Slashdot Mirror
Apple Backing Away From FireWire
farmdwg was one of several readers to submit stories about Apple backing away from FireWire. The latest generation of iPods no longer ship with FireWire cables, but instead use USB 2... although FireWire can still be purchased seperately.
Backing away?
Certainly not. FireWire is still integral; it is the standard for communication with a DV camcorder; it is important to the function of iMovie. The iLife suite is a big draw. I know people buying Macs just because of iLife.
Arguments of which standard is better aside, USB 2.0 is more widely available. As the article states, "It's more cost efficient to ship with one cable rather than two, and USB is more broadly supported on both platforms." It's not Apple backing away, it's Apple making a business decision. If they later remove FireWire support from the device, then you can get upset.
Using USB in the Shuffle was key because the, as mentioned, USB 2.0 is more broadly supported, and the connector is built it. Using FireWire on the Shuffle would have prevented it from reaching its target audience.
Apple is trying to save money and drop prices at the same time. Sure it sucks for us FireWire users. I have several FireWire peripherals and will probably spend the extra $20 getting the FireWire cable when I get my next iPod (hopefully soon). But it's a luxury, because I have USB 2.0 anyway.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I was just waiting for this to get posted.
Apple is not "backing away" from FireWire.
What's happening is that the iPod is shipping primarily to Windows PC owners. Many of whom, you know, don't have FireWire. And for the small minority who do, it's anyone's guess whether it's a 4-pin or 6-pin connector.
But they all have USB, and most, USB 2.0.
Apple also isn't shipping some iPods with a dock. Does that mean Apple is also "backing away" from the iPod dock?
What Apple is doing is a cost saving measure, plain and simple. ANYONE on any machine running Mac OS or Windows can use USB for syncing, and most of these customers have USB 2.0. including all recent Macs. And if you really want a FireWire cable, you can get one. I really don't see the problem. The iPod retail boxes are also now not platform-specific, as they were previously.
And far from "backing away" from FireWire, Apple is one of the primary members of the 1394 Trade Association, an Apple employee is the Chairman of the Board of the 1394 TA, an Apple employee has perennially been chair of the IEEE-1394 working group, Apple now allows free licensing of the "FireWire" name and logo for all 1394 products, and Apple is shipping 1394b (FireWire 800) on almost all of its products, save some of the "consumer" oriented products, and ALL Apple computers include FireWire. Many include both FireWire 400 (6-pin) and 800 (9-pin).
FireWire is FAR more robust than USB 2.0, and even FireWire 400 is faster in all benchmarks than USB 2.0. FireWire doesn't require a host as USB 2.0; all devices can be peers of one another. Additionally, the latest iterations of FireWire supports speeds up to 3.2 Gbps. There are wireless FireWire over 802.11x implementations planned. See the FireWire 800 Tech Brief for more information.
Additionally, all digital video cameras and decks, including new HDV cameras and decks, include FireWire as the primary - or only - connectivity. Further, starting 1 July 2005, all cable operators must provide a functional FireWire port on all HD digital set top boxes.
So no, Apple isn't "backing away" from FireWire. It's saving money on the new round of iPods by including a cable that 100% of its purchasers are guaranteed to be able to use, instead of a FireWire cable that the Mac users might be able to use, but the vast majority of PC users won't, and even if they HAVE FireWire, would have a 50/50 chance of being the wrong one. Not to mention that Apple got away from the iPod "for Mac" and iPod "for Windows" delineation and now ships them generically for both platforms.
Flexibility is a good thing.
OCO is Loco
They did not include a firewire cable. There is still a firewire connector.
This was a cost savings move and nothing more.
And it makes the front page of /.
Why do I come here anymore?
SteveM
.Its important that people not misinterpret this headline... because it can been so easily misinterpreted. Apple is NOT backing away from firewire.
They are simply making a very logical business decision for their iPod line. There are a number of people who may opt to not buy an iPod because they do not have firewire inputs on their machine. Apple has got around this by including adapter cables in the past, but because the bulk of their business goes to Windows users (many of whom don't have firewire)... the cables are an unneded expense now that the iPod can be powered through USB2.
