iPod 5G iPod firewire solution?...maybe

[grapes911]

How can people say that not everybody has firewire?...Every computer I look at in the store today has firewire! Even the things that cost $400. PC's seem now to be equipped with both. All of them! Take a look next time you go to a computer store, 98% have firewire.

So therefor, Apple could have alienated the minor population of PC users that don't have firewire. Instead the get rid of something that comes standard on EVERY Mac. EVERY MAC. Does Dell cater to Mac users? Does HP pull components out of their systems so that the unit is now compatable with AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL Macs and some PC's? No.

They could have eliminated USB 2, stuck with what they've been promoting, taken care of all their loyal Mac users, and STILL keep a giant share of their PC market! Every PC built today comes with firewire.

I'm pissed

You may be pissed, but you are also misinformed. Most PCs built today do come with firewire, but this has just started happening in the last year. Most PCs in operation today do not have firewire. Not everyone updates their PC every year. I'd bet that less than 25% of all PCs in operation have firewire. (I have no data to back this up, but I can't imagine it any higher)

So you want Apple to be less customer friendly and say, "screw you, you damn PC users! HaHaHaHa! No iPod for You!!!!" Business just doesn't work that way. Apple would lose money and have less of the market share on music players. With less money, they would have to cut back R&D. The next iPod would frustrate users even more and the cycle would continue.

 

[Laser47]

Atlease they did not prevent you from using USB 1 on the ipod. Also i too think firewire is here to stay, its still the only medium of transferring DV from a camera to a computer. Its funny though, just as you see the PC market adopting firewire, it seams apple is moving away from it. Personally I believe firewire is an amazing peice of techlology, its been equipped in their computers since 1999 and is 6 years old, yet it is still faster than USB2.

 

[ehayut]

Every PC built today comes with firewire.

Dude, that's simply not true. I just purchased a new computer. I looked into many options. Most HP/Compaqs have Firewire. However, Dell computers often do not have firewire. Also, if you build a PC yourself, not all mobos have firewire support. In fact, I'd say a good 50% don't.

 

[Laser47]

Dell computers often do not have firewire.

Thats because Dell makes crappy computers.

 

[aafuss1]

No firewire means that there may no media card readers for the 5th gen iPod, unlike 3G/4G iPod. I asked Belkin, and they don't plan on making a card reader for the video iPod (they suggest 'USB Anywhere').

 

[seenew]

As well as being disappointed about the lack of FW support, I was sad to see that power port for accessories on the top of the iPod go as well. So my iTrip is completely useless now, and I have to pay $50 for the new one, whereas the old one was only $30.

Seems like Apple is screwing it's loyal userbase, to me.

 

[jsado]

Why not implement the technology you've been promoting with the peole that have BEEN buying your products for years. So only the last year or two, most PC's have just started adopting firewire. It's only the last three years that Apple started putting USB 2 in the Macs.

So the loyal user base that isn't fortunate enough to have a brand new mac, gets the shaft. And the PC people get catered to? Thanks Apple!

 

[steve_hill4]

How can people say that not everybody has firewire?...Every computer I look at in the store today has firewire! Even the things that cost $400. PC's seem now to be equipped with both. All of them! Take a look next time you go to a computer store, 98% have firewire.

So therefor, Apple could have alienated the minor population of PC users that don't have firewire. Instead the get rid of something that comes standard on EVERY Mac. EVERY MAC. Does Dell cater to Mac users? Does HP pull components out of their systems so that the unit is now compatable with AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL Macs and some PC's? No.

They could have eliminated USB 2, stuck with what they've been promoting, taken care of all their loyal Mac users, and STILL keep a giant share of their PC market! Every PC built today comes with firewire.

I'm pissed

No, because it has only been the last couple of years that most PCs have started shipping with firewire as standard. Same as Macs and USB 2.0, if not a shorter time.

From a business point of view, a lot of people who will want to buy an iPod will perhaps have a PC running XP, with USB 2.0, but due to it's age, no Firewire. I know this because I am currently working in retail and end up talking to lots of people in similar situations every day. Lots have USB 2.0, but not firewire. Few have Macs with Firewire and USB 1.1. It's bad enough with some who have Windows 98 and their kids want an iPod, because you have to tell them the half truth that it won't work with it. They may have had their machine for 7 years and a £400 upgrade won't break the bank, but if it currently does everything else it needs to do, £400 on top of £139 for a nano is steep as a Christmas gift.

Out of Windows users who want current iPods, (assuming only those with 2000 or XP), I would say anything up to 75% have USB 2.0, but no Firewire. MAc users currently wanting the new models, that have Firewire, but no USB 2.0, I would say closer to about 25%. Since most buyers now are currently windows users, (assuming at least 5 to 1), it all makes the numbers add up in USB 2.0's favour. I don't like it, but it makes business sense.

