iPod No Firewire Support Leaves Many Mac Users Behind

[California]

No, you're right. FW800 hard drive enclosures are available, but not popular. Basically that's about the range of FW800 devices. Again, there are a few other products, but they're not selling too well. FW800 is a little ahead of its time for anything that's not a high-speed hard drive. Peripherals today have a hard time filling up FW400, iPod included.

Despite attempts, Firewire never achieved any sort of market penetration. Not because it wasn't good at what it did, but because it was complicated as a protocol and expensive as hardware. It's not so expensive anymore, but it's still complicated. USB had several years of development going for it, and a relatively natural extension from existing serial communications and from PCI, an already entrenched standard. USB had a speed limit, though, that was considered sufficient when it was developed but later proved to be inadequate when external hard drives and big file-size DV cameras took off. Firewire was there to meet that emerging market, but USB 2.0 popped up on the scene later.

It has many advantages over Firewire, but one key disadvantage: Firewire was designed for large file transfers and sustained speed, where USB 2.0 simple allowed for greater speed. But USB already had a huge market of peripherals, was backwards compatible, and used a proven and popular communications protocol. USB 2.0 wasn't a risky move like FW, so more manufacturers were willing to jump on board to cement its dominance. The Firewire people went back to the drawing boards to give FW a clear advantage and came up with FW800. It's great and very impressive, but almost nothing takes advantage of its faster speed, and its lack of backwards-compatible connectors mean it will probably never make it in the portable world (where USB ports are backwards compatible, FW800 requires a separate connector, taking up valuable space).

I thought the appeal of Firewire is that it creates a separate power source (I'm no engineer) that, when in use, it does not drain your CPU output. Whereas, USB devices do. Hence, their slower rate?

It is still weird that Apple is forcing us all to upgrade our beautiful older Macs before their time. I have a friend still happy on her 266mhz iMac; another on a 400mhz iMac and a 400mhz Tibook. These machines were meant to last but it seems Mac isn't impressed with old machines. Oh well. I AM.

BTW, I bought a 20gig iPod in July with a chrome back and white front. Used it one to record with Griffith mic; I still have no idea and no real desire to make it into my portable music library because I am afraid of dropping it at the gym or something! (I've never even plugged it in to see how the recording turned out!)

Don't laugh, but because of this, i take an ancient and beat up old walkman knockoff to the gym with old time cassettes... I guess Jobs would have a heart attack, but I would have a heart attack if I saw my new iPod crashing on the ground. Same feeling as seeing a PB slam concrete -- these are precious little technological achievements, not gym accoutrements.

 

[asherman13]

I thought the appeal of Firewire is that it creates a separate power source (I'm no engineer) that, when in use, it does not drain your CPU output. Whereas, USB devices do. Hence, their slower rate?

It is still weird that Apple is forcing us all to upgrade our beautiful older Macs before their time. I have a friend still happy on her 266mhz iMac; another on a 400mhz iMac and a 400mhz Tibook. These machines were meant to last but it seems Mac isn't impressed with old machines. Oh well. I AM.

BTW, I bought a 20gig iPod in July with a chrome back and white front. Used it one to record with Griffith mic; I still have no idea and no real desire to make it into my portable music library because I am afraid of dropping it at the gym or something! (I've never even plugged it in to see how the recording turned out!)

Don't laugh, but because of this, i take an ancient and beat up old walkman knockoff to the gym with old time cassettes... I guess Jobs would have a heart attack, but I would have a heart attack if I saw my new iPod crashing on the ground. Same feeling as seeing a PB slam concrete -- these are precious little technological achievements, not gym accoutrements.

what do you use it for?!?!?!? an external HD? i mean, it's new, but not THAT new...and you've never listened to the recordings?? why? what is the purpose of this ipod?

 

[matticus008]

I thought the appeal of Firewire is that it creates a separate power source (I'm no engineer) that, when in use, it does not drain your CPU output. Whereas, USB devices do. Hence, their slower rate?

Well, it's more analogous to a peer-to-peer vs client/server metaphor. USB requires a host controller (usually built into motherboards these days) to communicate, allowing the individual devices to have relatively small USB interface controllers, but requiring the host CPU to do a lot of load-lifting. Firewire, however, doesn't require such a major host controller in the computer, because each Firewire device has its own controller that handles communication with other Firewire devices. So essentially, the desktop computer is just another Firewire device (oversimplification warning), just like a camera, or an older iPod.

