iPod USB2 Details

[MacRumors]

iPod updates are expected by month's end -- most likely during Apple's April 28th Special Event.

ThinkSecret first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030410185159.shtml) on the new iPod design and sizes (10gb, 15gb, and 30gb)... as well as support for USB2.

According to reliable sources, it appears neither the iPod nor the docking station will contain a USB2 connector -- instead, a Firewire <-> USB 2.0 adapter will now be provided for PC users who don't have Firewire connectors. In this configuration, however, the iPod will not be able to charge over USB2.

[Jimong5]

Hmm both a Cheap and Innovative solution. Interesting that Apples made it work. This should help the iPod sell even more!

well see in a week

[dethl]

Obviously, USB2 does not support running electricity for powering devices (hence the reason for all of the USB2 periferals have to have an external power supply)

So how are PC owners going to charge their iPod's if not through the traditional firewire port?

[evilfunkgenius]

why can't we just have USB2?

[Jimong5]

Originally posted by dethl
Obviously, USB2 does not support running electricity for powering devices (hence the reason for all of the USB2 periferals have to have an external power supply)

So how are PC owners going to charge their iPod's if not through the traditional firewire port?

Theyd have to plug the iPod into the external Power brick to charge it up, but That doesnt seem to deter People from insisting USB is the way to go.

Originally posted by evilfunkgenius
why can't we just have USB2?
Because Firewires better :p:p

[vniow]

That's rather intresting, you'd think like a USB <-> Firewire cable would've come out awhile ago, but I guess not, heh.

[Jimong5]

Originally posted by vniow
That's rather intresting, you'd think like a USB <-> Firewire cable would've come out awhile ago, but I guess not, heh.
It makes you wonder IF there Is some sort of special Firewire chipset. Is there Like different protocols that the 2 interfaces use? Am I just being dumb? Because that poses the question could older iPods be used with this.

[Freg3000]

This is a good move by Apple. Let PC users get by with USB 2. DO not fully accommodate them at the risk of hurting FireWire, but by all means, throw 'em a bone.

[smashedapart]

I've still got my money on a 40 gig model. I think this 30 gig talk is nonsense. Plus, if this is true, it gives creedence to the rumor over at MacWhispers a few months ago about a USB to Firewire cable...which means maybe they're right about the lack of a new enclosure and the fact that current 30 gig toshiba drives are PC Card only. I'm hoping...

[vniow]

Originally posted by Jimong5
It makes you wonder IF there Is some sort of special Firewire chipset. Is there Like different protocols that the 2 interfaces use? Am I just being dumb? Because that poses the question could older iPods be used with this.

I don't know, ever since USB 2.0 came out I've heard a lot of people talk about some sort of converter box or cable or just something that would serve as a bridge between the two, but nothing ever materialized and I know there was demand for it, I always thought that there was some kind of incompatibility preventing something like that from ever materializing, but maybe Apple has gotton around that somehow, who knows?

This is still a rumor....

[maradong]

Originally posted by evilfunkgenius
why can't we just have USB2?
firewire is MCUH faster.
by the way. :) cool they are finally coming out...

[Macpoops]

Originally posted by evilfunkgenius
why can't we just have USB2?

Because you can't charge/power an ipod with the power that USB can provide. You would need a seperate power cable for it.

And the only why the ipod could do it would be by wearing a krytonite condom and that would kill him

[reiggin]

Originally posted by Macpoops


And the only why the ipod could do it would be by wearing a krytonite condom and that would kill him

Kry*p*tonite.

"I guaranteed Firewire blows a load like a shotgun, right through a PC's back. What about its OS, you think it's strong enough to carry Apple's new iPod?"

Enough Kevin Smith-ing. I'm watching Conan.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by vniow
I don't know, ever since USB 2.0 came out I've heard a lot of people talk about some sort of converter box or cable or just something that would serve as a bridge between the two, but nothing ever materialized and I know there was demand for it, I always thought that there was some kind of incompatibility preventing something like that from ever materializing, but maybe Apple has gotton around that somehow, who knows?

This is still a rumor....

I read that the Firewire800 chipset supports USB2. Maybe it will have FW800 even though most macs do not and ship with a 9 to 6 pin converter for macs and a FW800 to USB2 for PC.

[Wardofsky]

Damn, damn, damn..

My order for a 10 Gig is in process.

Damn, damn, damn...

[vniow]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I read that the Firewire800 chipset supports USB2.

Got a link?

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by smashedapart
Plus, if this is true, it gives creedence to the rumor over at MacWhispers a few months ago about a USB to Firewire cable...

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Although it is hard to tell exactly what it is that MacWhispers is describing. Still, it actually lends some credibility to that site, since this is clearly not something that one could get just by making educated guesses...

[arn]

Originally posted by smashedapart
I've still got my money on a 40 gig model. I think this 30 gig talk is nonsense. Plus, if this is true, it gives creedence to the rumor over at MacWhispers a few months ago about a USB to Firewire cable...