I also wouldn't agree with rewarding Mac users who have had Firewire for years. If you want Apple's sales to sink faster than the Titanic because they want to punish Windows users for their manufacturers not supporting Apple's format, then it will have a knock on effect in Mac sales, profits, R&D into other Apple products and so much more that would affect you more than you will admit to. It would have been nice to reward those with Firewire, but they didn't.

 

[Orge]

That is not possible to bridge the 2 totally incompatible technologies without using a device that has a CPU and memory (basically a small computer).

I wasn't arguing whether the decision made commerical/ergonomic sense. However, I think that it's fairly **** that Apple hasn't provided some kind of optional solution. It is perfectly feasible to connect these 2 technologies togther, although not necessarily cheap. This example goes the reverse direction:

http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-527950.html

Surely with access to both usb 2.0 and firewire chips at competitive prices, Apple would be able to offer a solution which was better priced than this - either way its cheaper than buying a new mac. It would at least demonstrate some consideration for the loyal fan base. I understand business economics, but its also not good business practice to alienate a very large percentage of your customer base.

J

 

[grapes911]

I wasn't arguing whether the decision made commerical/ergonomic sense. However, I think that it's fairly **** that Apple hasn't provided some kind of optional solution. It is perfectly feasible to connect these 2 technologies togther, although not necessarily cheap. This example goes the reverse direction:

http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-527950.html

That cable is for a specific function of transfering data from a DV camera with firewire to usb. It will not work for any other data transfers. The only way to connect these two technologies is to connect them though a computer. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Surely with access to both usb 2.0 and firewire chips at competitive prices, Apple would be able to offer a solution which was better priced than this - either way its cheaper than buying a new mac.

USB is cheaper and smaller than Firewire so the chips are not competitive in price.

It would at least demonstrate some consideration for the loyal fan base. I understand business economics, but its also not good business practice to alienate a very large percentage of your customer base.

75% of all iPod users connect their iPod to Windows.

 

[mrichmon]

That cable is for a specific function of transfering data from a DV camera with firewire to usb. It will not work for any other data transfers. The only way to connect these two technologies is to connect them though a computer. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

USB is cheaper and smaller than Firewire so the chips are not competitive in price.

75% of all iPod users connect their iPod to Windows.

Not to mention that a 5G iPod does work with a USB v1 connection. It may not be as fast as you would like it to work but it does work without any problem.

The lack of firewire on 5G iPods has been well advertised so other than consumers making assumptions there is little reason for any complaints the lack of firewire on the 5G iPods. The switch away from firewire is disappointing, but it is far from a "fault" in the new iPods.

/rant=off

 

[Counterfit]

As well as being disappointed about the lack of FW support, I was sad to see that power port for accessories on the top of the iPod go as well. So my iTrip is completely useless now, and I have to pay $50 for the new one, whereas the old one was only $30.

Seems like Apple is screwing it's loyal userbase, to me.

I too am completely perplexed by the lack of the remote port. It couldn't possibly have contributed much to the thickness, could it?

 

[DCBass]

I too am completely perplexed by the lack of the remote port. It couldn't possibly have contributed much to the thickness, could it?

It probably would add a decent amount of thickness. the 5g has a noticably smaller margin between the screen and the top edge.

Also, now all manufacturers will standardize on the one port, simplifying the accessory market. Also, someone left a post in one of these threads about apple now making a big profit from the made for ipod thing and "licensing" use of this port.

+'s and -'s in my opinion.

 

[seenew]

Yeah, but now my iTrip can't be plugged in the same time as my car charger or wall charger, and that pisses me off.

 

[DCBass]

not all is lost

Yeah, but now my iTrip can't be plugged in the same time as my car charger or wall charger, and that pisses me off.

Well, you do still have a cuouple of options. I'm sure you could sell your old itrip for a decent price.

The new iTrip has a mini-usb port on the bottom of the unit, so you could plug it in and charge via sub that way.

Also the Airplay2 has a full ipod dock passthru port on the bottom of it.

Good Luck.

 

[Orge]

That cable is for a specific function of transfering data from a DV camera with firewire to usb. It will not work for any other data transfers. The only way to connect these two technologies is to connect them though a computer. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I'm sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Whatever it's function, this cable is simply a bridge between Firewire and USB. If it's possible to build a cable which accomplishes this, then it's perfectly feasible to create one that does the same for the ipod. Tecnology is NOT the obstacle.

