Slashdot Mirror
Developers Sidestepping Apple Firewire Fee?
TDO writes "According to this story, developers are trying to work around the $1 per port apple tax on fire wire.Check it out.. "
The gist is that developers are going to create a backwards
compatible version without Apple Intellectual Property.
But it'll take a few years.
This is a really interesting article concerning intellectual property...
by the time they come out with it, it'll be too late. everyone's gonna be shooting away with existing DV cameras onto their powermacs
I have no problem with Apple trying to optimize their profits on FireWire as long as they treat it as an autonomous technology. But knowing Apple, they might think they can they can price it out of WinTel market in order to coax buyers toward the Mac. That would be a marketing disaster. Unfortunately, it would be just like Apple to do that.
FireWire is a compromise, to provide reasonably fast throughput in a cable that's thin and supple and easy to connect. It HATE SCSI! I'm SICK of it! I would gladly surrender a little bit of theoretical performance for an alternative that won't make my office look like a power company substation! And besides, with cacheing and other optimizations, FireWire can work very smoothly. It's only a small compromise. Compromise has its place.
Well, I'm no FireWire guru, but I think its main advantages are as an *external* high-speed interface:
1) Hot swapable, no SCSI voodoo, no ID conflicts
2) Carries power -- lets you have a 6GB hard drive the size of a deck of cards with *no power brick*
3) Topology -- Isn't just master/slave like SCSI, I think you can have multiple computers on the same FireWire bus. You could stream video from a digital camcorder to multiple computers, or you could have two computers share a FireWire drive. Kinda blurs the local vs. network distinction, but what the hell...
4) Cost and size -- serial connector is cheaper and smaller than SCSI connectors of any flavor, and cables should be much cheaper and more reliable (don't have to worry about one out of 68 pieces of wire crimping and trashing your whole cable).
It is perhaps less compelling for internal storage, which is why the new G3s from Apple have two FireWire ports but use UltraDMA for the hard drive.
My $.02,
-Gary V.
Why all these different standards and software drivers? Why not put a 10baseT port on the camera?
This way, anybody could plug it in to the hub, telnet, or better yet point their browser to it, and xfer. No training, no fuss.
I see Linksys is selling a printer port/10baseT converter for about $100. I'd pay that for proven technology. In a business environment the time savings would pay for itself immediately.
I just got a new HP 1000 series LaserJet with the 10/100 plug. Just telnet into it. It's so sweet. Beats heck out of setting printer interrupts on a server. Man, this is the way to go.
Now, other than cost, are there technical reasons this can't be done? I just don't want to monkey with another cable type.
100baseT is not good for multimedia because there is no way to reserve bandwidth except by limiting the number of devices. Fireware can provide bandwidth and latency guarentees, allowing you to use it for real-time things.
Apple didn't INVENT Firewire. They just created the spec. A connector is not an invention. A wire protocol is not an invention.
Anyone with the required electronics background can spec out something similar to firewire in a matter of weeks.Implementing it in silicon is a bit trickier, but that is a tangible product, no IP there.
So what is the difference between Firewire and the home-grown solution? Marketing clout, developer mindshare.
Charging licensing fees for your tech is one thing, but charging fees for an aleged open standard is bullshit. Standards bodies should take a stand (like the IETF already has) and refuse to accept technology that is not freely usable by all comers as a standard.
The thing is, that $1 per port is going to turn into $10 per port at the consumer level, and with three ports per device that's a $30 price hike. Imagine now trying to make a firewire hard drive try to compete with other external HDs at today's prices. It's just not competitive.
> Apple didn't INVENT Firewire. They just created the spec.
Apple *did* invent FireWire. Well, some Apple employees did anyway. They absolutely have a right to charge money for its use.
When you buy a CD-ROM drive, a portion of the money goes to Sony & Phillips. (Didn't know that, eh?)
