Yes, we all understand the real world speed difference between FW and USB on high performance drives but the question was in regard to iPods (anything but a high performance drive). Syncing with iTunes is not exactly the same thing as a high volume data copy. Given all that, if there's still a speed difference between FW and USB on syncing an iPod, it can't be of enough consequence for Apple to maintain two different interfaces.
Syncing yes. But we do more with an iPod then just sync it. I use mine has a HD to transfer files with. Nonetheless, my initial curiosity wasn't about FW vs USB. I prefer FW. Your opinion about it doesn't hold my interest much. Sorry.
Why did Apple drop FW from the iPod when it had both FW and USB at one time? Does anyone here know of a technical reason? By dropping FW, did that make it less expensive to manufacture? If so why?
Syncing yes. But we do more with an iPod then just sync it. I use mine has a HD to transfer files with. Nonetheless, my initial curiosity wasn't about FW vs USB. I prefer FW. Your opinion about it doesn't hold my interest much. Sorry.
Why did Apple drop FW from the iPod when it had both FW and USB at one time? Does anyone here know of a technical reason? By dropping FW, did that make it less expensive to manufacture? If so why?
Geez, you continue to read only about one sentence per post. Firstly, I didn't even give MY opinion of FireWire but since you claim you're not interested I won't bother.
Secondly, I challenge you to demonstrate that FW actually provides faster transfer rates than USB on a very lowly iPod hard drive. We're not exactly talking about a 10k RPM drive or even a 7200 RPM drive in these things.
Lastly, it should be drop-dead obvious that Apple is saving money by only designing, manufacturing, inventorying, and selling half the total number of distinct iPods by employing what amounts to a universal connector. For better or worse, iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB. None of this means USB is better but it's certainly far more practical especially when paired with a very low performance drive.
Geez, you continue to read only about one sentence per post. Firstly, I didn't even give MY opinion of FireWire but since you claim you're not interested I won't bother.
Secondly, I challenge you to demonstrate that FW actually provides faster transfer rates than USB on a very lowly iPod hard drive. We're not exactly talking about a 10k RPM drive or even a 7200 RPM drive in these things.
Lastly, it should be drop-dead obvious that Apple is saving money by only designing, manufacturing, inventorying, and selling half the total number of distinct iPods by employing what amounts to a universal connector. For better or worse, iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB. None of this means USB is better but it's certainly far more practical especially when paired with a very low performance drive.
The flash iPods use is slow- like thumb drives. A faster interface isn't going to improve their performance. I don't know the specs of the hard drives the iPod classic uses but that's probably a tiny part of iPod sales anyway.
Umm guys the reason firewire is the better interface is due to sustainable transfer rates. USB 2 is fine for sending short bursts at high speed but sucks at long transfers. That is why it is used in the pro audio world all the time over USB.
FW has a multipoint to multipoint MAC, which as far as I know is unique among high speed, wired data buses. This is why it's so damn useful -- less wiring, more speed. USB and SATA will forever be stuck on desks, not that they're bad technologies, but they don't address real-world problems the way firewire can. I wouldn't be surprised if FW becomes the de-facto standard for aircraft: run the sensor and control systems (e.g. fly-by-wire) on a single bus with minimal wiring. For other industrial uses where high data rates and architectural flexibility are needs, Firewire is the natural solution. HD video distribution is an example: if you knew how much it costs to install an enterprise-grade system of Gig ethernet into a "green field", the value of FW3200 would be more obvious.
For point-to-point connections, FW is overkill. USB has an isochronous transfer mode that's fine for video, as long as it's a point-to-point connection. The reason why FW still has a place in pro video is not the transfer method itself, but rather it's ability to maintain consistent transfer rates across multiple devices that may be interconnected in bizarre ways. USB has a rigid bus topology.
Geez, you continue to read only about one sentence per post. Firstly, I didn't even give MY opinion of FireWire but since you claim you're not interested I won't bother.
Secondly, I challenge you to demonstrate that FW actually provides faster transfer rates than USB on a very lowly iPod hard drive. We're not exactly talking about a 10k RPM drive or even a 7200 RPM drive in these things.
Lastly, it should be drop-dead obvious that Apple is saving money by only designing, manufacturing, inventorying, and selling half the total number of distinct iPods by employing what amounts to a universal connector. For better or worse, iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB. None of this means USB is better but it's certainly far more practical especially when paired with a very low performance drive.
I don't have the time nor the interest to "prove" anything. People who want others to "prove" something are playing a silly game.
