# Apple burns faithful for $1 per iPod



## jeb1138 (Feb 26, 2005)

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/40902.html



> Apple acknowledged that fact Wednesday by no longer including a FireWire  cable with its new line of iPod digital media devices. ...*consumers must now pay an additional US$19 for the cable.*
> ...
> "I'd say Apple is saving about a dollar by dropping the Firewire cable," IdaRose Sylvester, an analyst with the research firm IDC, told TMO. 'While that doesn't sound like a lot of money, it adds up to millions over time."



Saving money and moving on to new technology is fine...but to burn millions of Mac fanatics with an extra $19 charge in order to save $1/iPod....seems a little harsh to me.

My TiBook 1GHz will force me to pay an extra $19 for any iPod now.  Is my computer really that old?


----------



## bobw (Feb 26, 2005)

Apple most likely dropped the Firewire cable due to the fact that they can now be charged through USB, and a lot of PCs don't come with Firewire.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 26, 2005)

It still ends up being cheaper than before, so what's the big deal.


----------



## bobw (Feb 26, 2005)

Can't please all the people all the time 

What would life be without complaints?


----------



## Convert (Feb 26, 2005)

I think it's fine, as long as they include at least one cable. 
I only use the firewire (I haven't touched the USB cable) because my iPod is the only firewire component I use, so it makes sense to use the port, saving space on my USB hubs (which are commonly used).

I assume firewire is faster than USB 2.0?

EDIT: Finished reading the article. FW 400 is slower than USB 2.0


----------



## bobw (Feb 26, 2005)

USB 1.1 - 12 Mbps
USB 2.0 - 480 Mbps
FireWire 400 - 400 Mbps
FireWire 800 - 800 Mbps


----------



## Viro (Feb 26, 2005)

USB 2.0 rarely reaches it's peak 480 Mbps, and from what I've heard and read, hard drives in FW enclosures perform better compared to hard drives in USB 2.0 enclosures even when the hard drive is of the same model.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 26, 2005)

USB2 Has a higher theoretical transfer rate, but this does not play out as you would expect for hard drives.  First USB2 drives are not as good for sustained transfer.  Secondly the USB disk driver for Mac leaves a bit to be desired.

http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html

With a little googling I am sure you could come up with more.  Regardless of OS or platform (Windows or Mac that is.  Linux does not particularly like firewire drives.)  Firewire consistently comes out ahead of USB2 on performance tests.


----------



## HateEternal (Feb 26, 2005)

FireWire > USB2. It does kinda suck especially because FireWire is kind of Apple's thing. Do they still sell a windows version and a mac version? If so the windows version should have usb and Mac have firewire.


----------



## chornbe (Feb 26, 2005)

Firewire support on Win is 100% the pervue of the aftermarket. Redmond kinda shuns it internally. Gee, guess why :


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 26, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Firewire support on Win is 100% the pervue of the aftermarket. Redmond kinda shuns it internally. Gee, guess why :



Not really true.  Windows includes drivers for the more common chipsets in the default install and has had Firewire networking for a long time.  If MS were shunning Firewire I hardly think they would go to the effort of implementing FW networking.  It is not something most Windows users would know about or complain if it was missing.


----------



## Go3iverson (Feb 26, 2005)

Neither FireWire or USB 2.0 is going to show you a performance gain, one over the other, in a single iPod configuration.  While USB 2.0 has a higher ceiling on transfer rates, FireWire will show increased performance when chaining together multiple devices for use.  

Bottom line is, pertaining to the iPod, all of this is moot.   Of course, with that said, I'm slightly dissapointed that Apple dropped the FireWire cable, but, if more people using iPods are using USB 2.0, credit Apple for being willing to move away from their own tech to appease the masses.  As they said over and over at WWDC, they're not trying to re-invent the wheel.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 26, 2005)

Apple dropped the price of the iPod by more than the cost of the cable. Anyone who wants the FW cable can just get the cable.

Kap


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 26, 2005)

As if you guys didn't have a firewire cable home already?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 26, 2005)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> As if you guys didn't have a firewire cable home already?


