Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Backing Away From FireWire 554

Posted by CmdrTaco from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Backing Away From FireWire More

Apple Backing Away From FireWire

Comments Filter:

  • Backing Away? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) * <oculus.habent@g m a il.com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:15PM (#11771288) Journal
    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.
    • A business decision that involves making it harder to use any given technology, or to stop "pushing" the technology on the market is backing away.

      This happens all the time! Remember Betamax? Minidisks? I'm know there are many examples, they just don't come to mind.

      • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:22PM (#11771390)
        So Apple's "backing away" from the dock, then?

        I mean, they must be, since no longer include a dock with most of the iPods.

        They also must be backing away from alternating current power, since they don't include an AC adapter with iPod mini any longer.

        ...

        • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Funny)

          by 955301 ( 209856 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:39PM (#11771585) Journal

          Oh, Oh! And their backing away from displaying video display, because the Mac Mini doesn't ship with a display like the Imac does.

          That settles it: I'm backing away from this article.

          • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Funny)

            by archen ( 447353 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @06:03PM (#11771762)
            That settles it: I'm backing away from this article.

            Easy for you to say. What are those poor Mac users supposed to do now that Apple has backed away from the keyboard and mouse because the Mac Mini doesn't have those either? Hit the back button? They don't have one!

            [ insert no-button mouse joke here ]

            • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Funny)

              by Juanvaldes ( 544895 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @01:10AM (#11774469)
              [ insert no-button mouse joke here ]
              Today Apple Computer again revolutionizes the computer industry again by unveiling the no-button mouse! This amazing breakthrough once again affirms apples commitment to simple computing interfaces "for the rest of us".

            • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Funny)

              by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @02:28AM (#11774844) Journal
              Easy: You get certain DVDs you put into the DVD-ROM drive. One of them is e.g. for "back". That's Apples new simplification of interface: Since you have to know how to insert DVDs anyway, why should you in addition learn how to use a keyboard and a mouse? Preliminary tests have shown that almost no user had problems with inserting DVDs (and those few who had generally had problems with the mouse as well).

              Think about the wonderful implications of that interface! Now when writing your next email, you can feel like a disk jockey: First, insert "start email" DVD, then insert the DVDs for the letters of the email address (several common address part like .com, .net, and even common complete domain names like hotmail.com have their own DVDs for convenience; of course you can create your own DVD-Rs for complete email addresses you use more often, or even for more complete actions like "start email to mybestfriend@somewhere.org, add Dear Mybestfriend to the beginning and CU, MyName at the end"). Then insert DVDs for the letters of your mail (again, for common words, and even phrases, there are pre-made DVDs), and finally insert the "Send" DVD. That's all, and you really don't need any skill other than inserting DVDs.

              Of course it has a slight drawback: Since you get a few hundred DVDs for the interface, you need some space to store them. But then, you can impress everyone with your big DVD collection!
          • Yes, you are right! The ipod shuffle has no display, either!

    • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:21PM (#11771374)
      I know people buying Macs just because of iLife.

      And Mac's still don't amount to a significant percentage of the market.

      Apple has realized that, at the right price, they can be a huge player. We all know it isn't in the best interest of the end-user, but if Apple switches from Firewire to USB for most, if not all of their infrastructure, they can attain lower price points. And that's what its all about.

      • Re:Backing Away? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
        A firewire chip isn't that expensive, I doubt the main chip is $5 in volume. I think the only reason firewire isn't built into all PC chipsets is politics. If Apple was really backing away from Firewire, I doubt the mini would have a port.

        This is only a means of eliminating extra components in the iPod box so the iPod itself can be cheaper without cutting margins much. Also, Apple eliminated the AC charger block with several models, and it's not as if Apple is trying to make it harder to charge an iPod

    • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:24PM (#11771406) Journal
      If anything, the news here is that Apple is selling a significant share of iPods to a) PC owners and b) not just gadget-freak PC owners with new, fully tricked-out systems but run of the mill PC owners.
      • If anything, the news here is that Apple is selling a significant share of iPods to a) PC owners and b) not just gadget-freak PC owners with new, fully tricked-out systems but run of the mill PC owners.

        Thats not news, where have you been ?

    • This isn't the Apple of old (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:25PM (#11771424) Homepage Journal
      Apple is trying to save money and drop prices at the same time.

      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.

      • Re:This isn't the Apple of old (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Cylix ( 55374 ) * on Thursday February 24, 2005 @06:22PM (#11771950) Homepage Journal
        It's not like firewire is going away.

        At work we have about 15 devices that support firewire and that doesn't count any computers with firewire support.

        Mostly, DV Decks, Sony Camcorders, and even a portable drive or two.

        Now, I don't particularly love firewire, but it does serve as a cost effective means to get video between our high end equipment and lower end editing computers.

