Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology (Apple) Businesses Apple Technology

1394 Trade Association Adopts FireWire Brand 292

Posted by pudge
from the ilink-you-link-we-all-link-for-firewire dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1394 Trade Association Adopts FireWire Brand

Comments Filter:
  • by EvilAlien (133134) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:18PM (#3606745) Journal
    ... 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.
    • it's funny when you go into a store that does not sell Macs and refer to it as "firewire". i have gotten some snooty correction from them letting me know it's "iLink" or "1394". 1394 i can see, but to tell me it's called "iLink" is so beat.... Sony had no hand in the design. Apple, as well as many other people, spent years working on it.

      as posted here already, i will be curious to see what they call "firewire2" or whatever it'll be. Apple trademarked "gigawire", so who knows. i can only assume they already have it figured out since it's something that is nearing release.
    • This pisses me off cuz being a supervisor at work I hafta yell at people who use the term firware to customers, now they can tell me to stick it.
  • Yay (Score:1, Funny)

    by secondsun (195377)
    But when will I be able to get a no fee firwire adaptor? :-D
  • by tarth (445054) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:20PM (#3606753)
    I hope they keep the name "FireWire" for their 800MBps version. It is catchy and it rolls off the tongue, unlike *shudder* GigaWire.
    • True. For some reason "GigaWire" sounds more like a Transformers name than a piece of up-and-coming technology.

      • True. For some reason "GigaWire" sounds more like a Transformers name than a piece of up-and-coming technology.
        That, and it's an anagram of iGag Wire, Apple's newest "human-interface" product.
    • 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!

  • Bummer (Score:3, Funny)

    by calags (12705) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:20PM (#3606754)
    I felt so much smarter calling it 1394 too... oh well.

    • damn (Score:3, Funny)

      by Cardhore (216574)
      And we were all just getting used to saying "one thousand...three hundred...and ninety-four...a".
  • 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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Sorry old chum, but there is very compelling reason to go with Firewire over USB 2.0: Firewire works independant of a computer. Not only can is it just as fast as USB 2.0, but it also has name recognition, and most importantly, I can transfer files from digital device to digital device directly!
    • by Webratta (245389)
      Are there any motherboards out that are supporting USB 2, or is it still add-on only?

      The cool thing about Firewire is that Mac's have support for it now. Plus there are plans to eventually bring Firewire up to 1600 Mbps later this year. Also, Firewire can transfer data from device to device, while USB has to go through your computer as a go-between. People more intelligent than I are more than welcome to expound upon, correct, or add to this.
      • by EvilAlien (133134)
        Yes, USB2 support is getting common. Months ago when I bought my Abit KG7, you could get MSI mobos that supported USB2. Since that time it is showing up in all sorts of products, maybe not a guarantee feature, but one that you should expect to see

        It is supported on the VIA P4X333 [viaarena.com] and KT333 [viaarena.com] chipsets, for example.

      • Are there any motherboards out that are supporting USB 2, or is it still add-on only?

        I believe the latest round of Pentium 4 motherboards from Intel, Asus, Abit, MSI, etc. have USB 2.0 support built in. The current low end Pentium 4 offerings from Dell and Gateway also seem to support USB 2.0, I suspect these have it built-in as well given the history of such machines.
    • by Pfhor (40220) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:30PM (#3606812) Homepage
      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.
      • by kubusja (581677)
        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

      • by Com2Kid (142006) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @10:59PM (#3607190) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • By firewire camera, I meant DV camera. And I do believe the high end, 3-4 mega pixel professional models do have firewire on them also.

          And Firewire was never meant to replace USB, USB 2 is actually trying to replace Firewire as a high speed device for hard drives, cdrws, etc. If i had a mixed environment of machines (Macs which all shipping models have firewire on, PCs with USB 2.0) there are plenty of devices that come with both USB and Firewire connections on them (hard drives and cd/dvd recorders).

          Again, firewire is not for cheap devices, and more and more computers are starting to include them, since there is yet to be a DV camera to ship with USB 2 on it (that I know of). And Home Video editing has become very popular.

          And while I don't have links to back this up, from the last firewire vs USB2 debate, I believe Firewire still gives better throughput to hard drives, etc.
          • And while I don't have links to back this up, from the last firewire vs USB2 debate, I believe Firewire still gives better throughput to hard drives, etc.

            Oh yes for HDs sure, but USB2 is NOT meant to completely replace Firewire or even take its place.

            Think memory card readers and such, or even portable CDR burners, things that you do not NEED to have operate independently of a computer, or at least some sort of root USB hub* device.

            HDs, digital cameras, and such, are definitely FireWire's realm

            Even CDR devices that are designed as say a drop in for memory cards (oooh now THAT would rock!!! Hehe. Maybe those DataPlay discs could come in handy for something after all, LOL!) are in the domain of firewire.

            *I think that is the proper term for the device that runs all other USB devices in the USB network, may have my terminology wrong though.
      • Theoretically one can plug a firewire drive into a firewire camera, and transfer footage from the camera directly to the HD.