Well, a spare FireWire cord would be very handy, if the iPod used a standard FireWire cord -- but it doesn't.  We'd all be out buying cheap-o $1.00 FireWire cords instead of paying Apple $20 if the iPods didn't have a proprietary connector on them.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 26, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Well, a spare FireWire cord would be very handy, if the iPod used a standard FireWire cord -- but it doesn't. We'd all be out buying cheap-o $1.00 FireWire cords instead of paying Apple $20 if the iPods didn't have a proprietary connector on them.


And it goes round and round  . AFAIK the proprietry connector was what allowed Apple to make the iPod compatible with both USB and FW in the first place.

Kap


----------



## Pengu (Feb 26, 2005)

There is a company making the same firewire ipod cables too... belkin maybe?


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 26, 2005)

Also Griffin is making FireWire cable for a iPod dock in FireWire 400 and FireWire 800.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 26, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> There is a company making the same firewire ipod cables too... belkin maybe?


Griffin.

Or, if you have a spare FW cable already, you could get a PocketDock

Kap


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 27, 2005)

Wait, ok, that logic just seems wrong for some reason to me... 'Apple just dropped the price by more than $19, so where do I get off complaining about having to pay $19 more than everyone else'...?  Is that the gist of it?  Somehow that logic doesn't make sense to me...


----------



## chornbe (Feb 27, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> Not really true.  Windows includes drivers for the more common chipsets in the default install and has had Firewire networking for a long time.  If MS were shunning Firewire I hardly think they would go to the effort of implementing FW networking.  It is not something most Windows users would know about or complain if it was missing.



Unlike some of the other peripherals, they don't write the drivers. They license them. Semantics, I suppose. Printers, for instance, some are licensed and some are MS-developed when the vendor can't or won't write to the spec. USB is their interconnectivity model of choice. Licensing drivers for fire-wire was a market-reaction move, similar to the inclusion of the Unix Tools for NT a few years back.


----------



## chornbe (Feb 27, 2005)

Go3iverson said:
			
		

> Bottom line is, pertaining to the iPod, all of this is moot.   Of course, with that said, I'm slightly dissapointed that Apple dropped the FireWire cable, but, if more people using iPods are using USB 2.0, credit Apple for being willing to move away from their own tech to appease the masses.  As they said over and over at WWDC, they're not trying to re-invent the wheel.



Excellent point. We're right back to VHS vs. BetaMax. Beta was technically superior, but for some reason as yet unfathomed (probably price and timing), VHS was more embraced by the masses. Remember, in the PC world, Firewire was "that thing to connect digital video cameras" (according to the retailers) and wasn't used beyond that for quite some time.

Sadly, Better ain't always "better".


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 27, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Excellent point. We're right back to VHS vs. BetaMax. Beta was technically superior, but for some reason as yet unfathomed (probably price and timing), VHS was more embraced by the masses. Remember, in the PC world, Firewire was "that thing to connect digital video cameras" (according to the retailers) and wasn't used beyond that for quite some time.
> 
> Sadly, Better ain't always "better".


It's all about finding the killer app at the right time. FW was great for digital cameras, but they're a costly item (esp. back when FW came out).

What Apple needed was the iPod (i.e. just a couple years earlier), or some other lower cost, popular gadget to make PC users think "why don't _we_ have that?".

Same thing goes for gigabit ethernet, FW800 and other Apple stuff - ahead of it's time.

Kap


----------



## Convert (Feb 27, 2005)

Uh, how does the iPod recharge independently? On my iPod atleast, the charger brick only has a firewire port... so, how would the new iPods charge? Do they have Charger bricks with USB ports?


----------



## bobw (Feb 27, 2005)

AC adapter


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Feb 27, 2005)

bobw said:
			
		

> AC adapter


Convert means, "what plugs into the AC adapter"? i.e. Is there now a USB2.0 port there instead of FW?

Kap


----------



## Convert (Feb 27, 2005)

^Exactly.

I know people can charge the iPod via computer (if someone couldn't do this, what would be the point of having the iPod?), but I know not everyone would like to do that.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 27, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Excellent point. We're right back to VHS vs. BetaMax. Beta was technically superior, but for some reason as yet unfathomed (probably price and timing), VHS was more embraced by the masses.



If you lived during that time it was easy to know why VHS won out. Beta was only available from Sony. VHS was offered by more than one vendor and a lot cheaper. Besides the TVs at the time could only handle so much clarity (unless you unloaded a crazy amount of money during tough economic times) and VHS look almost as good as Beta. Put on top with a cheaper unit, it was that simple.