This is why a Firewire controller just plain won't fit in a nano, and how it saves space and allows the 5G to be thinner than otherwise possible. It also explains a little bit about FW's superior ability to sustain high transfer rates (because firewire is only concerned with firewire, but USB has to share resources with the entire PCI bus, including sound and ATA controllers in the computer itself).

 

[Sol]

FireWire conspiracy theory

This theory that FireWire is out because USB-only makes the designs thinner does not make sense. Apple have the number one MP3 player and if they wanted a tiny dual USB and FireWire chip Texas instruments or Intel would design one for them. My theory is that Intel will give Apple priority over any other client of its CPUs in return for the early retirement of FireWire.

 

[California]

what do you use it for?!?!?!? an external HD? i mean, it's new, but not THAT new...and you've never listened to the recordings?? why? what is the purpose of this ipod?

I actually bought it because of the iPod rebate and because I could record interviews on it. Rest assured, I will get into putting music on it. It was brand new but I don['t understand what the designations on iPods are. It has a 2005 copyright.

 

[California]

Well, it's more analogous to a peer-to-peer vs client/server metaphor. USB requires a host controller (usually built into motherboards these days) to communicate, allowing the individual devices to have relatively small USB interface controllers, but requiring the host CPU to do a lot of load-lifting. Firewire, however, doesn't require such a major host controller in the computer, because each Firewire device has its own controller that handles communication with other Firewire devices. So essentially, the desktop computer is just another Firewire device (oversimplification warning), just like a camera, or an older iPod.

This is why a Firewire controller just plain won't fit in a nano, and how it saves space and allows the 5G to be thinner than otherwise possible. It also explains a little bit about FW's superior ability to sustain high transfer rates (because firewire is only concerned with firewire, but USB has to share resources with the entire PCI bus, including sound and ATA controllers in the computer itself).

uh... yeah! Just what I was trying to say!

Thanks for the precise description. Makes me love firewire. I also like it because I can boot off my firewire hd enclosure. I guess that's what everyone's been saying about booting off an iPod. Too much interconnectivity for Apple? Sad.

 

[sethypoo]

I own a revision A 12" PowerBook G4. I'm hoping to get a 30GB video iPod for Christmas this year. I've given this issue some thought, and I've decided that if I get the iPod, I'll just make a habit of plugging it into my USB 1.1 connection at night and leaving it be while it updates. Usually my updates are only a few songs. Video will be a rare issue, and an overnight charge and sync won't hurt it.

 

[matticus008]

This theory that FireWire is out because USB-only makes the designs thinner does not make sense. Apple have the number one MP3 player and if they wanted a tiny dual USB and FireWire chip Texas instruments or Intel would design one for them. My theory is that Intel will give Apple priority over any other client of its CPUs in return for the early retirement of FireWire.

If you read the post I made just before this one, you'd see that that isn't the case. Firewire controllers are much bigger and space-consuming. No one would create a chip that includes both standards because it doesn't work that way. Serial ATA and parallel ATA are often both present on motherboards, but as separate components. And Intel has relatively little to gain at this point, since Firewire is not a major source of competition anymore, except for DV, which is solidly "Firewire only" for now and the foreseeable future.

uh... yeah! Just what I was trying to say!

Thanks for the precise description. Makes me love firewire. I also like it because I can boot off my firewire hd enclosure. I guess that's what everyone's been saying about booting off an iPod. Too much interconnectivity for Apple? Sad.

There's no reason an Apple computer can't boot from USB, too. They just won't allow it, because it encourages sales of Firewire hard drives. PCs can boot to USB but not Firewire (generally) for the exact same reason--to further sales of their "preferred" interface. I hope this helps to demystify this undying issue.

 

[wPod]

I just don't get why people without USB 2.0 ports are claiming the new iPods are "incompatible" with their machines.

Granted, it will take longer to sync, but it STILL works.

