iPod USB2 Details

[dguisinger]

Re: There IS a difference

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]

Re: Re: There IS a difference

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]

Maybe no wait??

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.

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

 

[davegoody]

Firewire to USB - NO WAY !!!!!

Hmmmmmm 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 ???????

 

[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]

iBooks Update!!!

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

 

[AidenShaw]

iMac only 8 watts on 1394a

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]

Re: iBooks Update!!!

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

That thread is here:

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

 

[illumin8]

Re: No charge of USB2

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]

whew

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]

contradictory?

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]

FireWire power

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]

No...

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]

Re: Firewire to USB - NO WAY !!!!!

Originally posted by davegoody
Hmmmmmm 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 ???????

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]

Re: contradictory?

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]

USB is good for the PC market

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]

camera

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]

Re: Re: Firewire to USB - NO WAY !!!!!

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.