[mrvtec]

Apple UK had previously run out of 5Gb ipods- they are now out of all six ipod models(3 mac 3 windows). New ones must be just around the corner probably with Firewire 800 and a 40Gb model.

[Peter]

a 40Gb iPod considering only the PowerMacs and 17" Powerbooks have Firewire 800, everyone else will be running it at 400 making the extra costs ... pointless?

[Zim]

Originally posted by PeterClark2002:
a 40Gb iPod considering only the PowerMacs and 17" Powerbooks have Firewire 800, everyone else will be running it at 400 making the extra costs ... pointless?

Don't forget the new casing materials, they make so much acoustic difference.... not.

If the rumors of the "new" iPods prove true, then we should all apply for jobs in the iPod dept at Apple.. since obviously work and innovation are no longer required of you.

Mike

[Eug]

Originally posted by PeterClark2002:
a 40Gb iPod considering only the PowerMacs and 17" Powerbooks have Firewire 800, everyone else will be running it at 400 making the extra costs ... pointless?

Firewire 800 would be pointless, not just because nobody has it, but also because:

1) Firewire 400 is already way faster than what the iPod's transfer rate.
2) It will just be a hassle having to use an extra adapter.
3) It costs more for no real reason to use it.

Mark my words, there will be no Firewire 800 on the iPod.

[xtal]

Originally posted by Eug:
Firewire 800 would be pointless, not just because nobody has it, but also because:

1) Firewire 400 is already way faster than what the iPod's transfer rate.
2) It will just be a hassle having to use an extra adapter.
3) It costs more for no real reason to use it.

Mark my words, there will be no Firewire 800 on the iPod.

As I see it, the bottleneck for file transfer is currently at the write speed of the iPod HD. If that rate were increased dramatically, would FW 800 be a benefit then?

I think when FW 800 trickles to more machines we could start seeing it on the iPod. As it stands, it's difficult enough to find FW peripherals...

[Phat Bastard]

Look at it this way: the iPod is Apple's premier Firewire device. Firewire 800 is the new standard Apple will now focus on. Having said that, why wouldn't Apple make a Firewire 800 iPod? It seems stupid to upgrade your data transfer connection and neglect to have your main Firewire device be compatible with it.

The upgrade of the iPod would have to be accompanied by an increase in the hard drive data transfer rate. This isn't a big deal; just slap the latest micro hard drive in there.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Eug:
Firewire 800 would be pointless, not just because nobody has it, but also because:

1) Firewire 400 is already way faster than what the iPod's transfer rate.
2) It will just be a hassle having to use an extra adapter.
3) It costs more for no real reason to use it.

Mark my words, there will be no Firewire 800 on the iPod.

Not to mention PC users are just getting Firewire 400 and Apple now pushing FW 800 would be silly when the hard drive is 4200 RPM.

[hadocon]

Originally posted by Phat Bastard:

The upgrade of the iPod would have to be accompanied by an increase in the hard drive data transfer rate. This isn't a big deal; just slap the latest micro hard drive in there.

This is assuming that there is a faster iPod compatible HD. Why don't you take a look at the manufacturers website and get back to us on that one.

You can all mark my words. No firewire 800 on iPods. If you want to saturate 800 megibats per second you would need something approaching a 15K rpm hard drive. remember that current hard drives are like this:

Powermac: 7200 rpm
Powerbook: 5400 rpm
iBook: 5400 rpm
iPod: 4200 rpm

firewire iPod? Methinks not. firewire 800 is more likely for people with big fast drives for editing HDTV and film resolution projects in FCP. Take a look people. There is only one (1) FW 800 port on teh new Powermacs. There are still two (2) firewire 400's on there.

My guess is bigger HD size and/or colour enclosure options

[Peter]

I dont want them to release new iPods, please dont Apple! Just release a huge software update so everyone that owns an iPod wont feel outdated! Dont do it apple! Just make a nice new software update because then all the iPod owners benefit!

[Phat Bastard]

You are ALL arguing based on the assumption that Apple would basically ignore their release of Firewire 800. From a marketing perspective, like I said before, it would be STUPID for Apple to neglect to put Firewire 800 support into their premier Firewire product! Who CARES if the HD can't take advantage of the 800's speed--as it is, the iPod HD can't keep up with the Firewire 400 data transfer rate. Why did Apple even bother putting Firewire 400 in the current iPods if they cared so much about absolutel compatibility between the connection to the computer and the HD data transfer rate?

