Steve Jobs on Lack of Firewire in MacBooks

[Drag'nGT]

I have to say that the connection options is like HD DVD vs Bluray. One has to win. I know that a lot of people here love their firewire but really it's not feasible for it to be around for much longer. USB is know by all while firewire is known and used by few.

 

[.Chris]

I have to say that the connection options is like HD DVD vs Bluray. One has to win. I know that a lot of people here love their firewire but really it's not feasible for it to be around for much longer. USB is know by all while firewire is known and used by few.

Used by those who dont want to buy adapters or use older video cameras. Or even those who dont want to spend all week downloading their 2 hour home movie they made at their cousin's wedding

Fire-wire is usefull...

 

[NT1440]

I have to say that the connection options is like HD DVD vs Bluray. One has to win. I know that a lot of people here love their firewire but really it's not feasible for it to be around for much longer. USB is know by all while firewire is known and used by few.

Firewire is heavily used far and wide outside the computer industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire#Alternative_uses_for_IEEE_1394

 

[RedTomato]

I have to say that the connection options is like HD DVD vs Bluray. One has to win. I know that a lot of people here love their firewire but really it's not feasible for it to be around for much longer. USB is know by all while firewire is known and used by few.

HELLOOOOOO?

HD DVD and Bluray are two different ways of showing the same crisper picture.

USB and FW have very different purposes. USB is for transferring info where timing is not critical, where you can say 'steady on, what was that, can you go back and repeat it?' e.g from HDs, SDDs, or where the data rate is not all that high, eg low data rate peripherals, keyboards, joysticks etc.

FW's best function is for critical timing, where dense info comes in a steady stream and CANNOT BE REPEATED. Eg high quality live audio, video streaming etc.

In that situation, USB could be 3x faster than FW, but FW would still be a better tool for the job.

 

[Drag'nGT]

I never said it wasn't useful, just that it serves a similar purpose. And "by few" I meant that you can't ask your neighbor if he had a firewire port on his laptop but he can answer you if you asked if he had a USB.

 

[cheesymogul]

I never said it wasn't useful, just that it serves a similar purpose. And "by few" I meant that you can't ask your neighbor if he had a firewire port on his laptop but he can answer you if you asked if he had a USB.

USB is for the masses and firewire for the high end user.

If you are not a high end user you will probably never be needing firewire and that's okay.
But if you are, then USB 2.0 simply is not reliable and fast enough.

If the innovations of the PC industry were solely dictated by the needs of the average user, the state of the art would be $99.95 G3's and Pentiums with a combo drive and USB 1.0!

 

[LethalWolfe]

USB is for the masses and firewire for the high end user.

Firewire is a consumer interface that has been deemed "good enough" for lower end professional uses. There is nothing "high-end" about it which is why it doesn't make sense for it to disappear from a consumer Apple computer for the first time in nearly a decade.


Lethal

 

[darwinian]

I never said it wasn't useful, just that it serves a similar purpose. And "by few" I meant that you can't ask your neighbor if he had a firewire port on his laptop but he can answer you if you asked if he had a USB.

My experience is that most people don't know either one.

 

[sushi]

Get a hub. They make small ones with retractable cables that hardly take up any space. Unfortunately if you're missing Firewire entirely there is no solution.

Exactly.

You could buy an express card with a couple of extra USB ports if you're not using the slot for something else. If the MacBook had that option (for Firewire) there wouldn't be so much fuss.

This is a great idea.

The Express Card slot can be used for so many options such as this.

And here are some early tests/benchmarks, USB 3.0 slower than expected.

Not surprised.

The same thing happened with USB 2.0 when it was introduced. It's gotten better over time, but has yet to deliver sustained 480Mbps rates.

This is one area that FW rules. It works great for sustained transfer speeds.

That gives manufacturers almost a year to come up with nice/fast FW1600/3200 devices.

I have my fingers and toes crossed. This would be a wonderful time for FW devices to gain a huge edge.

...but not holding my breath.

Firewire is a consumer interface that has been deemed "good enough" for lower end professional uses. There is nothing "high-end" about it which is why it doesn't make sense for it to disappear from a consumer Apple computer for the first time in nearly a decade.

Well said.

FW and Apple are synonymous.

I understood when FW was removed from the iPods. Didn't like it, but understood.

I do not understand why FW was removed from the MB. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Eric S.]

USB and FW have very different purposes. USB is for transferring info where timing is not critical, where you can say 'steady on, what was that, can you go back and repeat it?' e.g from HDs, SDDs, or where the data rate is not all that high, eg low data rate peripherals, keyboards, joysticks etc.

FW's best function is for critical timing, where dense info comes in a steady stream and CANNOT BE REPEATED. Eg high quality live audio, video streaming etc.

In that situation, USB could be 3x faster than FW, but FW would still be a better tool for the job.

That problem is not with USB but with the peripheral devices. USB has isochronous mode for timed-based data and a facility for bandwidth reservation, but devices don't implement it. They only implement bulk mode, which has the reliability features that you mention (retries etc.) and is not suited for time-based data.

So don't blame the technology; blame the device manufacturers.

