[nebben123]

This is not meant to be a troll. Please hear me out. Maybe we can all learn something.

-----

Recently I have been shopping for several peripherals. I just bought a digital camera (Sony MVC-CD400) and a scanner (Epson Photo 1660).

I wanted to get something with Firewire on it due to the faster transfer speeds. However, Firewire-equipped cameras and scanners are ridiculously expensive. Only the "pro" models come with it. And yes, I know you can get an Epson 2450 or whatever-it-is with Firewire, but still that's like $400. Not the $120 I paid for the scanner I just bought (which has USB 2.0)

Digital cameras are the same thing. Why can't I get a digital camera with Firewire for $500 or less? [okay, at this point, I guess someone will point out that there is somewhere a camera with Firewire that is only $500... but my point is that it is not widespread, they're almost all USB]

USB 1.1 just doesn't cut it. Transferring 128MB of 4 megapixel photos over a USB connection takes FOREVER. Why is there no Firewire?

Scanning on USB 1.1 isn't horribly slow, but if you are scanning at high res, it does take several seconds for the scanner to send the output to the computer. With Firewire, it would be much faster!

-----

What I don't understand is why does Apple (and the other companies supporting Firewire) do such a poor job of promoting it? Why do only "pro" users who can afford expensive equipment get to benefit? The FW chips are not expensive!

Now, the bad thing here is, everything is going to USB 2.0 (and has been for the last year or so)... but Apple is still not supporting it. Yeah, you can get a card for it if you have a tower or a Powerbook. Us iBook and iMac users are SCREWED.

Yes, I *do* understand that Firewire is better. Yes, I *would* like to buy Firewire products if I had the choice. But my point is, THERE IS NO CHOICE. Everything is USB! Even when there is a choice, like with external CD-RW's, the Firewire versions are always more expensive.

(and also, just try finding a Firewire CD-RW at Best Buy or Circuit City!)

I just don't get it. I have this nice new scanner with USB 2.0, but I get no extra benefit thanks to Apple being stupid. I'm not sure if they are here yet, but digital cameras will be USB 2.0 soon too. This will be a major boon if you are trying to download hundreds of megs worth of pictures.

Yes, USB 2.0 is not really faster than Firewire, but it *is* much faster than USB 1.1. And now that everything is (or is going to) USB 2.0, we are getting the shaft!

Why? Because like I said, there are no $150 Firewire Scanners. No $300, $400, $500 Firewire Digital Cameras.

So, great job promoting Firewire, Apple!

I'd like buy Firewire devices but THE PRODUCTS ARE JUST NOT AVAILABLE. And when they are, they're usually from some no-name company. Why don't we have widespread, major-brand support for Firewire in CONSUMER peripherals?

This sucks!

Discuss.

[Back up 15 and punt]

Well, do you understand what Firewire was originally suppose to replace. It's obvious you don't but thats OK. Firewire was originally developed to replace SCSI. The fact that other vendors have decided to use it with some of their cameras and other peripherals is more or less icing on the cake. So to speak.

We are now in the beginnings of seeing the next stage of firewire (firewire 2). I wouldn't be suprised if this technology finds it way into the next generation of high definition camcorders. After all, you have about four times the amount of data for high definition video to transfer to your computer. Do you think that USB2 is going to be able to handle this volume? I doubt it.

[clf8]

You gots to remember that Firewire has a niche of uses. You don't want a Firewire mouse, it's pointless. For most people's digital cameras, USB or USB2 are appropriate. Same with a scanner, you're transferring a couple of MBs of data every 30 seconds or so (if you're quick). It's going to take you longer to put in something new to get scanned that it will to transfer the data. You can complain about Apple not putting in USB2, but neither of the devices you mentioned are would truly benefit from Firewire.

Firewire isn't for a peripheral. It's for an external drive, a DV camera, cd/dvd burner, or anything else that needs _sustained_ high data rates. Firewire will survive just fine, just like the parallel port did. Sure, you only used it for a couple of things, but it was hella good for those. As for Apple not advancing it properly, Firewire is one of the proposed methods of passing video around between your cable box, PVR, and HDTV. Makes it one step easier to make that old mac of yours a reborn TiVo or whatever.

You'll see USB2 on Mac's soon enough. Unfortunately for many, it probably won't be until you see Firewire800 standard. I'm guessing the next major Powermac rev will be the first thing you see USB2 in.