Firewire is still very intregal to Apple... the same way Firewire has become very intregal to the industry at large.
Apple stops including a firewire cable stock in the box.
No change in iPods themselves or in functionality or in future functionality as far as anyone can tell. Apple knows most PC users throw the firewire cable in a drawer or leave it in the box.
If you want to use firewire and don't already have an extra cable you'll need to buy one. (Or hit up your PC using friend for their old one.)
Okay... I'm still not seeing the story here.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
You do realize that when transferring the 1's and 0's that compose the audio files you are downloading to your iPod that the method in which they are transmitted has no impact on the audio quality whatsoever, right?
I mean, you could stand on one hill, and I could stand on the other, and I could turn my flashlight on and off and send you the millions of 1's and 0's that compose the MP3, and when you typed them all into the computer the file would sound just as good.
Digital != Analog.
USB 2 has a max of 480Mbits/second. FireWire 400, fairly obviously, has a max of 400MB/s, and 800 has...800Mb/s. All in theory - in the real world, obviously varies according to device application.
That tells it all. Apple is keeping FireWire, of course. The C|Net "oh my God, we're gonna DIE" headline aside, FireWire is still a very important technology for Apple, particularly because of their investment in FireWire for DV. The distinction is in how a more nuanced Apple is handling it. In the old days Apple would have kept FireWire cabling in the box simply because they felt FireWire was a better technology.
These days Apple has a much, much firmer grip on the realities of the consumer electronics and computer markets, and decisions like this bear that out. As Oculus Habent stated, it does suck for FireWire users, but it's not a terrible burden to bear to have to buy a FireWire cable. This is a case of Apple keeping costs down in an effort to stay one step ahead of the competition.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You mean I didn't need that 8" thick diamond cable I bought for my digital optical transmissions? You can hear the diamonds! Hear them, I tell you!!!
I also like being able to daisy chain my external drives via FireWire, which you can't do with USB2. you can chain USB2 if each device has a hub built into it, however daisy chaining USB is stupid because it slows down every device on the line to use one of them.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
... I have to agree with you wholeheartedly.
/.
... I'm beginning to think this site is dead and we just don't know it yet.
This was a cost savings move and nothing more.
And it makes the front page of
Why do I come here anymore?
I'm starting to wonder the same thing. Slashdot has never been known for its "vetting" of stories, or even much editing of the captions, but the last few weeks it's become really terrible. Stories spinning the broadcast flag and attempted banning of digital HDTV VCR-like hardware as "piracy prevention", pro-ms stories rearing their heads more and more in what is (or was) supposed to be a free software/opensource news and discussion forum, and an ever increasing number of flat-out misleading headlines that misrepresent TFAs, and links to TFAs that are flagrant products of MPAA/RIAA shills
Anyone know of any decent competitors out there?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Doesn't that make me awesome? I am an authority. It only came with firewire. I din't know what firewire was until I got an iPod. It was pretty fast. I liked the color. It was white like the iPod.
One time I left the wire at a friend's house. Long story, don't ask. It involved making a CD. And then I couldn't use the firewire. I had a conversation on the phone and gave a bunch of reasons why I needed the firewire. My friend thought his house was going to catch on fire and he got very scared.
Long story? NO it is very short. But the key thing is that USB is a bit easier to find at Circuit City. It takes longer to say. Maybe Fire wire can be shortened to FI WI.
Anyway. I love animals. I want to get a iPod Photo so I can keep pictures of deer on it. Does it take USB or FI WI?
THanks you president Washington.
You're saying that Apple is backing off support of Firewire because they're not including _the cable_ by default in the box.
OK, think about that. Now think about this: A majority of the people buying iPods have Windows PCs. I'm going out on a limb and saying most PCs I've seen do not have Firewire by default. So why include a cable that most people aren't going to use when you can leave it out, save money by leaving it out AND get more money when people have to buy the cable seperately.