 

[chrisPA]

That problem is not with USB but with the peripheral devices. USB has isochronous mode for timed-based data and a facility for bandwidth reservation, but devices don't implement it. They only implement bulk mode, which has the reliability features that you mention (retries etc.) and is not suited for time-based data.

So don't blame the technology; blame the device manufacturers.

Within the realm of video uses, Firewire has DV controls in the spec that allow the host PC to control a remote device, such as play, stop, record, etc., as well as frame accurate abilities with timecodes. USB does not offer these abilities AFAIK.

 

[RedTomato]

That problem is not with USB but with the peripheral devices. USB has isochronous mode for timed-based data and a facility for bandwidth reservation, but devices don't implement it. They only implement bulk mode, which has the reliability features that you mention (retries etc.) and is not suited for time-based data.

So don't blame the technology; blame the device manufacturers.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Does it have to be implemented on both ends, or could a future hypothetical Apple MB implement these modes, and be able to use devices isochronously?

Even if it has to be on both ends, is there any chance of future cameras / sound cards offering this?

You'll probably say noone's made chips offering these modes, and none are proposed

Within the realm of video uses, Firewire has DV controls in the spec that allow the host PC to control a remote device, such as play, stop, record, etc., as well as frame accurate abilities with timecodes. USB does not offer these abilities AFAIK.

True. I actually do that a hell of a lot (record from camera direct to laptop or external via FW without using tapes. Saves a LOT of time on workflow and rough editing). Not sure if that's possible with USB cameras.

 

[John Dillinger]

That problem is not with USB but with the peripheral devices. USB has isochronous mode for timed-based data and a facility for bandwidth reservation, but devices don't implement it. They only implement bulk mode, which has the reliability features that you mention (retries etc.) and is not suited for time-based data.

So don't blame the technology; blame the device manufacturers.

If this is true then why hasnt any of the best device manufacturers like MOTU started making all their devices USB 2?? Which is probably cheaper to do than using Firewire. Surely they have the knowhow? Face it USB just doesnt cut it compared to Firewire, it isnt as good and doesnt offer the same capabilities; thats why all the high-end audio interfaces use it, and why Apple has decided to use it as a "pro" distinguishing feature. Eitherway Im not waiting for a macbook, will be getting a new MBP but would like a better graphics card (than the 8600m gt mk2)

 

[RedTomato]

Eitherway I'm not waiting for a macbook, will be getting a new MBP

Score one for teh Apple! Jobs and his myriad myrmidons will be pleased.

(That wasn't aimed at you John, just a general comment. Congrats on having the money or business case for a MBP. Hope you enjoy it. )

 

[iEdd]

Same happened to me, got the MBP. While I regret "giving in", I'd sooner do that then give them +1 AluMacBook sales, supporting the lack of FireWire while I suffer without it.

 

[Eric S.]

Thanks, I didn't know that. Does it have to be implemented on both ends, or could a future hypothetical Apple MB implement these modes, and be able to use devices isochronously?

The host controller should be able to handle any of USB's transfer modes (control, interrupt, bulk, or isochronous). It is the device (or endpoint in USB jargon) that defines which of these modes will be used. So it has to be implemented on both ends, but the device is responsible for determining what kind of endpoint it is. A device may offer separate endpoints of different types, but obviously each transfer must use only one of the modes.

Even if it has to be on both ends, is there any chance of future cameras / sound cards offering this?

No idea, but my guess is that devices are going more to saving raw data on disk files and transferring them using bulk mode.

Within the realm of video uses, Firewire has DV controls in the spec that allow the host PC to control a remote device, such as play, stop, record, etc., as well as frame accurate abilities with timecodes. USB does not offer these abilities AFAIK.

Thanks, I was not aware of that. But presumbly a USB standard for DV control could also be implemented. I'm not an expert in the area though.

If this is true then why hasnt any of the best device manufacturers like MOTU started making all their devices USB 2?? Which is probably cheaper to do than using Firewire. Surely they have the knowhow?

I really don't know. I could speculate though. For one thing USB is a shared bus and there may be devices like kb/mouse/HD on it. If an audio/video device uses isochronous mode and bandwidth reservation it possibly could cause throughput issues with the other devices. Not necessarily, because there may be more than one USB bus on the system, but possibly. So device manufacturers may want to steer clear of bandwidth issues.

The other speculation is simply that FireWire has been the defacto standard in the field and USB implementations have never caught on.

Face it USB just doesnt cut it compared to Firewire, it isnt as good and doesnt offer the same capabilities; thats why all the high-end audio interfaces use it, and why Apple has decided to use it as a "pro" distinguishing feature.

Maybe that's true, but maybe it's just because the market has gone that way in the past. Would you claim that since 89% of personal computers run Windows (or whatever the percentage is), that Mac OS just isn't as good or doesn't offer the same capabilities?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The other speculation is simply that FireWire has been the defacto standard in the field and USB implementations have never caught on.

Not true. USB just can't keep up the same way firewire can. Show me one single USB device that can keep a constant stream of 400mb/s.