There are all sorts of cross-licensing deals on technology. Sometimes royalties are charged. Sometimes the companies just trade patents.
$1 per port sounds a little high to me, though. Apple has been a absentee parent to FireWire for several years and now they may wind up killing their own baby. This should surprise no one that's dealt with Apple before...re Newton, Dylan, QD GX, QD 3D, QuickRing, ScriptX, Bedrock, etc, etc.
> I agree that open-source (in this case, open-tech) is a good method of desinging things, but if a private company invests millions
> of its own dollars in creating something and others want to use it, doesn't that company deserve to be paid for its efforts?
Sure, but no one else is forced to use it. And they're free to develop their own, competing specification, which is exactly which is going on. If they make it compatible, all the better for both parties.
Somehow, a forcible license fee on a fairly deeply embedded part of the computer sounds rather like an operating-system bundling tactic employed by our favorite corporate object of derision. Except that it's rather more than $1. :)
>Because 10Mb is at least an order of magnatude too slow to carry a video signal.
I am tired of reading the myth about the bus width necessary to do video work. Lets look at the numbers.
NTSC is: 30 frames a sec with 24 bits color depth at 525*720 resolution for a total of 34.2 Mb/S a sec
PAL and SECAM are 25 frame a sec with a color depth of 24 bits and a resolution of 768*568 for a total of 32.72 Mb/S
In the future it may become closer to the truth.
HDTV 1: 30 FPS @ 24 bits at a resolution of 1280*720= 83 Mb/S
HDTV 2: 30 FPS @ 24 Bit at 1920*1080 resolution 186 Mb/s
35 mm film: 24 fps @ 32 Bits at 4000*4000 resolution = 1.53 Gb/S
all of these are raw and uncompressed. Do the math before you shoot off your mouth next time
to lazy to log in joew
My understanding is that Apple is suggesting that
they will charge for ports that are called FireWire. If you call it "IEEE-1393" or "i.LINK"
(Sony's name), no payment needed.
My understanding is that Apple is suggesting that
they will charge for ports that are called FireWire. If you call it "IEEE-1394" or "i.LINK"
(Sony's name), no payment needed.
I'm not too familiar with Firewire. But I do know that it's hot-pluggable (almost a requirement now-a-days) and performance is *currently* at 400Mbit/sec (there is a 200Mbit variety). If I remember right, the device limit is 127 (or was it 63?). In either case, more than any 'normal' users will encounter. I've heard rumors of a 800Mbit/sec variation that may come out shortly.
Clearly, FCAL currently has higher performance (800Mbit/sec) But the main disadvantage is that its not really ready for primetime. I know the FC people will dispute this, but when the FC consortium makes a VERY public announcement that FC passed a rigged test designed to show that a multi-vendor network performed perfectly a couple months ago - that didn't quite fill me with confidence.
My impression is that FC is intended for high-end servers and drive storage farms. Not for desktop PCs.
Huh. Amazing to me that there's all this
"discussion" with almost no actual facts. C'mon
guys...you're getting your "facts" out of the
mainstream computer press (well, eet isn't
quite mainstream, but...).
To see how ridiculous this thread is,
substitute "Intel to license opcodes for $1 each"
for all Apple and FireWire references.
Lastly, an interesting read on the difference
between news and reality, check out the article
on LCM in the NYT magazine last sunday (1/24/99).
Amazingly enough, it would do some good here.
Hey, my Pacific Bell... Err now "Tele-TV" reciever here is powered by an IBM PowerPC 603GB processor.
why are they making a firewire knock-off? won't creating their own version cultimately cost more to develop than it would have cost to just pay the dollars?
and do you really think that whoever spends all that time and money on making the new firewire won't try to recuperate their losses-- say, by charging 75 cents a port...?
Or is money not the object? is it just the principle of not supporting Apple, or something?
Whatever happened to Asynchronous Transfer Mode anyway?