Simple economics. So for all you tin-foil hat wearers:
Removing the Firewire cable from the iPod package does not mean they're backing off support for Firewire.
Removing the ability for the iPods to connect via Firewire DOES mean they're backing off support for Firewire.
But the latter has not and probably will not happen. The FW cable being included was just legacy from when iPods were Mac-only since most Macs had FW for sometime and USB1.1 was inadequate for transfering GB to the iPod.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
I guess you can't boot of the iPod anymore. I know you are not supposed to but it was a nice feature. Or is it still possible with USB2?
Real world advantage is the difference in interface sharing methods. USB uses time-division (IIRC), FireWire is packet-based. Thus, if you're iPod and your external drive are on the same port, they each get a slice of time, even if nothing is being transferred to the drive. Each device can use as bandwidth [almost] freely in FireWire.
It's been a long time since I read up on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
As mentioned in some posts already, they are simply trying to save money, and not just backing away from Firewire entirely. Most iPod users now are Windows users who don't have firewire.
My guess is they are trying to standardize on USB to cut costs.
USB 2.0 is good enough for simple file transfer for 3-8 MB music files and pictures. Syncing an iPod doesn't copy over all 40 GBs of music files at the same time from one device to the other. Firewire is better for high end device connectivity and that big ass multimedia some Mac users are famous for.
There is a problem though... they are leaving their older mac customers a little cold. Many older macs only have USB 1.0 but have firewire. Macs were unfortunately slow to adopt USB 2.0 compared to windows. Intel was trying to compete with the firewire speeds by getting USB up to a comparable transfer rate. Now in order to buy the same thing a 2 year old windows user can use, they have to buy an extra cable at extra expense.
It could be argued that the company that sells computers considered to be "second class" to the computing world is making second class users out of their Mac/iPod loyalists. Irony doesn't begin to describe it.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Please. Anything by Ina Fried regarding Apple is always, and I mean always spun to slam Apple. Even positive articles end with a "but, so and so on a blog says." Seriously. Quotes from blog or forum authors on negative aspects of whatever decision Apple has made. In a "newspiece." Really.
But, don't take my word for it, just notice the next time Ina writes about Apple (or search on Google for previous articles). This really is the epitome of hack writing.
To wit: the "subheading" on the 2nd page of this article is "Who's a niche technology now, huh?" setting up the entire thing as some sort of vindication on the USB v. FireWire wars.
As others have noted, this is a business move to cut costs by not shipping a FW cable. That's it. No cable.
I truly believe Ina does this to draw eyes to CNet.
(also check out Ina's "breaking" news from Microsoft...ever couple of weeks there's an article with the tag "CNet has learned" that wraps a puff piece pushing some new MS technology. "Hi Ina? This is X from Microsoft. Here's a scoop. Oh, and here's the article you're supposed to write. Thanks and nice article on FireWire the other day!")
More likely, this is just because USB is more ubiquitous and it's cheaper to ship one cable than two.
Firewire's not going anywhere. It's the only standard right now that handles consistent streaming of video from a camcorder or other video source, and it's a preferred way for connecting external hard drives.
Apple is making a business decision to remove one cable and sell it seperately. This won't affect their video products or the fact that a firewire port will continue to be included on every Mac.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
In the end this allows Apple to sell their products for less and get rid or redundancy. Honestly, how many non- geeks benefit from having the option of a Firewire connection?
The real question: Is Apple backing away from AC adaptors?
The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
"We, as dedicated users and supporter of your hardware and software are completely dismayed at your recent decision to discontinue standard FireWire support for the iPod music player line," the petition states, going on to note that "It is very unfortunate that you have left your faithful out in the dark on this one."
"Completely dismayed??" Seriously? Not only do these people apparently have no lives such that the discontinuing of standard firewire support would leave them completely dismayed, but APPLE ISN'T EVEN DISCONTINUING FIREWIRE SUPPORT! They're just not including a cable in the box.
These people are dedicated Mac fans, spending the substantial sums you pay for Mac quality, but they can't bear to pay a little extra to get a firewire cable? Not only that, but if they have a previous iPod with a firewire cable, I'm sure they can continue to use that cable if they upgrade.
