Development of the iPod nano

[JFreak]

Something I didn't realise until a few weeks ago is that iLink is a slightly re-engineered Firewire spec. With the Apple Firewire (400) being 6-pin [carrying power with it] and iLink being 4-pin and as a consequence it is much, much smaller.

it's not re-engineered, but rather "partially implemented" to be exact. those four pins are identical to four of the 6pin full implementation data pins, and are enough to 100% performance in every way.

full implementation of the IEEE1394 spec also has two power pins, which is sometimes useful but not always. such low-power devices as scanners, flash readers etc. can really benefit from the power pins as those can now be manufactured without dedicated power supplies and therefore work universally everywhere.

however, this is not aslways the case. firewire offers insufficient power for high power devices such as video cameras etc. which will require a power supply of their own. those devices cannot benefit from the power offered by firewire, so therefore it wouldn't hurt to use only four pins if design or whatever requires that connectors must be as small as possible. performance is just as good.

I was under the assumption that Sony had done its usual trick of simply 'rebranding' something that already existed!

well, they have just decided to use a different name for the IEEE1394 spec that apple calls firewire. it's stupid, but what can you expect from a company desperately hanging on ATRAC

 

[Dunepilot]

Many domestic camcorders utilise the 4-pin connector where as prosumer upwards use the 6-pin variant [certainly the ones I've used/seen do at least].

A significant number of Intel/AMD laptops include the equivalent smaller Firewire connector on them (the Sony ones, for instance). However, those ports are inferior to the 6-pin versions because they can't power a device.

I'm a fan of firewire and it's sustained transfer rates myself, and was disappointed in the lack of firewire support on the iPod nano.

 

[csimmons]

Among the impressive engineering feats of the nano, one has to still ask: Why let form take away from function?
All we need is another iPod battery that is not user replaceable.

I understand that lack of Firewire suppport. Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the only people who use Firewire hardcore photographers and monogamous Mac users. I mean, outside of the niche of Apple, I have only used USB 2.0. I think most people don't even know Firewire exists.

Not true.

Almost all consumer digital video cameras and the latest DVD & HD-based recorders have Firewire (called iLink). Also, Intel announced that their latest motherboard designs all have FW 400 and 800 controllers. Firewire isn't going anywhere, and the nano's lack of FW surely has to do with space considerations.

 

[AidenShaw]

Also, Intel announced that their latest motherboard designs all have FW 400 and 800 controllers. Firewire isn't going anywhere....

Can you post a reference to this announcement?

Intel's ICH7 and ICH6 I/O controllers (the southbridges for the PCI Express chipsets) do not contain IEEE-1394.

According to Intel's IEEE-1394 support page (http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/cs-002887.htm) relatively few Intel mobos now have 1394a or 1394b.

Intel seems to be adding off-chip 1394 for some high end mobos, but it doesn't look anything close to "all".

But I suppose all that really matters here is that Apple buys the Intel mobos with 1394....

 

[dicklacara]

I was bummed about that too. After reading the Time story, I wonder if they had to eliminate firewire support due to space issues inside the iPod? Not really sure if it would impact space inside the iPod, but just a thought...

Mmmmm....

I just plugged my nano into my FW photo dock-- the nano screen displays:

"Firewire connections are not supported. To transfer songs, connect the USB cable provided.

Press center to dismiss"

I wonder...

Dick

 

[csimmons]

Can you post a reference to this announcement?

Intel's ICH7 and ICH6 I/O controllers (the southbridges for the PCI Express chipsets) do not contain IEEE-1394.

According to Intel's IEEE-1394 support page (http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/cs-002887.htm) relatively few Intel mobos now have 1394a or 1394b.

Intel seems to be adding off-chip 1394 for some high end mobos, but it doesn't look anything close to "all".

But I suppose all that really matters here is that Apple buys the Intel mobos with 1394....

Here are some links:

http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA602292.html?industryid=21365

This one is from Intel's home page:

http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bk/

my point was not so much about current Intel mobo designs, rather future designs, especially since Apple is now on board.

I think many people underestimate just how big a deal Apple is to Intel.

 

[mangis]

so you can use your firewire dock, but connected to the USB cable provided, then connected to the computer?