It's pretty obvious that you have a general distain for Apple and you only post this crap to stir people up...knowing that it will create "controversy" here at Slashdot.
Wow, you're so "cutting edge". You're like Howard Stern or Mancow or _________ (insert another radio personality that's ripping off what Steve Dahl did 20 years ago).
Just stick to what you know best CmdrTaco....which is....gee, I don't really know what you know best.
After making some small asumptions on the possible usage of firewire within a normal household (let's think about 50 possible ports with a 10% component exchange per year)it would be a annual fee of 10$ for the interlectuell property of Apple.
Not to much for a superior design, if you think of
- prices of other cables (ever bought a u2w-scsi-cable ?)
- reduced installation times etc.(bargain on coke 'n pizza)
By the way - what are the 'additional costs' of the A20 ?
Just my 2 cents of life.
snooze@bigfoot.de
why firewire is said to be so good? I can understand that it's much better (faster) than USB, and would make an excellent replacement for serial ports, but I've seen articles that say there will be firewire harddrives, etc. Isn't it too slow? The max hard drive data transfers right now are 80MB/sec (on a U2W scsi card and drive). Now, if firewore (or this new non-Apple implementation of it) allow 100MB/sec, than I don't see how it will be enough if you've got a hard drive + cdrom + peripherals.
Firewire IEEE 1394 is roughly 400Mbps.
1392b will be 800Mbps, 1600Mbps and 3200Mbps!!! Backwards compatible and interoperable with 400Mbps 1394!!! (So, this technology has a future. SCSI hasn't.)
And: IP is coming to Firewire. IPv6 is coming to Firewire. (Think cool bandwidth allocation. Think cool appliances with IP integrated.)
Granted, you could connect two computers with SCSI, and run IP over SCSI, but nobody does, (except Apple's old Duo notebooks) and SCSI is a serious pain in the neck. Good riddance!!!
Firewire plug and play will let us use real harddisks more easily, insted of slow low capacity removable disks like zips.
I want tuner-less TV's with Firewire, which get video feeds from external tuners and digital video storage devices with Firewire. Let's get rid of all the analog equipment in our living room, and connect the rest with each other and our computers with Firewire.
dude, WTF is up with this site? it seems like all the articles are about linux, or other types of unix, or just computers in general. Who would care about that?
I suggest you get this crap off your server and find something better to do with your time.
Personally a Firewire port would be worth $1 to me, but people are cheap and consumer electronics has to be lowball to succeed. Nintendo was the first to realize that, to make a successful game console, you have to subsidize it with licensing fees on the game. Otherwise people aren't going to pay for quality hardware. These cost pressures are going to be pushed on to electronics manufacturers which will do anything to get their price point down. If Firewire had momentum, this would be no problem, but Apple has a way of pricing products out of the market long before any momentum develops, and then having the product fade into oblivion. Buying into Apple is a poor career move.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/01/15/09372 52&pid=951#2073
But the flame-first think-later, Apple-can-do-no-wrong morons still try to defend it.
Still, FireWire's upgrade path includes some really _intense_ bandwidth potential, plus it's supposed to be cheaper than SCSI/FC-AL, yes? That alone (cheaper) might be worth it. Okay, so you pay a few bucks to Apple, but your harddrive of the future is $150 cheaper?
Another thing to consider - hardware design. If you can replace _ALL_ your computer I/O ports with USB & FireWire - this will help immensely with small computers. Just think, all the I/O - but no need for PS/2, Serial, Parallel, and SCSI on the back of your machine. Sweet! Now, I don't much like the idea of the world going to the 'every device is external' idea that Apple seems to have revived from the days of the Apple //c (that makes for a lot of cables & little items on your desktops, folks), but the possibilities for convergence are quite amazing.