        My only annoyance is there is a real lack of deck to deck communication and that in itself is probably the fault of the manufacturers. (varies wildly). I do remember the praises that firewire intelligent devices wouldn't necessarily require a host computer to work with each other. (I believe there are sony dv decks that do this though)

        In summary, most of the editing and video stuff is already litered with IEEE1394 interfaces... I'm sure it will die just as soon as beta goes away.

      • Apple killed firewire with their $ fees (Score:5, Interesting)

        by steve_l ( 109732 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @04:07AM (#11775196) Homepage
        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?

          • Re:Don't forget the other half of that equasion. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by steve_l ( 109732 ) on Friday February 25, 2005 @09:49AM (#11776902) Homepage
            I seem to recall 1394 on the roadmap for Intel's southhubs bak in 1997 - I was working at a bay area PC vendor at the time, so we used to get all the NDA covered books. Firewire would have brought in data fast, which would have generated CPU load for things like DVI editing, which would have generated CPU demand. Intel thrive on CPU demand, above all else.

            Where USB is Intel-centric is in the fact that it is hub and spoke, not P2P. There always needs to be a hub in the connection, which is where the PC fits in. 1394 lets you do fun things like hook up two devices and share data, no pc inside.

            If 1394b had also taken off in the consumer space, my back-of-TV infrastructure would not be the mess of SCART, SVHS, Analog and SPDIF cabling that I'm scared of. But either apple or the MPAA got in the way; there is only one 1394 port on the DVD-R, and it is input only. We'll have to wait for gigabit ethernet to become common on home AV kit for that universal home network to become real.

            Incidentally,

            1. WinXP lets you run TCP over firewire at about 30 MBps (for a 100 or 200 mbit card)

            2. WinXp does not support any firewire cards built on chipsets that have promiscuous mode. PCs dont ship with firewire cards that enable sniffing, even with other operating systems installed. that really sucks. I do have some of the older cards around, for just such emergencies.

    • Re:Backing Away? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Queer Boy ( 451309 ) *

      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.

      I already have an iPod and I really don't want to pay for another Dock, carry case or FireWire cable when I upgrade my 30GB 3G.

      I think Apple is just responding to the current upgrade situation. With millions of iPo

    • Re:Backing Away? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @06:41PM (#11772084)
      I know people buying Macs just because of iLife.

      I knew some people need to get a life, but Mac prices these days...

    • Re:Backing Away? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by flink ( 18449 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @07:11PM (#11772333)
      "It's more cost efficient to ship with one cable rather than two, and USB is more broadly supported on both platforms."

      Except this is crap. When I bought my 40GB 3G iPod, it came with only a Firewire cable. At the time, I had a PC with only USB, so I went to the Apple store and bought a cable that has both USB and Firewire connectors. For $20! You could even plug the USB part into the PC and the Firewire into the AC adaptor and you could sync and charge at the same time.

      Why doesn't Apple just ship all iPods with this cable and make everyone happy?

      • Re:Backing Away? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by daviddennis ( 10926 )
        Most likely because having multiple ends for the cable will confuse most people. It's much simpler for the end user to have a single cable with a single thing to plug into.

        Remember, much of Apple's appeal is based on simplicity, and they're delivering it here.

        D
  • ...they fired the fire wire wire!

  • Oh, great (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:17PM (#11771314)
    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 [1394ta.org], an Apple employee is the Chairman of the Board of the 1394 TA [1394ta.org], 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 [apple.com] 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.

    • I had a first generation iPod (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:32PM (#11771510)
      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.

    • Re:Oh, great (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jstockdale ( 258118 )
      One other thing to remember. Besides being a cost cutting measure, this encourages users to migrate their iPods and other peripherals over to USB2.0 ... which will free up their Firewire port (and bus) (ie. on Apple laptops, etc. which only have one firewire port) for use with user's hi-def DV cams.

      After all ... it is the "Year of DV"

      -S ...

    • Re:Oh, great (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JeffTL ( 667728 )
      Also they no longer have to provide with every iPod what appear to be custom-built rounded white adapters for connecting 6-pin FireWire cables to 4-pin ports, like they did before iPods shipped with USB cables -- bear in mind that a lot of Windows PCs with FireWire have the camera-style 4-pin port.

  • So why not offer the purchaser an option? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:18PM (#11771328) Homepage Journal
    Give them the option to either get a USB 2.0 or an IEEE 1394 cable with their iPod. If they want the opposite, they have to buy it.

    Flexibility is a good thing.

    • They would have to maintain two SKU of every item (Firewire and USB) and at that point it would probably cost just as much to put both cables in each box.

      Also, retailers probably wouldn't stock the Firewire version since there's less of a market need for it.