Actually - MacWhispers reported a dual cable - with both USB and Firewire cables...

this would lend less credence to that report - than an actual dual-ported dock/ipod.

but, we'll see where the chips lay after announcements.

arn

[melchior]

where did you 'read' that the fw800 chipset supports usb2?

i would image this is look like a cable with a fat box in the middle.

and i can't believe people think that bus powered devices is firewire's killer feature...

firewire filled the gap where usb could not. usb2 is now filling that gap rapidly for everyone who didn't adopt firewire.

what does this mean? it means that firewire is being relegated to the niche market it really is.

there is no doubt firewire is better. firewire800 is better again. but usb is omnipresent. usb2 will become omnipresent.

it's about marketing and market presence and apple just isn't doing a good job of it when it comes to... well anything.

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by vniow
I don't know, ever since USB 2.0 came out I've heard a lot of people talk about some sort of converter box or cable or just something that would serve as a bridge between the two, but nothing ever materialized and I know there was demand for it, I always thought that there was some kind of incompatibility preventing something like that from ever materializing, but maybe Apple has gotton around that somehow, who knows?

This is still a rumor....

I bet its not just a USB plug on one side and a FW400 (I assume 400 on the other side), but that there is some small converter box in the middle.

[nickgold]

Originally posted by melchior
it's about marketing and market presence and apple just isn't doing a good job of it when it comes to... well anything.

What a load of troll dung! To think that some people are so lame, they actually sit around on forums and bash computers/companies they don't even have an interest in. I thought being a computer geek in and of itself was kind of lame -- but now I feel a lot better about myself, knowing that there are indeed lower rungs on the "ladder of coolness."

As for the post itself -- Well, I'll let the huge number of firewire video cameras available at my local electronics shops speak to that. *grin*

[melchior]

Originally posted by nickgold
Well, I'll let the huge number of firewire video cameras available at my local electronics shops speak to that. *grin*

this is exactly my point. this is what i consider a niche market. firewire is used widely in dv camera's. it is not used nearly as widely in computers.

i love apple. really. i love firewire. i don't want usb2 in my computer. i don't want it, period. i do feel though, that firewire is not holding ground in the market.

usb2 and firewire are technologies that, at their fundamental base, do the same thing. whatever it is that makes a peripheral hardware company decide on usb2 over firewire, apple is not doing the right thing to encourage development. whether it is cost, ease of implementation, availability of the sdk, i don't know. but apple isn't doing the right thing. i see usb2 in every motherboard. i see firewire in a few.

don't go calling me a troll when i am simply pointing out the obvious.

[speechgod]

1) FW 800 goes faster than 800

2) FW allows for P2P contact because of its chipset. You can connect, for example, a DV camcorder and an iPod if the iPod supported it. This is because both ports have a controller connected to them taht allows this.

3) For the same reason, USB actually uses the CPU (!) for some of its operations.

4) USB isn't powered

It's all about communication. Think of FW as a 2-way political debate. And think of USB as an evil dictator giving 1-way orders to peons.

That's not the best example. But you get the idea.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by melchior
don't go calling me a troll when i am simply pointing out the obvious.

He didn't call you a troll, he called your post troll dung...just thought I'd point that out :p

I'm with you on this...I believe I asked very early on the USB 2.0 forum why FW has not met with success, and no one has had an answer for me...because it's obvious, in my opinion: Apple's usual job of "great technology, poor business."

But that's just me.

[melchior]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
He didn't call you a troll, he called your post troll dung...


if a post by me were to be, in fact, "troll dung" wouldn't that imply that the individual who left said "dung" therefore be a troll? or is it possible for a regular human being to lay troll dung. if this is true, then said dung should not be catagorized as "troll dung":D

and this is just a message board, are we not all entitled to our own opinions. even if we are not all constitutionally granted free speech in our respective countries?

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by speechgod
1) FW 800 goes faster than 800

2) FW allows for P2P contact because of its chipset. You can connect, for example, a DV camcorder and an iPod if the iPod supported it. This is because both ports have a controller connected to them taht allows this.

3) For the same reason, USB actually uses the CPU (!) for some of its operations.

4) USB isn't powered

It's all about communication. Think of FW as a 2-way political debate. And think of USB as an evil dictator giving 1-way orders to peons.

That's not the best example. But you get the idea.

Actually, USB is powered... Whether or not there is enough bus power for the iPod is a good question......but USB hubs, mice, and keyboards are bus powered. Infact, USB hubs can power down chain devices as well.

A more important question is whether or not there is a converter chip in that cable. While many of you think yes, I propose a radically different method....one that has been used by Logitech and Microsoft in the past.

On their mice, the chip they used supports both PS/2 and USB. They provide a PS/2->USB converter cable that does nothing more than re-map signals onto the USB cable. The chip in the mouse auto-senses PS/2, and switches its mode.

In theory, Apple could do the same with a single-chip FireWire/USB2 solution, and provide only a FireWire shaped port. An easy way to sense which you were plugged into would be have the adapter route the +/- signals to the -/+ firewire pins (get it, its backwards)....thus allowing the chip to determine its plugged into USB2, and switching its mode of operation.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by dguisinger
Actually, USB is powered... Whether or not there is enough bus power for the iPod is a good question......but USB hubs, mice, and keyboards are bus powered. Infact, USB hubs can power down chain devices as well.


The realy difference is a matter of how much power. Firewire supplies 15* watts of power in most implementations. This is enough to power many devices that in the past have required an AC adapter (such as hard drives). USB 2 on the other hand doesn't market a feature like this, and from what I've scrounged up seems only capable of about 3-4 watts of power. This would be enough for bus powered hubs (and iirc, the USB spec says that only 1 bus powered hub can exist at a time) and low power devices like keyboards & mice, but anything above that would require a power adapter.