Anyone seen the Intel "Concept PC's"? If you haven't, check them out here. They aren't the best-looking things in the world, but they're a lot more interesting than the 'Beige Box' we're all (sadly) used to. A lot better than that pansy-ass iMac design, too. I especially like the little metallic-orange pyramid one. And the implications for wearable computers are astonishing. Anyway, just think of the possibilities!
My, I think I've rambled on enough here. What _was_ my original subject?
I know the concept of licensing is anethema to the cherished "open-source or die" attitude so prevelant here (and everywhere in the UNIX community), but let's think about this for a second.
Apple INVENTED FireWire! They (along with TI) designed a cutom made solution to the bandwidth and connection crisis. After spending years getting the technology right, Apple patented it and is charging late-comers (TI, Sony, Magnavox, Panasonic, and many others already have a license) a $1-per-port fee. Is this that horrible? Is this that different from the licensing of Dolby AC3 technology?
I agree that open-source (in this case, open-tech) is a good method of desinging things, but if a private company invests millions of its own dollars in creating something and others want to use it, doesn't that company deserve to be paid for its efforts?
And in response to the FireWire vs. SCSI debates:
Yes, current high-end SCSI goes to 100MBps and they may be able to sqeeze even more out of it with Differential tech, etc... But SCSI is a very complex system, even for admins. The typical user (ie, not us) gets confused by dealing with termination, id conflicts, giant cables, cable length, and not swearing at the connectors (trust me, karma helps). FireWire is growable (goes up to 1600MBps in theory), id-less, termination-less, and smaller.
The real benefits, though, are in isosynchranous(sp?) transport, hot-plugability, and topology. FireWire can guarantee a constant stream of time dependant information (ie, from a digital camcorder) that SCSI cannot (if it could, Sony would be putting SCSI ports on it's camcorders). Devices are hot-plugable..the benefits of this are obvious. Jobs demoed a movie being played from a FW Hard Drive and showed it being connected and disconnected w/o a hitch.
The Topology is rad because it lets you set up essentially a local area network with the full abndwidth of FireWire (more than one computer can use a FireWire device simultaneously). You can use any combination of daisy-chain, bus, star, or ring topologies simultaneously. We plan to use this here to put our security cameras on a FireWire bus; then any of us (or all of us) can view a live, crystal-clear feed on our desktop from any of the cameras simultaneously.
FireWire is an amazingly cool technology who's only real competitor will be Fibre-Channel (whenever that takes off), and that only in thew server market. Frankly, at $1-per-port, this kind of capability is a bargain.
-Japheth Cleaver
why not just price FireWire(tm) lower than a buck, then when more manufacturers market it, it will be easier for everybody..and Apple Computer. I'd buy IBM FireWire disk drive, if >800Mbps..
Mmm mmm, why is nobody using PowerPC, but Apple? 7 watt average for G3, think OpenFirmware, G4, AltiVec..is nobody making a new consumer platform?
Intel gets to be monopoly and there isn't an alternative but: Apple, AMD K6, Pentium..or not.
I think he meant IDE, not SCSI, because he was referring to a Master/Slave configuration, which doesn't exist in the SCSI world.
With SCSI, *any* device on the SCSI bus can talk to *any* other device. It's just that the technology has been used from the standpoint of having a single host adapter interface in a computer, and having that computer tell all the other devices what to do.
Right now, I have two complete SCSI buses in my PC - one of which has multiple 'initiators' on it, working just fine. I routinely transfer data between one initiator and the other, or both initiators transferring data from separate storage devices, etc.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Think of it this way.
You're X-CORP, a large PC manufacturer. You need to buy a couple million motherboards for your production. Lets just say you need to buy a million motherboards (not too unrealistic), and you want to buy them for $55 each.
Do you spend $55 million, or do you spend $56 million, for the mobo's with the Apple firewire port?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Why should we wait 2-3 years for the "Industry" to reverse engineer the firewire technology that is viable today? If everyone pays the same dollar then there will be no differential between hardware prices. If they wait to long then they'll just spend millions in R&D that will be wasted while they could've spent millions on firewire that could reap billions in profit!
