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)'
But when will I be able to get a no fee firwire adaptor? :-D
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
I hope they keep the name "FireWire" for their 800MBps version. It is catchy and it rolls off the tongue, unlike *shudder* GigaWire.
I felt so much smarter calling it 1394 too... oh well.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
I was reading the PDF factsheet on that page about Firewire. It doesn't look like Apple is making any attempt to turn people away from USB and towards Firewire. With USB 2 out now, why does anyone need Firewire? USB 2 has a max data rate of 480Mbps if I remember correctly. I know a lot of video cameras have the Firewire interface built in but it seems awfully redundant to do so.
So, will Sony dump there attempt at branding firewire as i.link and adopt the standard? or will they try and go against the grain and keep 'their name' ?
I didn't even know apple was a company in 1394. :-) Back then FireWire was probably a rope on fire. But alas I digress.
I'm relieved - almost all of my film school students call any IEEE1394 devices "firewire" (a few of them used Sony's "iLink"). Now I no longer need to keep constantly reminding them: "No, it's not a firewire cable, it's a 1394 cable".
I can give in with a clear conscience!
Now, if only I can get them to stop calling XLR3 connectors "Canon plugs"...
;-)
The standard is called Camera Link and you can find a technical PDF on it with a quick google search.
Camera link was designed specifically for connecting digital cameras so, according to the stuff I've seen so far, there are line scan cameras in camera link but not in firewire, camera link cameras are higher bandwidth than firewire cameras (up to 2.38 GB), and camera link is supported by the industrial (as opposed to consumer and artistic) camera and frame grabber community
I don't know much more than this, so I'm not advocating Camera Link, just putting it in this discussion for those who haven't heard of it.
its like having an ad on every pc saying we're better because we get to name the shit you finally get two years later.
I want 2D games back.
And we were all just getting used to saying "one thousand...three hundred...and ninety-four...a".
Got friends?
They'll add SCMS to Firewire and dub it "i.Secure". :-)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
With all the patent nonsense we've been seeing, I first browsed that and somehow came up with this:
What?! A Trade Association claimed to patent Firewire in 1394 AD?
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
Okay, am I the only one who sees the irony in a 'lack of bandwidth' error on the home page for a trade association whose product is defined by its bandwidth?
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Saying "FireWire (Apple's trademark), formally known as IEEE 1394 and also called iLink by Sony " was always a mouthfull :(
IEEE-1394 (FireWire, i.Link)
They must be running their site from a DV camera. Hey, at least they are using their own products!
The dogcow says "Moof!"
its like having an ad on every pc saying we're better because we get to name the shit you finally get two years later
:-)
Clue: We live in a world where most people think Microsoft invented the graphical user interface.
One thing I worry about with 1394/FireWire is the incorpoartion of copy protection. I notice that the 1394 chipset from Philips includes the 5C copy protection. Sure, it can be hacked, but it's a pain in the ass.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
FUD, pure FUD + 10% troll.
Now, read this, this, and this and weep!
>USB2 on the other hand is expected to be in Windows XP SP1
Oh yeah, that'll catch on just like USB 1.0 caught on when Windows 95 OSR2 came out (ffft... yeah, right...).
>Since 99% of all computer users use Windows, USB2 will catch on incredibly fast leaving FireWire in the dust.
Since 99% (as you say) of users already have firewire support why the f*ck would they switch all their stuff to USB 2.0?
>Sometimes you Slashdot folk have to remember that just because you think the technology is better, doesn't mean it will catch on. Hmm, how long has the Gameboy had a black and white screen until they used color?
All the real geeks knew the B/W systems were better because at the time you'd be lucky to play all of Sonic the Hedgehog without replacing the batteries. I could beat Super Mario World 3 times over and the battery light was still bright red.
>So, has Apple made an attempt to turn people away from USB?
And why should they? USB is fine for slow devices like keyboards and mice that need to be cheap, and don't generate a lot of data, and aren't likely to be hooked up without a computer being in the mix.
>not even with OS X which you can tell is aimed at Windows XP with it's XPish interface
Ahahah! I don't even own a Mac and I've never seen OS-X except for glimpses of it on "The Screen Savers" and I can tell you it doesn't look at all like XP.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Err, XP does support FireWire right now.
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.
Hmm, how long has the Gameboy had a black and white screen until they used color?
People who consider the Nintendo Game Boy inferior tend to ignore the fact that its backlit color competitors (Game Gear, Atari Lynx, and Genesis Nomad) were much larger and ran about four to five hours on a set of six AA batteries. The original GB ran 20 to 30 hours on a set of four. The current GBA with the Afterburner internal frontlight runs 10 to 15 hours on two AA batteries.
In the 6 months that I've been doing GBA development, the biggest problem I've run into has been the audio system's complete lack of response below 400 Hz. Thus my jungle tracks become drum and ... silence.
