“Support for FireWire in the iPod, already waning, takes a further blow with Apple’s newest music player,” Ina Fried writes for CNET. “Apple’s tiny new iPod Nano uses the same dock connector as its larger iPod and iPod Mini brethren. However, try plugging in a FireWire cable and an error message appears: ‘FireWire connections are not supported. To transfer songs, connect the USB cable provided.'”
“In a pinch, a FireWire cable can be used to charge the nano, but you won’t be able to update your tunes or podcast list. The move is the latest in a series of slights to FireWire, a connection method that Apple helped pioneer and later made standard across its Mac line.” Fried reports. “The move is the latest in a series of slights to FireWire, a connection method that Apple helped pioneer and later made standard across its Mac line…. It’s a bummer for folks like me that have an older Mac that has a FireWire port, but only a slower USB 1.1 port. To Apple’s credit, the Nano’s incredibly small size and good looks might just make it worth suffering through slower downloads.
Full article here.
We know it’s a done deal, but we still say, “Bad form, Apple. Bad form.”
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Intel adds FireWire 400 and 800 to latest motherboard – May 18, 2005
Apple should include a combo FireWire and USB 2.0 cable in every iPod box – February 24, 2005
Apple disrespects its own Mac users with iPod’s FireWire fiasco – February 24, 2005
Griffin debuts Dock400 FireWire cable for Apple iPods – February 24, 2005
Petition to Apple for iPod FireWire support posted online – February 23, 2005
Apple knifing its own FireWire baby by pushing USB 2.0 as iPod’s primary connectivity option – February 23, 2005
It’s for cost. Get over it and use USB 1.1 if you are the 1 in 100 who has no other choice. Apple’s not “out to get you” and they ain’t taking Firewire away where it counts–on COMPUTERS.
If you want iPods to be just for Macs, you are more short sighted than Apple. PC iPods make for switchers.
And seriously… sync speed? Of all the things to worry about in a music player, you’ll stress over whether that new song copies over in 3 seconds vs. half a second? Cause you do that only once and then it’s gonna play just the same either way.
Firewire rules.
iPod rules.
That doesn’t mean Apple owes you both.
Oh, stop the whining. Firewire is great, but it’s going the way of Betamax and Apple is correct to focus on the standard that is most widely used, rather than driving costs up with an extra firewire chip.
—
Exactly, accommodating luddites/PC users means dropping cutting edge stuff like Firewire..
Firewire 800 is THE method of data transfer, other than GBit Ethernet, of course, but it’s expensive, and the only things that can absorb the margin are high end external hard drives and videocameras.
I have seen the future, though, and it is 10 GBit/s Ethernet. Ethernet WILL become the standard for ALL data transfer. Sorry, Firewire, you have just become obsolete.
This all fits in to the eventual low powered nano type notebooks.
Firewire is just too much of a power draw and the iPod nano isn’t all that big in storage that the time will make any difference.
Think
1: low powered intel chips
2: always “on” RAM replaces power eating hard drive
3: iPod nano replaces power eating dvd/cd drives
The nano notebook of the future will be light, cool and last for days on a charge instead of hours.
All the heavy lifting will be done with powered external devices.
I don’t think Apple will phase out firewire. It is too good for some applications. I think I agree after looking at the guts of the nano that they had to make a hard choice, drop firewire or make it a little bigger. The form factor is what eveyone sees and USB is usable – especially since the storage volume is not as large.
I also think that Apple realizes that this will give a not so gentle nudge to owners of older model macs to buy a new system.
Soooo, I can see why they did it. I don’t have to like it and wish it were otherwise but I can see the reasoning behind it.
“Only so much room” that link didn’t have any pics that I could see. Here is the link I found that showed the interior of the Nano:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0908/nano.htm
Please.
FW 800 is faster than FW 400 which is faster (YES REALLY) than USB 2.0.
And guess what firewire camecorders use
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
FW is getting BIGGER not smaller.
But you don’t need it in EVERY little consumer gizmo. The ipod does not need it! Good for Apple in figuring that out.
Apple can’t make everybody happy so they chose to make MOST people happy.
Apple isn’t abandoning Firewire and this move isn’t over cost.
It is quite WELL KNOWN that flash memory/solid state memory media has a much lower data transfer rate than HDD media.
It is highly probable (in fact almost certain) this lack of firwire is due to the fact that you are correct, Firewire is significantly faster than USB2.0 and the iPod nano flash memory cannot handle the data transfer speeds.
Also I would imagine that there would be addded hardware required within the iPod nano to accomodate both Firewire AND USB2.0 and an obvious design goal is “impossibly thin”. as a result why sacrifice your design goal to include Firewire when the data transfer rates it would offer are unable to be used anyway.
See – VERY LOGICAL reason for this move
No conspiracy
No lack of respect for customers
Just a smart design/business decision.
my 2 cents
Luke
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cheese” style=”border:0;” />
Apple has phased Fire Wire out of the iPod line. That started long before the nano.