Even this pisses me off. Why is firewire not supported? I have a $5000 tower from 3 years ago that doesnt have usb 2.0 I do not want to use 1.1 I did buy a usb pci card, but it interferes with core audio and causes clicks when playing itunes. WTF

 

[Yoyodyne]

I knew I should have included video cameras, with or instad of, phototographers.

Originally Posted by tny:
Nearly all DV camcorders use FireWire (on Sonys it's called "iLink" ).

Originally Posted by illegalprelude:
Sony has offered Firewire for extremely long time now on all their Camcorders. . . .

Originally Posted by csimmons:
Almost all consumer digital video cameras and the latest DVD & HD-based recorders have Firewire (called iLink).

All of you are just giving examples of video cameras, and just as I said before, that qualifies as a niche. The only time I have used Firewire was for a DV project. My point is that your normal computer user, i.e. not an artist or scientist, rarely uses Firewire today. Firewire 800's performance edge is losing to USB 2.0's ubiquity in most environments. Just because I'm realistic, doesn't mean I'm a "normal" person who takes the most accepted practice. Jeesh, you Macheads have such a superiority complex on your equipment. I see a time a place for both, but it's hard to see Firewire 400 or 800 winning the final race when Apple themselves are cutting back on its application. Intel's announcement of Firewire motherboard support does not guarantee adoption and consistent application in the future.

 

[mn_hawk]

Apple COMPUTER, Inc.

I was just at the local Apple Store today, and admit to being impressed with the Nano. I have a shuffle now as my need to carry around music is almost nil. I'm still amazed at how many of these things have sold worldwide. Shows how little I can read the "needs" of the public. However, I have to echo the sentiment of the posters concerning Apple's "apparent" lack of interest in their computer division. If Steve and co. spent half as much time hawking and preening over the Mac and OS X, we'd have much better hardware to work with. And don't get started on the whole "we need better processors" garbage . . . I have a mini that's more than fast enough for every day use, but was it absolutely necessary to make it SO small that I'm stuck with one RAM slot, a crippled hard drive and a lousy graphics card? My other choice was a monster G5 tower as I already own a monitor. That 5% glass ceiling is going to STAY there until somebody at Apple remembers that the word "computer" is in the company name.

 

[Lacero]

 

[jsw]

No, it's not - it's Ive

My bad. I went to the wrong source. I should know better.

 

[csimmons]

I knew I should have included video cameras, with or instad of, phototographers.







All of you are just giving examples of video cameras, and just as I said before, that qualifies as a niche. The only time I have used Firewire was for a DV project. My point is that your normal computer user, i.e. not an artist or scientist, rarely uses Firewire today. Firewire 800's performance edge is losing to USB 2.0's ubiquity in most environments. Just because I'm realistic, doesn't mean I'm a "normal" person who takes the most accepted practice. Jeesh, you Macheads have such a superiority complex on your equipment. I see a time a place for both, but it's hard to see Firewire 400 or 800 winning the final race when Apple themselves are cutting back on its application. Intel's announcement of Firewire motherboard support does not guarantee adoption and consistent application in the future.

First, you need to slow your roll. No need to get testy. You read a little like a PC troll.

Second, I used digital cameras as an example simply because there are more of those sold every year than iPods, so they are no more or less "niche" than iPods.

The point being, just because the nano doesn't support FW doesn't mean FW is dead. Sure, the nano's USB 2 limitation sucks for those who don't have USB 2, but that's in no way indicative of FW's demise.

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

Lack of firewire

The lack of firewire port is not a concern in my opinion, because it's only 4 gig to transfer, and the diference will not be so great to justify it...

 

[jonnyb]

Who's to say that there aren't thousands of Johnathans out there? I may be Jonathan and you likewise, but there are several who spell their names with two H's. In that case, the mispelling of your name is understandable. Just my 2,000,000 lira.

There are, no doubt, thousands of Johnathans out there but Jonathan Ive is not one of them so it's a misspelling of his name. The annoying thing for me is that Jonathan is the original (biblical!) spelling and all the other variations - Johnathan, Jonathon (someone even addressed me as Johnathen once!) are now all over the place. It's just down to people guessing.

My Mum was a genealogist and found that most name variations are due to people guessing the spelling of a name they like the sound of. They're asked what name they want on their child's birth certificate and they don't bother to found out how it's spelled and just guess, one of the more common misconceptions being that Jonathan is simply a longer form of John and it gets given a superfluous 'h'.