You guys obviously don't understand marketing very well. What kind of a signal would Apple send out if they introduced Firewire 800 and then never built devices that supported (at least for a while, like until people have even forgotten about the Firewire 800 introduction)? That would be like saying, "check it out, we have a brand new technology but we realize it's so good to actually be useful so it was dumb of us even to introduce it in the first place." Wouldn't the PeeCee world love that?

It's all about saving-face by Apple.

Originally posted by hadocon:
This is assuming that there is a faster iPod compatible HD. Why don't you take a look at the manufacturers website and get back to us on that one.

You can all mark my words. No firewire 800 on iPods. If you want to saturate 800 megibats per second you would need something approaching a 15K rpm hard drive. remember that current hard drives are like this:

Powermac: 7200 rpm
Powerbook: 5400 rpm
iBook: 5400 rpm
iPod: 4200 rpm

firewire iPod? Methinks not. firewire 800 is more likely for people with big fast drives for editing HDTV and film resolution projects in FCP. Take a look people. There is only one (1) FW 800 port on teh new Powermacs. There are still two (2) firewire 400's on there.

My guess is bigger HD size and/or colour enclosure options

[chabig]

From a marketing perspective, like I said before, it would be STUPID for Apple to neglect to put Firewire 800 support into their premier Firewire product!

Marketing is more than just putting your top-of-the-line features into every product you make. It's about making products that meet the needs of your customers at a price they are willing to pay. That's why Intel makes Celeron processors.

In Apple's case, I think firewire 800 has two good arguments against including it on the iPod.

1. Price: Since firewire 800 is new, it's likely that the silicon chips that implement it cost more than than the older firewire chips.

2. Power consumption: Again, the firewire 400 interface is more mature. So I think it's chips are probably more mature, perhaps smaller, and likely consume less power than the firewire 800 chips.

These are just guesses on my part. I could be wrong.

Chris

[cowerd]

Actually FW800 chips will be cheaper and use less power.

Costs of 1394b silicon and 1394b-enabled products are expected to be lower than products using earlier versions, according to Michael Johas Teener, chief technology officer at Zayante, Inc. and one of the originators of the FireWire standard. Gate counts for 1394b ICs will double to between 20,000 and 25,000. But its analog design is much simpler because the �b� version uses unidirectional arbitration signaling instead of common-mode signaling, which improves efficiency and reduces voltages.

[chabig]

Thanks Cowerd. That's a good quote.

Chris

[Eug]

You can all mark my words. No firewire 800 on iPods.

Is there an echo in here?

Originally posted by Phat Bastard:
You are ALL arguing based on the assumption that Apple would basically ignore their release of Firewire 800. From a marketing perspective, like I said before, it would be STUPID for Apple to neglect to put Firewire 800 support into their premier Firewire product! Who CARES if the HD can't take advantage of the 800's speed--as it is, the iPod HD can't keep up with the Firewire 400 data transfer rate. Why did Apple even bother putting Firewire 400 in the current iPods if they cared so much about absolutel compatibility between the connection to the computer and the HD data transfer rate?

You guys obviously don't understand marketing very well. What kind of a signal would Apple send out if they introduced Firewire 800 and then never built devices that supported (at least for a while, like until people have even forgotten about the Firewire 800 introduction)? That would be like saying, "check it out, we have a brand new technology but we realize it's so good to actually be useful so it was dumb of us even to introduce it in the first place." Wouldn't the PeeCee world love that?

It's all about saving-face by Apple.

Huh? As I said earlier, it would be STOOPID to put Firewire 800 in an iPod. Apple knows this. It would only serve to piss off people (because of the requirement of different cables or dongles), and it would serve NO useful purpose at all. Firewire 400 is used because because it's MUCH FASTER THAN USB.

It seems you don't understand marketing either.

[chabig]

Apple knows this. It would only serve to piss off people (because of the requirement of different cables or dongles)

I agree with you that it makes no sense to put firewire 800 on the iPod, but I don't think it would piss people off as you say, since the iPod would no doubt ship with the correct cable.

Chris