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)'
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.
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' ?
USB 2 suffers from a master / slave design. Theoretically one can plug a firewire drive into a firewire camera, and transfer footage from the camera directly to the HD. And you can run IP over firewire, for some really fast / cheap LAN for a central storage server.
On top of that, 1394b supports up to 1.2Gbps or 1.6 Gbps (depending on the media) which is being developed. And it works nicely with 1394a.
FireWire has many advantages over USB 2.0 that far outweigh the extra 80Mb/s USB2 claims over the current iteration of FireWire. Most importantly is the fact that it is peer-to-peer, meaning that no host PC is required to manage every FW connection. This makes firewire a good choice for video equipment, and interesting is also being adopted in the auto industry to connect electronic components together. Also, data carried over FireWire carries certain priority information with it, depending on the type of data being transferred. Video data or a CD burning session can thus be treated with a higher priority that pictures from a still camera. Anyone who has hooked up a USB CD burner downstream from their printer can attest to the importance of such a mechanism.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
First of all, Firewire allows devices on its bus to talk directly to each other. Thus when transferring data on a bus with a hard drive, computer, and camera the data can go directly from the camera to the hard drive.
With USB each device sends its data first to the host controller, and then back out to the device it was intended to go to. This effectively cuts the bandwidth of the bus in half and also limits the bus to how fast the central controller can handle requests. So using USB in the camera-computer-hard drive combo above, the data would go from the camera to the computer, then back out the computer to the hard drive.
Secondly, Firewire is built to handle streaming data. It handles reserving bandwith much better than USB 2.0 does. This is very important when you are recording from a camera to a hard drive and the data is time-dependant.
Thirdly, Firewire is able to operate much closer to sustaining its theoretical maximum of 400Mbps. USB 2.0's 480Mbps data rate is a burst data rate and cannot come even close to sustaining that rate of transfer. I've heard that your average transfer rates over a Firewire bus is going to be around 75% of theoretical, where USB 2.0 is around 50% of theoretical. These results can vary, but Firewire almost definitely outperforms USB 2.0 for sustained data transfers.
Another big problem is that USB tends to transfer data at the rate of the slowest device on the bus, Firewire does not share this limitation.
Lastly, Firewire is due for a speed bump very soon. Probably late this year you will see Firewire bump up to 800Mbps, a much better rate than the current USB 2.0 rate of 480Mbps.
Now I'm not saying that USB 2.0 is utter crap. It is decent when you only have a couple of devices connected that are not doing sustained transfers. So it should be great for printers, mice, keyboards, etc. However, when it comes to video cameras, hard drives, and other devices that need good sustained transfer rates, I'll stick with Firewire. Not to mention that it is already included with the majority of these devices and USB 2.0 is not.
Sapere aude!
Most of the people won't know it and won't use it.
And there are already cheap ($75) KT333 motherboards with 4 USB 2.0 ports on the market.
I think mobos with USB 2.0 onboard are
already much more popular than ones with firewire and people won't be willing to pay extra for the controller -they will stick with USB.
Apple again had superior technology but lost.
I personally chose USB 2.0 because I have quite a few USB 1.1 computers and devices will work with them, even if a bit slower. If I were to use
firewire I would have to buy a controller for each. I have some computer expertise
and I do not want to do it. I am pretty
sure an average Joe would be even less
likely to do so. If his mobo has USB 2.0 - he
will buy USB 2.0 device.
Kubus
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?
It is supported on the VIA P4X333 and KT333 chipsets, for example.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
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.
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
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.
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.
i.secure? Now there's an unfortunate expression.
/usr/share/dict/words
% grep 'i.secure'
insecure
insecurely
insecureness
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
USB 2 suffers from a master / slave design. Theoretically one can plug a firewire drive into a firewire camera, and transfer footage from the camera directly to the HD
Unforutnatly the cost of actualy IMPLEMENTING this on a device shoots the price up by ~$25-$50 dollars. (it was worse. . . . )
And on say a $200 digicam. . . . ouch.
From a 12.5% to a 25% price markup for the ability to transfer images straight to a HD without a computer go between (uh. . . . heh.) may be useful to people who are doing high end work, but then again people doing high end work do not bother with $200 digicams;
which is why firewire is senseless to use in cheap devices and why USB{1,2} still has its uses and will for some time to come.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
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".
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.
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.
Whining crybaby companies like Lucent, who got on the 1394 bandwagon too late. Apple developed Firewire (1394) on it's own, and then partnered with Sony and Texas Instruments to provide chipsets and other products. As these companies and some others formed a consortium for patent sharing (similar to JDEC for RAM), they had a trivial, if not free licensing for early adopters. Sometime after the IEEE accepted this as the 1394 standard, the consortium decided to charge royalties to the "Johnny-come-lately" companies that didn't sign on early. All of the early adopters that shouldered the weight of developing this technology were allowed to use the catchy name that Apple coined, Firewire. Sony had a bit of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome and probably felt that it could market this as a proprietary technology by calling it i.Link.
Lucent and some other laggards got all huffy, because they found USB to suck, too late in the game, and wanted to produce chipsets for Firewire too. Because they were slow to the mark, they would be charged a licensing fee to use the name and symbology of Firewire. By just following the 1394 standard, they didn't have to license the name Firewire (or i.Link). In geeky magazine ads in embeded systems trade wrags, Lucent went as far as admonishing customers "Don't use the 'F' word, its 1394!"
I have nothing against Lucent, but they are the one that springs to my mind now. Other PC manufacturers were late to the table (HPaQ) and used 1394 as a label for their ports (which confuses and befuddles their typical users).
-- Len
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.
---
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
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.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!