*- PC card firewire busses I've seen supply only 6 watts, and I Macnn posted a FW800 card that says it will supply 18, so this can vary. There is also 4 pin FW400 that doesn't deliver bus power. But the general point is that FW delivers more (often significationly more) power than USB

[paulie]

The US Apple Store is currently down (5pm JST)... Does it ever go down unless something big is changing?

I've already got a co-worker ready to buy my nearly-new 10 GB iPod when the new ones come out..

I haven't been bouncing with anticipation like this since the keynote back in January..

[wsteineker]

The Apple store is back up. It was just a redesign, though it was a thorough one. Check it out. I actually think it looks great. :)

Actually, now that I look closer, it appears that new iBooks are out. Just a speed bump, but still nice.

[davegoody]

Hmmmmmm :confused: Surely not a firewire to USB adapter designed by Apple ?? Firewire is a true hostless, intelligent interface, i.e. it does NOT require a host computer (PC or MAC etc) to function - two compatible FW devices can, in theory be plugged together and communicate - two DV decks etc. USB does not support this functionality so conversion between the two protocols would be difficult at best - any other ideas on this one ???????:confused:

[The Shadow]

The adapter for PC users seems a good idea to me, if it means the iPod in its current config will be available to more PC users. Can't argue with that.

Just picking up on a few earlier posts, does anyone know why the PC companies have not picked up on firewire? Just cause they're backward, or because they're cheap and nasty? Or is it bloody mindedness cause FW is seen as an Apple pioneered thing?

Just questions, I wouldn't know.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by The Shadow
Just picking up on a few earlier posts, does anyone know why the PC companies have not picked up on firewire? Just cause they're backward, or because they're cheap and nasty? Or is it bloody mindedness cause FW is seen as an Apple pioneered thing?

From what I've seen, because it's not a standard feature of Intel's chipsets. My roommate has built two PCs in the last few months and both came with FW400 ports, but neither were Intel chipsets. I would think that more brandname PC manufacturers end up using Intel's chipsets, if only because PC users who are willing to build their own machines typically use Athlons instead of Pentiums.

[littlerich]

Probably not the right place to post this but the ibooks have been updated!!!

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
The realy difference is a matter of how much power. Firewire supplies 15* watts of power in most implementations.


The iMac is 8 watts shared between the two ports.

[MightyB]

Originally posted by littlerich
Probably not the right place to post this but the ibooks have been updated!!!

That thread is here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24986

[illumin8]

Originally posted by dethl
Obviously, USB2 does not support running electricity for powering devices (hence the reason for all of the USB2 periferals have to have an external power supply)

So how are PC owners going to charge their iPod's if not through the traditional firewire port?
I believe the new iPods will come with a docking/recharging cradle that will take care of this for you. This also means a wall-wart, of course, the wall-wart will be unnecessary if you have a Mac.

[mkaake]

it sure is a good thing we're arguing the points of FW vs USB 2.0... it's not like that hasn't been done before...

on a different note, it's good to see that there'll be an easier way for PC users to use iPods (if of course, the rumor is true). I mean, they could always go out and pick up a FW card for their computer for 15 bucks, but for most users, opening up that beige box is just too much of a hassle, no matter how easy it really is...

matt

[Ja Di ksw]

arn, didn't you say that reliable sources said that ThinkSecret's iPod rendering, which showed a USB port, was accurate? But now other reliable sources are saying that it doesn't have one. Am I missing something here? I don't see how the "ThinkSecret's iPod Rendering" rumor and this rumor, both of which you said were accurate, could be right at the same time.

side note here: First time I've posted in the rumors, but have read them for a long time. Just want to say I LOVE how this site is run, from the recaps to the buyer's guide, etc etc. really an excellent site.

[knoxer]

FYI: FireWire can provide UP TO 45 Watts:

From Apple.com:

On-bus power. While USB 2.0 allows at most 2.5W of power — enough for a simple, slow device like a mouse — FireWire devices can provide or consume up to 45W of power, plenty for high-performance disk drives and rapid battery charging. That’s why iPod only needs one cord for both data and power.

[mcs37]

I don't get it. I thought USB provides power as well? I am quite sure USB 1.1 provided power, which is what makes my USB optical mouse glow. It also lets my webcam work. Does USB 2.0 not provide power?

[sparks9]

Very nice solution... all new pcs nowadays have usb2 so it opens up a bigger market for Apple to sell the iPod to.

[sparks9]

Originally posted by mcs37
I don't get it. I thought USB provides power as well? I am quite sure USB 1.1 provided power, which is what makes my USB optical mouse glow. It also lets my webcam work. Does USB 2.0 not provide power?

Yes an usb2 port can power a webcam (and other stuff) too like a usb1 port i know. But apparently it is not possible when using a firewire>>usb2 connector.

[appleguru1]

The pint is, USB doesn't provide enough power to charge an iPod. And adaptor would easily be able to pass power, but it wouldn't be enough. And I think It will just be a cable with a Firewire connector on one side and USB2 on the other. Protocol conversions would be done on the motherboard, not in a mid-cable box.

