Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod Petition for Apple to include Firewire support in next iPod video revision

celebi23

celebi23

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 31, 2004
219
4
CT
I started a petition for Apple to restore full Firewire support in the next iPod video revision. People may think that this won't work BUT, there was a petition for Digital Booklets in iTunes and now almost every album has one. I'm somewhat lucky as my iBook G4 was the first one to have USB 2.0 yet, many of my friends who have macs have the model before mine and only have USB 1.1

http://www.petitiononline.com/ab1987/

Some stats about Firewire being faster and more reliable than USB 2.0:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/

http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

Some other sites I posted this at:

http://www.spymac.com/forums/showth...15&pagenumber=1 Already have 42 signatures
 
I hope you succeed and don't let all the doubters put you off.

Although your analogy isn't very good as there is a huge difference between a software change and a hardware one that was based on design and monetary concerns.

Anyway, good luck
 
done deal

just signed it, i mean what can it hurt.
if everybody signs this it will only give people more choices,
and that can't be such a bad thing.

i say go for it!
 
Firewire component costs, let's say a dollar. If Apple is going to be selling 25 million iPods next year, that's $25,000,000 in their pockets. And 95% of iPod sales will go to PC users who do not care for FW.

My prediction: This firewire petition is pointless.
 
Lacero said:
Firewire component costs, let's say a dollar. If Apple is going to be selling 25 million iPods next year, that's $25,000,000 in their pockets. And 95% of iPod sales will go to PC users who do not care for FW.

My prediction: This firewire petition is pointless.
Click to expand...

Backward compatibility with hardware and software always ends at some point.

Woof, Woof – Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
I've heard the new PortalPlayer Apple uses does not support FW natively. They'd have to add a separate chip. It's sad and all for those with older Macs, but that's technology for you. You can still buy one of the older models and a fw cable, or just be stuck with slow d/l's.
 
Lacero said:
Firewire component costs, let's say a dollar. If Apple is going to be selling 25 million iPods next year, that's $25,000,000 in their pockets. And 95% of iPod sales will go to PC users who do not care for FW.

My prediction: This firewire petition is pointless.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree entirely. And the cost is more than the cost of the FW controller. There's the extra hits on design, testing, docs, support, etc.
 
As has been pointed out in other threads, "good enough" usually beats "superior". At least there is the the decent recording capability in the new iPods, once appropriate accessories appear.
 
Josh396 said:
Never.
Click to expand...

I agree, I really don't see Apple going back to firewire because a lot of people don't use it if they have a Windows computer and Apple is always trying to cut back on what comes with the iPod and accessories.
 
nice idea. . . i signed . . . but you have to think, 90 some od percent of iPod sales are to PC users. so of the 10 percent of mac users that are left i think us non-USB2 people are a very small portion of that. whic i hate b/c i am not NOT buying a video iPod (though i wanted to when they were announced, until i discovered the firewire not working) so hopefull, maybe this will work and apple will listen to .1% of the customers, or we will all have to wait for our next computer upgrades to get USB 2 and the video iPod.


heh. .. i think we all need to go buy a new iPod video. . . then simultaneously all call in and complain that our iPods don't work with firewire, and it takes about 10 hours to load with USB 1 . . . then maybe they will send us new iPods that work. . . just like the iPod nano and the screen!!! heh!
 
MacDawg said:
Backward compatibility with hardware and software always ends at some point.

Woof, Woof – Dawg
pawprint.gif
Click to expand...


Yeah except here backward compatibility should render USB 2.0 obsolete, not the other way around. I don't care which actually came first, there's no doubt Firewire 400 is the better standard. I've never seen USB 2.0 top out at 480, no way. It never even tops 400. Firewire 400 kicks its ass. I only wish you could get Firewire 400/800 flash drives, that would rock. We're getting with hosed with USB 2.0 because its part of the Intel/standards convergence, which is a good enough argument, but let's just be clear about what we're losing--we're losing the better of the two standards. Firewire 400 may be "older," but it at least lived up to its potential and continues to do so. USB 2.0 never did, and it doesn't look as if it will anytime soon.
 