Solutions...sync your iPod overnight...hook up, your iPod, go eat dinner...start the sync, go for a run outside...

yeah, um, i calculated it out, and using the speed of my iPod shuffle over USB 1 (thats 512mb in about 30 min) it would take 15 HOURS to transfer only 15 GB of data!!! (which is the size of my music collection right now). i dont take 15 hours to sleep! i mean i might like to every once in a while, but come on. what if someone has a 50 GB collection? at a rate around a gig an hour, thats 50 HOURS that is completely unreasonable (and yes i change the exact calculations a little so someone could easily convert in their head! in reality it would be slightly less, time, but were talking like 48 hours for 50 gig!) so in the end i think the small percentage of the mac population, myself included, and even SMALLER percent of the iPod buying population mean nothing to apple. and we are just screwed! . . . personally i have been wanting to purchase a mac mini, so i might buy a mini, then wait a few months (ok, lets be realistic, as a college student it will be a lot of months) then get an iPod video (by the time i have the money again, it will probably be the second generation iPod video!!

 

[asherman13]

yeah, um, i calculated it out, and using the speed of my iPod shuffle over USB 1 (thats 512mb in about 30 min) it would take 15 HOURS to transfer only 15 GB of data!!! (which is the size of my music collection right now). i dont take 15 hours to sleep! i mean i might like to every once in a while, but come on. what if someone has a 50 GB collection? at a rate around a gig an hour, thats 50 HOURS that is completely unreasonable (and yes i change the exact calculations a little so someone could easily convert in their head! in reality it would be slightly less, time, but were talking like 48 hours for 50 gig!) so in the end i think the small percentage of the mac population, myself included, and even SMALLER percent of the iPod buying population mean nothing to apple. and we are just screwed! . . . personally i have been wanting to purchase a mac mini, so i might buy a mini, then wait a few months (ok, lets be realistic, as a college student it will be a lot of months) then get an iPod video (by the time i have the money again, it will probably be the second generation iPod video!!

since you have a shuffle, sync the nano/new ipod when you go to bed or get home, use your shuffle that day, and then maybe by the next morning or when you get home the next day, you'll have a good-to-go ipod.

 

[26139]

Whining...

yeah, um, i calculated it out, and using the speed of my iPod shuffle over USB 1 (thats 512mb in about 30 min) it would take 15 HOURS to transfer only 15 GB of data!!! (which is the size of my music collection right now). i dont take 15 hours to sleep! i mean i might like to every once in a while, but come on. what if someone has a 50 GB collection? at a rate around a gig an hour, thats 50 HOURS that is completely unreasonable (and yes i change the exact calculations a little so someone could easily convert in their head! in reality it would be slightly less, time, but were talking like 48 hours for 50 gig!) so in the end i think the small percentage of the mac population, myself included, and even SMALLER percent of the iPod buying population mean nothing to apple. and we are just screwed! . . . personally i have been wanting to purchase a mac mini, so i might buy a mini, then wait a few months (ok, lets be realistic, as a college student it will be a lot of months) then get an iPod video (by the time i have the money again, it will probably be the second generation iPod video!!

Quit whining and instead of buying an iPod video, save up to buy a new computer. No one certainly NEEDS a new iPod.

And the transfer speed of the shuffle is slower than to an iPod. Check it out.

 

[MacNut]

Ya my 4G iPod is sooooo big that I need Apple to drop Firewire, I mean the thing is so heavy and bulky that it won't fit into my pocket. Get a grip people, just because they can make a cell phone the size of a credit card does not mean its better.

 

[Sol]

Ugly side of iPod Halo Effect

Ya my 4G iPod is sooooo big that I need Apple to drop Firewire, I mean the thing is so heavy and bulky that it won't fit into my pocket. Get a grip people, just because they can make a cell phone the size of a credit card does not mean its better.

I agree. FireWire functionality was a feature that made the iPod unique and the difference it made in size was completely negligible. I think what we see now is the ugly side of the iPod Halo Effect; Apple wants the new iPods to become the reason pre-USB 2 Mac users buy a new Mac.

 

[zap2]

my iMac gas 3 USB ports there being maxed out with my Nano ,Printer, KeyBoard, Wireless Mouse and keyboard thing( leaving my iMac soon) and now this!

 

[zap2]

Outside of Mac users, I don't think many PC users give a rat's ass for FireWire. Sad, but true. Ninety-five percent of those 6 million odd iPods sold last quarter were probably to PC users. Again, sad but true.

some PC do have FW and my PC has one(found that otu a month ago while the PC is a year or 2 old) FW rocks


I smell a protests!