Now, I do think it would be nice if Apple gave an option between USB and Firewire, but this is really NOT a big deal.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Has Firewire Really caught on?
/. subscription, I would now be demanding a refund. This kind of crap should be unacceptable even for an amateur blog. I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for funding it.
I mean is USB 2 good enough? Or do we need it?
Good enough for what? Firewire and USB are fundamentally different. Firewire isn't as ubiquitous as USB due mostly to marketing, but you won't find any digital video cameras with USB 2.0 ports instead of Firewire ports. Firewire isn't going anywhere, and neither is Apple backing away from it. Every Mac made in the last few years comes with at least one Firewire 400 port (powered 6-pin port, even on the little iBooks!) and new Macs also have Firewire 800, which blows USB 2.0 away speedwise almost as bad as Firewire 400 outstripped USB 1.1. Well, not quite, but it does kick ass.
Main point being, Apple would be totally insane to "back away" from Firewire in any way. This whole article is utter nonsense.
Firewire has a great many advantages in design, most of which I'm not qualified to describe, but one important thing to many of us is that Firewire drives are bootable on any Mac with a Firewire port. AFAIK you can't boot from USB devices on a Mac. Anyone doing DV work uses Firewire. It has more than enough bandwidth for even the fastest external hard drives. And that's just Firewire 400 (IEEE 1394a) not the new Firewire 800 (IEEE 1394b).
If you read the post carefully and don't even bother with the article, all it says is that you have to buy the $20 Firewire cable separately. In other words, the iPod still has Firewire built-in! Hello, McFly! This is merely to save costs since most of the buyers of iPods these days are PC users, most of which don't have Firewire, so the cables are being wasted if most of the users never use them. Now that (as another poster stated) the new iPods aren't platform-specific like previous versions, they can't do separate packaging for Windows users.
What's the big deal? If the iPod has a standard Firewire connector you don't even have to buy the cable from Apple. Get one from your local computer store or Newegg.com or Cyberguys.com and save a few bucks. Get one with a 4-pin connector to fit your PC laptop if it doesn't have a standard 6-pin connector. I would have to do this for my laptop.
I'm not too bright most days, but even I can state with certainty that this Slashdot article is pure, unadulterated F.U.D. Total bullshit. As we all know this isn't a real news site. If it were, any editor who let crap of this magnitude be posted on the front page would be looking for a new job.
I can also say this: If I had paid for a
I'll buy "backing away from Firewire" when we stop seeing Firewire ports on their desktops. Not until then.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
What the hell?
This must seriously be a joke, right? First, to clarify, Firewire 400, which the iPod uses, runs at 400 megabits per second, not 800. Firewire 800 runs at 800 mbps. Secondly, USB2 runs at 480 megabits per second, not "840," so I just don't know where this came from. Aside from the fact that all these figures are theoretical maximums and not real-world performance, it's not particularly likely that ANYONE is going to notice the difference between 400 and 480; the real bottleneck is the iPod's hard drive, not the bus.
As for the maximum number of supported items...puhLEEZE. Who in the whole world would ever have more than 63 devices? I think if you have that many, you can afford to just buy a FireWire PCI card, eh?
Conclusion, you're an idiot.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
You're kind of looking at it the wrong way. You're thinking of FireWire and USB 2 as competing technologies, two interfaces that do the same thing. That's not really right.
USB 2 will never take the place of FireWire for video. I mean, it just can't. FireWire 400 can be used to transport either compressed or uncompressed standard-definition video reliably; USB 2 can't. FireWire 800 can be used for studio-quality compressed HD; USB 2 can't come close.
On the other hand, you'd never plug your keyboard into your FireWire port.
So don't think of them as equivalent. They're not. They're two totally different technologies that happen to overlap in small-scale desktop mass storage. That happens to be the niche that the iPod fits into, so that's why we're talking about it.
For iPod users, it probably doesn't matter whether they pick USB 2 or FireWire. But for all those other applications, there's a clear delineation between the two interfaces.