Remember what happened when the "Industry" rejected the PS/2's Microchannel Architecture? They went and developed the EISA! (And we all know how well that went over don't we?) Hindsight indicates that EISA was a failure and MCA ended up being passed over. The industry finally went to PS/2 connectors for keyboards and mice and PCI for bus. Where is IBM's payoff and incentive to research new technologies? NOT TO BE SEEN. Heck, we have IBM to thank for even having PC's.
If Apple is willing to create the technology and license it for a measly dollar then I'm willing to pay for it. Which Motherboard manufacturer is going to be the first to provide Firewire to the x86 crowd hmmm?
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
...to pull stunts like this. FireWire(tm) may have had a chance,
but I don't think Compaq or the other major PC vendors will ever
agree to a per port fee. To be honest, although FireWire(tm) seems
an elegant solution, I'm real happy with SCSI and USB.
I will not begrudge Apple's right to exercise its precious patents
according to its own will. Apple has a right to be as stupid as
it wants. FireWire(tm) will now digress into a proprietary Imac
only feature.
* FireWire is a trademark of Apple Computer Corp. Too bad.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
We have enough problem with patents as it is; I don't think we need to further complicate matters with a patented interface to our peripherals.
Well, here's what I think of your reasons...
1: Why do people cite this so often? I mean, I don't see the difficulty. Each device needs a unique ID. The bus needs to be terminated. What's so hard about that?
2: That would be a limitation. You can only have so many devices sharing power on a bus like that before there's not enough voltage to drive them all.
3: Sounds dangerous to me...
4: Well, yes, but that's just cause lack of demand yields higher prices. If SCSI were in wider use, cables, terminators and all that would be a dime a dozen.
I think I'll wait and see what happens with the FireWire vs. SCSI debate. Personally, I think Apple trying to collect $1 per manufactured FireWire port could just be the death of it. But, we'll see, I suppose.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
...which relegates Firewire to be the next SCSI in all respects. This would be a bad move/objective on the part of Apple. They've already relented on SCSI itself. How soon before the same happens with Firewire?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Remember, it's "interlaced" which means only half the lines are drawn. So, really, it's 720x240x60fps which is still the same bandwidth as 720x240x30fps.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Duh. To those that believe that one dollar isn't much, reading the article, it states that companies change suppliers over one dollar per unit prices.
To those with no design (for) manufacturing experience, one dollar in cost to produce an item roughly equates to a ten dollar price in the store. Think taxes, profits, insurance, retailers all take a BIG cut.
All of the people who have the authority to post articles are Linux users, and I assume some dabble with BeOS. The problem is that they don't have a posting policy - it's pure anarchy and they do what they want. If a bunch of people don't like it, they say "screw you, just don't read it!"
And Linux advocates wonder why so many people think that Linux users act like children.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
I posted the above while logged in as Tumbleweed - but I get labeled an AC! Argh. Looks like I've run up a bug in Slashdot...I wonder if THIS post will get the same treatment...
I did several 'previews' on that first post, so let's do that on _this_ one to see if that's what killed my login info...
Apple makes computers USING the PowerPC - the chips are made by Motorola/IBM. Now granted, you can't get Apple to understand an open hardware platform (anyone remember PREP/CHRP?), but that doesn't mean you can't use the PowerPC in a new platform. Kinda like what Be tried to do initially. It wouldn't be that hard to use current technology to make a PowerPC-based machine that kicks' a Mac's butt, either. I read that it doesn't have DMA?! Geez!
