Originally Posted by ajmas
It all depends what you use Firewire for. SATA still uses the CPU as the controller, whereas Firewire has an independent controller. This is important for systems that are already loaded doing other things. At the same time SATA is only good for storage, whereas Firewire does a whole lot more.
Firewire might do a lot more, but very few people care about that (we are on a Mac forum, not discussing the latest video rendering hardware or something).
On the mac, Firewire is generally (if not solely?) used for external storage connectivity and some video cameras (unless you count the excitement that is Firewire networking). So that's how most look at it. Unfortunately, even now, because firewire requires, as you say, its own controller, firewire devices tend to cost more than USB devices, and, as such, will stay as a limited option.
For PCs, it's worse, since most desktops don't come with the port, if or they do, it's the slower 400 type.
But it doesn't matter. It's doubtful Apple will implement it (they barely care as it is) and it would be better if they went eSATA anyway, which is more likely to become the defacto standard (as USB is the defacto standard now).
Add on to that Apple's wonderful decision to only allow a select few machines (MacPros and MBPs) to have the ability to add in PCI cards to gain new functionality (most people won't even be able to take advantage of it for years to come, anyway).
BTW, when they say "the same port", I'm assuming they mean same as in "Firewire 800", not "firewire 400". Or perhaps the Firewire 4-pin port.