Will I retire or break 10K?
1394 Trade Association
No pictures but its a start.
Leave it to Apple to not try to gouge other people in the industry with licensing fees.
Are you listening Microsoft? Sometimes you can make just as much off of good PR as you can off of lousy licensing schemes.
Besides Sony's "i.link" what other competetion was their against the name FireWire?
-rr
I wouldn't be surprised if you see up and coming Macs with USB2.0 and FireWire (800mbs).
I don't think the two technologies compete that much. Everyone likes to make out that they are major competitors to each other.
I see it like this:
USB for your Printers/Scanners/Disk Drives/KeyBoard/Mouse etc, basically anything that is only usefull with a computer.
Firewire for your streaming devices, such as Hard Drives, Video Cameras etc. Of course there will be some devices that cross over but I don't think it will be that common.
Go out and get sailing!
Isn't that the same thing? Stupid name, but still...
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
Ummmmm OS X was out first, by almost a year. XP is clearly the copy, including the name.
And by not supporting FireWire MS is making it so you can't plug your DV camera into your XP box. USB2 doesn't have the sustainable bandwidth to do video, plus it's not peer to peer.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Oh yeah, and another point. Apple stuck its neck out and adopted USB before it was even supported by most PCs. Yeah some PCs has USB ports, but Windows didn't have USB support. All those candy colored USB peripherals that came out after the iMac got the whole USB ball rolling in the first place!
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Actually, Sony has been promoting i.Link as an alternative name because of the angst cause by the translation of "FIREWIRE" into the Japanese language. Culturally, the Japanese seem to take product and marketing use of language and naming much more seriously than Westerners...
In English, we can easily distort meanings and make allusions to fuctionality with the same words and we fluidly do so.. In the case of "Hot" refferring to temperature, trendiness or even sexiness all taken in an appropriate contextual setting; the English speaker is not likely to experience any particular mental anguish regarding the particular usage of the term.
In this case, "Fire" and associations with "wire" porvide a particular image of speed. In Japanese, the Kanji "hi" (-hee-) is literally *Fire* and quite dangerous. Associating that with "wire" possibly alludes to the quite frequent burning down of older buildings with less than adequate electrical systems (a whole other topic).
Unfortunately, due to access to world press the term "FireWire" or "fieyawieya" is widely known in the technical community along with the "IEEE1394". Unfortunately, as computer people are just beginning to become acquainted with video technology, few seem to have made the connection between "fireWire" and "iLink".
Firewire hasa max speed of 400 megabits/sec
USB 2 has a max of 480 megabits/sec
At this point yes, USB 2 is faster than the fastest AVAILABLE Firewire. However, Apple (or whoever, I can't remember exactly) will be introducing Firewire 2 later this year. It's got a max speed of 1600 Megabits/sec, hence the extremely retarded Gigawire name.
werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
You've seen it before, take a look at your Gameboy.
Apparently when they came to look for a really robust connector they decided that the Gameboy one fit the bill. If it can survive massive PFY abuse it should survive anything.
Of course, that might explain Sony's reluctance to use it, being tainted by association with Nintendo.
The USB connector, by comparison, destroys far too easily.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Remember how, for years, Apple yelled and screamed when people called it FireWire? How they expected to get rich from licensing the name? How it's caused confusion for consumer, with the identical thing being alternately called 1394, FireWire, and iLink, depending on the vendor?
Just shows to go ya, you don't have to be a *successful* monopoly to be incredibly slow and inefficient and unresponsive to consumer interest. Wanna-be monopolies can do it to!
Cheers
-b
Sony is the one that calls 1394 iLink
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.
Apple did NOT create SCSI. Look here for the history of SCSI. Apple may have popularized it, but they did not invent it.
I thought they turn into extra coat hangers in your closet...
iLink is one protocol level up from FireWire. It's a standard for sending video over FireWire. FireWire supports both an isochronous mode for video and audio, and an asynchronous mode for devices that can wait, like disk drives. In theory, you can do both at once on the same cable without interference, although few do.
Ergh.
You're all wrong. Trust me on this - I've been writing stacks and designing 1394 hardware for a while now.
There is no difference between iLink and FireWire. They are different names for the same thing. Yes, there are two plug types. One is tiny and 4 pin, the other is bigger and 6 pin. The big one has power. They are both part of the IEEE 1394 standard. They are both FireWire. They are both iLink.
There is no difference at the protocol level. Trust me on this. I have had my nose rubbed in more 1394 protocol stacks and chipsets than I care to remember.