Yes, it's drop-dead obvious that Apple, by no longer shipping both FW and USB cables, they are saving money. One less cable, less money. Obviously. What I do not know, and this was my question: Why did Apple make the iPod incompatible with FW? Does it take less circuitry to make USB only iPods? In other words, does the universal connecter cost that much more? It's just a connecter, so why would it cost that much more? Is that what the savings cost is about? That's what I do not know and this is what I was asking.
I just purchased a MacBook Pro. Prior to this I was using a G4 Tower, so this no longer applies to me, but there are many Mac users out there that do not have USB2 on their Macs. A friend of mine had to get an USB2 card for his G4 tower. Luckily he had an upgradeable Mac. He asked me why it tock so long to upload stuff to his iPod. I told him it was because he didn't have USB2.
iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB? With silly assertions like that you expect me to take you seriously? The iPod had both USB and FW and compatible with PC long before it's "sales exploded." Sales exploded when Apple made iTunes compatible with PCs. That's when "sales exploded."
I don't have the time nor the interest to "prove" anything. People who want others to "prove" something are playing a silly game.
Yes, it's drop-dead obvious that Apple, by no longer shipping both FW and USB cables, they are saving money. One less cable, less money. Obviously. What I do not know, and this was my question: Why did Apple make the iPod incompatible with FW? Does it take less circuitry to make USB only iPods? In other words, does the universal connecter cost that much more? It's just a connecter, so why would it cost that much more? Is that what the savings cost is about? That's what I do not know and this is what I was asking.
I just purchased a MacBook Pro. Prior to this I was using a G4 Tower, so this no longer applies to me, but there are many Mac users out there that do not have USB2 on their Macs. A friend of mine had to get an USB2 card for his G4 tower. Luckily he had an upgradeable Mac. He asked me why it tock so long to upload stuff to his iPod. I told him it was because he didn't have USB2.
iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB? With silly assertions like that you expect me to take you seriously? The iPod had both USB and FW and compatible with PC long before it's "sales exploded." Sales exploded when Apple made iTunes compatible with PCs. That's when "sales exploded."
Here it is again and I'll keep it short for you.... It's idiotic of Apple to double the number of iPod models just so a small handful of geeks can have Firewire, especially when it's dubious at best whether Firewire can offer any real world speed advantage when mated to a device (iPod) with such a slow drive. No one has ever bought an iPod for it's drive speed or data transfer rates.
Yes, it's drop-dead obvious that Apple, by no longer shipping both FW and USB cables, they are saving money. One less cable, less money. Obviously. What I do not know, and this was my question: Why did Apple make the iPod incompatible with FW? Does it take less circuitry to make USB only iPods? In other words, does the universal connecter cost that much more? It's just a connecter, so why would it cost that much more? Is that what the savings cost is about? That's what I do not know and this is what I was asking.
The chips used in the iPod have a USB controller built into them. Thus USB is "free," it requires nothing extra for Apple to include it. Firewire would require an extra chip, which adds cost and would take up some really valuable real estate on the iPod's PCB. This isn't simply about wiring extra pins into the dock connector (although Apple would have to do that, too).
FW has a multipoint to multipoint MAC, which as far as I know is unique among high speed, wired data buses. This is why it's so damn useful -- less wiring, more speed. USB and SATA will forever be stuck on desks, not that they're bad technologies, but they don't address real-world problems the way firewire can. I wouldn't be surprised if FW becomes the de-facto standard for aircraft: run the sensor and control systems (e.g. fly-by-wire) on a single bus with minimal wiring. For other industrial uses where high data rates and architectural flexibility are needs, Firewire is the natural solution. HD video distribution is an example: if you knew how much it costs to install an enterprise-grade system of Gig ethernet into a "green field", the value of FW3200 would be more obvious.
For point-to-point connections, FW is overkill. USB has an isochronous transfer mode that's fine for video, as long as it's a point-to-point connection. The reason why FW still has a place in pro video is not the transfer method itself, but rather it's ability to maintain consistent transfer rates across multiple devices that may be interconnected in bizarre ways. USB has a rigid bus topology.
The chips used in the iPod have a USB controller built into them. Thus USB is "free," it requires nothing extra for Apple to include it. Firewire would require an extra chip, which adds cost and would take up some really valuable real estate on the iPod's PCB. This isn't simply about wiring extra pins into the dock connector (although Apple would have to do that, too).
The converse was true when Apple had FW on iPods. Your line of reasoning is garbage. The fact is Apple hasn't positioned iPods to be the HD portable solution and thus the need to transfer HD content, at high sustained rates, isn't necessary.
think about the potential applications - for example massive clusters - processor sharing - realtime fsb replaced by fw25600 (anyone ?) - SAN connectivity - daisy chaining massive SANs for multi tera/peta storage ... !
