PDA

View Full Version : Apple's FireWire gets the nod from new High Definition Audi...


MacBytes
Dec 19, 2005, 08:10 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Apple's FireWire gets the nod from new High Definition Audio Video Network Alliance (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051219091026)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

840quadra
Dec 19, 2005, 08:13 AM
OK I was thinking "what new high definition Audi?" (as in Audi Quattro), as I have access to their Press site. But I now see that the word "Audio" was cut off by our title text limit on Macrumors.

Still a good read :) (I just perused it)

yellow
Dec 19, 2005, 08:15 AM
Yet more clues that Apple won't be dropping FW support in MacTels.

MacBandit
Dec 19, 2005, 08:47 AM
Firewire is already on a large portion of high end TVs, Audio, and Video gear. They use it to carry audio and video (similar to HDMI) but also to carry equipment commands. Say I switch my receiver to DVD then my receiver could send a command over the firewire connection to turn on the DVD player and then switch the TV to the proper input. There are other uses as well that they use it for.

Yvan256
Dec 19, 2005, 09:31 AM
Maybe that's why Apple will be dropping "FireWire" support... They're "switching" to HANA. Maybe that's what the rumors are all about? (only a name change for the technology... which would be weird, considering people already know FireWire).

Peace
Dec 19, 2005, 10:17 AM
This article is actually refering to an adoption of wireless firewire..

redAPPLE
Dec 19, 2005, 11:39 AM
eat that USB.

CanadaRAM
Dec 19, 2005, 12:00 PM
This article is actually refering to an adoption of wireless firewire..
Huh?

"Connector confusion is eliminated through the use of 1394 or FireWire. Any device can be connected to any other device with a single cable, common across all HANA devices. The user interface (UI) is then delivered over the 1394 interface using well-established Web technologies browsers and Web servers."

Cable...

mkrishnan
Dec 19, 2005, 12:11 PM
"Connector confusion is eliminated through the use of 1394 or FireWire. Any device can be connected to any other device with a single cable, common across all HANA devices. The user interface (UI) is then delivered over the 1394 interface using well-established Web technologies – browsers and Web servers."

The same confusionless cable that can be jammed in backwards (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=167666) and light your computer on fire, right, Mr. Trevor? :D

Peace
Dec 19, 2005, 12:19 PM
Huh?

"Connector confusion is eliminated through the use of 1394 or FireWire. Any device can be connected to any other device with a single cable, common across all HANA devices. The user interface (UI) is then delivered over the 1394 interface using well-established Web technologies browsers and Web servers."

Cable...

Look at HANA's roadmap :

http://www.hanaalliance.org/docs/HANA_RoadMap_122005.pdf

"Phase 2 benefits: WIRELESS EXTENSIONS"

maya
Dec 19, 2005, 12:22 PM
The same confusionless cable that can be jammed in backwards (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=167666) and light your computer on fire, right, Mr. Trevor? :D

That thread opened my eyes, on how someone can fry they Mac by just jamming in the FireWire "D" plug. :eek:


Honestly, if you cannot be careful with expensive electronics then you have no reason to use them. ;) :D

maya
Dec 19, 2005, 12:24 PM
Look at HANA's roadmap :

http://www.hanaalliance.org/docs/HANA_RoadMap_122005.pdf

"Phase 2 benefits: WIRELESS EXTENSIONS"

FireWireless is due in 2007, great. :)

However we are still in 2005 for a couple more weeks and then 2006. So its still cables for now. :p

Peace
Dec 19, 2005, 12:28 PM
FireWireless is due in 2007, great. :)

However we are still in 2005 for a couple more weeks and then 2006. So its still cables for now. :p

So true!

Intel Macs wern't expected(generally) to be out as early as January either;)

CanadaRAM
Dec 19, 2005, 12:32 PM
The same confusionless cable that can be jammed in backwards (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=167666) and light your computer on fire, right, Mr. Trevor? :D
Yup.

There's gonna be some inattentive and subsequently VERY &!$$=# off owners of expensive 42" plasma/theatre systems, I predict. Unless everyone gets smart and makes the buss power switchable on all devices, with the default being "OFF", or unless they standardize on the 4-pin FW plug for both ends of all cables...

javabear90
Dec 20, 2005, 12:00 PM
So what about fw800. I thought that was supposed to be all the rage in the coming years?

maya
Dec 20, 2005, 12:11 PM
So true!