The main reason that this hasn't happened before is that nobody trusted Apple. Especially after their stunt where they tried to tack on huge royalty fees for every 1394 port (this after agreeing several years earlier to pool patents with the other people who made 1394 possible). They timed this particularly well, and managed to delay the uptake of 1394 by maybe 2 years, and in some cases, permanently. Basically, they were complete idiots and damn near shot off their foot at the ankle. I think this had a lot to do with the fact that 1394 isn't standard kit on todays PC motherboard chipsets. The royalties alone were close to the cost of the entire chipset.
It Sony hadn't stuffed 1394 into every camcoder on the planet, 1394 would be dead. Apple are NOT my favourite people. Greedy idiots.
---
>not even with OS X which you can tell is aimed at Windows XP with it's XPish interface
Wow, the ignorance in this statement is staggering. Isn't rewriting history to suit your needs great? MacOS X was out for almost a year before XP came onto the scene!! On top of that, to most people at the time "Windows XP" was a lame attempt to rip off the X in MacOS X.
From my understanding, there is already an "OS 10", so Apple had to use X instead of 10. Windows XP is supposed to stand for Windows eXPerience (whatever THAT is).
And while we're at it, Apple's interface is called "Aqua" and XP's is called "Luna"...hmmm... Oh yes, and MS ripped off the ducky icon too (which Apple has been using for years). Yes I know it's public domain clipart...but they could've included anything in their collection. Instead, they included the duck. Wow Microsoft, you're so creative. I wonder who was copying who...
"Never separate the life you live from the words you say." - Paul Wellstone
iMac 800 / iBook 800
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
USB2 needs a PC in the middle.
For example you can plug a firewire camera directly into a Firewire portable hardrive & tranfer data across.
You need a computer between the 2 to do that with USB2
For that matter, so does Win2K. I have a hard drive and a couple of webcams that use FireWire. (I had FireWire devices before I had any USB devices, for what that's worth...my printer is parallel and my scanner is SCSI (though the scanner's been acting flaky...might need to replace it).) Adding FireWire was as simple as adding the controller card...the driver for it was already part of Win2K.
I think Win98 SE had some level of FireWire support as well, but I had moved on to Win2K by the time I started doing anything with FireWire.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
he's referring to firewire2, ie 1394b. And yeah, i agree, Apple will release it's next major hardware revision with USB 2.0 and "gigawire". he he. -0-
thanks for the info.
I should also mention that USB depends on the CPU for its work, while Firewire has controller chips that take care of this. This one factor is probably what makes Firewire more expensive, but at the same time makes a huge difference in a computer that is doing heavy duty work.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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
I'm running out of PCI slots! I only have 6! My motherboard came with USB 2.0, but it's on a PCI card. Now I need FireWire? Tell the idiots at Apple to make up their minds!
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
this is the correct info. Pin number/power are the man difference. the other post is foo.
iLink is a 1394 port plain and simple. If it is a four pin port then yes, it is not powered just like any other four pin 1394 (aka firewire) port.
If it is a six pin port, then indeed, it is a powered port.
Most devices have a 4 pin 1394 port on them whether they are produced by Sony or not.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Apple did some huge marketing for the first Mac (the 1984 commercial is still one of the top 3 commercials of all time) It aired once and had arguably the biggest impact of any commercial on a new product. IEEE 1394 is the technical designation for the technology. (Mostly) everything that you use on a computer has an IEEE designation, you just don't see it. They did allow the name to be used, but for a lisenceing fee. Not the brightest move and Apple realized that it wasn't helping their tech at all, nor was it bringing in a usable revenue, so they drop the fee and open the lisence.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Total BS. Every Sony desktop has 6 pin i.Link ports in the back. Yeah the notebooks have only four pin ports, but if I remember correctly so don't the iBooks.
Seeing how there is hardly any six pin devices, does it really matter anyways?.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Basically, they were complete idiots and damn near shot off their foot at the ankle. I think this had a lot to do with the fact that 1394 isn't standard kit on todays PC motherboard chipsets. The royalties alone were close to the cost of the entire chipset.
.25.
Are you saying that the entire chipset of a motherboard cost $1? Because that's how much Apple was charging in royalties for FireWire, until a very public backlash forced them to charge
I disagree with your assessment of why FireWire isn't standard on PC mobo's though. I think it has much more to do with Intel pushing Intel-owned standards such as USB and ATA (in spite of the fact that neither one of those is a true replacement). Had Intel embraced FireWire for the mainstream, then yes, we would see FireWire as ubiquitous on PC's as USB. But it was Intel's marketing strategy to position their competitor's product as being for high-end and niche markets, not for mainstream. Very shrewd.
I think for relatively low-speed applications (digital still cameras with small-sized memory cards, keyboards, mouse pointers, analog modems, and lower-resolution scanners) USB will do fine.
