joshuawaire said:
Let's don't start this debate again. USB 2 debuted in 2001, Apple refused to support the standard across the line (for various reasons) until late 2003. Many of us are stuck with USB 1.0 and Firewire. Products like the iPod shuffle and now "nano" are worthless. Unless you like to wait. So maybe you would benefit "very little," but myself and others on this forum benefit greatly from firewire support.
There's no debate. All iPods would be better (at least a little) with both USB and Firewire standard. They'd also cost more.
But I'll add bold to my statement to make clear why Apple made this business decision (which is what it was--not any kind of backing away from Firewire as a technology for the future):
... which would have increased the cost of the device with very little benefit to most buyers.
YOU are one of the few who would benefit significantly from Firewire--but you can still use the iPod without Firewire (it supports USB 1.1, and that does the job OK after a slow initial sync). But someone without Firewire (a big chunk of the PC market that Apple wants to draw--which benefits Mac sales too) cannot use a Firewire-only iPod without buying extras. And an iPod that included both connections would cost more to make. Not worth it. Just a lot of Firewire cables in landfills.
There's nothing wrong with your having needs that are unusual--but in the overall PC market, it's just a business reality that they ARE unusual. So you may have to use USB 1.1, unfortunately. I can sympathize with that frustration even though I think Apple's choice makes sense.
I do wish, as you mention, that Apple had been an early adopter of USB 2 just as they were with USB 1, Firewire, Wi-Fi, optical mice, etc. etc.... and instead they were a late adopter.
My iPod DOES have Firewire and I'm glad--but if it only had USB 2.0, I'd seldom notice the difference. On my old USB 1.1 Mac I'd notice--but that's life. The iPod grew beyond being Mac-only--and that IS good for the Mac
🙂
