Slashdot Mirror
1394 Trade Association Adopts FireWire Brand
MaxVlast writes in that the
The 1394 Trade Association has adopted the FireWire trademark, logo and symbol as a brand identity for the IEEE 1394 connection standard in a "no-fee license agreement" between 1394ta and Apple. Apple has also granted 1394ta the right to sub-license the FireWire Trademark for use on products, packaging and promotion of the standard.
... cause that is what everybody calls it anyways. I'm glad Apple appears to have been cooperative and permissive about this, otherwise we'd see confusion about the burgeoning technology.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
FireWire redundant? How could it be redundant if there isn't anything else on it? Most cameras don't have USB2 connections... I think the word you are looking for is obsolete, maybe? Not that it is... Anyway, IANAE but what I recall of similar arguments have to do with things like "stream vs packets", "peer to peer vs. master to slave", the fact that FireWire is already the DV standard and there isn't any point changing it now (until FW2), Firewire can provide more bus power than USB, etc.
I could see Apple giving the trademark to the trade association to improve its visibility in the industry (and stunt USB2's growth while it can), but I can't see it "letting go" of such an important branch of technology unless it has a firm grip on the next branch up the tree.
Compactflash cameras transfer files onto the cards using files and directories. They've been working with filesystems for years.
Didn't Apple do the same thing for 802.11b? Being the first company to push this and effectively kill all those 802.11b "alternatives", it would have been a wise move to free-up the name "Airport" to prevent confusions with WiFi.
Everything you say is true. Firewire is an infinitely superior interface--and more than an interface, an architecture. It supports so many things, and so much better than USB 2.0. BUT...
Replace "Firewire" in the above comment with "SCSI" and replace "USB 2.0" with IDE. Now, finish the "BUT..." BUT...none of that matters because of practical considerations like cost--whether the vendor will spend the extra money or the customer pay the extra money.
It makes sense for high-end and mid-range (but still costly) consumer electronics equipment like video cameras and more expensive "prosumer"-level digital cameras to have Firewire ports. In the former case it's necessary because we're dealing with video data which could saturate the bus and either take forever to transfer or get more easily corrupted in the process without the safeguards Firewire employs. In the latter case a person who's buying a higher level of equipment would probably expect the same sort of interface he has with his DVcam and other higher-end toys.
But for most things other than DVcams and similar equipment, Firewire makes no sense. We want better faster cheaper. That means huge IDE drives over smaller more expensive SCSI drives (unless you need what SCSI offers, just as DVcams need what Firewire offers). That means not using the better but more complicated and more expensive Firewire when USB 2.0 will work much the same.
So, most suitable items will remain USB/2.0 connected, with Firewire gaining little ground even after its speed bump thanks to the expense of implementing its more complex architecture. Aside from digital video cameras and "prosumer" digital still cameras, and hard drives for people too lazy or lacking in knowledge to open their cases and stick another IDE drive in (or people whose cases are too small, like Mac owners), there's not much place for Firewire. USB 2.0 and its future successors, however, are perfect for most things which could connect to a computer--hell, even cable modems now usually have a USB port or two, since it costs almost nothing to add; even though it won't give as much bandwidth as with a $10 ethernet card and some cat 5, it's there because it's easy and nearly costless for the manufacturer to add and easy for uses who couldn't install an ethernet card to hook up.
Firewire's cost to implement thanks to its fancy peer-to-peer model guarantees that it won't be added to many things which don't explicitly need it, while USB 2.0's low implementation costs mean it'll go into everything and the kitchen sink. In the end it's just a SCSI vs. IDE debate--one's clearly superior, but the other is "good enough and cheaper."
Apple saw the writing on the wall, which is why they're finally deciding to stop being so stingy with their catchy Firewire name. If Apple wants to get Firewire on more than cameras and overpriced external hard drives and a middling number of computers, it has to start working for it or else...
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Not to be a pain about this, but I would be more willing to bet that the reason Fire Wire isn't as standard on PC's as it could be is that PC manufacturers (and users) tend to dislike a change in their standards, and like to keep everything. Case in point, USB. USB was an intel developed product (if I remember correctly) but it never appeared mainsteam untill Apple started selling USB only computers, then all of a sudden everyone was making USB devices. Even now it's ver hard to find a USB only PC, many still have PS/2 built in.
I'm sure the lisenseing had something to do with Firewire not being standardized, but I personaly think it has to do with resistance to change. After all, how else do you explain the continued (albiet rapidly diminishing) existance of ISA
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984