iPod USB2 Details

[jettredmont]

Re: camera

Originally posted by wrylachlan
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?

NO. At least, not necessarily.

USB is a client/host model. The iPod, if it were to support USB, would likely only support acting as a client. The computer is a host. A USB-On-The-Go (USB-OTG) device can act as a limited host (a host for specific classes of client).

Now, the answer must be qualified because Apple could put USB-OTG with "Mass Storage Device" client support into the iPod, which would allow it to connect to a camera (the UI would have to be tweaked to allow you to browse an attached MSD's contents and transfer them over and remove them from the MSD after transfer).

Given that the current iPod doesn't allow attaching to FireWire mass storage devices and such, I don't think it's likely that the iPod will do this using USB if it ever gets a USB port.

Finally: note that the current rumor states that Apple will provide a USB/FireWire adaptor (which would likely be a USB client device which sends FireWire signals to the iPod), not that the iPod itself will sprout a USB port. It is highly unlikely that such a dongle would support USB-OTG, and so it is unlikely that this would ever allow you to connect your iPod and digital camera directly.

 

[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

 

[Snorlax]

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

Originally posted by jettredmont
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.

Well ok then you can get P2P with USB now then... I'm not saying that USB2 is better then FW in any way but it IS far more wide-spread...


I'm just irritated on people talking trash about something just because they want to keep their favourite alternative on top and start babling on and saying things they know nothing about or don't know if it's true!

 

[eric_n_dfw]

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

Originally posted by Snorlax
Well ok then you can get P2P with USB now then... I'm not saying that USB2 is better then FW in any way but it IS far more wide-spread...

I'm confused with the first part of your comment. Are you indicating that USB OTG gives USB Peer-to-Peer capabilities? Because it does not; it's an implementation of a small server on a device that normally would not be considered a "server", but it is still a client-server model.

True P2P is like when I plug my Canon GL-1 directly into a Sony Digital-8 camera and can transfer footage either way. Or like in some of the video hard drives that you can plug a camera into and they capture straight to the hard drive with no computer in the middle. (or vice versa from the drive to the camera)

 

[MetallicPenguin]

I don't really care whether it's USB2 or Firewire, but I would prefer Firewire......blah blah blah, what everyone else said

 

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Jimong5
Hmm both a Cheap and Innovative solution. Interesting that Apples made it work. This should help the iPod sell even more!

well see in a week

Cheap and innovative? WTF?! Cheap, yes. Innovative, NO! This is the lame ass cop out to doing it "right" the first time. The uproar over people having to pay $30 for the adaptor will end up forcing Apple to change the generation after next to have a onboard USB2 and FW (or FW800) port.

Just because you like Apple, and the standard line they tell you is that they are the innovators of the market , doesn't mean it is true. Look at 802.11g or BlueTooth as the most recent examples of how Apple is slow to market on new tech, as well as doing it improperly. In case you didn't know... 802.11g was available by Linksys and others before Airport Extreme, and AE doesn't support other brands or 802.11b properly, thus breaking the 802.11g spec. And look at BT, no printer support yet....

 

[cryptochrome]

Someday, there will be but one kind of data port. It will replace your responsive firewire, your cheap usb, your indispensible ethernet, and your antiquated monitor port. Maybe even the power jack. It will be optical, which allows high speed at long distances. It should allow but not require a positive lock on the connection. Lowest common denominator connectivity could support both high- and low- performance/cost versions with a common connector, and could be configured for carrying power. You'll just have a bunch of the same ports, with converter boxes for legacy devices and connections. The only legacy jack left will be for your headphones, and you may not even need that.

Apple should work towards that.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by yzedf
Cheap and innovative? WTF?! Cheap, yes. Innovative, NO! This is the lame ass cop out to doing it "right" the first time. The uproar over people having to pay $30 for the adaptor will end up forcing Apple to change the generation after next to have a onboard USB2 and FW (or FW800) port.