[Snorlax]

Originally posted by davegoody
Hmmmmmm :confused: Surely not a firewire to USB adapter designed by Apple ?? Firewire is a true hostless, intelligent interface, i.e. it does NOT require a host computer (PC or MAC etc) to function - two compatible FW devices can, in theory be plugged together and communicate - two DV decks etc. USB does not support this functionality so conversion between the two protocols would be difficult at best - any other ideas on this one ???????:confused:

Man you people(you are not the only one) are all alike(not everyone..) just because you have an mac and like(or love!) apple's products so much(which in reality you get less for the money then when you buy a pc, you can buy good looking PC cases, yes) that just because apple has come up with firewire you just start talking down the other NON-apple alternative with lie's or atleast things that you don't know anything(or for sure atleast) about. You CAN have two USB 1.1/2 devices comunicating with eachother IF they are programmed to be able to do that JUST LIKE 2 devices with firewire has to be programmed for that...

Sorry, pretty unneccesary post but I just get so irritated about these things, try to see the WHOLE picture..

[arn]

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
arn, didn't you say that reliable sources said that ThinkSecret's iPod rendering, which showed a USB port, was accurate? But now other reliable sources are saying that it doesn't have one. Am I missing something here? I don't see how the "ThinkSecret's iPod Rendering" rumor and this rumor, both of which you said were accurate, could be right at the same time.

I don't believe the drawing actively depicts a USB port... though it's unclear on the drawing. Regardless, I think the point of the drawing by TS was to depict the front panel.

arn

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by smashedapart
I've still got my money on a 40 gig model. I think this 30 gig talk is nonsense. Plus, if this is true, it gives creedence to the rumor over at MacWhispers a few months ago about a USB to Firewire cable...which means maybe they're right about the lack of a new enclosure and the fact that current 30 gig toshiba drives are PC Card only. I'm hoping...

Ummm ... the MacWhispers rumor specifically said that FireWire and USB connectors were at the same end of the cord, that the other end of the cord was a PCB connection, and that the cord was 5' long.

This is not, in any way, confirmation of those rumors. It doesn't fit.

[Java]

I love the firewire port. It is fast and contains power. And not just to one device, I have hooked up a hard drive (moblie) and the Formac studio (which is also powered by firewire) and both of them work on one daisy chain.

For PC's, all they see is USB (and 5400rpm drives). So I think it is a good marketing strategy to put out a firewire to USB converter. If all they see is USB and are oblivious to a greater connection (such as firewire), then give them USB.

Besides, once you use firewire, you know that it is far superior than anything USB.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by melchior
this is exactly my point. this is what i consider a niche market. firewire is used widely in dv camera's. it is not used nearly as widely in computers.


Hmmm. Sounds like a failure of basic logic there.

Computers are/will be ubiquitous tools, but the market size is not an order of magnitude larger than that of video cameras overall (which is moving to digital across the board as far as I can tell). To call the video camera market a "niche" and the computer industry in general not is just plain silly. Especially when you consider Apple's share of sales into the overall PC market, I strongly suspect that there are many more DV video cameras out there with Firewire than there are Apple mac computers. Moreover, taking present state of affairs, FW devices far outnumber USB2 devices sold to date.


i love apple. really. i love firewire. i don't want usb2 in my computer. i don't want it, period. i do feel though, that firewire is not holding ground in the market.

usb2 and firewire are technologies that, at their fundamental base, do the same thing.


Wow. If you really think FW and USB are the same then why do you care if you have FW or USB in your computer?

Of course, they are not the same. The fundamental difference is that the underlying philosophy of FW allows a peer network whereas the USB philosohy is hub/spoke with a computer and proprietary drivers at the hub. The USB philosophy saves pennies on the peripherals, but forces adoption of a hub and set of proprietary drivers (which furthers platform lock-in; there are already many USB devices that have Windows drivers only and that will never be supported on any other platform because the companies that made them are now out of business!) Add to that the CPU overhead of USB processing and it is quite apparent that the processing hasn't been reduced, just shifted into the "hub" of the model.

The Firewire approach allows for bus-powered devices, making the cord itself more expensive but increasing simplicity for the user; USB requires that two ultra-cheap cords be used which again saves pennies for the manufacturer at the cost of user convenience.

whatever it is that makes a peripheral hardware company decide on usb2 over firewire, apple is not doing the right thing to encourage development. whether it is cost, ease of implementation, availability of the sdk, i don't know. but apple isn't doing the right thing. i see usb2 in every motherboard. i see firewire in a few.

don't go calling me a troll when i am simply pointing out the obvious.

You see USB2 in every Intel-compatible motherboard instead of FW because:

1) Intel is the major backer of USB2, and USB2 fits well into the years-old "find more things to waste CPU cycles on" dictate of Mr Groves that has spawned WinModems and on-CPU network, sound, and video processing.

2) Intel includes USB2 in their own chipsets, and so their competitors have to as well (the PC market is driven by feature parity and price competition more than anything else)

3) The Intel PC architecture makes it relatively hard to provide powered FireWire ports, so users only see half of the FW advantage even if they go to the effort of buying into it.

It is not to Intel's advantage to make FW ubiquitous. Intel is the most popular chipset maker (the chipset is where you will usually see USB2 implemented). The Intel architecture and PfWD ("Plan for World Domination" :)) fits better with USB2 than FireWire.

That is why you see USB2 support out there instead of FW. The fact that FW still exists at all is testament to the tenacity of Apple's evangelism campaign.

