Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs on Lack of Firewire in MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB 3.0 is going to make firewire obsolete anyway. That's why they dropped it on the MacBooks. Apple is usually ahead of the curve on things like this, and I bet they are again here.
FireWire 1600 and 3200 will make USB 3.0 obsolete
.Just wait 20 years. By then, there will be no cables at all. All Macs will be simple aluminum cubes that will beam information directly into our brains, with no need for cables, displays or any other input/output.
FireWire 1600 and 3200 will make USB 3.0 obsolete
Just wait 20 years. By then, there will be no cables at all. All Macs will be simple aluminum cubes that will beam information directly into our brains, with no need for cables, displays or any other input/output.
20 years is not that much of a time. not enough for brain-beam device development.
No need for that... in 20 years there will be a little door in the front of yer gulliver. Pop it open and slide that cube right in. No need for a battery... you are the battery.
And for those who have perfectly fine Firewire devices and no perfectly fine Mac?
It just makes the whole "Green computer" marketing gimmick more than a bit hypocritical to me.
And the whole consumer(no firewire) and pro(has firewire) distinction is sooooo frustrating. Who makes more home movies with their Firewire camcorders? I'm going to go with consumers as the answer here.
The money grab from Apple at the expense of their loyal customers is VERY disheartening I just got my folks AND in-laws to switch in the past six months. Now I'm beginning to wonder if I made a big mistake as consumers no longer seem to be Apple's primary focus anymore.
Paying a premium is one thing, getting the shaft is something completely different.
Maybe he got a better model screen? You seem pretty set on the 'fact' that the new Macbooks have worse screens. I don't know, you seem more biased to me.
If you use it for any work related task, any non- glossy notebook screen is better than the best glossy screen. So yes, it's a fact, the new MB's have screens that are not as good as their predecessor.
I use my glossy MacBook for work related tasks quite frequently. I also use the old MacBook Pro non-glossy screen for work related tasks at times. I have no preference one way or the other.
matte screen and FW
As a photojournalist and event photographer, there is no question that the matte screen is the preferable way to go. Moreover, the FW port, which frees up the CPU to do other things, is a sine-qua-non for any serious photographer working on the field. This is also the reason why many pros prefer the smaller form factor of the MacBook because they need to take it out on the field.
FYI: the viewing angles of the MacBook screen is inferior both to the MacBook Air and the Pro. This is documented, just Google-it.
As a photojournalist and event photographer, there is no question that the matte screen is the preferable way to go. Moreover, the FW port, which frees up the CPU to do other things, is a sine-qua-non for any serious photographer working on the field. This is also the reason why many pros prefer the smaller form factor of the MacBook because they need to take it out on the field.
FYI: the viewing angles of the MacBook screen is inferior both to the MacBook Air and the Pro. This is documented, just Google-it.
Very similar to my point, but I do prefer the matte on the MBP, still the glossy MB is really nice. Even though my opinion is clearly biased
Quoted for truth. I still wish there was something like the 12" PB as well but the White MB is good enough. Apple really messed up here like they always do. They HAVE make something really good but then go overboard to bugger it up just slightly.
Besides the lack of FW, the fact that both screens are of different quality, AGAIN is an annoying thing about Apple. I really dislike Apple segmentation of their laptop lines. I'm only with Apple because of OSX and firewire... now they have started to put salt in my Kool aid.
When you buy a BD player, the maker has to provide hardware/firmware that handles multiple schemes of the disc inexpensively to help their ability to get a return. You decide, would you prefer at 300 bucks to get mediocre playback for 3 formats within Blu Ray or the same 300 bucks on a system that say can do a superior job on H.264? Where are the standards?
As for Windows - it plays NOTHING. Software installed on top do the playback. The software has to get a license for the decryption aspect and live with certain rules on playback. The cost is passed to the consumer. Just because we can get it and play it doesn't mean its the best that it can be or cheapest. This is strictly greed driven. Sony plays the same game with m2ts files on a drive. You can play Mpeg-2 and H.264 and they intentionally leave off VC-1. VC-1 as you probably know was the main way HD DVD's were created. - Small wonder why they on purpose omitted this playback of m2ts files. Latest from Sony is a statement to not provide Sony Movie content to XBox. So, the great blu ray based hi def movies is a tool of politics as is the codec set that exists on the discs. All of this, at the consumer's expense.
Apple's sitting on the fence might be the culmination of a few things from licensing, change of hardware to be "complaint" and not wanting to impact their less than stellar HD movies market on iTunes.
If you get a chance, you may want to check out who/why VC-1 was advocated and as well those in the H.264 camp. I think it will speak volumes on what is going on here now. It is just part of the nonsense going on by the big names in the biz.