        The catch there is that the camera has to know something about filesystems. Shrug, I have both, I'll have to try the experiment.

        However, it does work very nicely to transfer DV between two cameras without a computer (MiniDV to D8 in my case) or to stream DV data to multiple PC's on the same 1394 bus. Since it's peer-to-peer (unlike USB), it's great for audio-video gear (where it is starting to show up).
        • by rixkix (205339)
          Compactflash cameras transfer files onto the cards using files and directories. They've been working with filesystems for years.
        • Exactly, in fact it is being used for a replacement to the aged midi standard. Basically you will not only get faster, easier to setup midi signalling but also the ability to send samples and multichannel audio between devices!
    • by lexarius (560925)
      FireWire redundant? How could it be redundant if there isn't anything else on it? Most cameras don't have USB2 connections... I think the word you are looking for is obsolete, maybe? Not that it is... Anyway, IANAE but what I recall of similar arguments have to do with things like "stream vs packets", "peer to peer vs. master to slave", the fact that FireWire is already the DV standard and there isn't any point changing it now (until FW2), Firewire can provide more bus power than USB, etc.
    • by atrus (73476)
      Yes! FireWire allows something USB doesn't: peer to peer connectivity. This allows me to take a Sony DV converter and plug it into a Sony Camcorder/Video walkman with a firewire cable to dub VHS->Hi8(DV). With USB, you'd need a host controller, which up to this point means computer. I don't want to use a computer for dubbing tapes or doing other device->device transfers.
    • by Space Coyote (413320) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:33PM (#3606828) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      FireWire is more than just an expansion bus, it defines a high speed multipoint network layer. You can have multiple hosts on the same [fire]wire and they can access multiple devices also on the wire. They can even access one another, using ordinary TCP/IP with the IPover1394 spec.

      USB does none of this; it is a single-master, multiple-slave bus.
    • by Graff (532189) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:47PM (#3606902)
      With USB 2 out now, why does anyone need Firewire? USB 2 has a max data rate of 480Mbps if I remember correctly.
      There are a few good reasons for using Firewire vs USB 2.0

      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.
      • Don't forget power. 1394 can send more power across the line than USB or USB 2.0 can, eliminating the need for seperate power cords on anything that requires more power than a keyboard or a mouse.

        Isn't it funny how IBM calls 1394 i.Link and Apple uses Firewire? You'd think it would be the other way around. The way it is, we should be seeing Steve Jobs promoting it's new FirePod right about now. :)
      • 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...
        • 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.
          • > Besides, how much does it cost to install a FireWire adapter card anyway?

            That's not the point at all--an initial $25-$50 outlay for a Firewire adapter card, or an extra $25 for a motherboard with Firewire, would be no problem.

            But you have to pay a $20-$30 premium *for every Firewire-equipped item*. That's the cost that will keep Firewire off everything except video cameras, higher-end digital cameras and scanners, and things like hard drives and burners targeted toward people too lazy or stupid to attach an internal drive or people with tiny computers that have no room for an internal drive.

            $20-$30 per device is a huge outlay, when you add it up over all the devices you could buy over a few years that could have either expensive Firewire ports or cheap USB 2.0/successor ports. You have this powerful chipset that's overkill for most devices since most devices don't *need* peer-to-peer connectivity or even if they could benefit from it, lack the additional logic to implement/control it due to added expense.

            > 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.

            Again, not at all true because the cost is distributed across a lot of smaller items. A $20-$30 additional cost for each Firewire-equipped device could add up quick. That's why it will never be a mainstream choice except for higher-end products and products for the lazy, tech stupid, or those with tiny computers like iMacs.
    • Anyway, last I heard the new Macs are going to ship with USB2 and FireWire - so who cares which is better?
    • Firewire is just plain smarter.

      I can run 400 Mbps 10m with a good copper cable, 4.5m with a crappy one, and 700m with an optical one.

      I can stream video from my camcorder to multiple hosts at one time. My camcorder can talk to a hard drive, without a computer interlocuter.

      And Firewire already owns the prosumer/professional video and photographic markets, so it ain't going away any time soon.
    • I believe that USB 2.0 will tax the cpu more due to it's master/slave setup. which isnt a big deal but hey why waste the extra cycles if firewire also provides the technical advantages everyone else has already mentioned.

      It's interesting to note that intel the company that developed the USB standard infact has a vested intrest in it being a performace hog (more incentive to buy those fast pentium processors) just food for thought.
    • 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
  • i.link (Score:3, Interesting)

    by althalus (520424) <.moc.tun-gul. .ta. .todhsals.> on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:25PM (#3606785) Homepage
    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' ?
    • Re:i.link (Score:5, Funny)

      by Xenex (97062) <xenex@@@opinionstick...com> on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @10:22PM (#3607051) Journal
      I find it amusingly ironic that Apple, the makers of the iMac, iBook, iPod, and many iApps call the technology "FireWire", yet Sony call it "iLink".
      • I find it amusingly ironic that Apple, the makers of the iMac, iBook, iPod, and many iApps call the technology "FireWire", yet Sony call it "iLink".