[wrylachlan]

If the iPod has USB capability, will it be possible to plug a digital camera directly into the iPod to offload photos in the field?

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Snorlax
You CAN have two USB 1.1/2 devices comunicating with eachother IF they are programmed to be able to do that JUST LIKE 2 devices with firewire has to be programmed for that...

Sorry, pretty unneccesary post but I just get so irritated about these things, try to see the WHOLE picture..

Only if one of the devices supports "USB On-The-Go", which is a "new" suppliment to USB2 (Dec 2001), and the other device can live on next to no power (USB-OTG provides even less bus power than USB's 2.5W). Basically, it allows for a USB device to act as a "host" to specific classes of USB device (like printer, mass storage, etc) and provide little or no power to the bus.

It is really aimed at communications between one "fixed" device (a printer is the classic example) and one "mobile" device (PDA or cell phone for example), bypassing the computer that is doubtless connected to one of those two devices anyway. Note that you have to "unplug" the "client" device from the computer and plug it into your "host" device just as you would if you were switching it from one computer to another; plugging both devices into one computer will not allow them to talk to each other as is the case with FW.

USB-OTG is being implemented in some cell phones from Motorola and Qualcomm. I haven't seen it in action or for sale anywhere, but I also haven't been looking. Have you seen it "in the wild" yet?

While implementing USB is cheaper than FireWire, implementing USB-OTG is significantly more expensive than a FW implementation. If manufacturers are switching to USB2 for cost issues, I don't think you'll see them implementing USB-OTG in those devices.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
If the iPod has USB capability, will it be possible to plug a digital camera directly into the iPod to offload photos in the field?

NO. At least, not necessarily.

USB is a client/host model. The iPod, if it were to support USB, would likely only support acting as a client. The computer is a host. A USB-On-The-Go (USB-OTG) device can act as a limited host (a host for specific classes of client).

Now, the answer must be qualified because Apple could put USB-OTG with "Mass Storage Device" client support into the iPod, which would allow it to connect to a camera (the UI would have to be tweaked to allow you to browse an attached MSD's contents and transfer them over and remove them from the MSD after transfer).

Given that the current iPod doesn't allow attaching to FireWire mass storage devices and such, I don't think it's likely that the iPod will do this using USB if it ever gets a USB port.

Finally: note that the current rumor states that Apple will provide a USB/FireWire adaptor (which would likely be a USB client device which sends FireWire signals to the iPod), not that the iPod itself will sprout a USB port. It is highly unlikely that such a dongle would support USB-OTG, and so it is unlikely that this would ever allow you to connect your iPod and digital camera directly.

[MightyB]

Originally posted by littlerich
Probably not the right place to post this but the ibooks have been updated!!!

That thread is here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24986

[Snorlax]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Only if one of the devices supports "USB On-The-Go", which is a "new" suppliment to USB2 (Dec 2001), and the other device can live on next to no power (USB-OTG provides even less bus power than USB's 2.5W). Basically, it allows for a USB device to act as a "host" to specific classes of USB device (like printer, mass storage, etc) and provide little or no power to the bus.

It is really aimed at communications between one "fixed" device (a printer is the classic example) and one "mobile" device (PDA or cell phone for example), bypassing the computer that is doubtless connected to one of those two devices anyway. Note that you have to "unplug" the "client" device from the computer and plug it into your "host" device just as you would if you were switching it from one computer to another; plugging both devices into one computer will not allow them to talk to each other as is the case with FW.

USB-OTG is being implemented in some cell phones from Motorola and Qualcomm. I haven't seen it in action or for sale anywhere, but I also haven't been looking. Have you seen it "in the wild" yet?

While implementing USB is cheaper than FireWire, implementing USB-OTG is significantly more expensive than a FW implementation. If manufacturers are switching to USB2 for cost issues, I don't think you'll see them implementing USB-OTG in those devices.

Well ok then you can get P2P with USB now then... I'm not saying that USB2 is better then FW in any way but it IS far more wide-spread...


I'm just irritated on people talking trash about something just because they want to keep their favourite alternative on top and start babling on and saying things they know nothing about or don't know if it's true!

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Snorlax
Well ok then you can get P2P with USB now then... I'm not saying that USB2 is better then FW in any way but it IS far more wide-spread... I'm confused with the first part of your comment. Are you indicating that USB OTG gives USB Peer-to-Peer capabilities? Because it does not; it's an implementation of a small server on a device that normally would not be considered a "server", but it is still a client-server model.

True P2P is like when I plug my Canon GL-1 directly into a Sony Digital-8 camera and can transfer footage either way. Or like in some of the video hard drives that you can plug a camera into and they capture straight to the hard drive with no computer in the middle. (or vice versa from the drive to the camera)

[MetallicPenguin]

I don't really care whether it's USB2 or Firewire, but I would prefer Firewire......blah blah blah, what everyone else said

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Jimong5
Hmm both a Cheap and Innovative solution. Interesting that Apples made it work. This should help the iPod sell even more!

well see in a week
Cheap and innovative? WTF?! Cheap, yes. Innovative, NO! This is the lame ass cop out to doing it "right" the first time. The uproar over people having to pay $30 for the adaptor will end up forcing Apple to change the generation after next to have a onboard USB2 and FW (or FW800) port.