----------



## g/re/p (Feb 27, 2005)

No one has yet to bring up these points:

1) the difference between the price of a 
FW cord vs. a USB2.0 cord is negligable

2)it would have been very simple to offer a choice between 
FW and USB cables with an iPod purchase - this was not done, 
and as a result there are some pissed off apple customers on 
the mac side.

3)think different??   didn't happen here..................


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 27, 2005)

Convert, the new iPods don't come with the power bricks (from memory of what I've read). AFAIK they actually DO make USB power bricks too.

From memory, though, USB doesn't route as much power through the bus, so the FireWire would theoretically charge it quicker.


----------



## ABassCube (Feb 28, 2005)

According to Apple, the new iPods do come with AC adapters, so they must have a USB 2 port instead of FW.


----------



## qwikstreet (Feb 28, 2005)

It's not like some of us doesn't have an extra FW cable laying around somewhere. Unless FW starts to use something goofy like the miniUSB cable that is seen on cameras.


----------



## JetwingX (Feb 28, 2005)

qwikstreet said:
			
		

> It's not like some of us doesn't have an extra FW cable laying around somewhere. Unless FW starts to use something goofy like the miniUSB cable that is seen on cameras.



it is kinda goofy, ever notice that long skinny thing on the iPod Dock? that is the Firewire/USB port





And for the rest of you wondering about the USB power adapter


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2005)

Well, if I'm correct and the _vast majority_ of iPod users are Windows users, Apple's made a good move here. The few Mac users will either use the USB-2 cables or get out and buy a FW cable or something. Users of "older Macs" with only USB 1.1 can decide whether the speed of USB 1.1 is enough (hehe, *cough*) or 19$ aren't _that_ much.
Also think of it as a measure for ease of use: One kind of cable only. Don't confuse the dumb customer. And it's quite surely better to unify on USB-2 than on FW right now.


----------



## Go3iverson (Feb 28, 2005)

One other consideration...

Most folks out there, who have DV cams are using FireWire.  Those cameras don't allow chaining, like some external drives do.  If Apple had to pick on blocking off your USB 2.0 port or your FireWire port, which would you choose, if you want to have your iPod connected while you import DV footage?  Remember, folks with PowerBooks will only have one FireWire port.  The G5 towers only have the front panel easily accessable, depending on where your machine is stored.  

Just another thought, to go along with my previous post on the topic.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 28, 2005)

From what I've heard, the new iPods are not compatible at all with USB 1.1... can anyone confirm, or am I just remembering some mumbo-jumbo?


----------



## Convert (Feb 28, 2005)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> Convert, the new iPods don't come with the power bricks (from memory of what I've read). AFAIK they actually DO make USB power bricks too.
> 
> From memory, though, USB doesn't route as much power through the bus, so the FireWire would theoretically charge it quicker.




Thanks Texanpenguin


----------



## jeb1138 (Mar 1, 2005)

btw, for the "just grovel and be grateful for the price-drop!" crowd -- did you notice that they also dropped the dock?






Anyway, I still don't get the 'you can't complain because you have to be grateful for the price drop' attitude...

I do, however, get that Apple is moving on and cutting costs, as I always have -- it just makes me a bit sad.    ...but also a bit thinking how I just neeeed a new PowerBook   Probably part of what Apple intends, those heartless, unfaithful bunch of money-mongers producing computers too good to turn down!


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 1, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> From what I've heard, the new iPods are not compatible at all with USB 1.1... can anyone confirm, or am I just remembering some mumbo-jumbo?



The same as before. It MAY work, it may sometimes work and sometimes may not work. It is not supported, like on the previous models. Usb 1 is plain too slow for big data transfer.


----------



## fryke (Mar 2, 2005)

They should do more BTO at the online store. So I could get a b/w 60 GB iPod with a Dock and only FW cabling. Or an iPod photo with a 20 GB drive without ANY cabling since I already have some. Etc. ...


----------



## diablojota (Mar 2, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> They should do more BTO at the online store. So I could get a b/w 60 GB iPod with a Dock and only FW cabling. Or an iPod photo with a 20 GB drive without ANY cabling since I already have some. Etc. ...



See, this is a great idea. Give the customer more options/customization. I absolutely agree.