What’s the rest of the “series of slights” exactly?
That’s what I thought.
They make a FW webcam when most companies make USE. They even changed their displays to have FW hubs instead of only USB.
So breathe deep and calm down about firewire. There is no big crisis here.
After looking at the autopsy photos of the iPod Nano, I’m surprised that Apple didn’t use chip-on-board (COB) technology. That would have saved them lots of real estate. I can only guess that Apple hasn’t quite worked out enough details in that process to be comfortable with it. If Apple engineers want to pack any more memory into the iPod Nano, they’ll have to go to COB.
I forgot to mention that I didn’t see in the photos where they could pack Firewire hardware in such a confined space. There just ain’t enough real estate inside that iPod.
The main problem that I have with USB 2.0 on the Apple PB is that it only puts out 500mA and the TravelStar and other 2.5inch HD’s want 1amp to power up and read. There are some 2.5 HD’s that will work on 500mA but I don’t have any of them and as I travel a lot I really don’t want to have to carry a powered USB hub. Firewire is my preference as it powers from the FW port and will power up any of the 2.5 HD’s. MHO.
Mike – Your concern with the current draw of hard drives shouldn’t be a problem with the iPod Nano as its memory is all solid state. There is no hard drive in the iPod Nano.
Uhh, the vast majority of digital video cameras on the market today use Firewire (also called IEEE 1394 or iLink), most external HD’s have either Firewire 400 or 800 (or both), and many other pro and semi pro devices have Firewire (audio interfaces , webcams, etc.). Plus, Intel recently showed new motherboard designs that have FW 400 and 800 integrated.
Take your meds, kids. Firewire’s not going anywhere, and USB 2 is plenty fast for iPod transfers.
I believe Apple don’t use COB for two reasons :
1) Time to market – COB takes longer than using off-the-shelf components.
2) Playing multiple vendors off each other for price on standard components.
No Nano for me then. I have a 1Ghz TiBook with Firewire and USB1. Apple shooting its loyal customers in the back again ….
calm down then read above. you are wrong. Apple made a very SMART call and you can still use a nano on your powerbook.
Here’s a solution for those people who can’t upgrade to USB2 on their machines
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/specs.aspx?EDC=513590
It’s a USB2 / firewire combo unit that can connect via either USB or firewire.
It’s half the price here
http://www.techdepot.com/product.asp?productID=1708635&info=More&tn=i#tabs
Neil, you do realise that a USB 2 hub is not going to upgrade your USB 1 computer to USB 2, don’t you?
Sol: Are you saying that if I connect the hub to my firewire port (on a USB 1.1 iMac) that the USB ports on the hub will still be USB 1.1?
Sol,
As I understand it, the device can connect to a computer via firewire or usb and provide the ability to connect both Firewire and USB2 devices. It does the translation rather than the computer.
Therefore, if you connect the hub to a mac via firewire, the hub will allow you to do data transfer from both USB2 and FW devices. Since FW can transfer at a faster rate than USB2 then the hub will allow you to transfer USB data at USB 2 rates. Get it?
Now what is unclear is whether iTunes will properly recognize iPod connected through the hub.
There is no device that can act as FireWire to USB converter. The technologies are too different to make this possible. The following link clarifies the confusion over what the D-Link hub actually does.
http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=225&rid=1002&sec=0
Only So Much Room is totally right. Apple need to make concessions because of the limited space inside the nano. If you had to choose FireWire or USB, then OF COURSE it makes sense to go with USB.
FireWire in a device that has only 2 or 4 GB of storage gives no practical performance advantage over USB 2.0. So what that FireWire is catching on? FireWire is a great technology but it’s not going to allow the nano to sync 2x faster than USB 2.
I’m getting sick of all the bashing Apple because it made the most practical and only sensible choice. Unfortunately, those stuck with older Macs will have to deal with the suckiness of USB 1.x, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that Apple choose FireWire over USB in this either/or scenario.
“Yeah, let’s make our product unsuable to 90% of the iPod market, because FireWire 400 is, like, 30% faster than USB 2!” How many of the 6.2 million iPods Apple sold last quarter were bought by FireWire-wielding Mac users, you think? It’s a good thing none of you armchair whiners will never work for Apple, cause it would have imploded a decade ago.
BTW, I have a PowerBook G4 400 Mhz, but that’s not going to stop me from enjoying the new nano just because my USB ports are slow. And if you own a newer Mac, you won’t even notice the damn difference with a measly 4 GB of content, max, to sync. Hell, most of the time, people will be syncing 100 MB of data or less. BIG DEAL. It’s not like Apple is making people wait for Godot because there’s no FireWire.
Sorry for the rant, but some people need a nice date with perspective, before they get bitch-slapped by reality.
Another Apple bait and switch. And this time for no apparent reason…
GET A GRIP GUYS. FIREWIRE IS NOT DEAD ON THE IPOD. THERE’S JUST NO CABLE BEING SHIPPED! READ THE SPECS.