Just because you like Apple, and the standard line they tell you is that they are the innovators of the market , doesn't mean it is true. Look at 802.11g or BlueTooth as the most recent examples of how Apple is slow to market on new tech, as well as doing it improperly. In case you didn't know... 802.11g was available by Linksys and others before Airport Extreme, and AE doesn't support other brands or 802.11b properly, thus breaking the 802.11g spec. And look at BT, no printer support yet....

[cryptochrome]

Someday, there will be but one kind of data port. It will replace your responsive firewire, your cheap usb, your indispensible ethernet, and your antiquated monitor port. Maybe even the power jack. It will be optical, which allows high speed at long distances. It should allow but not require a positive lock on the connection. Lowest common denominator connectivity could support both high- and low- performance/cost versions with a common connector, and could be configured for carrying power. You'll just have a bunch of the same ports, with converter boxes for legacy devices and connections. The only legacy jack left will be for your headphones, and you may not even need that.

Apple should work towards that.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by yzedf
Cheap and innovative? WTF?! Cheap, yes. Innovative, NO! This is the lame ass cop out to doing it "right" the first time. The uproar over people having to pay $30 for the adaptor will end up forcing Apple to change the generation after next to have a onboard USB2 and FW (or FW800) port.

Just because you like Apple, and the standard line they tell you is that they are the innovators of the market , doesn't mean it is true. Look at 802.11g or BlueTooth as the most recent examples of how Apple is slow to market on new tech, as well as doing it improperly. In case you didn't know... 802.11g was available by Linksys and others before Airport Extreme, and AE doesn't support other brands or 802.11b properly, thus breaking the 802.11g spec. And look at BT, no printer support yet....
Didn't do the iPod "right" the first time, eh? The fact that it continues to sell well and gets rave reviews from Mac AND PC mag's/web sites, despite only having a Firewire port means nothing then.

Apple released 802.11g at about the same time as Linksys and others started their big marketing push.

How many BlueTooth printers are there in the consumer space? I don't think that it's a major worry right now. Does any other PC or OS vendor even talk about BlueTooth? Palm and Apple seem to be the only high profile flag wavers for it from what I see.

[g4cube]

USB2 vs. FireWire?

Doesn't really matter because in this application, both get the job done.

Likely outcome:
- iPod has a docking stand
- docking stand can connect to PCs or Macs using USB2 or FireWire
- if Apple uses Oxford's new 922 bridge chip, they can get both USB and FireWire in one controller. If they use their own custom ASIC, they can get whatever they choose to implement
- docking station could have hybrid dual cable as MacWhispers proposes (unlikely), or docking station has both connectors on it. Appropriate cable would then be used.

g4cube

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by yzedf
In case you didn't know... 802.11g was available by Linksys and others before Airport Extreme, and AE doesn't support other brands or 802.11b properly, thus breaking the 802.11g spec. And look at BT, no printer support yet....

First, I haven't heard that AE has problems with other manufacturer's 802.1b products. Do you have documentation?

AE uses the same chipset (IIRC) that the LinkSys and other 802.11g products use(d). According to everything I've read about the other implementations of the chipset, it had problems with 802.11b and 802.11g co-existing at first (the "g" devices would drop down to "b" bandwidth!), but those have been resolved with firmware updates (not sure if Apple has distributed the same updates though).

As for who was "first" with 802.11g ... well, I don't recall Apple ever saying that noone else out there had 802.11g, just that it wasn't being included in any mass-market computers. You could add it yourself to a computer for a few weeks at least before Apple debuted it, but you couldn't ask Dell or Gateway to make you a laptop with 802.11g connectivity.

As for BlueTooth ... well, I'm still not in the group of people that actually have a use for BlueTooth, so I'll decline comment on that one, except ... Bluetooth printer support? I mean, I know Bluetooth printers were among the first stupid wireless tricks from bluetooth, but it's still just the most useless "use" of that technology out there! A printer generally doesn't move around (and if it does, connecting a USB cable is the least of your worries!), and your computer either doesn't move around (a desktop), or moves around but shouldn't have to be moved into the same room as a printer just to print (you should network the printer and use WiFi to connect your laptop to the network)! Yeah, one less cable (on a device that is, necessarily, already tethered to a wall outlet for power), but at the cost of:

1) Software complexity
2) Print speed
3) airwave interference (slowing down of 802.11b signals, etc)

Just a plain stupid use for BlueTooth ... all of which is to say, I really couldn't care less that Apple's printer drivers aren't Bluetooth aware!

[sparks9]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
How many BlueTooth printers are there in the consumer space? I don't think that it's a major worry right now. Does any other PC or OS vendor even talk about BlueTooth? Palm and Apple seem to be the only high profile flag wavers for it from what I see.

That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by sparks9
That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!

:( Wha?? I've been lied to again. Oh, Apple...I thought you had BlueTooth in your laptops...why do you spite me so?

[jhershauer]

Originally posted by The Iraqi Information Minister
That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!
...except for the PowerMac, 12" and 17" Powerbook, and 17" iMac.

I think bluetooth is pretty cool. I like being able to sync to my phone while it's sitting on the recharging base in my kitchen. OK, so I'm lazy. Also, you can use Bluetooth-enabled phones/PDAs to control the computer, and bluetooth doesn't eat through batteries as fast as 802.11b.

It just occurred to me that I can't even remember what the original subject of this thread was... :)

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by jhershauer
...except for the PowerMac, 12" and 17" Powerbook, and 17" iMac.