Anyway, the nano is the only ipod I've ever owned that has elicited techno-lust in my partner. I've now ordered a second one.

 

[rxse7en]

Everybody repeat after me: Jonathan Ive

Thanks Johnathan!

 

[AidenShaw]

Here are some links:

http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA602292.html?industryid=21365

This one is from Intel's home page:

http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bk/

my point was not so much about current Intel mobo designs, rather future designs, especially since Apple is now on board.

I think many people underestimate just how big a deal Apple is to Intel.

Your links support my argument, and don't support the "all motherboards" claim.

I said that Intel is putting off-chip 1394 controllers on some high end mobos. Your first link echos that story, and the second link is to one of these mobos.

If Intel had announced that future southbridges would included embedded 1394, now that would be news.

In fact, the page at http://www.intel.com/standards/case/case_uwb.htm proposes Ultra-WideBand radio as a replacement for 1394a/b - not exactly a stunning endorsement of FW400/800....

 

[Jon the Heretic]

A little unhappy...but nice job overall

I would be more thrilled with the nano if it hadn't replaced the mini...yes, I understand the two would be in the same niche and that's not good. But I have a 4Gb Mini and simply love the thing! The colorful metal enclosure is much more attractive to me than the nano's...I am bored with plain white and hate the black, which is simply fugly.

And while the solidstate flash is nice and so is the color screen, I am not thrilled with these take aways: No colors, no FW and 50% less capacity. Those are far more important to me than a color screen...this is a music player (and with 50% less capacity, I am not sticking photos on it..and heck the screen is as small as that on my digital camera!)

I don't have USB 2.0--the lack of FW is a BIG deal to me. SO I am not getting a nano. No more slots free for USB 2.0. Maybe it would be different if Apple owned the intellectual property for Firewire and could leverage it however they wanted it...oh wait...! oK, I don't get that part. Anyway, the smaller capacity bugs me even more ---50% less at the same price point as the 6Gb mini. Flash over a hard drive doesn't matter to me; I actually LOVE the idea of a super small hard drive which excites me more than Flash; I am certain that is just me. My mini never skips. I was looking forward to buying a second Mini when it hits 8Gb; granted eventually that will happen to the nano, but it will much further out than a 8Gb hard drive, which is right around the corner and I think has already been announced as available.

I am certain it will be a great success. And the smaller size is a sure winner. But it is more like beefed up Shuffle than a good Mini replacement.

But just black and white? Ugg...not again...

 

[Prez1082]

Sales

Anyone know if an independent company is going to track how sales of the nano are doing. I noticed it's alredy shot to number 1 at the apple store online, just wondering if they are sold out at all apple stores yet?

 

[ibook30]

And while the solidstate flash is nice and so is the color screen, I am not thrilled with these take aways: No colors, no FW and 50% less capacity. Those are far more important to me than a color screen...this is a music player (and with 50% less capacity, I am not sticking photos on it..and heck the screen is as small as that on my digital camera!)


But just black and white? Ugg...not again...

I think this post highlights one way of making buying decisions - logic and balancing needs / functionality for the user. I am trying to use this approach.

The problem is the nano is so darn cool that the emotional urge takes over !!! I want to get one now !!! It makes no sense, I have more than I need in the mp3 player dept. but I want one !!! The 4GB nano is less space than I want - so it would make sense to wait until next gen.. but - I want one ! thi si going to be a tough week.
I blame Juan Ives.

 

[kanaka]

Anyone know if an independent company is going to track how sales of the nano are doing. I noticed it's alredy shot to number 1 at the apple store online, just wondering if they are sold out at all apple stores yet?

The black nano is currently number 12 in Amazon's top sellers list for electronics (behind several of its bigger siblings). Does anybody know how these numbers are calculated? It says "updated hourly", but does that mean it counts all sales in the last week (month? decade?) with the cumulative sales numbers updated hourly? It seems likely that the nano has sold better than the 20GB iPod (which is currently #1) this week, so I guess the popularity rating takes into account sales from a longer time period?

 

[Yvan256]

Only if they put that much effort to bring up the computer end of Apple to be in line with the rest of the market....