Just because you like Apple, and the standard line they tell you is that they are the innovators of the market , doesn't mean it is true. Look at 802.11g or BlueTooth as the most recent examples of how Apple is slow to market on new tech, as well as doing it improperly. In case you didn't know... 802.11g was available by Linksys and others before Airport Extreme, and AE doesn't support other brands or 802.11b properly, thus breaking the 802.11g spec. And look at BT, no printer support yet....

Didn't do the iPod "right" the first time, eh? The fact that it continues to sell well and gets rave reviews from Mac AND PC mag's/web sites, despite only having a Firewire port means nothing then.

Apple released 802.11g at about the same time as Linksys and others started their big marketing push.

How many BlueTooth printers are there in the consumer space? I don't think that it's a major worry right now. Does any other PC or OS vendor even talk about BlueTooth? Palm and Apple seem to be the only high profile flag wavers for it from what I see.

 

[g4cube]

USB2 vs. FireWire?

Doesn't really matter because in this application, both get the job done.

Likely outcome:
- iPod has a docking stand
- docking stand can connect to PCs or Macs using USB2 or FireWire
- if Apple uses Oxford's new 922 bridge chip, they can get both USB and FireWire in one controller. If they use their own custom ASIC, they can get whatever they choose to implement
- docking station could have hybrid dual cable as MacWhispers proposes (unlikely), or docking station has both connectors on it. Appropriate cable would then be used.

g4cube

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by yzedf
In case you didn't know... 802.11g was available by Linksys and others before Airport Extreme, and AE doesn't support other brands or 802.11b properly, thus breaking the 802.11g spec. And look at BT, no printer support yet....

First, I haven't heard that AE has problems with other manufacturer's 802.1b products. Do you have documentation?

AE uses the same chipset (IIRC) that the LinkSys and other 802.11g products use(d). According to everything I've read about the other implementations of the chipset, it had problems with 802.11b and 802.11g co-existing at first (the "g" devices would drop down to "b" bandwidth!), but those have been resolved with firmware updates (not sure if Apple has distributed the same updates though).

As for who was "first" with 802.11g ... well, I don't recall Apple ever saying that noone else out there had 802.11g, just that it wasn't being included in any mass-market computers. You could add it yourself to a computer for a few weeks at least before Apple debuted it, but you couldn't ask Dell or Gateway to make you a laptop with 802.11g connectivity.

As for BlueTooth ... well, I'm still not in the group of people that actually have a use for BlueTooth, so I'll decline comment on that one, except ... Bluetooth printer support? I mean, I know Bluetooth printers were among the first stupid wireless tricks from bluetooth, but it's still just the most useless "use" of that technology out there! A printer generally doesn't move around (and if it does, connecting a USB cable is the least of your worries!), and your computer either doesn't move around (a desktop), or moves around but shouldn't have to be moved into the same room as a printer just to print (you should network the printer and use WiFi to connect your laptop to the network)! Yeah, one less cable (on a device that is, necessarily, already tethered to a wall outlet for power), but at the cost of:

1) Software complexity
2) Print speed
3) airwave interference (slowing down of 802.11b signals, etc)

Just a plain stupid use for BlueTooth ... all of which is to say, I really couldn't care less that Apple's printer drivers aren't Bluetooth aware!

 

[sparks9]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
How many BlueTooth printers are there in the consumer space? I don't think that it's a major worry right now. Does any other PC or OS vendor even talk about BlueTooth? Palm and Apple seem to be the only high profile flag wavers for it from what I see.

That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!

 

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by sparks9
That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!

Wha?? I've been lied to again. Oh, Apple...I thought you had BlueTooth in your laptops...why do you spite me so?

 

[jhershauer]

Re: bluetooth

Originally posted by The Iraqi Information Minister
That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!

...except for the PowerMac, 12" and 17" Powerbook, and 17" iMac.

I think bluetooth is pretty cool. I like being able to sync to my phone while it's sitting on the recharging base in my kitchen. OK, so I'm lazy. Also, you can use Bluetooth-enabled phones/PDAs to control the computer, and bluetooth doesn't eat through batteries as fast as 802.11b.

It just occurred to me that I can't even remember what the original subject of this thread was...