fklehman said:
Yeah except here backward compatibility should render USB 2.0 obsolete, not the other way around. I don't care which actually came first, there's no doubt Firewire 400 is the better standard. I've never seen USB 2.0 top out at 480, no way. It never even tops 400. Firewire 400 kicks its ass. I only wish you could get Firewire 400/800 flash drives, that would rock. We're getting with hosed with USB 2.0 because its part of the Intel/standards convergence, which is a good enough argument, but let's just be clear about what we're losing--we're losing the better of the two standards. Firewire 400 may be "older," but it at least lived up to its potential and continues to do so. USB 2.0 never did, and it doesn't look as if it will anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Do you see signficant differences in transferring to an iPod between USB and Firewire? Whatever differences in the 2 formats, may not be relevant for iPods if other aspects are rate-limiting.

I have never timed it, but it has always seemed about the same to me. but that's just my perceptual impression (they're both really fast), in reality it could be 30-50% difference and I might not know.

I really wish Apple had continued Firewire support, just for older Macs with USB 1. If it was $1 to keep it, I am sure they would have done it as there is a negative effect as well due to some dissatisfied customers. However, someone pointed out that the new PortalPlayer chips may not support Firewire. That seems like the most likely scenario to me.
 
I spend like 299 399 200 somewere in that range on iPod i think apple can put FW on it for me( they put it on there computers) this is one of the main reason i fear giving my 4g iPod up ,with putting TV and Music Vidoes on it we need FW even more



They can raise the price by a dollar!!
Next time in at my Apple store im talking about this!
 
eva01 said:
when do petitions ever work online?
Click to expand...
Sort of sucks that the Keira Knightley breast implant petition failed. :(

As some companies have stated, they take these on-line petitions so seriously -- they may count them as a single complaint/letter.
 
madmaxmedia said:
Do you see signficant differences in transferring to an iPod between USB and Firewire? Whatever differences in the 2 formats, may not be relevant for iPods if other aspects are rate-limiting.

I have never timed it, but it has always seemed about the same to me. but that's just my perceptual impression (they're both really fast), in reality it could be 30-50% difference and I might not know.

I really wish Apple had continued Firewire support, just for older Macs with USB 1. If it was $1 to keep it, I am sure they would have done it as there is a negative effect as well due to some dissatisfied customers. However, someone pointed out that the new PortalPlayer chips may not support Firewire. That seems like the most likely scenario to me.
Click to expand...

Not just in iPod transfers, everywhere. I have an external HDD with Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 interfaces, and the Firewire always kicks the USB2's ass. (using it w/ a July 2005 iBook, for ref). I don't have any other components using either the Firewire or USB bus when I'm doing it either, just a bluetooth mouse running off the internal module and a USB printer (usually not even turned on). So it's not like the USB2 bus is saturated or anything. The standard just blows compared to Firewire, is the simple explanation. I understand Apple's motivations; I can appreciate that costs, miniaturization and convergence dictate that USB2 emerge triumphant; but the fact that it has to happen sucks big time. Feels like Apple v. Microsoft, VHS v. Beta all over again. Good enough wins over superior. Sucks.
 
The sad part is that Apple used USB 1.1 until, what? Late 2003? Thats STUPID!. So a 2 year old computer gives your more pathetic speeds than a 5 year old windows computer? The least apple could do is give users the choice of using a superior port, since they decided to throw a hissy fit over USB 2.0



These aren't "Old" Macs we're talking about!
 
OT but a P.S. to another post: is there still time to sign the Keira Knightley petition? She's at the top of my "10 freebies list" my wife and I keep with each other (if you ever have the chance to make it with that celeb you're allowed, etc.). Can't resist those fit british birds... :D
 
Does USB2 even charge an iPod as quickly as Firewire400? I never got in the habit of doing anything iPod-related over USB2 on my iBook (my Pismo is only USB 1.1), but my reflex/gut call would be that it probably doesn't charge as fast. I never studied the power transmission profiles or anything though. I seem to remember the instructions to my iPod 60GB photo (purchased in Jan. 2005) saying that you can actually lose USB power to the iPod during large file transfers/synching and run the battery down if you're not paying attention. Is tht something that got fixed somehow, or is the fully powered bus still another point in Firewire 400's favor?
 
I signed it...I guess my future iPod will sync via USB 1.1. How well does it charge through 1.1 vs. 2.0/firewire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back