They want to be the BMW of computers, and BMW allows you to pick and choose your car. It might cost Apple an extra $1/iPod do something like this, but in the end you would be getting only the accessories that you needed.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 2, 2005)

yeah but when have apple listened to opinion?

they release what ever the hell they want and we go WOOHOO! luv


----------



## fryke (Mar 2, 2005)

[sarcasm] Yeah, I agree. We should never voice our opinions. We should just copy and paste Apple's marketing-speek into these threads instead. [/sarcasm]


----------



## dracolich (Mar 3, 2005)

It's been some time since I last posted something, and I'm happy we're still voicing our opinions. 

BTW, I think Firewire was an exceptional technology 3 years ago, and that it is still superior to USB 2... BUT if Apple doesn't present soon a FW XXXX standard, faster than Firewire 800 and compatible with both the FW 800 and the FW 400 connector (the one everyone has) the technology is doomed to extinction. And I'm not thinking about sci-fi gizmos: I'm thinking of a simple adapter, like the USB to PS2 one.

I still try to figure why they decided to go on with a FW 800 connector which wasn't back-compatible....


----------



## Pengu (Mar 3, 2005)

i think probably the firewire "800" connector was required to get to high speeds. Don't forget, IEEE1394B is technically rated up to 3.2Gbps on different types of media. I think fiber has the best speed.. it can even run over Cat5!


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Mar 3, 2005)

dracolich said:
			
		

> It's been some time since I last posted something, and I'm happy we're still voicing our opinions.
> 
> BTW, I think Firewire was an exceptional technology 3 years ago, and that it is still superior to USB 2... BUT if Apple doesn't present soon a FW XXXX standard, faster than Firewire 800 and compatible with both the FW 800 and the FW 400 connector (the one everyone has) the technology is doomed to extinction.


I think this is overstating.


All Macs have FW ports in them
Digital video cameras still largely support FW
All iPods still support FW
The iSight is still a FW webcamera
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and other high end digital cameras support FW
etc
Plus,

What other technology can compare with FW 800?

Where is the need? (for even FW 800) - I think FW 400 and USB2 serve the needs of the vast majority of users



			
				dracolich said:
			
		

> And I'm not thinking about sci-fi gizmos: I'm thinking of a simple adapter, like the USB to PS2 one.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.



			
				dracolich said:
			
		

> I still try to figure why they decided to go on with a FW 800 connector which wasn't back-compatible....


So am I. In my mind this is the true Achilles heel of FW today.

Kap


----------



## Captain Code (Mar 3, 2005)

Ceroc Addict said:
			
		

> So am I. In my mind this is the true Achilles heel of FW today.



Doesn't FW800 use more pins than FW400?  I don't think it'd be easy to fit more pins on a FW400 connector if that's the case.

I believe the FW800 spec is backwards compatible but the connectors are not.


----------



## Pengu (Mar 3, 2005)

FW800 uses 9 pins(7 data and 2 power??). 400 uses 6 pins (4 data, 2 power). 

there is always a "need" for better speed. think external RAID over FireWire. the faster the bus, the better performance. at full speed (FireWire @ 3.2Gbps) it will rival FibreChannel, Gigabit ethernet, etc.. (usb2 will be just like a toy again..)


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Mar 3, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Doesn't FW800 use more pins than FW400? I don't think it'd be easy to fit more pins on a FW400 connector if that's the case.
> 
> I believe the FW800 spec is backwards compatible but the connectors are not.


But is there a reason it had to be this way?

i.e. USB2 managed compatibility with USB1.1 (incl. connectors), why couldn't FW 800?

Kap


----------



## Pengu (Mar 3, 2005)

i think it's just one of those things you have to accept. it isn't really a big issue. you can get converters and 9pin-6pin cables..


----------



## dracolich (Mar 4, 2005)

> it isn't really a big issue. you can get converters and 9pin-6pin cables..



Do you? Really? This is what I mean by saying that they need to introduce a simple adapter. 

The reason is that most producers of FW equipment are now facing a serious problem: go for speed and target just the few FW800-equipped PCs or adopt an old technology and go for the greater number of FW400-equipped PCs?