The problem is almost certainly market forces. I'm pretty certain that Apple could build a cost effective solution - and even make money out of it. However, they would rather people upgrade their machines. I'm guessing that they've done the sums and it suits them better to leave this situation as it is.

USB is cheaper and smaller than Firewire so the chips are not competitive in price.

What I meant was that Apple would have access to the necessary chips (to build a bridging cable) at much lower costs than the manufacturers of the cable above. As it is, these chips cost pennies anyway.

75% of all iPod users connect their iPod to Windows.

And 100% of Apple owners connect their ipod to a Mac. This isn't about ipod maths, this about the millions of Apple computer owners who cannot use the latest generation of ipods without compromising on speed. This is despite the fact that there is the possibility to provide technology which could resolve this situation.

 

[grapes911]

I'm sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Whatever it's function, this cable is simply a bridge between Firewire and USB. If it's possible to build a cable which accomplishes this, then it's perfectly feasible to create one that does the same for the ipod. Tecnology is NOT the obstacle.

No, it is not. The cable requires certain drivers that are only available for Windows. The cable does a very specific function. It only transfers raw DV to a computer in a 1394 to USB conversion. The technology is too different to make a general adapter. Maybe you should do some research before spouting off?

The problem is almost certainly market forces. I'm pretty certain that Apple could build a cost effective solution - and even make money out of it. However, they would rather people upgrade their machines. I'm guessing that they've done the sums and it suits them better to leave this situation as it is.

Let's say it was possible, but not beneficial to Apple. Wouldn't another company make one? By the way, I'm pretty certain they can't:

"Q Is USB and Firewire the same thing?
A No. Although they provide similar performance, they operate completely differently and are not compatible.
Q Is there an adapter to convert Firewire to USB so I can plug a Firewire device into my USB port?
A No. As mentioned above, they are not compatible and conversion devices are not (as far as we are currently aware) available."
link

"Q: Can I convert Firewire to USB?
A: NO!!!! If you wish to connect a Firewire device you will need Firewire Ports on your computer."
link

"There is no such thing, because FireWire and USB are completely different standards; you can't convert the flow of data of one of them into a flow of data for the other."
link

"The two technologies are not integrated, and it is not possible to connect a USB device to a Firewire port either directly or through the use of a Firewire to USB adapter."
link

What I meant was that Apple would have access to the necessary chips (to build a bridging cable) at much lower costs than the manufacturers of the cable above. As it is, these chips cost pennies anyway.

You are probably correct. Apple probably could get the chips for less than this company. I don't think they are only pennies though. But the point is moot because at this point in time, it is not possible to do.

And 100% of Apple owners connect their ipod to a Mac. This isn't about ipod maths, this about the millions of Apple computer owners who cannot use the latest generation of ipods without compromising on speed.

You can't please everyone. You have to select the majority. More people have USB 2.0 (almost everyone has USB 1.1) and relatively very few have 1394.

This is despite the fact that there is the possibility to provide technology which could resolve this situation.

Again, you are misinformed because this is not possible with our currently level of technology.

 

[mrichmon]

No, it is not. The cable requires certain drivers that are only available for Windows. The cable does a very specific function. It only transfers raw DV to a computer in a 1394 to USB conversion. The technology is too different to make a general adapter.

I have to agree everything grapes911 said in the previous post.

"There is no such thing, because FireWire and USB are completely different standards; you can't convert the flow of data of one of them into a flow of data for the other."
link

...

You are probably correct. Apple probably could get the chips for less than this company. I don't think they are only pennies though. But the point is moot because at this point in time, it is not possible to do.

Ultimately the problem is that USB and firewire protocols are structured differently so the "cable" would need to unpack the data transfered in the firewire packets and repack it into USB packets. A straight piece of wire or even dumb electrical components cannot do this. You need a cpu and some memory in the cable to buffer the data. (Don't forget some ROM to hold the software executed by the cpu and the USB and firewire interface chips. Plus probably some way of powering all this stuff.)

In addition, the transfer rates for USB and firewire are different. Even worse, for sustained transfers the ratio between transfers over the two technologies varies dramatically. This means that you would need even more memory to buffer the data that accumilates due to this difference in speed. How large a buffer do you need? This is an unanswerable question since the answer depends on how long you will transfer data. 5 seconds? 10 minutes? 20 hours? There is no limit in the firewire or USB standards for a maximum time you can perform transfers over the protocol so you cannot select an amount of memory for a buffer and be fully compliant.

Of course, if you settle on a certain buffer size you could build extra smarts into the software to rate limit the transfer so that data doesn't backup at the interface between USB and firewire. Ultimately such rate limiting would reduce transfer times to the slowest of the two protocols less some overhead for the bridge.