Maybe that's true, but maybe it's just because the market has gone that way in the past. Would you claim that since 89% of personal computers run Windows (or whatever the percentage is), that Mac OS just isn't as good or doesn't offer the same capabilities?

horrible analogy. A better one would be bikes vs cars. bikes can still get you from one point to another, but a car can do it much faster, and can drive on the freeway.
Anyway market share has absolutely nothing to do with how well the technology works

 

[Eric S.]

Not true. USB just can't keep up the same way firewire can. Show me one single USB device that can keep a constant stream of 400mb/s.

Can FireWire keep up a constant 400 Mbps stream? That wasn't my impression. And what do audio/video devices really require? As I said, I'm not an expert in the area.

Anyway market share has absolutely nothing to do with how well the technology works

That was precisely my point.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

That was precisely my point.

D'oh! mea culpa

 

[John Dillinger]

The host controller should be able to handle any of USB's transfer modes (control, interrupt, bulk, or isochronous). It is the device (or endpoint in USB jargon) that defines which of these modes will be used. So it has to be implemented on both ends, but the device is responsible for determining what kind of endpoint it is. A device may offer separate endpoints of different types, but obviously each transfer must use only one of the modes.



No idea, but my guess is that devices are going more to saving raw data on disk files and transferring them using bulk mode.



Thanks, I was not aware of that. But presumbly a USB standard for DV control could also be implemented. I'm not an expert in the area though.



I really don't know. I could speculate though. For one thing USB is a shared bus and there may be devices like kb/mouse/HD on it. If an audio/video device uses isochronous mode and bandwidth reservation it possibly could cause throughput issues with the other devices. Not necessarily, because there may be more than one USB bus on the system, but possibly. So device manufacturers may want to steer clear of bandwidth issues.

The other speculation is simply that FireWire has been the defacto standard in the field and USB implementations have never caught on.



Maybe that's true, but maybe it's just because the market has gone that way in the past. Would you claim that since 89% of personal computers run Windows (or whatever the percentage is), that Mac OS just isn't as good or doesn't offer the same capabilities?

I dunno... I guess you could on the capabilities part... you could argue that Windows best serves the majority of people who want options and dont want to be limited to one brand. One expensive brand. Windows has got more capabilities in the sense it runs more software, and runs on more computers hence its massive widespread adoption... OSX isnt as good for most people on earth as it limits them and to run it you need to buy an expensive computer when for most a Dell or HP with XP or Vista is great. They can deal with a virus scan to save a $1000 or so and get what they want (ports etc). Depends how you look at it really. I wouldnt necessarily say OSX is better. They both have their plus points. With Windows 7 mac users will have less to gloat about I assure you, its much lighter and efficient- and shinier. I like and use both.

Firewire best serves the needs of musicians (dont know about video scene) and device manufacturers (less overhead, no pops and clicks), hence its widespread adoption.

Why on earth would the market just go with and stick with Firewire for the sake of it? Because Apple made it? If USB is cheaper, which we can assume it is as its everywhere (economies of scale and all) and can perform the same then why wouldnt the market adopt that instead? They are out to make money!

P.S It wouldnt have been hard to catch on either as everyone knows usb, it would have been easy to sell and a logical progression: (blurb) "just plug in your usb and go!" etc.

 

[RedTomato]

Dear god, lets not get into Windows vs OSX. Both have their uses, advantages and disadvantages. Let's leave it at that please.

Can we stick to discussing the lack of Firewire in macbooks (and related topics) please?

 

[atkm2891]

So what if the newest camcorders use USB? What if you have an older one. Or what if you need firewire for other purposes, such as audio recording? Most of the good audio interfaces out there are Firewire devices.

 

[Tosser]

So what if the newest camcorders use USB? What if you have an older one. Or what if you need firewire for other purposes, such as audio recording? Most of the good audio interfaces out there are Firewire devices.

Or simply want the speed for your still camera (or recorder) and thus use something like this:

 

[the Helix]

Indeed...

Or simply want the speed for your still camera (or recorder) and thus use something like this:

I personally use that Sandisk Card Adapter to upload my photographs to my Mac and believe me what takes this FW800 adapter to upload in a few minutes takes a usb 2 card up to over an hour in real time.

As a photojournalist, real life use is what determines the usefulness of a feature or not and FW is something with which one cannot do without in serious photography (not to speak of music and film endeavors).

Here's hoping that Steve is humble enough to recognize the mistake of leaving out FW.

 

[Tosser]

I personally use that Sandisk Card Adapter to upload my photographs to my Mac and believe me what takes this FW800 adapter to upload in a few minutes takes a usb 2 card up to over an hour in real time.

As a photojournalist, real life use is what determines the usefulness of a feature or not and FW is something with which one cannot do without in serious photography (not to speak of music and film endeavors).

Here's hoping that Steve is humble enough to recognize the mistake of leaving out FW.

Yup. I use that reader mostly to upload my audio from my SD 722 audio recorder. Those files are usually 24bit/48khz stereo files and up to an hour long each (almost a gig). I don't know what I'd do without it.

P.S. "Humble" behaviour aren't exactly what I expect from Steve Jobs. Ultra-arrogant, on the other hand …