Buyers (me) are also facing these hard decisions: my iBook doesn't have a FW800 port, and neither does my PC laptop at work. Both have a FW400 connector... *but* I'm not going to buy a FW400 external HD (spending a premium price over USB2) since I know there are FW800 drives around and that sooner or later laptops will have only a FW800 connector or that I'll move to a G% with a FW800 connector.
So I'll end up buying a cheap USB2 external drive, while I would have never considered that decision had Apple chosen a different path.
Multiply my decision per the number of potential FW buyiers and you see why Apple has to introduce a new FW *fast*.


----------



## Pengu (Mar 4, 2005)

um. most firewire enclosures are of three types:
USB2 only. FireWire400 + USB2. and lastly. FireWire400 +FireWire800. why not buy the 800 case, and then use a 6pin to 9pin cable and use it now. when you get a new laptop, it will be even faster!


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2005)

As long as we're on the subject, I can offer my own real-life experience in deciding between USB 2.0 or FireWire.

We have a PC that performs network backups.  Because tape drives suck, we decided to a use removable hard drive method.  Addonics has a nifty hard drive enclosure called the Combo Hard Drive that can be used either internally in a special drive bay "cradle" (the hard drive enclosure slides in from the front) or externally via 1 of 4 interfaces:
 USB 2.0
 FireWire (not sure if it's 400 or 800... probably 400)
 SATA (yes - externally!)
 PCMCIA

Even though the PC guy I work with and I knew that FireWire was a superior technology (especially for hard drives), we went with USB 2.0.  The only real reason was that _more_ computers have USB 2.0 than they do FireWire ports.  If his PC happened to have a FireWire port like some of the newer PCs around here, we might have gone with the FireWire interface instead.  Convenience wins again!


----------



## Pengu (Mar 4, 2005)

ok.. um a few things.

if your network backups are a serious thing, i don't think "convenience" of having USB2 already would be an issue. a Firewire card is cheap, and/or a SATA card is cheap. and for the record. TAPE drives do not "suck". they do the job they are designed to do well. They are a safe form of backup. the world has accepted this, why can't you?


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> ok.. um a few things.
> 
> if your network backups are a serious thing, i don't think "convenience" of having USB2 already would be an issue. a Firewire card is cheap, and/or a SATA card is cheap. and for the record. TAPE drives do not "suck". they do the job they are designed to do well. They are a safe form of backup. the world has accepted this, why can't you?


Umm, how often do YOU have to clean your tape drive?  We had to clean it A LOT.  How often did YOUR tape drive die and have to get fixed?  Maybe we just have bad luck or something.  I dunno.  I'm not a fan of tape drives, sorry.

And when it comes to backups, convenience is pretty important.  That's why they make hard drive enclosures with a physical button on the drive that runs a backup.  And when I said it was more convenient to go with USB, you had better believe it because installing a FireWire card just to have a more sustainable data transfer is not worth it.

And a clarification:  We would only be using the external USB or FireWire in the rare event that our main backup PC with the cradle blows up or something.  IF that happens, I would rather plug it into any PC with a USB port.

Do you still have a problem, Pengu?  I can only assume that you thought we were using USB 2.0 as a main interface for the backups, which is not the case.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 4, 2005)

Tape drives are unreliable a lot of the time.  There are many moving parts in a tape drive -- much more than in any hard drive or hard drive enclosure.  The failure rate seems to be much higher for tape drives than for hard drives.

I can vouch for that -- we used an old DAT2 system for backups of a 12GB server (this was in the mid-90s, so 12GB was more than enough) and the tape drive needed cleaning at least twice a month with a special tape.  It also failed twice, but was repaired/replaced by the manufacturer even 3 years from the date of purchase.

And on a side note, it doesn't matter if FireWire 400 ports are phased out of laptops or computers -- FireWire 800 is backward-compatible with FireWire 400 (via an adaptor) much like USB 2.0 is backward-compatible with USB 1.1.  Even though USB doesn't require a cheap adaptor to be backward-compatible, big deal.  You can safely use FireWire 800 devices on a FireWire 400 port, and vice-versa.  The 400 won't speed up to 800 speeds, and the 800 will run at 400 speeds when connected this way, but it's true backward-compatibility.


----------



## g/re/p (Apr 30, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> They should do more BTO at the online store. So I could get a b/w 60 GB iPod with a Dock and only FW cabling. Or an iPod photo with a 20 GB drive without ANY cabling since I already have some. Etc. ...




Exactly!


----------