        And I for one am soooo grateful that Apple didn't think of that first. Enough with the i[noun] naming strategy! I am a die-hard mac fan but um...i am sick of it being so...predictable!

      • 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.
          • by MoneyT (548795) on Thursday May 30, 2002 @07:12AM (#3608342) Journal
            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
          • by artemis67 (93453) on Thursday May 30, 2002 @08:01AM (#3608535)
            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.

            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 .25.

            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.
    • by AJWM (19027)
      There is a difference. Sony's i.Link connectors are 4-pin, data-only (omitting the 2 power pins of the standard 6-pin 1394/FireWire connector).

      The wire protocol is of course identical, and these days just about every add-on 1394 card comes with an adapter cable. The 4-pin is a nice size for devices like cameras where a lot of stuff is crammed into a small space.
  • iLink, now there's a name with no Fad of the Week properties.
  • by paradesign (561561) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @09:50PM (#3606920) Homepage
    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.
    • 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. :-)
      • Clue: We live in a world where most people think Microsoft invented the graphical user interface.

        Yeah, most people don't know that it was an innovation by Xerox. Not that it matters today or that it would have been realistic for one company to keep a stranglehold on such an idea.

        Though personally, I prefer to think the first real Graphical User Interface was sex with the lights on.
        • Yeah, most people don't know that it was an innovation by Xerox

          That's somewhat of an overstatement.

          "... Apple had hired some people from Xerox (like Jef Raskin, Bruce Horn) who believed in concepts of a Graphical User Interface. These concepts are pretty broad -- like making a computer easier to use by using graphics (icons), using menus, windows and making a consistent interface to do things. The work on these concepts predates Xerox PARC -- in fact it was many of these peoples individual work on those concepts that got them hired at PARC ..."

          "... Apple's work on GUI's predates Steve Jobs visit to Palo Alto Research Center ..."

          http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
          • Xerox had a workng prototype of the GUI before Apple paid them a visit. True Apple was looking at an implimentation before hand, but they did get most of their later designs from Xerox. What makes the whole GUI histroy so funny was that PARC was really a place where Xerox developers could develop technology that was far to expensive to actualy impliment, and Xerox would take bits and pieces of what they developed, change it and impliment it. I think that's why Apple was able to so easily hire the Xerox employees, because they knew if they stuck to Xerox the GUI wouldn't go anywhere.
  • by Anonymous Freak (16973) <prius.driver@mac. c o m> on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @10:05PM (#3606991) Journal
    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?
  • I hope Sony will be getting rid of their iLink trademark and using "FireWire" too.

    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) [akerman.ca]

  • by guttentag (313541) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @10:22PM (#3607052) Journal
    We're only about a month away from MacWorld NY, and traditionally Apple has to have something impressive to show the world in July. But what could Steve have up his sleeves? He's already introduced new iBooks, new PowerBooks, the eMac and the xServe since MacWorld SF. Jaguar isn't due to arrive until August, and the company has stopped OS 9 development. Could he be planning to finally announce Gigawire (the rumored term for the 3.2 Gb/s version of FireWire, officially called 1394b)?

    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.

    • 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.
    • Who is making 3.2Gbps 1394b PHY chips? Probably no one.

      I think we'll see 800Mbps first.
  • There ya go. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thedbp (443047) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @10:34PM (#3607094)
    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.
    • Leave it to Apple to not try to gouge other people in the industry with licensing fees.

      That would depend on whether you would call Apple originally charging $1 a pop for using its FireWire trademark "gouging".
      • Re:There ya go. (Score:2, Informative)

        by Greg Titus (11738)
        That would depend on whether you would call Apple originally charging $1 a pop for using its FireWire trademark "gouging".

        No, the $1 a pop (now down to $.25 per device), is the license fee for the IEEE 1394 patent pool. It's use of the actual technological guts of the port, and manufacturers pay it whether they call it FireWire or not.

        _Most_ of that quarter per device goes to Apple, because they did most of the inventing involved and hold most of the patents in the pool.

        This announcement doesn't change that fee structure at all. Allowing use of the name is completely unrelated.
  • Besides Sony's "i.link" what other competetion was their against the name FireWire?
    • Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)

      by LenE (29922) on Thursday May 30, 2002 @01:22AM (#3607592) Homepage
      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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @11:13PM (#3607252)
    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 (as opposed to i.Link), has one huge advantage---the connector.

    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.

  • by WirelessMan (582323) on Thursday May 30, 2002 @12:21AM (#3607463)
    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.
  • by SethJohnson (112166) on Thursday May 30, 2002 @10:18AM (#3609488) Homepage Journal


    From
    this article [yahoo.com] on yahoo news:

    " Apple developed FireWire for its own products in the mid-1980s but decided to propose it as an industry standard to broaden its use. "

    Who thinks this was the feature that made the Lisa so expensive?

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...