Depending on how it was designed, one could make a micro-size computer and make it easily upgradable. Lots of externally-accessible bays, etc. Just swap things in and out - only bad design of current machines makes it a requirement that everything must be accessed from the inside only! I say make everything hot-swappable! And maybe move the power supply outside the chassis - like my HP deskjet printer - it's a little brick sitting on the floor. No need to have it in the box, right? All you need are some quiet little fans for cooling the stuff in the case. Or better yet, a phase-change system with no moving mechanical parts. Lots of possibilities here, just no courageous computer manufacturers. *sigh*
And btw - screw the floppy drive - sure, we need removable media, but the floppy has long since outlived its usefulness. A new standard is needed ASAP. I like the specs of the Sony HiFD.
...and people get their panties in a bunch.
If companies don't want to enter into a contract with Apple they have to pay a $1/port fee.
Apple spent it's money developing the technology, now they need to recoup the money. How outrageous of them!
What MOST companies are doing is entering into contract with Apple - which amounts to paying a one-time flat fee and/or offering R&D projects.
The reality is that companies who've entered into contract with Apple are paying 1/2 to 1/4 that "outrageous" $1/port fee.
So, hey, let's see... Compaq just shipped a computer with a 1394 port on the back. Gosh, their system costs $1 more now! My god, I'd better go buy a Packard Bell instead!
Moof!
Hmmm that assumes no error corection of anykind. adding error correcting and handshaking will increase these number. I would also hope that we will finaly move away from 30 fps to somthing much better say 60?
---------------------------------
While most of the discussion so far has been on the computer applications of firewire, another probably more important issue is it's impact on embedded consumer appliances. And the appliance at the forefront is digital television. Please read the linked story in the eetimes article.
Sony is a leading proponent of using firewire in connecting digital settop boxes and digital TV receivers. Sony has also already licenced firewire for a very cheap royalty fee. There is more at stake with firewire than just computers.
Finally, I had to chuckle when I read that the some companies (e.g., Microsoft and Intel) were kind of miffed about Apple's firewire licencing deal. Et tu Brutus?
BTW, isn't Apple trying to get quicktime adopted as an MPEG standard? Are we going to have this type of discussion again?
As I see it, when you pay the $1 per port, you are paying for the R&D that goes into Firewire. That it will:
a) Work with everyone elses
b) Know of any pitfalls/shortcomings
c) Not cause a splinter in the marketplace (ISDN Anyone?)
d) Allow you to ride others success (There are at least 2 companies trying to be the Dolby of Firewire)
Right now everyone is in the same boat. If Pete's Hardware and Dave's Hardware both make firewire speakers, they will both be charged/ing $1 per port and thier respective razor thin profits will be the same. The only people getting a break are the really big guys that always get the breaks or do the R&D.
Of course you can just create a firewire compatible system for $$$$ R&D. Also, of course, all the companies that do this will charge others to use thier firewire clone. Say for $0.50 a little over a year from now.
Or you can wait for 2-3 years for a completely defined standard that costs little to nothing. Of course by this time firewire will be strong enough not to be splintered by crappy rip-offs claiming to be improvements. (the previous posts about beta vs. VHS)
In the end, you will end up paying for R&D somewhere, TANSTAAFL. Just like Technocolor, Dolby AC3, OmniMax, PCI, Pentium, or RCA's original TV system, etc.
Vote with your wallets. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
Even better, firewire is powered. I have no problem with the multitude of connectors on my PC, everything radiates from my PC anyway. It's diving into that scary rat's nest of power connecters, and having to play musical sockets when i run out that I find a pain in the ass. Then there's the problem of having it tethered to two points, data and power. My zip drive is more trouble than it's worth to constantly plug and unplug when i have to throw the brick (even a mini-brick) over to the rat's nest and go on safari...
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
It's hot pluggable.
It does not need a computer: camera to computer works as well as camera to storage.
And Digital VCR to TV ;) Hey maybe we will use ieee1394 hard drives for weekly taping, instead of tapes. It's easier to zap commerials that way.
The iMac is certainly not the best Apple can do. Check out these concepts for the 20th Anniversary Mac. There could be only one -- and the one they picked is not my favorite of this bunch. But see if any of the other ideas remind you of new producs.