      I'm sure if Apple thought it would sell, they would do it. As it is, Apple cables are $20 and aftermarket cables will probably be even cheaper.
    • Because it is cheaper to produce one million iPods with one million USB cables and be able to package all of the iPods alike. If you are putting different cables into each box, there is an additional component to consider, the additional worker overhead ("does this one get USB or FireWire?"), the additional tracking overhead (two part numbers, more if you can get both cables)...

    • Re:So why not offer the purchaser an option? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .stnapyffuprm.> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:37PM (#11771571)
      Because even one extra SKU at retail is a bitch to work with compared to just shipping USB2 with everything. Think about it:

      4 colors of iPod Mini in two sizes (4&6GB): 8 SKUs
      4 colors of iPod Mini in two sizes (4&6GB) with USB/FW option: 16 SKUs.

      All of this includes subtle changes to packaging, manufacturing, and support. IT's far nicer for Apple to say "Here's USB. If you like Firewire go buy a cable for it, after all, it'll still work"

  • I Call Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SteveM ( 11242 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:18PM (#11771331)

    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

    .

    • Re:I Call Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

      by chris_mahan ( 256577 ) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:31PM (#11771502) Homepage
      Because you still can't stand ZDNet and Cnet's forums? Admit it. You like Slashdot... ;)

    • While I normally despie "I call BS" posts ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:32PM (#11771506)
      ... I have to agree with you wholeheartedly.

      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 ... I'm beginning to think this site is dead and we just don't know it yet.

      Anyone know of any decent competitors out there?
      • what is (or was) supposed to be a free software/opensource news and discussion forum

        Um. Hold on there, Sparky. The motto says "news for nerds." (The "stuff that matters" part is clearly sarcasm. I mean, duh.)

        Contrary to what you seem to think, not all nerds buy into the propaganda that hobbyist-made software is better than, or even as good as, professionally-made software. In fact, speaking purely from my own anecdotal experience with zero scientific validity, I don't know anybody who still drinks the Li

      • I know why I keep reading /. (Score:5, Funny)

        by tgd ( 2822 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @07:27PM (#11772433)
        A really low user ID, and that makes me cool.

        • Re:I know why I keep reading /. (Score:4, Funny)

          by jCaT ( 1320 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @10:01PM (#11773434)
          A really low user ID, and that makes me cool.

          By that metric, I'm more than twice as cool! Yeah, I'll probably get modded down because this post was stupid but I'll take any opportunity I can to show off... ;)

          • Re:I know why I keep reading /. (Score:5, Funny)

            by David Rolfe ( 38 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @10:58PM (#11773740) Homepage Journal
            A really low user ID, and that makes me cool.

            By that metric, I'm more than twice as cool! Yeah, I'll probably get modded down because this post was stupid but I'll take any opportunity I can to show off... ;)

            Holy shit, I'm 4 times as cool! I must be frickin Cool as Ice [google.com] ...

            (What's sad is this is, atleast, the second thread about UIDs attached to this story... maybe because there is no story here so we are all just going to sit around bs-ing. :-)
  • What are the comparative speeds of USB 2.0 vs Firewire? (Side question: Is the Firewire 400 or 800?)

    • Re:Which raises the question: (Score:4, Informative)

      by lxt ( 724570 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:23PM (#11771401) Journal
      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.
    • I don't remember where I read the article, but back when USB2 was brand new, a comparison was done -- the end result was that speeds were comparable, although FireWire was slightly faster and required less CPU overhead (something about FireWire being handled by a separate card, but USB2 being partially CPU-driven).

      My memory could be faulty, of course, so your takeaway should be this: not much speed difference.

  • misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oscast ( 653817 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:19PM (#11771345) Homepage
    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.

  • "Backing away"??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wessler ( 204539 )
    Apple is including USB2 instead of firewire because most windows boxes have USB2 instead of IEEE1394, and when they do have IEEE1394, it tends to be the 4-pin mini version without the power supply. Most of the iPods are bought by windows users (there are a whole lot more of them), so Apple exchanged firewire for USB2. Mac folk aren't hurt because most Macs (and all recent ones) have USB2 on them as well.

    It doesn't mean that Apple is "backing away" from Firewire, just that they've done some market researc
  • Apple was actively pushing the firewire specs back when, and is in part responsible to its widespread proliferation. Further, a LOT of devices in the imaging/video market are dependent on firewire, so this sounds like mental masturbation at best. Firewire is going to be around for a long time...

  • Cost-cutting genuis (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tkcom ( 795299 )
    Another brilliant move by Apple. They know there are far more PC users out there (mostly without FireWire) and Mac users are usually big spenders.

    Why not?