I think bluetooth is pretty cool. I like being able to sync to my phone while it's sitting on the recharging base in my kitchen. OK, so I'm lazy. Also, you can use Bluetooth-enabled phones/PDAs to control the computer, and bluetooth doesn't eat through batteries as fast as 802.11b.

It just occurred to me that I can't even remember what the original subject of this thread was... :) Something about FireUSB or some such nonsense.;) ;) :D

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by sparks9
That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!! I better go tell my buddy to stop controlling iTunes via his Sony/Ericson phone then! (Must be black magic!)

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by g4cube
USB2 vs. FireWire?

Doesn't really matter because in this application, both get the job done.Except that one of the things they touted when the iPod came out was that it got recharged while it was connected to the computer. That will only be the case with USB2 if you either have another wire (power supply) or the rumored Firewire->USB2 adapter somehow passes the power through.

[g4cube]

USB2 supplies 5V at up to 500ma.

Plenty to charge when not in operating mode, and with the new drives and their low operating power, probably enough to keep the drives running, with the battery there to take care of the peak requirements.

Note well: there are several USB only drives available on the market that are powered from the USB 1 or 2 bus; they usually have a capacitor or battery for peak power needs during seeks.

About the only thing true regarding USB (1or2) is that data efficiency is a bit lower than FireWire.

Data rate is a subset of bitrate, as only "bursts" of 480Mbps data goes over the USB bus. These bursts are wrapped with control info and other signaling overhead.

My statement still holds true: while FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

If Apple adopts USB2, PC people will be happy with their new iPods.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by g4cube
USB2 supplies 5V at up to 500ma.

Plenty to charge when not in operating mode, and with the new drives and their low operating power, probably enough to keep the drives running, with the battery there to take care of the peak requirements.

Note well: there are several USB only drives available on the market that are powered from the USB 1 or 2 bus; they usually have a capacitor or battery for peak power needs during seeks.

About the only thing true regarding USB (1or2) is that data efficiency is a bit lower than FireWire.

Data rate is a subset of bitrate, as only "bursts" of 480Mbps data goes over the USB bus. These bursts are wrapped with control info and other signaling overhead.

My statement still holds true: while FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

If Apple adopts USB2, PC people will be happy with their new iPods. I agree about the transfer speed - Firewire400 is faster sustained (where it counts) but USB2 is no slackard either. The power situation, though, still intregues me. Is what you quoted for the whole bus? If I had a mouse, keyboard and bus powered hard drive all on the same USB2 hub, would the drive (or iPod in this case) suck all the power down, leaving the mouse and keyboard high and dry?

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by g4cube
FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

FW 400 or 800? Will USB 3.0 be almost as fast as FW 1600?

[g4cube]

Bagdad Bob, nice to see you've found something interesting to keep you busy...

FW400 is marginally faster than USB2 when it comes to sustained data transfers.

There is no USB3.

For USB1 or USB2, and if a powered hub/port, usually have 5v/500ma per port. If an unpowered hub typically much less.

Apple did a little cheat on it's USB ports on the G4 towers - those USB powered speakers consumed a bit more than 500ma.

On a related note, do you realize that most DV camcorders only operate at 100Mbps or 200Mbps max data rate on a FW400 bus? May actually be noted on the camcorder as S100 or S200.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by g4cube
Bagdad Bob, nice to see you've found something interesting to keep you busy...

W400 is marginally faster than USB2 when it comes to sustained data transfers.

Yeah, well, now that the war is over, having resulted in heavy casualties on the allied side, terrorist attacks on US soil, and widespread and enduring hatred of the US across the middle east (wait a sec.....), I have to find something to do.

I'm sorry if I forgot my emoticon so you could tell I was being fecetious.

If it makes you feel better, I'm willing to admit that the last generation of PCs is only marginally faster than the current generation of Macs. :rolleyes:

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by g4cube
On a related note, do you realize that most DV camcorders only operate at 100Mbps or 200Mbps max data rate on a FW400 bus? May actually be noted on the camcorder as S100 or S200. I've never looked into it, but it makes sense. The DV25 data stream is nowhere near FW400's top end - but when you add a FW400 hard drive or two into the mix, then it starts to mater - which is where I see FW800 shining in the consumer/prosumer space.

[Monkeypoo]

Simple questions...
1. If the ipod will now have USB 2, wouldn't that require my computer to also have USB 2 functionality (I believe my 667 G4 PB only has USB 1) to take advantage of this relatively comparable speed to firewire 400 (that's what my 'puter has)?
2. T/F: firewire 400 is significantly faster than USB 1

3. If #2 is false, then why have I been waiting for updates when I can spend less money for an archos?!? Besides the fact that the ipod is smaller and more aesthetically pleasing :p

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by g4cube
Note well: there are several USB only drives available on the market that are powered from the USB 1 or 2 bus; they usually have a capacitor or battery for peak power needs during seeks.

[...]

My statement still holds true: while FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

If Apple adopts USB2, PC people will be happy with their new iPods.

1: Can you provide a link to a USB-powered drive (hard-drive, not flash, of course!)? I haven't seen one. I've seen a USB-powered scanner (which is a neat trick), but never a USB-powered hard drive.

