Why oh why does the nano NOT support FireWire??

Discussion in 'iPod' started by King Elessar, Sep 13, 2005.

  1. King Elessar macrumors newbie

    King Elessar

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    #1
    Why? I mean... WHY? FireWire is an Apple technology, and has been pushed by Apple for so many years now... if anything we should have FW 800 on new iPods... not going backwards and only support USB 2.0.

    My PowerBook is the first 17" from 2003... it's not THAT old yet... but it's the last Mac to not have USB 2.0...

    I've been sitting here for almost an hour now and the nano still hasn't filled up...

    Apple should have at least offered FireWire as an option, but it's not even supported by the nano... I'm gravely disappointed.

    Oh, and yeah, the nano is really nice... BUT it doesn't support FireWire... I'm starting to feel guilty for "betraying" my mini now...
     
  2. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #2
    There probably isn't space inside the nano for the required circuitry to handle Firewire. (Pulling recharging current through the cable is easy... handling data requires more work.)
     
  3. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #3
    There's a couple reasons, if I had to guess... They all stem from the fact that they are going to sell more nano's to PC/Windows users than to Mac users. Including both USB and FW would have:
    1) Added cost, something I am betting they were trying to keep down as they probably aren't making the same margins on the nano as they were with the mini
    2) Added to size. They wanted to make this thing as small as possible and they may have only had room for one
    3) Increased battery consumption. This is just a pure guess, but having both FW and USB may have been a slight drain on the battery and they were likely trying to maximize battery life on a very small battery

    So, having just one interface was the way to go in this case, and since a (very) large portion of PC users don't have a FW but DO have a USB2 port the choice was probably pretty easy. If FW connectivity is essential for you, I would recommend you grab a 6gb mini. :(
     
  4. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    also firewire requires it's own dedicated controller, usb 2 can run from the ARM cpu thus will run with less chips on the pcb, have you seen the mini pcb it's totally packed with chips not a square millimeter spare.
     
  5. 840quadra Moderator

    840quadra

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Twin Cities Minnesota
    #5
    Right on, you beat me to it ;)

    I do agree though, having to use USB sucks now. The speed for transfers on my ibook is TERRIBLE when compared to my 15gb with the firewire connection. I guess I need to get a laptop with USB 2.0, however in some cases usb 2.0 is still slower then firewire.

    I am hoping they honor us Apple loyalists with a Firewire 800 connection option on the supposed ipod Video, and next generation ipod.
     
  6. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #6
    It's not an ideal solution, but I'm pretty sure you can get a USB 2.0 PCMCIA card for your PB. It sucks that there's no FW support, but USB 2.0 speeds on the nano are actually pretty good.
     
  7. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #7
    Isn't the flash memory the limitation though?
     
  8. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #8
    It's significantly faster than in the Shuffle. While not as fast as a standard iPod's FW connection, it really doesn't take long to fully load a 4GB nano.
     
  9. notjustjay macrumors 603

    notjustjay

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh?
    #9
    Yup, everyone's answered it already.

    Firewire costs more and takes up more space.

    Get over it, already.
     
  10. King Elessar thread starter macrumors newbie

    King Elessar

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    #10
    Yeah I knew all the reasons... just needed to vent, and feeling the being a first adopting Apple loyalist (the 1st 17" PB is the only one to not have USB2) isn't always fun...

    It's also ironic how Steve Jobs was saying the nano is smaller than the original iPod (which I own), but suddenly I can't even do what the original iPod can... (remember how Apple was praising the iPod using FW that it takes less than 10 minutes to fill up, while it'll take forever with USB?)
     
  11. TheMonarch macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #11

    :eek: OUCH!








    Get over it? Never. Not from a $250 device and a $3300, 2003 notebook...
     
  12. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #12
    Size and cost would be my guesses - a FW controller would add to the size of the nano, and would also bump up the cost ever so slightly.
     
  13. Voidness macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #13
    ... Or it could be the Intel Transition (USB was originally developed by Intel) :p

    It's most likely just to keep the costs down, and the fact that most iPod buyers are PC users (As mentioned above).
     
  14. Voidness macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #14
    Why would it increase the battery consumption if the the data transfer controller won't be used unless it's connected to to a FW or USB port (which would charge while syncing, assuming the port was powered)? :rolleyes:
     
  15. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #15
    When it came time for Apple to trot out people for press fawning purposes, notice that they provided Ive and no engineers. That's all you need to know about the new Apple.
     
  16. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #16
    Yeah. I get over it by not buying an iPod at all. :mad:
     
  17. swy32x macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    #17
    Is flash memory even capable of having transfers via FireWire? I've never heard of a FireWire flash drive ...
     
  18. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #18
    Sure, flash and FireWire can play together. One sample.
     
  19. macOSX-tastic macrumors 6502a

    macOSX-tastic

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    At the Airport. UK
    #19
    i dont think its the lack of firewire compatibility that matters: apple is a business and obviolusly they have observed that USB 2.0 is much more widely used and convienient than fire wire. most pc users dont have firewireports, so this takes away the problem. eg. i can only use my firewire hard drive with my mac, and no other PC. luckily, i have my ipods to transfer any files i need.

    tastic
     
  20. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #20
    FireWire is more convenient than USB. I can plug a cable without having to look directly into the port to see which way it goes.
    If you have a piece of garbage PC (what redundancy) without FireWire that shouldn't be the Mac users problem.
     
  21. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #21
    I have to say, I am disappointed in a lack of FireWire capability. It's the 2nd reason I won't be getting the nano.

    (the first being that I have way more than 4 GB of music :p)
     
  22. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #22
    Except that it IS your problem. The only way Apple is going to be able to offer such great products and keep the price down is to sell a LOT of them. The 5% marketshare of Macs doesn't represent a large enough audience base to market to, so they HAVE to sell to PC users, or else we wouldn't even be seeing 4gb flash based players.

    ALso, in response to the battery life :rolleyes: comments, my point was that having an EXTRA chip in there (for firewire - USB is mandatory and controlled with the ARM CPU already there anyways) you're going to have to be powering it even when it's not connected, presumably, for polling the port, etc. Not a lot of juice, but I suspect that every single mA in the nano is accounted for.

    I can just see the Apple engineers sitting around measuring electrical draw from the nano, like the scene(s) in Apollo 13 where Gary Sinese is trying to come up with a low power restart sequence... :)
     
  23. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #23
    Plus you have to remember, how many times will you actually ever fill this thing up? Once maybe at the start? Then all you'll be doing is adding songs to it. Well that's all a normal user will be doing with it anyway. Why make it bigger, add cost and lower battery life by adding a chip that only makes a big difference the first time you fill it up.

    Personally i wouldn't be annoyed with apple for selling a USB only iPod, i'd be annoyed with them that your laptop doesn't have USB2. I'm pretty sure most 2002 PC laptops had USB2.
     
  24. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    I assume you can't use the nano to boot a Mac due to the lack of FireWire.

    Can you do that with the iPod mini?
     
  25. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #25
    I don't care about the price. I can't use it.
     

Share This Page