  • Nothing to see here... (Score:4, Informative)

    by HiredMan ( 5546 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:20PM (#11771363) Journal
    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

  • even as a Mac fan/user... (Score:3, Informative)

    by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:21PM (#11771380)
    I see no real advantages to using firewire. "Firewire is faster" is a complete non-issue, since the hard drive(s) in the iPod(s) are not fast enough to keep up with either interface. Comparing the theoretical or real world speed of the two is just wasted breath. USB ports are more ubiquitous on most machines, especially since the product is 100% cross platform now. Even on my Macs, I have quite a few more USB ports than firewire ones, which means less swapping when I want to plug my camcorder, iPod, iSight, and hard drive in at the same time. And if it can charge just as well over USB, I could care less that it's not firewire.

    • Re:even as a Mac fan/user... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) * <oculus.habent@g m a il.com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:35PM (#11771539) Journal
      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.

      • Re:even as a Mac fan/user... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jumpingfred ( 244629 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:20PM (#11772850)
        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.
      • Actually, it's interesting this is brought up - because not too long ago, I recall reading a number of messages on Apple's own message forums from users encountering problems with their iPod syncing properly on Macs via firewire.

        After much testing and speculation, folks seemed to pretty much determine it was a problem caused by Apple's iSight firewire camera combined with an iPod on the firewire interface. Apparently, the iSight, when turned on, consumes the majority of the bandwidth on the firewire 400 b
    • As a PC user, I find firewire nifty for me. I use an external (120GB) firewire hard drive to share my /home directory between my server and laptop. When I want to run a game that won't run on my laptop, I can boot my laptop to act as my linux server (taking care of downloads and other services), and boot my server to play Half-Life 2. That is also the setup while I'm doing rebuilding work on the server. I saw it as a way to make large amounts of external storage available if needed. But in my case, I'

  • There's one good reason to have both cables... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ... James ... ( 33917 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:24PM (#11771413)
    I use USB 2.0 for transferring songs to the iPod at home and the firewire cable at work for recharging it. The A/C adapter plugs into the iPod only via the firewire cable.

  • Listen to what you're saying... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrPerfekt ( 414248 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:33PM (#11771525) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Can you boot from the iPod now? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by beathyate ( 731955 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:34PM (#11771532)
    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?

  • Might be backing away for iPod ONLY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hellfire ( 86129 ) <deviladv AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:35PM (#11771544) Homepage
    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.

  • CNet's Ina Fried is a HACK (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:38PM (#11771574)
    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!")

  • Not likely... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:40PM (#11771598) Homepage Journal
    Apple is one of the primary supporters behind IEEE1394b (Firewire 800/1600/3200) and also one of the authors of mBus (audio over Firewire). I doubt they're going to pass all that up for something like USB 2.0.

    More likely, this is just because USB is more ubiquitous and it's cheaper to ship one cable than two.

  • Just refocusing for their user base (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:41PM (#11771613) Journal
    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.

  • Get a Clue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smcavoy ( 114157 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:44PM (#11771632)
    I would bet money there are more Windows iPod users now then Mac. PCs, for the most part, do not have and do not come with firewire. USB is far more common.
    Plus they get the 19.99 from people who want firewire cables.
    Geez...
    this made out to be a big freaking deal.... it's not
    now microsoft selling products to protect you from their insecure products... that's disturbing

  • Everyone wins (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rookworm ( 822550 ) <horace7945@@@yahoo...ca> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:45PM (#11771643)
    This is good for Apple, and the consumer:

    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?

  • From TFA (Score:5, Funny)

    by KillerDeathRobot ( 818062 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @05:50PM (#11771682) Homepage
    "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.

  • Backing away ... with iPods (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kitzilla ( 266382 ) <paperfrog&gmail,com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @06:09PM (#11771817) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, they're saving a few bucks by standardizing their biggest Windows-compatible product on USB. Why is this surprising? Now all the packaging can be the same, and they'll get cheaper lot prices on the USB jumper.

    I'll buy "backing away from Firewire" when we stop seeing Firewire ports on their desktops. Not until then.

  • Backing away or responding to a market? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @06:47PM (#11772116)
    If Apple sells the same percentage of iPods to Mac/Win owners as the 3%/95% mac/win computer ownership, or even close to those percentages, then chances are Apple is shipping pretty white firewire cables that most users aren't ever unwrapping.

    This is just a case of serving your market. New Macs support USB 2.0 and iPod buyers that don't have USB 2.0 can purchase the FireWire cable.

    Yeah it stinks that the APPLE owners are the ones to get burned on this deal, but it doesn't make sense to offer a feature most of your users cannot make any use of when an alternative feature exists that most can.

  • Do these reporters ever buy a printer? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kelmenson ( 592104 ) <kelmenson@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @07:35PM (#11772484)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close