequency band.

The 5 GHz band is a mess, broken up into multiple pieces, having DFS frequencies (we're near an airport, so that matters), and then a new set of channels (UNII-4) that may never be supported by many devices. So I'm excited about 6 GHz. And with the loads of bandwidth plus improvements in WiFi 6/6E the effective range should be roughly the same.

Thanks for your replies. Ok so the holes for ventilation and the bigger size make sense after your explanations. Now I need an explanation of why the ports/holes were moved to the side instead of being located at the back (for a cleaner install).

I'm with you on that, which is what I meant by the next time being a "hybrid" design: keep the larger size and ventilation -- as necessary -- but put the connectors on the top so they can be hidden.

The only thing I can think of is that a side location makes the device slightly thinner and might make for a more efficient circuit board layout (not having the ethernet connection in the center of the board). Also, the reset and admin port are accessible without unmounting the AP from the wall/ceiling, which might be convenient if you have to use them.

I think you're spot on with your assumptions about why the ports were placed on the side. It seems like the Sophos design team prioritized practicality and functionality over aesthetics in this case. While it may not look as clean, having the ports more accessible without unmounting the device could be a deliberate choice to simplify maintenance and troubleshooting.