- Phrehdd
This is simply nonsense - it is a fallacy to assume that it costs more to support multiple standards. Note that video card hardware decoders handle the same formats - once the decoders are put in the silicon the economies of scale take over.
Of course - but regardless of that I can buy cheap BD drives for Windows with playback software. Vendors sell cost effective systems with BD drives and playback built in.
You seem to have a bias for AVC and against VC-1 that colors your reasoning....
Thanks for the info, but I too am puzzled how it is relevant. BD is in its early days (and years ahead of DVD in adoption). Do you even remember the days when a DVD took more than a minute to load (like the BD players do now)?
As the standards settle, all the hardware will support all the formats. The manufacturers learnt this lesson with DVD. They'll learn it quicker with BD. It just seems absurd (to consumers) that they need to 'learn the lesson' again, at all.
HD-DVD was an unfortunate and short-sighted misstep for a great company like Toshiba and the loss of any of its sub-par formats will not be mourned - BD rarely dips below 30Mb/s, the absolute maximum data rate for HD-DVD.
Another issue, besides formats, is Region Coding. The US, probably isn't struggling with Region Coding, but (here in Australia for example) now that almost all DVD players are Region agnostic, BD players are being produced with tight Region Coding for both DVD and BD.
Another strong disincentive to buying a BD player anywhere outside the US.
In time, all this nonsense will settle down - formats and region codes... and licensing for computers.
Apple's membership of the BDAssociation doesn't seem to be helping consumers in general nor Apple's customers in particular. This is more than a shame, it's downright suspicious
- Jobs being a content creator in his other roles at Pixar & Disney
- Apple's singular devotion to iTunes "HD" content (puts Apple in a position to retard progress in settling these issues to advantage iTunes)
It's beginning to look like we'd be better off if Apple were not a member of the BDA. They might feel more obliged to support an 'external' standard... much like the Firewire situation...
(Back to topic) Likewise, Apple being the inventor of Firewire doesn't seem to be helping Apple's customers... Imagine Apple deciding they could save a few bucks by dropping USB from the MacBook. It's a standard and it would be absurd to get rid of it.
Unfortunately, being the nominal owner of Firewire, Apple doesn't appear to feel obliged to support it they way they support (an external) standard like USB.
Just as disappointing, the higher data rate Firewire S1600 and S3200 devices were supposed to be shipping "late 2008" according to wikipedia. I can imagine why Apple would be looking to drop FW400 (connectors), as the current FW800 -connectors- (but probably not the chipsets) support 400, 800, S1600 and S3200. But why get rid of Firewire in MacBooks?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No question - it's to get people to spend the extra bucks for the MBPs with 1394.
Which is really too bad for the people who prefer a smaller notebook like the 13", but who need 1394.
No question - it's to get people to spend the extra bucks for the MBPs with 1394.
Which is really too bad for the people who prefer a smaller notebook like the 13", but who need 1394.
This is simply nonsense - it is a fallacy to assume that it costs more to support multiple standards. Note that video card hardware decoders handle the same formats - once the decoders are put in the silicon the economies of scale take over.
Of course - but regardless of that I can buy cheap BD drives for Windows with playback software. Vendors sell cost effective systems with BD drives and playback built in.
You seem to have a bias for AVC and against VC-1 that colors your reasoning....
Not to quibble but <G> it certainly is not a fallacy to understand simple economics of putting more into a box for playback is either going to cost more or one has to come out with cheaper hardware to get that profit margin. As for "silicon the economies of scale take over" ..well lets just say greed first economies later.
As for Windows - please do use PowerDVD Ultra, also go to the forums to read the issues many users have. I guess we have a different idea of "cost effective."
H.264 vs VC-1 - actually, I started in the HD DVD camp which is nearly all VC-1. VC-1 in general (also on Blu Ray) plays back better for me on the computer with less high bit rate issues. H.264 for this kind of medium is better when transfers are done properly and not just a "dump" which happens often enough.
I'll stand by what I said that standardization helps the consumer and this goes right into encodes/decodes.
Btw - you do notice the latest buzz on video cards handling h.264 hardware tasks. One can draw their own conclusions.
- Phrehdd
Ironically, with the $999 white iBook, it might actually get some to spend less money.
But still more profit for Apple, which otherwise would just be recycling these units.
HD DVD is the format that should have won given that it has no zones, only one layer of encription, it was cheaper, and it was finished and fully-featured from the start.
The worse thing won again.
That was my impression as well. Transfer speed not withstanding, HD DVD seemed a lot more "user friendly". I'm very much enjoying Blue Ray on my PS3 regardless.
The reason it lost came down to two letters and a number P-S-3. If sony would have chosen it instead of Blu-Ray, things would have been much different.
I think the main reason is that Sony is the developer of the technology and a movie studio. That is anticompetitive.