 

[MacNut]

This just proves that Apple is no better then Microsoft in that it will sell out just to make a buck.

 

[zap2]

i dont care for USB it slower the FW i like FW apple i want FW

 

[macosxman]

Apple Abandons Its Principles, Hopes Mac Users Are Forgetful

When the iPod was introduced, the FireWire connector was one of the main 'revolutionary' features. Other, inferior players for the PC meant waiting for slow USB 1 transfers. Because Apple supported Mac buyers, Mac users had a superior setup with faster transfer rates.

Now that Apple is making so much money on iPods (mostly from PC users), they can justify dropping FireWire because "PCs and new Macs have USB 2."

Apple helped develop FireWire. It is a superior connector, with faster transfers and less load on the computer.

Now that Apple has abandoned its Mac buyers, the tables are turned: even older PCs can use the latest iPods, but older Mac users are told to just wait it out with USB 1. It wasn't supposed to be this way folks.

 

[Laser47]

And I always thought apple would start using FW800 on their ipods, guess i was wrong.

 

[crazytom]

I have to say I have mixed feelings:

I bought into the whole FW thing; I have 3 FW hard drives, 1 FW DVD burner, a FW scanner, 2 FW camcorders and my 3rd Gen iPod. On this hand, I've invested a lot of money into FW technology.

On the other hand, if the stars are aligned properly, I can get any 2 of the above devices to work at the same time. [Though, since Jaguar, my scanner WILL NOT work through FW---fortunately is has USB, too.]. If I stop using one (power it down; un-dock my iPod, etc.) and come back to it later, something goes very wrong, either a device won't mount (I've had my iPod trying to mount for 3 hours one time -- it got VERY hot ---) requiring a reboot, or it will completely hang the Finder and, in effect, be as good as a kernel panic (reboot required). I don't know if it's Apple's fault that these things can't work properly together or what. I've found that sometimes I can only dock my iPod a limited number of times before I have to switch FW ports or reboot.

IMO, if you have one FW device or an array of drives (that are always on), then FW is great. If you have 3 or more different devices, I think you'll find that FW really (really, like M$) sucks...and for that I say: Good riddance!

 

[hulugu]

Quit whining and instead of buying an iPod video, save up to buy a new computer. No one certainly NEEDS a new iPod.

And the transfer speed of the shuffle is slower than to an iPod. Check it out.

No one WANTS to buy a new Mac when it's a fast, stable useful machine that has all the best connectors including the arguably better Firewire. Firewire has a constant 400mbs thoroughput, puts less load on the machine, and allowed you to boot from an iPod—I saved someone's data this way. It's a good technology that never caught on in the PC world because USB 2.0 was pushed by Intel.
I want to buy a new iPod because my 2nd Generation is full and I'd like to get one that can download photos from my camera, record voice, hold more music and still have all the advantages my old iPod did. Firewire is better than USB and in exchanging one technology for another Apple has sacrificed several advantages for a slight weight/size advantage. Yeah, and the Shuffle is slower because of its flash chip and because of USB 2.0.
But, I did call Apple and someone there told me that the iPod Video would sync over firewire, but would not charge. I think even Apple is confused about this.
This may be a tempest in a teapot.

 

[hulugu]

I have to say I have mixed feelings:

I bought into the whole FW thing; I have 3 FW hard drives, 1 FW DVD burner, a FW scanner, 2 FW camcorders and my 3rd Gen iPod. On this hand, I've invested a lot of money into FW technology.

On the other hand, if the stars are aligned properly, I can get any 2 of the above devices to work at the same time. [Though, since Jaguar, my scanner WILL NOT work through FW---fortunately is has USB, too.].

Dude something's wrong with your Mac, I've had FW devices daisy-chained together and I've had several operating on the same computer—DV camera, DVD burner, HD—and the stars aligned without so much as a shudder or a quick voodoo ritual. And that's one more than one machine.
USB 2.0 isn't a bad technology, but it's not a consistent 480mbs and I've had it drop down to 200mbs at times. In comparison FW is 400mbs all the time.

 

[hulugu]

It is still weird that Apple is forcing us all to upgrade our beautiful older Macs before their time. I have a friend still happy on her 266mhz iMac; another on a 400mhz iMac and a 400mhz Tibook....