Given all the hardware required, the added costs for developing the solution and the relatively small market (especially since there are significant performance trade-offs) it is unlikely that such a device is commercially viable for *anyone* to develop. Development costs must be recouped by dividing the development costs by the likely number of units sold. For this sort of device the development costs per unit will be very high simply because there is a small market.

Given that there is a market for many other different bridges (most of which use drivers to package up the target protocol data and then wrap that as payload in the source protocol format and vice versa) if this were practical and viable a company would likely have already developed such a general purpose bridge. To date according to various google searches they have not.

 

[Orge]

No, it is not. The cable requires certain drivers that are only available for Windows. The cable does a very specific function. It only transfers raw DV to a computer in a 1394 to USB conversion. The technology is too different to make a general adapter. Maybe you should do some research before spouting off?

Well we fundamentally disagree on this one, so I can't see the point of continuing this discussion. Just think about all the other examples of bridging technologies though:

usb -> bluetooth
usb -> parallel/serial
usb -> ethernet
usb -> scsi (http://www.usbgear.com/USB-TO-SCSI.html)

That's just in consumer elctronics... I happen to work in a University lab where they do a lot of research into bus based achitectures, for industry, (CANbus etc) and I can't think of a single reason why this couldn't be developed. Getting technologies to interface and work with each other is almost ALWAYS possible, although it isn't always easy.

 

[Chundles]

Well we fundamentally disagree on this one, so I can't see the point of continuing this discussion. Just think about all the other examples of bridging technologies though:

usb -> bluetooth
usb -> parallel/serial
usb -> ethernet
usb -> scsi (http://www.usbgear.com/USB-TO-SCSI.html)

That's just in consumer elctronics... I happen to work in a University lab where they do a lot of research into bus based achitectures, for industry, (CANbus etc) and I can't think of a single reason why this couldn't be developed. Getting technologies to interface and work with each other is almost ALWAYS possible, although it isn't always easy.

So you've gone from "It exists, it works" to "I don't see why it couldn't work"?

Show us a link to a product - the one listed above is for DV only.

 

[Orge]

I have to agree everything grapes911 said in the previous post.

Ultimately the problem is that USB and firewire protocols are structured differently so the "cable" would need to unpack the data transfered in the firewire packets and repack it into USB packets. A straight piece of wire or even dumb electrical components cannot do this. You need a cpu and some memory in the cable to buffer the data. (Don't forget some ROM to hold the software executed by the cpu and the USB and firewire interface chips. Plus probably some way of powering all this stuff.)

Good technical points, however, I've already provided a link in this thread to a device which is pretty close to what's required...

 

[Orge]

So you've gone from "It exists, it works" to "I don't see why it couldn't work"?

Show us a link to a product - the one listed above is for DV only.

I never said that you could use that product to hook up an ipod. If you read my posts, my angle is that it is dissapointing that Apple has left a very large portion of its computer consumer base with a difficult choice regarding its latest ipods. I undertand the reasons for the decisions that have lead to this situation (size/cost/end users), but I think it's pretty sad that they have not offered some kind of solution - via an adapter/cable whatever... This is DESPITE the fact that the technology is almost certainly feasible to develop - the technological challenges/difficulties are probably pretty similar to those for the device linked above.

 

[mrichmon]

Good technical points, however, I've already provided a link in this thread to a device which is pretty close to what's required...

No, you have given a link to a special purpose cable for a single task that also only works with certain DV cameras. You have not presented a general purpose product.

But please, if you believe it will work try the cable and let us know how it goes. You asked for opinions presumably since you are not an expert in this field. Others with some input have responded giving you detailed and accurate responses. You may not like the answers but that doesn't mean they are wrong. If you feel so strongly about this, please try out the cable and report back waht you find. It is possible that those of us speaking from theoretical knowledge have missed something that an actual experimental test will draw out.

 

[grapes911]

Well we fundamentally disagree on this one, so I can't see the point of continuing this discussion.

Fundamentally disagree!!!? I don't think so. You are flat out wrong.

That's just in consumer elctronics... I happen to work in a University lab where they do a lot of research into bus based achitectures, for industry, (CANbus etc) and I can't think of a single reason why this couldn't be developed. Getting technologies to interface and work with each other is almost ALWAYS possible, although it isn't always easy.

Then you probably don't do much of the research then. There are too many obstacles in the way. Anyone who does research on anything related to this would be able to see it.

 

[grapes911]

I never said that you could use that product to hook up an ipod.

I'm sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Whatever it's function, this cable is simply a bridge between Firewire and USB.

It is really is a simple bridge (which it is not) then this would be possible. So yes, you did imply this even if it was unintentional.