They are. Why do you think they're switching to Intel processors?

It's just taking a lot of time and effort, but in the end (in about 2 years) it should be worth it.

Unless Microsoft switches to PowerPC processors (hey, they did it with the Xbox 360).

 

[Yvan256]

I would be more thrilled with the nano if it hadn't replaced the mini...yes, I understand the two would be in the same niche and that's not good.

My prediction: you'll see the iPod mini make a comeback in about one year, with more capacity then the regular iPod. All thanks to Hitachi's perpendicular recording technology. Add a color screen, et voilà, 5th generation iPod, from 40/60 to 80GB.

And while the solidstate flash is nice and so is the color screen, I am not thrilled with these take aways: No colors, no FW and 50% less capacity.

- Flash memory: no more danger of having a bad hard disk (damaged sectors, whatever).

- Color screen: better than the B&W screen of the iPod mini (and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and non-photo 4rd gen iPods).

- No colors: always a nightmare, you end up with colors that sell like crazy and others that just sit there and fill up the warehouses.

- no FireWire: useless since USB 2.0 is probably faster than what the flash memory can handle. I do agree that it should've supported FW too, especially since it's taken Apple so long to add USB 2.0 to their own computers.

- Less capacity: flash is more expensive. I agree, more storage would be nice, but then again the iPod mini was only available with 4GB for a long time.

- You forgot the biggest factor: the nano is way smaller, which is another selling point.

I don't have USB 2.0--the lack of FW is a BIG deal to me. SO I am not getting a nano.

That's a big mistake on Apple's part. USB2 being slower than FW400 is one thing, but having lots of computer owners without USB2 and releasing a USB-only device is a bad decision.

Maybe they want you to buy a Mac mini?

 

[Jon the Heretic]

bye iPod mini---hello Mac mini?

- No colors: always a nightmare, you end up with colors that sell like crazy and others that just sit there and fill up the warehouses.

<snip>

Maybe they're trying to make you buy a Mac mini?

Could be about the color; I have heard that about the warehouses -- but the colorful metallic enclosure of the mini is gorgeous. I would have been pleased as punch if they had released a smaller mini with the metal and color attributes...but they didn't; they just copied the black/white plastics of the original iPod (and U2 version). For the company that originated the idea that computing should have color, this is disappointing to me personally. But will it sell to others; sure, and like hot cakes ;-) Just not to me.


Off topic--->

Mac mini -- heh, ever since Jobs came back I have had a hunch that Apple desperately wants me to buy Macs...and buy often!! -- running completely counter to the way Macs have traditionally been used (pay more but keep them productive longer). Ever notice how more and more Macs are UNsupported with each version of the MacOS? It isn't hard for them to support them longer (a Canadian lawyer who writes Xpostfacto was able to support X on every Mac since the PM 7500 onward, and in his spare time! No, easy enough) but they don't wanna. They want Mac users to buy new macs more often...like the way folks buy Wintels---> disposable commodities.

Sure, Apple wants my money; I can understand that; but get in line ;-) And frankly, right before the Intel announcement, I was getting ready to do just that...but now? I am going to wait. I am a traditional Mac user who likes his machines to stay productive for a long time...and in my opinion, buying a PowerPC Mac right now when they are being obsoleted in the next few years doesn't make mac sense---unless you've got a hole burning in your pocket or just plain need a new computer right now. Will a new PPC Mac be useful for years to come; sure! But I plan to keep my systems in use for a LONG time and a new mac is a major purchase for me. An intel Mac will be more productive longer than a PPC Mac. I've been here before with 68K and the transition to MacOS X. So I am waiting. I hope the new Intel Macs are both cheaper and cool!

 

[$MacUser$]

It's interesting to note an April 22nd article (avalible on this sight) stated approximatly 90% of computer users have no more than 1000 songs on their machine, while 77% reported they would be interested in purchasing a music player with an exact 1000 song capacity, as well as a small form factor. At the time of the article's publication, parallels were drawn between the figures and the mini. However, it would seem the nano goes even further in this direction....wonder if Steve was reading...

 

[sishaw]

Jonathan

The annoying thing for me is that Jonathan is the original (biblical!) spelling ...

The Bible was originally written in English, with English letters? That would have been quite a trick.