[clarkgoble]

You *can* buy USB 2.0 cards. It isn't that big a deal. As for firewire on consumer devices, most video cameras I looked at had them.

[Hydra]

The biggest advantage of Firewire (also why Intel feels threatened by it) is that it does not require a pc/mac to be in the chain. USB needs to have a computer controlling it somewhere. For example you could have a HDTV talk to a HD VCR with firewire but not with USB. They actually have high-end Firewire hard-drives that can be connected directly to a DV camcorder to eliminate the need to capture the video from tape and saving a bunch of time.

Don't worry, firewire ain't going anywhere but will probably coexist with USB 2.0. How long have PC's had serial, parrallel and ps2 or whatever ports on them despite how antiquated?

I think "consumer devices" like HDTV's, vcrs, DVD-r, DV camcorders and external HD's as well as high end Digital SLR's will continue to use firewire while printers, scanners and input devices (all things that require connection to a pc) will be dominated by USB.

It's all good -

-Jerry C

[nebben123]

Okay, either I didn't explain myself well enough, or you guys didn't read everything I had to say. To clarify:

I know Firewire is better than USB 2.0.

I know you can get a card to add USB 2.0, but that doesn't help people who just bought a new iBook (like me) or a new iMac that you cannot put cards into. Now, maybe, maybe someone will develop a firewire->USB 2.0 converter. That would be cool.

What I am trying to say is, lots of inexpensive peripherals come with USB 2.0 now. And yes, contrary to what some of you think, it IS beneficial. Haven't you ever tried to transfer hundreds of megs of pictures from a USB 1.1 digital camera? It takes for-ev-er. Wouldn't it be great to transfer them several times faster?

Sure, it might not much of a benefit with some devices (like printers) but with cameras and scanners where you are potential transferring huge amounts of data back and forth, USB 2.0 rocks compared to 1.1.

And yes, a firewire mouse or keyboard would be stupid. Don't be silly, and don't misread my argument. I'm not arguing Firewire VS USB2. It boils down to this:

"Why don't we have USB2 ports standard on the Mac yet?"

Is the answer: Because Firewire is better?

If so then,

"Why are all the equivalent Firewire devices really really expensive, or just plain not available?"

[slider]

This is one of the effects of one company controlling 95+% of market share, Intel, I think does not natively provide support for firewire anymore, yet it does for USB. Apple is in a tough spot, if they install USB 2, it might prompt some manufacturer to drop firewire support all together. I hear what you're are saying, but it doesn't amount to much, write apple with your logic and maybe it will be placed on a growing pile of requests. The new Apple as demonstrated that it is listening, but you need to speak to them. As far as USB for iMacs and iBooks, one they will work with USB 1.1, so they are still usable. Perhaps someone will develop some kind of USB 2 to Firewire converter.

[kikkoman]

I think USB will beat out Firewire for attaching devices to a COMPUTER. Firewire was designed to connect consumer audio and video equipment together, in which a computer may or may not be involved.

One the original goals of Firewire was to replace the various consumer analog and digital connectors used on consumer AV equipment with a single digital connector. For example my DVD players has 3 different types of video outputs: composite, s-video and component. It also has 4 types of audio outputs: 2 channel analog, 5 channel analog (for DVD-Audio), digital optical and coax (for 5.1 Dolby Digital, 5.1 DTS, and 2 channel PCM). To a novice, it's really not clear which of these connectors to use and under what circumstances. Firewire has the potential to replace all those separate audio/video cables with a single cable that carries both audio and video. In the ideal world you would have one connector to connect all you equipment together.

The problems blocking Firewires adoption are mostly polictial and not technical. The IEEE 1394 specification defines hardware and low level software interoperability. But it doesn't define at a higher level how a video stream moves from component A to component B. What format is the video? Is it compressed? Is it encrypted? Which encryption is used? All those details were left for consumer electronics companies to hash out.

The consumer electronics space is different than the PC space. In the PC world there are a couple big companies that can set defacto standards for hardware and software, Microsoft and Intel. Yes, once in a while an exception comes along but for the most part these guys set the rules. The consumer electronics space is different. There are many big companies each pushing their own technology leaving consumers to decide which one will not be obsolete next year. It's much more chaotic than the PC world. It will be a while if they can agree on a standard, if they can agree at all.

[scottiB]

FireWire didn't make marketing/mindshare inroads for a few reasons. Firstly, Apple charged a $1 per FireWire port royalty--since reduced to 25 cents. This really inhibited PC manufacturers from incorportating it--especially when margins are tight. Peripheral makers recouped the cost by only incorporating it into prosumer and above products with higher margins.