 

[SoonToGetAMac]

Re: Re: bluetooth

Originally posted by jhershauer
...except for the PowerMac, 12" and 17" Powerbook, and 17" iMac.

I think bluetooth is pretty cool. I like being able to sync to my phone while it's sitting on the recharging base in my kitchen. OK, so I'm lazy. Also, you can use Bluetooth-enabled phones/PDAs to control the computer, and bluetooth doesn't eat through batteries as fast as 802.11b.

It just occurred to me that I can't even remember what the original subject of this thread was...

Something about FireUSB or some such nonsense.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by sparks9
That is not true! Apple doesn't have bluetooth in any of their computers..!!

I better go tell my buddy to stop controlling iTunes via his Sony/Ericson phone then! (Must be black magic!)

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by g4cube
USB2 vs. FireWire?

Doesn't really matter because in this application, both get the job done.

Except that one of the things they touted when the iPod came out was that it got recharged while it was connected to the computer. That will only be the case with USB2 if you either have another wire (power supply) or the rumored Firewire->USB2 adapter somehow passes the power through.

 

[g4cube]

USB2 supplies 5V at up to 500ma.

Plenty to charge when not in operating mode, and with the new drives and their low operating power, probably enough to keep the drives running, with the battery there to take care of the peak requirements.

Note well: there are several USB only drives available on the market that are powered from the USB 1 or 2 bus; they usually have a capacitor or battery for peak power needs during seeks.

About the only thing true regarding USB (1or2) is that data efficiency is a bit lower than FireWire.

Data rate is a subset of bitrate, as only "bursts" of 480Mbps data goes over the USB bus. These bursts are wrapped with control info and other signaling overhead.

My statement still holds true: while FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

If Apple adopts USB2, PC people will be happy with their new iPods.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by g4cube
USB2 supplies 5V at up to 500ma.

Plenty to charge when not in operating mode, and with the new drives and their low operating power, probably enough to keep the drives running, with the battery there to take care of the peak requirements.

Note well: there are several USB only drives available on the market that are powered from the USB 1 or 2 bus; they usually have a capacitor or battery for peak power needs during seeks.

About the only thing true regarding USB (1or2) is that data efficiency is a bit lower than FireWire.

Data rate is a subset of bitrate, as only "bursts" of 480Mbps data goes over the USB bus. These bursts are wrapped with control info and other signaling overhead.

My statement still holds true: while FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

If Apple adopts USB2, PC people will be happy with their new iPods.

I agree about the transfer speed - Firewire400 is faster sustained (where it counts) but USB2 is no slackard either. The power situation, though, still intregues me. Is what you quoted for the whole bus? If I had a mouse, keyboard and bus powered hard drive all on the same USB2 hub, would the drive (or iPod in this case) suck all the power down, leaving the mouse and keyboard high and dry?

 

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by g4cube
FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

FW 400 or 800? Will USB 3.0 be almost as fast as FW 1600?

 

[g4cube]

Bagdad Bob, nice to see you've found something interesting to keep you busy...

FW400 is marginally faster than USB2 when it comes to sustained data transfers.

There is no USB3.

For USB1 or USB2, and if a powered hub/port, usually have 5v/500ma per port. If an unpowered hub typically much less.

Apple did a little cheat on it's USB ports on the G4 towers - those USB powered speakers consumed a bit more than 500ma.

On a related note, do you realize that most DV camcorders only operate at 100Mbps or 200Mbps max data rate on a FW400 bus? May actually be noted on the camcorder as S100 or S200.

 

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by g4cube
Bagdad Bob, nice to see you've found something interesting to keep you busy...

W400 is marginally faster than USB2 when it comes to sustained data transfers.

Yeah, well, now that the war is over, having resulted in heavy casualties on the allied side, terrorist attacks on US soil, and widespread and enduring hatred of the US across the middle east (wait a sec.....), I have to find something to do.

I'm sorry if I forgot my emoticon so you could tell I was being fecetious.