The chips used in the iPod have a USB controller built into them. Thus USB is "free," it requires nothing extra for Apple to include it. Firewire would require an extra chip, which adds cost and would take up some really valuable real estate on the iPod's PCB. This isn't simply about wiring extra pins into the dock connector (although Apple would have to do that, too).
Comments
Sony does the same with its technologies, like Memory Stick.
Yes, we all understand the real world speed difference between FW and USB on high performance drives but the question was in regard to iPods (anything but a high performance drive). Syncing with iTunes is not exactly the same thing as a high volume data copy. Given all that, if there's still a speed difference between FW and USB on syncing an iPod, it can't be of enough consequence for Apple to maintain two different interfaces.
Syncing yes. But we do more with an iPod then just sync it. I use mine has a HD to transfer files with. Nonetheless, my initial curiosity wasn't about FW vs USB. I prefer FW. Your opinion about it doesn't hold my interest much. Sorry.
Why did Apple drop FW from the iPod when it had both FW and USB at one time? Does anyone here know of a technical reason? By dropping FW, did that make it less expensive to manufacture? If so why?
Syncing yes. But we do more with an iPod then just sync it. I use mine has a HD to transfer files with. Nonetheless, my initial curiosity wasn't about FW vs USB. I prefer FW. Your opinion about it doesn't hold my interest much. Sorry.
Why did Apple drop FW from the iPod when it had both FW and USB at one time? Does anyone here know of a technical reason? By dropping FW, did that make it less expensive to manufacture? If so why?
Geez, you continue to read only about one sentence per post. Firstly, I didn't even give MY opinion of FireWire but since you claim you're not interested I won't bother.
Secondly, I challenge you to demonstrate that FW actually provides faster transfer rates than USB on a very lowly iPod hard drive. We're not exactly talking about a 10k RPM drive or even a 7200 RPM drive in these things.
Lastly, it should be drop-dead obvious that Apple is saving money by only designing, manufacturing, inventorying, and selling half the total number of distinct iPods by employing what amounts to a universal connector. For better or worse, iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB. None of this means USB is better but it's certainly far more practical especially when paired with a very low performance drive.
Geez, you continue to read only about one sentence per post. Firstly, I didn't even give MY opinion of FireWire but since you claim you're not interested I won't bother.
Secondly, I challenge you to demonstrate that FW actually provides faster transfer rates than USB on a very lowly iPod hard drive. We're not exactly talking about a 10k RPM drive or even a 7200 RPM drive in these things.
Lastly, it should be drop-dead obvious that Apple is saving money by only designing, manufacturing, inventorying, and selling half the total number of distinct iPods by employing what amounts to a universal connector. For better or worse, iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB. None of this means USB is better but it's certainly far more practical especially when paired with a very low performance drive.
The flash iPods use is slow- like thumb drives. A faster interface isn't going to improve their performance. I don't know the specs of the hard drives the iPod classic uses but that's probably a tiny part of iPod sales anyway.
For point-to-point connections, FW is overkill. USB has an isochronous transfer mode that's fine for video, as long as it's a point-to-point connection. The reason why FW still has a place in pro video is not the transfer method itself, but rather it's ability to maintain consistent transfer rates across multiple devices that may be interconnected in bizarre ways. USB has a rigid bus topology.
Geez, you continue to read only about one sentence per post. Firstly, I didn't even give MY opinion of FireWire but since you claim you're not interested I won't bother.
Secondly, I challenge you to demonstrate that FW actually provides faster transfer rates than USB on a very lowly iPod hard drive. We're not exactly talking about a 10k RPM drive or even a 7200 RPM drive in these things.
Lastly, it should be drop-dead obvious that Apple is saving money by only designing, manufacturing, inventorying, and selling half the total number of distinct iPods by employing what amounts to a universal connector. For better or worse, iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB. None of this means USB is better but it's certainly far more practical especially when paired with a very low performance drive.
I don't have the time nor the interest to "prove" anything. People who want others to "prove" something are playing a silly game.
Yes, it's drop-dead obvious that Apple, by no longer shipping both FW and USB cables, they are saving money. One less cable, less money. Obviously. What I do not know, and this was my question: Why did Apple make the iPod incompatible with FW? Does it take less circuitry to make USB only iPods? In other words, does the universal connecter cost that much more? It's just a connecter, so why would it cost that much more? Is that what the savings cost is about? That's what I do not know and this is what I was asking.