Boy, I couldn't disagree more! USB is great for low-speed connections to peripherals. That's what it was designed for. But I don't want my external hard drive to have to contend with the mouse for bandwidth! I want a separate, high speed connection for storage, which is exactly what Firewire is designed for. Of course, I can't possibly permit either the mouse or the hard drive to affect my refresh rate, so I definitely want a separate, high bandwidth connection for my monitor. And my network connection is sometimes pretty fast, but has severe latency problems, compared to my keyboard, hard drive, or monitor, so I'd like a separate connection for the network.
So lets, see, my Mac has USB for the keyboard and mouse, Firewire for my external hard drives, a VGA port for the monitor and a 10/100/1000 ethernet port for network. Looks just about perfect! Oh, and guess what, my iPod will plug into either the USB or the Firewire ports, how convenient!
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
Firewire has a great many advantages in design, most of which I'm not qualified to describe, but one important thing to many of us is that Firewire drives are bootable on any Mac with a Firewire port. AFAIK you can't boot from USB devices on a Mac. Anyone doing DV work uses Firewire. It has more than enough bandwidth for even the fastest external hard drives. And that's just Firewire 400 (IEEE 1394a) not the new Firewire 800 (IEEE 1394b).
:)
A point of contention. Firewire 400 allows a maximum of 50 MBps but realistic throughput is around 30 MBps (LaCie has data on this). A 7200 rpm 3.5" IDE drive can r/w at around 80 MBps. That's why Firewire 800 is attractive to some.
However, that's not why DV people use firewire. They use it because it is the standard. Digital video is fixed at around 3.3 MBps, which USB 2.0 can handle, but USB is not the standard
You're right about booting though. I can even boot my Mac from a Firewire enclosure holding an NEC DVD+/-RW and Apple's install CD.
Wow, you used Mbits/second, MB/s, and Mb/s all in the same post to mean the same thing.
I am glad for this, as firewire is less common than USB 2. The sooner we all agree on a single standard the better.
Ack! If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't talk.
There are many areas in which USB does not compare to Firewire. This isn't a field where we want to get rid of one just because it's less common than the other. Might just as well say we should drop Linux and Macs in favor of a single Microsoft Windows standard, because Windows is much more popular. Go find me a DV camera that has a USB 2.0 port and no Firewire port. USB is good for peripherals like keyboards, mice and printers. Firewire is good for higher bandwidth applications like digital video production and fast external storage drives. The two are not really in conflict, and even if they were, dropping Firewire would be the wrong answer.
That's also why this article is complete and utter FUD, because Apple is doing no such thing. The iPod still has a Firewire port, they are just saving a few bucks and leaving out the Firewire cable because most of the iPod buyers at this point don't use it (since most PCs don't have Firewire). Slashdot should really be ashamed for letting this kind of krud get to their front page. Ha!
A really low user ID, and that makes me cool.
Most USB printers these days don't even come with a USB cable! Are printer manufacturers backing away from connecting their printers to computers? Get over it, folks.
You recall incorrectly. USB has two basic modes of transfers which both use packet. Isocronous is for guarneteed bandwidth applications like say speakers. Non isocronous which gets bandwidth when isochronous packets are not being sent.
Back in 1997, Firewire was going to be the connector everywhere in PCs, in and out. IDE, SCSI, external -all 1394b. Even laptop docks
But then apple demanded $1 per port, which would mean $5-$10 per PC, plus something for every peripheral.
The result: USB2.0. That's right: USB2 came into existence primarily because of Apple's pricing strategy for 1394 ports.
So it is kind of ironic that they are not shipping firewire on ipods to better serve the PC market. If they hadnt got greedy, there might not be a USB2.
USB2 was Intel's bus of choice from the get-go. They pushed the standard hard to chipset/mobo manufacturers. Why? Firewire controllers have much more integrated logic, aleviating much of the io overhead from the CPU. USB controllers rely on the CPU to a much greater extent to sheperd the data to and fro. Which standard do you think a CPU maker would promote?