When PC makers did use the port, they geared the FireWire boxes as video editing editions (like Sony and some HPs), giving consumers the notion that iLink is used only for digital video cameras. As well, PC makers usually installed the 4-port variety, and consumers outside of the Mac community couldn't use the new, cool VST bus-powered FireWire drives, or even full height drives or scanners. When my father saw my Pismo PowerBook's 6-pin FW ports, he didn't know what they were.

Finally, for all technical ways that FW is superior to USB 2.0, not many really matter to averge PC consumers (can PCs boot from a FireWire drive?). The only one I can think of is charging the iPod's battery. To be honest, most FireWire peripherals were created to make-up for limitations in an iMac's all-in-one configuration. How many PC users would purchase a FireWire CD-RW drive? Most would slap a cheap ATAPI one into an existing empty bay.

I think the royalties were the major reason--even in the go-go, spend-spend late 90s. I don't begrudge Apple for doing it; it really is an incredible technology with tons of uses. I think Intel was a bit envious, too, and didn't want to pay royalties to a company that was reeling 18 months earlier. Ironic, though, because the Bondi iMac pushed the demand for USB 1.1 products more than any other reason; eventhough, most PCs had them for at least two years prior.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by scottiB:
FireWire didn't make marketing/mindshare inroads for a few reasons. Firstly, Apple charged a $1 per FireWire port royalty--since reduced to 25 cents. This really inhibited PC manufacturers from incorportating it--especially when margins are tight. Peripheral makers recouped the cost by only incorporating it into prosumer and above products with higher margins.

When PC makers did use the port, they geared the FireWire boxes as video editing editions (like Sony and some HPs), giving consumers the notion that iLink is used only for digital video cameras. As well, PC makers usually installed the 4-port variety, and consumers outside of the Mac community couldn't use the new, cool VST bus-powered FireWire drives, or even full height drives or scanners. When my father saw my Pismo PowerBook's 6-pin FW ports, he didn't know what they were.

Finally, for all technical ways that FW is superior to USB 2.0, not many really matter to averge PC consumers (can PCs boot from a FireWire drive?). The only one I can think of is charging the iPod's battery. To be honest, most FireWire peripherals were created to make-up for limitations in an iMac's all-in-one configuration. How many PC users would purchase a FireWire CD-RW drive? Most would slap a cheap ATAPI one into an existing empty bay.

I think the royalties were the major reason--even in the go-go, spend-spend late 90s. I don't begrudge Apple for doing it; it really is an incredible technology with tons of uses. I think Intel was a bit envious, too, and didn't want to pay royalties to a company that was reeling 18 months earlier. Ironic, though, because the Bondi iMac pushed the demand for USB 1.1 products more than any other reason; eventhough, most PCs had them for at least two years prior.

i thought the royalty went away when the ieee made firewire the official name of the product a couple months ago.

[SpeedRacer]

Royalty or no royalty, to add Firewire to an existing camera and/or computer board requires the use of a different controller than the existing USB in most PCs/cameras. USB 2 controllers can support both USB2 and USB1 devices with a single chip - thus Firewire becomes an ADDITIONAL expense over and above the USB chip cost. It's about shipping boards at minimal cost, NOT which is better (FW or USB2). An argument I'm sure you could extrapolate to the PC industry in general.

And FWIW, the Apple only ever licensed the Firewire name. IEEE1394 is the same spec and is supported by multiple manufacturers with no licensing (ie: fee Sony calls it iLink). Perhaps companies supporting the specs could have done a better job of creating new products that use this technology, but how many people do you see coming into CompUSA and specifically asking for a camera with Firewire? The average consumer has no idea (and cares even less) about the difference between USB2 and Firewire - so long as it works! I'd also be willing to bet most consumers are not going out and buying $200 256MB camera cards either but that's another story!

If you want to push the technology you release innovative products that utilize the technology such that the consumer sees enhanced functionality first, technology second. Frankly, I don't know how you could have a better demonstration of the virtues of Firewire than the iPod, iMovie-controllable DV Camcorders, Firewire Target Mode (all Macs), or SmartDisk's FireLight drives.