Intel Macs wern't expected(generally) to be out as early as January either;)

This roadmap was not stated by Steve Jobs either. ;) :D

maya
Dec 20, 2005, 12:12 PM
So what about fw800. I thought that was supposed to be all the rage in the coming years?

what about fw1600?

What about a PBG5?

What about Bob? ;) :D

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2005, 08:31 AM
Yup.

There's gonna be some inattentive and subsequently VERY &!$$=# off owners of expensive 42" plasma/theatre systems, I predict. Unless everyone gets smart and makes the buss power switchable on all devices, with the default being "OFF", or unless they standardize on the 4-pin FW plug for both ends of all cables...


The audio/video gear I have seen with firewire connections use the 4-pin plug like Sony's iLink.

Randall
Dec 21, 2005, 08:43 AM
Yet more clues that Apple won't be dropping FW support in MacTels.Bingo. FireWire will be sticking around for a long time, I don't even know how that ugly rumor got started anyway. :p

Randall
Dec 21, 2005, 08:47 AM
FireWireless is due in 2007, great. :)

However we are still in 2005 for a couple more weeks and then 2006. So its still cables for now. :pWell... since we all know that you can't have wireless power, then if there will be any type of wireless FireWire (oxymoron) then

1) It will have to be FireWire 400, because it can be used without the power part
2) None of the pariferals (sp?) that hook up to it will be able to get their power source from it. Rendering wireless FireWire not very useful, considering that the majority of hardware that plugs up to FireWire does use it as a power source as well.

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2005, 08:53 AM
Well... since we all know that you can't have wireless power, then if there will be any type of wireless FireWire (oxymoron) then

1) It will have to be FireWire 400, because it can be used without the power part
2) None of the pariferals (sp?) that hook up to it will be able to get their power source from it. Rendering wireless FireWire not very useful, considering that the majority of hardware that plugs up to FireWire does use it as a power source as well.

'Fire' in Firewire does not refer to power being conducted as long as data in the cable. It's just a marketing name.

When Apple was developing Firewire they published a document showing possible future variants and half of them were optical without power conductivity.

Randall
Dec 21, 2005, 08:56 AM
'Fire' in Firewire does not refer to power being conducted as long as data in the cable. It's just a marketing name.What are you talking about? The technical name for FireWire 400 is IEEE 1394, and it may or may not be utilized as the power source for any hardware that is connected to it. It is in my experience that 99% of the hardware that uses "FireWire" will use it as a power source in addition to a data transfer method.

Randall
Dec 21, 2005, 09:01 AM
I can see how you thought that I was thinking Fire meaning power, but I didn't mean it like that. On FireWire 400, pins 1-4 are used for data transfer, and pins 5-6 are for up to 45 Watts of power per FireWire port, allowing devices to use this as their power source.

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2005, 09:12 PM
I can see how you thought that I was thinking Fire meaning power, but I didn't mean it like that. On FireWire 400, pins 1-4 are used for data transfer, and pins 5-6 are for up to 45 Watts of power per FireWire port, allowing devices to use this as their power source.

The ability to provide power to a device with the data is not a necessary component of Firewire though. Most versions of Firewire outside of Apples realm are only 4-wire.

Randall
Dec 21, 2005, 09:23 PM
The ability to provide power to a device with the data is not a necessary component of Firewire though. Most versions of Firewire outside of Apples realm are only 4-wire.
I comprehend that. My point was that the hardware that uses FW as it's power source (there are many) will not work with the wireless version. Most of the firewire stuff I have used are the 6-pin FW400 kind, many of which also draw their power from the FW port. A good example are external hard drives. No way can these devices be wireless unless there is a seperate power cord.

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2005, 09:32 PM
I comprehend that. My point was that the hardware that uses FW as it's power source (there are many) will not work with the wireless version. Most of the firewire stuff I have used are the 6-pin FW400 kind, many of which also draw their power from the FW port. A good example are external hard drives. No way can these devices be wireless unless there is a seperate power cord.

That's true but it doesn't seem to stop manufacturers from going wireless. There are several wireless speakers on the market now and they all require a power source. Seems to me that running a power cord to ever speaker is more of a pain then the speaker wire but I guess there's a market for it.