2: Yes, you get power through USB, and likely will get a slight surplus relative to expended power assuming you hook your device up and don't use it the whole time it is hooked up. The problem is, though, that the iPod needs to charge a battery so that it can then operate untethered. It may be possible to do this with USB2 (add up enough surplus current and eventually ...), but with a 15+W* supply (FireWire) chopped down to a 2.5W supply (USB), the time to charge will increase by at least 6x, assuming no charging inefficiencies.

Apple says a full charge on the iPod takes 3 hours; over USB2 that'd balloon up to 18 hours!

Would you be happy with that? I can't say that I would!

* FireWire 1995 defines a 8-40V / 1.5A power supply range, which gives anywhere from 12W to 60W of power. It recommends that power source nodes supply 20-30V, which would be 30-45W of power. I have only been able to dig up the specs on a Cardbus slot FW port, which supplies 15W of power. Not sure what PowerMacs supply to their FW ports, however per the spec it cannot be less than 12W, and should be in the range of 30-45W. If the 3-hour charge time were based on using 45W of power instead, the FW:USB power ratio climbs to 18:1, which would leave us charging our iPods on a USB2 cable for a little over 2 days (54 hours)!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Monkeypoo
Simple questions...
1. If the ipod will now have USB 2, wouldn't that require my computer to also have USB 2 functionality (I believe my 667 G4 PB only has USB 1) to take advantage of this relatively comparable speed to firewire 400 (that's what my 'puter has)?


If done as this rumor suggests (providing a USB2/FW translation cable/device), the answer is no; you'd just use a normal FW cable to connect the iPod to your computer.

Another possibility is that Apple would add a USB2 port to the iPod, in which case FW compatibility remains (again, just use the FW cable instead of the USB cable).

The final possibility, about 0.001% likely, is that Apple drops the FW port altogether and replaces it with a USB2 port and a DC-in jack so that you can charge the thing in less than two days. In that case, you'd need a USB port on your system (or live with a 40x slowdown in synching and just connect to USB1.1 port ...) But that's highly unlikely.


2. T/F: firewire 400 is significantly faster than USB 1


True. USB2.0 is roughtly 40x as fast as USB1.1 (which itself is 12x as fast as USB 1.0, but virtually nobody has a USB1.0-only port today!), and USB2 is only roughly on par with FireWire 400 transmission speeds (overall burst rate for USB2 is 480Mbps, from which you must subtract some significant overhead; FW400 has 400Mbps data rate, with virtually no overhead, and so end up faster than USB2.0 in most published tests).

Rest assured that FW400 is at least 40 times faster than USB 1.1.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I agree about the transfer speed - Firewire400 is faster sustained (where it counts) but USB2 is no slackard either. The power situation, though, still intregues me. Is what you quoted for the whole bus? If I had a mouse, keyboard and bus powered hard drive all on the same USB2 hub, would the drive (or iPod in this case) suck all the power down, leaving the mouse and keyboard high and dry?

USB power is provided by the hub (asuming it is "self-powered") or by the root port on the computer (assuming your hub is "bus-powered".

If you are going through a "self-powered" hub, the 2.5W of power is supplied to each outgoing port. You would only "share" that 2.5W if your devices are connected through a bus-powered hub (which would be an option with most hubs if they're away from an AC outlet, and is most common in USB keyboards that have a fe "bonus" ports for your mouse and whatever).

So, the answer is "Porbably no, but maybe yes".

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by g4cube
On a related note, do you realize that most DV camcorders only operate at 100Mbps or 200Mbps max data rate on a FW400 bus? May actually be noted on the camcorder as S100 or S200.

Hmm. I have a far-from-top-of-the-line Sony, and it states in the manual that it supports 400Mbps, 200Mbps, and 100Mbps operation modes on 1394a. Which brands limit themselves to the 200Mbps data rate, so I know to avoid them if/when I get a new camera?

[g4cube]

Early iLink camcorders, like my DCR-PC1.

Some of the first VAIO computers with built-in iLink. (laptops and desktops)

DVMC-DA1 Sony iLink-analogAV Media Converter

For more esoteric, google "s100 iLink" or "s200 iLink"

The fact that these are slower devices does not hinder their actual performance. they "just work".

[g4cube]

Originally posted by jettredmont
1: Can you provide a link to a USB-powered drive (hard-drive, not flash, of course!)? I haven't seen one. I've seen a USB-powered scanner (which is a neat trick), but never a USB-powered hard drive.



Just google "bus powered HD USB2" for a few links. When I was evaluating a new case design, was surprised that several vendors of cases offered USB2 powered HD capabilities. Note well: won't work on all computers; and won't work with all drives.

The reason why they work? Some vendors deliver more than 500ma, as Apple does on some desktops (to drive their USB speakers).

As for charging rates, of course. Additionally, though, Apple does not guarantee 15W on all their FireWire ports. As has been noted elsewhere, some computers are as low as 6W or 8W shared.

So, yes, FireWire "can" provide more power than USB, it is not required, nor always available.

Don't get me wrong - I am not an Apple basher (I am a shareholder), but I cannot let misinformation get propagated.

Both USB2 and FireWire get the job done. It's just that FireWire is better in some aspects.

On the otherhand, USB is better, since it is available on 100% of the personal computers sold today (OK perhaps 99.9%), but FireWire is a bit less (insert your favorite grinning emoticon here).

All the PC's in my home have both FireWire and USB capability.