How much of a tax do we pay to Intel for PCI? AGP? Slot-1? Does anyone know?
Hmmm...
1. It's fine for a static configuration, but bringing a new device is a pain. Now try juggling more than 7 devices on the bus. FireWire supports up to 128 devices.
2. Power over the bus is optional -- for laptop peripherals, etc.
3. Flexible topology is dangerous? What if the Internet were serial in nature? Your objection makes no sense.
4. SCSI is still in pretty wide use, and prices have come down alot in the last 5 years. It's just those honking big cables and connectors.
And I hope Apple makes enough money to justify their investment... the technology is worth it.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Those manufacturers with razor thin margins probably aren't packing their boxes with lots of features or high quality components. They get by on shipping lots of cheap boxes.
Those manufacturers that can afford extra ports are shipping boxes to consumers who want the features and are willing to pay for better hardware configurations. People doing DV editing, those who want low cost laptop peripherals, and consumers sick of SCSI -- those will be the people who are going to buy these systems.
Besides someone is going to bear the cost of developing a new 1394-compatible standard, and they'll probably end up paying more getting it to market than they would just paying the licensing.
Let's keep it in perspective
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
why firewire is said to be so good? I can understand that it's much better (faster) than USB, and would make an excellent replacement for serial ports, but I've seen articles that say there will be firewire harddrives, etc. Isn't it too slow? The max hard drive data transfers right now are 80MB/sec (on a U2W scsi card and drive). Now, if firewore (or this new non-Apple implementation of it) allow 100MB/sec, than I don't see how it will be enough if you've got a hard drive + cdrom + peripherals.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
Arrgh! Looks like the AC bug hit me, too. The above post (long) was by me... not some anonymous coward.
-JC
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
As I understand the whole licensing deal with FireWire, the 1 dollar per port charge is an isolated instance. The average license is quite a bit lower and in any case is determined by the intended use and volume.
Why is it everyone sees thing in pure black and white?
Very few things in the world are so cut and dried. Personally I think FireWire is a cool technology and over pricing it would hurt its acceptance. I don't see this happening though. Last I heard Sony, Texas Instruments, Fuji, Philips and Sun were plenty happy with the arrangement. In fact I believe Sony licensed the Apple patents for a flat $7,500. Somehow I doubt they've made only 7500 FireWire devices...
The truth will set you free.
If FireWire uses currenctly utilises so many Apple patents, good health to Apple, in their efforts to liscence it.
If there are only a couple of years before a backcompt version not using Apple tech is in boxes they only have 2 or 3 major years to recuperate many years of work.
And the problem is...?
Why is it that millions of wintel lemmings go apoplectic when Apple wants to license its proprietary intellectual property? This is exactly what MS has done for years and is simply considered 'good business'. Try and buy a pc *without* having MS windows 95/98 (which itself is still a poor rip off of the Mac OS) installed on it. Do you think this is given to the vendor? Nope, they pay MS their licensing fee for it and pass it onto the lemmings.
What's good for the goose...
IBM does a brisk business in PowerPC boxes...most of the new RS/6000 models introduced in the last 2 or 3 years has been PowerPC-based. It appears they're phasing out their POWER series RISC chips in favor of the PowerPC in most applications.
:)
Deep Blue can even take a PowerPC upgrade now...look out Kasparov!
Admittedly these aren't exactly CONSUMER boxes (the ones I worked with on my last job were about $11,000 a pop), but they are an example of somebody besides Apple shipping PowerPC systems.
Firewire will do up to 400MB/s. That's truly in the realm of system bus speeds.
> Whatever happened to Asynchronous Transfer Mode anyway?
It's alive and well, primarily as an infrastructure networking topology. Hell, ATM acts as the backbone fabric to several national ISPs providing bandwith in the 100s of Mbps range.
However, as a desktop topology, it's kind of expensive.
-tom