Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · Dec 17, 2007, 02:17 PM

I thought it was royalty free now, but you're probably right.

analogue SPRINKLES · Dec 17, 2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

The reason Apple went USB on the iPods is that USB controllers are available in much smaller sizes that consume less power than FireWire controllers. And the moment they decided that they would be putting effort into making the iPod as small as possible, FireWire was one of the first things that had to go.

True enough but Apple should have spent all the money they were making into making firewire smaller and cheaper then.

peeb · Dec 17, 2007, 02:34 PM

But why would they want to? USB works great for the iPod.

Lateralus · Dec 17, 2007, 02:39 PM

Because settling for something lesser isn't always the the best option?

Some people do actually care about such things.

peeb · Dec 17, 2007, 02:41 PM

But it isn't a question of less or more, it's a question of what is the best trade-off for that application. Larger form factor and more power use as well as higher cost for a bit faster transfer and much less compatibility just isn't a good trade off.

sek929 · Dec 17, 2007, 02:45 PM

All I know is that my Firewire equipped iPod updates much faster than both my roomate's USB 2.0 iPods.

peeb · Dec 17, 2007, 02:48 PM

Fine, but how much faster, really? I mean how many people have updates of more than a few meg at any time? Given that your ipod is not usable with the vast majority of the computers that iPod owners use, there would still have to be a USB version. The benefit of slight time savings in updates just isn't worth the cost.

Lateralus · Dec 17, 2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

But it isn't a question of less or more, it's a question of what is the best trade-off for that application. Larger form factor and more power use as well as higher cost for a bit faster transfer and much less compatibility just isn't a good trade off.

I know, those are all points that I made.

But I think the larger point of the thread is that Apple could have done much better in making FireWire (their technology) that cheaper, smaller, less power hungry, compatible option.

And that, in essence, is a symptom of Apple's much larger issue. Apple was once a true technology company; pushing new and superior technologies on the market. SCSI, NuBus, FireWire, ADB, 68k, PowerPC, the Newton... the list goes on.

FireWire is one of the last of those technologies that Apple hasn't completely turned it back on yet.

peeb · Dec 17, 2007, 02:53 PM

Well, the cost, size and power consumption are a result of the processor on board. That is what gives it it's performance advantage - I just don't really think it could ever compete with the stripped down, cheaper and slower USB. It's for different applications, primarily where performance matters most - that's why it dominates in high end video, but not consumer cameras. I think that's ok really, I mean, they are different products, for different things.

analogue SPRINKLES · Dec 17, 2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

But why would they want to? USB works great for the iPod.

Here is one tiny reason.... IT DOESN'T ****ING CHARGE THE IPOD WHEN THE COMPUTER IS OFF!

God I loved that about firewire.

peeb · Dec 17, 2007, 03:06 PM

That is true.

analogue SPRINKLES · Dec 17, 2007, 03:09 PM

Not only that but charging my iPhone over USB takes about 5-6 hours... even through a hub. AC adapter takes 2 hours.

I am not sure if Firewire would be any better but I still hate that about USB charging.

mduell · Dec 17, 2007, 07:04 PM

From reading around the web (since I won't pay the 1394TA for the spec), it appears that S3200 keeps the same power insanity we've come to know and love with Firewire: unregulated voltage and no guaranteed power level. USB is low powered (0.5A@5V), but at least it's a known quantity.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh yeah the USB 2.0 iPods work. But not as fast as the FIreWire versions did at the time when they came out.

IIRC the final iPod revision that supported USB and FW was three times faster over USB (~7.5MBps) than FW (2.5MBps). This is a result of the small chipsets being slow with Firewire and size is Apple's priority for iPods rather than speed.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

And the fact that Apple still charges a 25 cent royalty for the inclusion of FireWire on any device certainly isn't helping adoption of it on the PC side. Even now, only higher-end PC motherboards come standard with it.

Didn't Apple drop that charge a few years back? First from $1 to 0.25, then to 0?

Lateralus · Dec 17, 2007, 11:44 PM

I'm under the impression that if the royalty was dropped at all (which I've had trouble finding confirmation on) it was only dropped on 400 and not 800.

voodoo · Dec 18, 2007, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

From reading around the web (since I won't pay the 1394TA for the spec), it appears that S3200 keeps the same power insanity we've come to know and love with Firewire: unregulated voltage and no guaranteed power level. USB is low powered (0.5A@5V), but at least it's a known quantity.

Source please.

Originally Posted by mduell

IIRC the final iPod revision that supported USB and FW was three times faster over USB (~7.5MBps) than FW (2.5MBps). This is a result of the small chipsets being slow with Firewire and size is Apple's priority for iPods rather than speed.

Source please.

Originally Posted by mduell

Didn't Apple drop that charge a few years back? First from $1 to 0.25, then to 0?

Of all the things you pretend not to know...

V

mduell · Dec 18, 2007, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Source please.

That Firewire doesn't require regulated voltage? Or has no minimum power requirement? That S3200 doesn't change this? Or that USB provides 0.5A@5V?

Originally Posted by voodoo

Source please.

CNet's review of the final USB+FW iPod revision.

Originally Posted by voodoo

Of all the things you pretend not to know...

I really don't know, and the Google results are too crowded with "zomgApplewants$1perport" from 2001.