However, with CompactFlash memory cards already hitting 512 MB in size (and you know the Panasonic SD and Sony Memory Stick cards are going to increase way beyond 64 MB in storage capacity), the wide availability of FireWire port external hard drives and CD-RW/DVD recordable drives, and for higher-resolution scanners, you definitely want to have the higher sustained transfer speeds of FireWire connections.
Besides, how much does it cost to install a FireWire adapter card anyway? These cards are almost as cheap as USB adapter cards for older computers. And many computer manufacturers already include FireWire connections with the computer and many newer motherboards include FireWire support, too.
This isn't the SCSI versus IDE debate, because the price differential between FireWire and USB 2.0 is much smaller than the price differential between SCSI and IDE.
Looking at the specs for Camera Link, I don't think it will be popular.
There is one major reason for this: the size of the connector--it's essentially a modified DB-25 connector design. Compare that against the very small connector size for FireWire cables and I think for portability purposes FireWire wins hands down. Besides, at 400 megabits/second transfer rate the current FireWire standard is more than enough to transfer the entire contents of a 512 MB CompactFlash card to the computer pretty quickly.
Besides, the new IEEE-1394b standard for FireWare will double the data transfer rate to 800 megabits/second, which makes Camera Link even less attractive.
It used to be doable, but pricy, but on today's systems?
hawk
Apple should let IEEE promote 802.11b as AirPort so that un-techies stop using that horrible "Wi-Fi" moniker.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
It was $1 _per port_, and chipsets probably cost in the range of $8 or so to make.
I only repeat what the internal feeling was amongst the 1394 community, and I think that feeling is justified. I saw a number of chipsets that were going to have 1394 mysteriously lose that feature around this period.
I didn't realise that dissing Apple would be such a bone of contention. I find it quite funny, actually. They've done some cool things in their time, and this wasn't one of them. A little objectivity would be a good idea here.
Flamebait=2? I didn't just make this stuff up you know. Get a grip.
---
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I heard that they want to implement the protocol over wireless, and the engineers were geeked that they could call it Wireless FireWire (super cool, IMHO). Marketing got wind of it, was horrified by the "wireless" and "wire" in the name, and came up with Gigawire (Giga works for them because it's Gigahertz wireless).
Then again, the Apple world is full of crazy rumours!
Lies about crimes
Because it's parent post is wrong, and this one is right.
&# 12450;A 281;
I first heard about Firewire in 1994 IIRC. Apple had it for a while in their Advanced Technology Group, but it took Jobs to figure out what to do with it. In general, Apple's Advanced Technology Group and Advanced Computation Group kick serious ass.
Lies about crimes
I only repeat what the internal feeling was amongst the 1394 community, and I think that feeling is justified. I saw a number of chipsets that were going to have 1394 mysteriously lose that feature around this period.
Not so mysterious, really. Intel had been a long-time backer of FireWire, so the natural assumption was that FireWire would find instant adoption in the PC world. But a year or so before Apple started shipping the first FireWire Macs, Intel started grousing about how FireWire wasn't suitable for the masses and that USB and ATA were. Did it really matter to Intel if motherboards included FireWire? Directly, no, because all of those motherboards would have included USB and ATA, anyway. Where Intel stood to lose ground was in the peripheral market, where most manufacturers might start using FireWire chipsets in quantity instead of Intel chipsets. Intel had a chance to delay/slow this by a few years (maybe even kill it), and they took the shot.
From a business perspective, then, FireWire was only available on a small percentage of PC systems, and it was very questionable as to "when" FireWire would see widespread adoption on PC motherboards. Is there a reason to build for a niche market with a murky future (FireWire) instead of building for the market that 100% of new PC's will support (USB)? Of course most manufacturers/developers were going to build for USB over FireWire.
I thought the socks turned into belly button lint...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
If SONY wanted to use the Firewire name they would have either used the English without modification (like USB) or spelled it phonetically using katakana. The real reason SONY didn't want to use the name was that SONY has a HUGE (I mean HUGE!!!) NIH complex. [NIH = Not Invented Here].
Actually, it looks like device to device transfer will be built into some newer USB 2.0 devices. I would say slave to slave, but it looks like it is basically an integrated master/slave controller chipset that will be available:1 06S0058
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011
It will be called On-the-Go and it is specifically to work around this problem. Sounds great to me, I'd just love to have a Digital camera and be able to dump it to something like an Archos mp3/USB hdd.
Now the Trade Association will be able to use the FireWire technology in their Battle Droids.
Each company still has the right to call it whatever they want. The standards committee has decided that the official name of the technology will be Firewire from now on.
I'm not saying anyone has irrefutable proof claiming that MS did in fact, rip off Apple...though the coincidences seem to be more than happenstance....
But as far as OS X capitalizing on XP's interface? That's pure bunk.
"Never separate the life you live from the words you say." - Paul Wellstone
iMac 800 / iBook 800