Apple does want us to upgrade, but until recently it's been more carrot less stick. Apple lives on hardware sales and if all of us happy mac users go a buy new machines Steve Jobs is going to be very happy.

Don't laugh, but because of this, i take an ancient and beat up old walkman knockoff to the gym with old time cassettes... I guess Jobs would have a heart attack, but I would have a heart attack if I saw my new iPod crashing on the ground. Same feeling as seeing a PB slam concrete -- these are precious little technological achievements, not gym accoutrements.

I've had my iPod since 2003 and it's gone to Europe, the rock-climbing gym, camping, hiking, school, work, the car and it's done just fine. It once slipped out of it's holder and dropped eight-feet into gravel during a gym climb, came out with a very minor ding and a single scratch. At the time I freaked out thinking the hard-drive platters would've crashed, but I picked it up and Tom Petty's Free Falling was still playing.
Point is, get a case, close the lid right and your iPod will be just fine.

 

[matticus008]

When the iPod was introduced, the FireWire connector was one of the main 'revolutionary' features. Other, inferior players for the PC meant waiting for slow USB 1 transfers. Because Apple supported Mac buyers, Mac users had a superior setup with faster transfer rates.

USB 2.0 was available when the iPod was released. Other players made use of it.

Now that Apple is making so much money on iPods (mostly from PC users), they can justify dropping FireWire because "PCs and new Macs have USB 2."

Yes, that's how it works. Less than 10% of their target market has Firewire, but 100% has USB of some kind, and 99% have USB 2.0. (Based on an assumed market share of 5% for Apple). Why keep both when it complicates things, adds bulk, and adds cost. Every dollar is a major expense, whether it seems that way or not.

Apple helped develop FireWire. It is a superior connector, with faster transfers and less load on the computer.

Now that Apple has abandoned its Mac buyers, the tables are turned: even older PCs can use the latest iPods, but older Mac users are told to just wait it out with USB 1. It wasn't supposed to be this way folks.

Superior for what? For large peripheral devices. Flash drives? FW makes absolutely no sense. For mice or keyboards? No. For printers? No. For home-grade scanners? No. For wireless and Bluetooth adapters? No. For digital cameras? No. For external floppy drives or CD drives? No. For syncing cell phones or PDAs or graphing calculators? No. For TV tuners? Not so much. Firewire has a narrow market, and it's good at what it does, but it isn't suited for the overwhelming majority of the consumer PC market. The only places it is really suited in the home environment are with DV camcorders and external hard drives, but even then, hard drives that are USB have a bigger market.

Apple hasn't abandoned its Mac owners. iPod is a separate line of products with a separate market and separate intentions, and there isn't an iPod out that doesn't work with Macs (slowly, for some, maybe, but functional). Using Firewire on anything other than a full size iPod wouldn't make any sense, and using it on the full size iPod makes parts costs higher, support issues higher, design costs higher, and the iPod bigger (yes, by maybe half a cubic inch, but that's significant when you're dealing with something that small). There's no logical reason to go with Firewire. It's marginally faster than USB 2.0, but would you rather have 95% of the speed and 99% of the market or 100% speed and 10% of the market? It's an obvious choice.

 

[dmcelroy]

drop firewire a mistake

Apple may be going with smaller form to attract buyers, but don't forget...firewire 400 is nearly twice as fast as USB2.0. Firewire 800 even more so. See the speed tests at http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html
In tests at: http://www.g4tv.com/freshgear/features/39129/USB_20_Versus_FireWire.html
it was found that "despite USB 2.0's 80 Kbps speed advantage over FireWire, our testing showed that the additional overhead of USB 2.0 made it slower than FireWire. For high-bandwidth devices such as external hard drives, the difference was as high as 70 percent."

The web site usb-ware.com showed that during transfer of "160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0"

Firewire's support of isochronous data channels enables guaranteed data transfer at a specified rate and reduces the need for buffering. It is also the standard interface for many multimedia components such as digital video cameras. I'd be glad to pay a little more for firewire in the new iPod. When I read about this I was ready to order on the spot...until I saw no Firewire. I use a 2 year old Powerbook and waiting hours on end to upload files and losing the boot feature turned me off just as fast. Guess this one will just be another pretty baubel for the Windows users to show off.