If it makes you feel better, I'm willing to admit that the last generation of PCs is only marginally faster than the current generation of Macs.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by g4cube
On a related note, do you realize that most DV camcorders only operate at 100Mbps or 200Mbps max data rate on a FW400 bus? May actually be noted on the camcorder as S100 or S200.

I've never looked into it, but it makes sense. The DV25 data stream is nowhere near FW400's top end - but when you add a FW400 hard drive or two into the mix, then it starts to mater - which is where I see FW800 shining in the consumer/prosumer space.

 

[Monkeypoo]

Simple questions...
1. If the ipod will now have USB 2, wouldn't that require my computer to also have USB 2 functionality (I believe my 667 G4 PB only has USB 1) to take advantage of this relatively comparable speed to firewire 400 (that's what my 'puter has)?
2. T/F: firewire 400 is significantly faster than USB 1

3. If #2 is false, then why have I been waiting for updates when I can spend less money for an archos?!? Besides the fact that the ipod is smaller and more aesthetically pleasing

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by g4cube
Note well: there are several USB only drives available on the market that are powered from the USB 1 or 2 bus; they usually have a capacitor or battery for peak power needs during seeks.

[...]

My statement still holds true: while FireWire is marginally faster than USB2 in sustained data transfers, they both still get the job done in roughly the same time.

If Apple adopts USB2, PC people will be happy with their new iPods.

1: Can you provide a link to a USB-powered drive (hard-drive, not flash, of course!)? I haven't seen one. I've seen a USB-powered scanner (which is a neat trick), but never a USB-powered hard drive.

2: Yes, you get power through USB, and likely will get a slight surplus relative to expended power assuming you hook your device up and don't use it the whole time it is hooked up. The problem is, though, that the iPod needs to charge a battery so that it can then operate untethered. It may be possible to do this with USB2 (add up enough surplus current and eventually ...), but with a 15+W* supply (FireWire) chopped down to a 2.5W supply (USB), the time to charge will increase by at least 6x, assuming no charging inefficiencies.

Apple says a full charge on the iPod takes 3 hours; over USB2 that'd balloon up to 18 hours!

Would you be happy with that? I can't say that I would!

* FireWire 1995 defines a 8-40V / 1.5A power supply range, which gives anywhere from 12W to 60W of power. It recommends that power source nodes supply 20-30V, which would be 30-45W of power. I have only been able to dig up the specs on a Cardbus slot FW port, which supplies 15W of power. Not sure what PowerMacs supply to their FW ports, however per the spec it cannot be less than 12W, and should be in the range of 30-45W. If the 3-hour charge time were based on using 45W of power instead, the FW:USB power ratio climbs to 18:1, which would leave us charging our iPods on a USB2 cable for a little over 2 days (54 hours)!

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Monkeypoo
Simple questions...
1. If the ipod will now have USB 2, wouldn't that require my computer to also have USB 2 functionality (I believe my 667 G4 PB only has USB 1) to take advantage of this relatively comparable speed to firewire 400 (that's what my 'puter has)?

If done as this rumor suggests (providing a USB2/FW translation cable/device), the answer is no; you'd just use a normal FW cable to connect the iPod to your computer.

Another possibility is that Apple would add a USB2 port to the iPod, in which case FW compatibility remains (again, just use the FW cable instead of the USB cable).

The final possibility, about 0.001% likely, is that Apple drops the FW port altogether and replaces it with a USB2 port and a DC-in jack so that you can charge the thing in less than two days. In that case, you'd need a USB port on your system (or live with a 40x slowdown in synching and just connect to USB1.1 port ...) But that's highly unlikely.

2. T/F: firewire 400 is significantly faster than USB 1

True. USB2.0 is roughtly 40x as fast as USB1.1 (which itself is 12x as fast as USB 1.0, but virtually nobody has a USB1.0-only port today!), and USB2 is only roughly on par with FireWire 400 transmission speeds (overall burst rate for USB2 is 480Mbps, from which you must subtract some significant overhead; FW400 has 400Mbps data rate, with virtually no overhead, and so end up faster than USB2.0 in most published tests).

Rest assured that FW400 is at least 40 times faster than USB 1.1.