Agreed, I feel that "mesh" has been reduced to a buzzword akin to "web" 10+ years ago. In particular, this usage of it for EasyMesh begins to feel like a misappropriation. Unfortunately for anyone concerned with clarity, the term describes a topology, not which layer it is implemented on.
I constantly find myself using qualifiers like "hybrid mesh cellular" (doesn't exist due to hostile regulation), "link-layer optimization for mesh processing", & "app-layer mesh protocols for decentralized Directed Acyclic Graph consensus". "Mesh", "matrix", "net", & "web" are all terms which are virtually interchangeable in contexts outside the IT realm. "Star" most accurately describes the topology of most people's single-AP WiFi implementations, yet the term is deprecated due to association with a specific old protocol nobody's done much with in thirty years, as far as I know.
The whole thing is a linguistic nightmare, from anything but a marketing perspective (marketing loves conflation; it's one of the industry's primary tools).
EasyMesh protocol finalization looks like great news for installers & WiFi network admins, but I expect the new range extenders it enables to make the overcrowding situation worse, not better.
If it doesn't enable peer nodes to communicate without a centralized point of control, I'd vastly prefer the term "mesh" not be used at all.
The way you just described WiFi Direct sounds closer to true mobile-to-mobile mesh connectivity than what is described above. WiFi Direct allows nodes to trade off AP duties; EasyMesh allows nodes to optimize AP selection; scatternet allowed (if I recall correctly) multi-AP piconet connections over Bluetooth, using application layer as a workaround for inadequate link-layer protocols. ... But I wouldn't say it's like comparing apples & oranges; more like comparing Newtons & Macintosh. It seems obvious to me that they approach the same challenge (flexible connectivity) from different directions, but if you have time, please clarify how these three protocols are substantially different in purpose?
The problem with WiFi Direct is that all its local mobile-to-mobile capabilities are disabled if the group doesn't have a node connected to a tower at all times. For example, you can't have three devices up in the mountains exchange files or messages, unless one of them can get the OK from a service provider's tower. WiFi Direct stops as soon as you lose cellular signal or experience a service timeout. It's crippled by design.
EasyMesh doesn't seem to offer any neighbor-to-neighbor utility; It appears to be focused solely on expanding coverage of single-point-of-control networks which are already overcrowded (hence the need for so many range extenders). When are we not in range of half a dozen or more WiFi networks?
I see adding more APs as an exercise in futility. The primary issue is overcrowding, not signal strength. Remove all the other nearby networks & one router easily reaches across most buildings.
Sorry, I guess that's two topics in one comment, but I'll repeat my primary question: In what way are these different approaches "completely" different? They seem to all be chasing roughly the same goal. I also feel that "mesh" has stagnated due to lack of hardware support (& accompanying lack of open source firmware).
I'M SORRY! I was thinking of LTE Direct, which is crippled by design. Please disregard my statement about "WiFi Direct" needing a cellular tower.