I just purchased a MacBook Pro. Prior to this I was using a G4 Tower, so this no longer applies to me, but there are many Mac users out there that do not have USB2 on their Macs. A friend of mine had to get an USB2 card for his G4 tower. Luckily he had an upgradeable Mac. He asked me why it tock so long to upload stuff to his iPod. I told him it was because he didn't have USB2.
iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB? With silly assertions like that you expect me to take you seriously? The iPod had both USB and FW and compatible with PC long before it's "sales exploded." Sales exploded when Apple made iTunes compatible with PCs. That's when "sales exploded."
I don't have the time nor the interest to "prove" anything. People who want others to "prove" something are playing a silly game.
Yes, it's drop-dead obvious that Apple, by no longer shipping both FW and USB cables, they are saving money. One less cable, less money. Obviously. What I do not know, and this was my question: Why did Apple make the iPod incompatible with FW? Does it take less circuitry to make USB only iPods? In other words, does the universal connecter cost that much more? It's just a connecter, so why would it cost that much more? Is that what the savings cost is about? That's what I do not know and this is what I was asking.
I just purchased a MacBook Pro. Prior to this I was using a G4 Tower, so this no longer applies to me, but there are many Mac users out there that do not have USB2 on their Macs. A friend of mine had to get an USB2 card for his G4 tower. Luckily he had an upgradeable Mac. He asked me why it tock so long to upload stuff to his iPod. I told him it was because he didn't have USB2.
iPod sales exploded after they made them with USB? With silly assertions like that you expect me to take you seriously? The iPod had both USB and FW and compatible with PC long before it's "sales exploded." Sales exploded when Apple made iTunes compatible with PCs. That's when "sales exploded."
Here it is again and I'll keep it short for you.... It's idiotic of Apple to double the number of iPod models just so a small handful of geeks can have Firewire, especially when it's dubious at best whether Firewire can offer any real world speed advantage when mated to a device (iPod) with such a slow drive. No one has ever bought an iPod for it's drive speed or data transfer rates.
Yes, it's drop-dead obvious that Apple, by no longer shipping both FW and USB cables, they are saving money. One less cable, less money. Obviously. What I do not know, and this was my question: Why did Apple make the iPod incompatible with FW? Does it take less circuitry to make USB only iPods? In other words, does the universal connecter cost that much more? It's just a connecter, so why would it cost that much more? Is that what the savings cost is about? That's what I do not know and this is what I was asking.
The chips used in the iPod have a USB controller built into them. Thus USB is "free," it requires nothing extra for Apple to include it. Firewire would require an extra chip, which adds cost and would take up some really valuable real estate on the iPod's PCB. This isn't simply about wiring extra pins into the dock connector (although Apple would have to do that, too).
FW has a multipoint to multipoint MAC, which as far as I know is unique among high speed, wired data buses. This is why it's so damn useful -- less wiring, more speed. USB and SATA will forever be stuck on desks, not that they're bad technologies, but they don't address real-world problems the way firewire can. I wouldn't be surprised if FW becomes the de-facto standard for aircraft: run the sensor and control systems (e.g. fly-by-wire) on a single bus with minimal wiring. For other industrial uses where high data rates and architectural flexibility are needs, Firewire is the natural solution. HD video distribution is an example: if you knew how much it costs to install an enterprise-grade system of Gig ethernet into a "green field", the value of FW3200 would be more obvious.
For point-to-point connections, FW is overkill. USB has an isochronous transfer mode that's fine for video, as long as it's a point-to-point connection. The reason why FW still has a place in pro video is not the transfer method itself, but rather it's ability to maintain consistent transfer rates across multiple devices that may be interconnected in bizarre ways. USB has a rigid bus topology.
Bingo.
The chips used in the iPod have a USB controller built into them. Thus USB is "free," it requires nothing extra for Apple to include it. Firewire would require an extra chip, which adds cost and would take up some really valuable real estate on the iPod's PCB. This isn't simply about wiring extra pins into the dock connector (although Apple would have to do that, too).
The converse was true when Apple had FW on iPods. Your line of reasoning is garbage. The fact is Apple hasn't positioned iPods to be the HD portable solution and thus the need to transfer HD content, at high sustained rates, isn't necessary.
think about the potential applications - for example massive clusters - processor sharing - realtime fsb replaced by fw25600 (anyone ?) - SAN connectivity - daisy chaining massive SANs for multi tera/peta storage ... !
The chips used in the iPod have a USB controller built into them. Thus USB is "free," it requires nothing extra for Apple to include it. Firewire would require an extra chip, which adds cost and would take up some really valuable real estate on the iPod's PCB. This isn't simply about wiring extra pins into the dock connector (although Apple would have to do that, too).
Thank you.