As others have alluded to, a future where high-speed, sustainable transfers of large amounts of video/audio between consumer electronics may indeed be the best promoter of Firewire out there (Even FW400 excels over USB2 in all of these areas). But most consumers and manufacturers are doing fine with just USB1 right. The iPod introduced an entirely new market. DV camcorders are a high-end price bracket. Most Mac users don't have the slightest idea with Target Mode is. And its taken consumers years to even accept USB pen drives, let along 60GB firewire drives! Rapid adoption of FW may soon come to pass given the need for large, sustainable data transfers in home electronics transferring video, audio, etc but we're not there yet. The fact that companies like Apple and Sony have been light years ahead of the rest of the industry in adopting Firewire does not mean that Firewire is losing the battle. It just shows who's got the better looking glass.

Patience, let the market catch up before breathing flames on the industry. Let's not forget that we're talking about a world dominated by the Dell and HP-Compaqs who are more than content charging consumers $50 for the same $5 1400K floppy drives they've been pushing on consumers for the past 10 years!

[Eug]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
i thought the royalty went away when the ieee made firewire the official name of the product a couple months ago.

Apple has now allowed the free use of the Firewire name, but AFAIK they still charge 25 cents for Firewire (which IMO is too much).

[Camera God]

Most of the standard digital camera cards do not exceed the transfer capability of USB.

There are a couple that do, but you either have to deal with a limited selection of cameras (such as Secure Digital and XD cards), or you have to buy faster "pro" cards (such is the case in Compact Flash cards).

-CG

[Mac Zealot]

Ok, let me make this quick and simple.

USB is promoted (and developed), largely, by intel. Intel makes a good 40% of all processors on the market.

This means 40% of the motherboards on the market are made tailored to those processors. Most will go the easy way, a few companies make boards that go the extra mile and have other features as well.

Intel DOES NOT support firewire a/b on their chipsets by default, and do not support it through their OEMs as well, thus companies do not take the extra step to put on things such as firewire.

And thus, many boards don't have firewire onboard, some following intel's guidelines will not even work PROPERLY with firewire cards!

So there are millions of computers in peoples' businesses and homes that have USB1, more newer machines having USB2, and few machines having firewire.

The 'average consumer' is also stupid. So even though firewire and USB both were introduced to the world at roughly the same time, very few companies adapted firewire, thanks to intel. Thus today there are many machines with USB 1.0 and 1.1, but no FW. This means that people going out will likely buy something USB (either 1 or 2) because they know it will work, even if they buy a 2 camera and have only 1 ports.

Throw firewire into that mess and you have people who buy it, and then realize they don't have firewire on their machines. To my knowledge only compaq has had firewire since around 1997 or so.

This means people either have to add a card or send back their equipment, and with this knowledge won't buy anything else firewire.

It goes on and on.

Firewire is a lot like SCSI in that many of the same things can be done and it's a much more push, shove, grunt, type thing.

[Todd Madson]

There are areas where Firewire is being used you might not be
aware of.

Yamaha is using Firewire (rebranded as mLan8) for fast transfer
of large amounts of digital sample data in their Motif range of
synthesizers. Ultimately, this will be added to mixing boards,
recording systems and the like to move large amounts of data
quickly.

I also have noticed the local cable company (Time Warners) has a
digital cable box with both USB and Firewire ports on them. Very
interesting.

PS2 has firewire as well but that's pretty well known now.

Many Sony camcorders have Firewire (or iLink as they call it).

First of all, I do agree that my Fuji digital camera gets a bit
tiresome to transfer say, 64 megs of 4.3 megapixel files via a
slow USB1 connection. I'd love a firewire digital camera. I'd
even be willing to pay for it too but at the time we bought them
such things were scarce and very expensive.

Firewire isn't 100% commonplace but you can get firewire items.

[Parky]

If transferring 128MB of photos over USB 1.1 takes too loong might I suggest you buy a card reader with firewire.

I have a compact flash card reader that has a firewire connection and it is fully supported under OS 10.2

It is always connected and in a chain with my external 60GB Firewire harddrive which I use for digital video.

Firewire is THE only option for seamless digital video. USB 2 will never replace this and Firewire 800 will just make it even better.

I do agree though that we should have USB 2.0 by now. Apple was the first manufacturer to really put USB on the market with the original iMac, but they have really lagged behind.

It does seem strange for such a leading edge company, not to have the latest (out for a while really) version of a technology on thier machines.

[docholiday]

you can get a usb 2 card if you really need it... and i'm pretty sure apple will inclued usb 2 in the next powermac rev.