Long time Users Facing yet Another Dope Slap From Apple?

by Chris Seibold Dec 12, 2005

A recently performed experiment involving a cat that had achieved thermodynamic equilibrium undergoing rhythmic gyrations at Apple Matters labs proved one thing: You can’t swing a dead cat without smacking into a rumor that Macs will slowly be losing FireWire support. Specifically, there are numerous reports that the next iteration of the iBook will lack FireWire connectivity. The Intel based PowerBooks, on the other hand, will supposedly feature a single FireWire 800 port as a nod to the pro users out there.

The idea that Apple is slowly going to be phasing out FireWire (and if it disappears on the portables you can bet it will soon follow on the desktop) is disagreeable to say the least. Judging by the recent lack of FireWire options on the newest iPods (shuffle, nano, iPod with video) while the notion may be disagreeable the change also seems likely.

At this point, the knee jerk reaction is to strenuously aver that Apple will never abandon FireWire. The astute will note that Apple actually earns money they on every FireWire connection sold whether it is on a third party hard drive enclosure, a digital video camera or customized Dell Computer. Yeah, and Apple will never switch to Intel.

The next argument against dropping FireWire will concern the performance of FireWire as compared to USB 2.0. There is a strong case to be made that FireWire is much better than USB 2.0 but there is also a strong case to be made that AMD chips, or even, gasp, PowerPC chips are better than Intel’s desktop offerings. So clearly, performance isn’t always the deciding factor for Apple.

Finally, a plea will be made that Apple must continue FireWire support to appease the owners of older digital gear that relies on FireWire for connectivity. Imagine, for example, you own a Canon GL2. If USB 2 is your only option, you might be tempted to buy a PC or something. Supporting legacy hardware is surely a great reason to keep FireWire around, right? Examine, if you will, the ports on the original iMac. In short, any argument as to why Apple will keep FireWire around to benefit current Apple users does not take into account that Apple ‘s recent history.

Someone out there is bound to defend Apple’s FireWire shedding move, much like some defend omitting FireWire from the new iPods. They’ll liken FireWire’s quick exit to he legacy ports the iMac once shed and opine that it is time for the Mac to get with the times. The iMac comparison, in this case, is wholly unworkable. When the iMac eschewed the conglomeration of ADB and GeoPorts there was a legitimate reason to do so: besides Apple and a scant few printer makers there was an ever-increasing dearth of peripherals available for the Mac. By wholly embracing USB Apple reinvigorated the Mac peripheral market and gave users more options in hardware than they had had for years. That is not the case with FireWire. The FireWire standard may not be as prevalent as USB but it certainly popular enough to be sustained.

Just discussing FireWire’s availability neglects the performance questions, which are just as relevant when comparing the current situation to that of the original iMac. USB was more technically advanced than the ports it replaced on the original iMac; this is not the case with FireWire and USB 2.0. FireWire is more capable than USB 2.0 so removing FireWire ports won’t be a technical hop forward but rather a largish step backwards. One comparison is valid: The switch to USB was originally greeted with caterwauling and hand wringing. Yet, the dispassionate observer could clearly discern the reasons behind the move. Such is not the case with FireWire.

You have to wonder why Apple would consider such a move. To save a few bucks is the most obvious reason but that doesn’t seem too likely when you remember that FireWire ports sell FireWire devices and that Apple gets some cash whenever someone uses the word FireWire (I think I owe Apple $90 for that last sentence). Hence, from a monetary point of view, the inclusion of FireWire ports is not a financial burden to Apple and may even make a little cash for Apple in the long run. Of course, people always want things smaller and lighter so perhaps it is an effort to slim down the profile of the next generation Apple portables. This seems unlikely as well. The PowerBook is rumored to retain one FireWire port and the PowerBook, if for no other reason than to justify the price premium, has to be a little thinner, a little smaller and a lot better looking than an iBook.

Whatever the reason, you can be assured that Steve will find a way to spin the exclusion of FireWire ports in a compelling manner. Likely, he’ll say that Apple’s research shows that no one really used the FireWire ports on the lower end Apple laptops and that USB is the industry standard. Two problems with that reasoning: First, Mac users are obviously not interested in what the industry standard is or they wouldn’t be using Macs. Secondly, a lot of people, creative people actually use the FireWire ports on their iBooks. You probably (fortunately) didn’t see The Transporter 2, and you probably (also fortunately) missed the pre-movie hype fest on one of the lesser-known cable channels. Those, like myself, unfortunate enough to see the hype fest recall that the show focused, predictably, on the hand-to-hand combat in the movie. The choreographer would take a digital camcorder, record himself performing the fight scene, edit the footage in iMovie and play it back for the actors on an Apple iBook to give them a sense of what he was looking for. That is but one high profile example, others abound. So remember this when you hear the spin: There are plenty of people who use iBooks for iMovie and those people depend on the FireWire port.

At the end of the day, one suspects, the likely exclusion of FireWire will cause a lot of consternation among Mac users but will go largely unnoticed in the end. The entire affair will be just another example of Apple telling the faithful how great a feature is, getting them dependent on said flower of technology, and then doing an about face and expecting the user to foot the bill. Apple might be well served to remember that these things build ill will over time, especially among people who have been faithful to the Mac for years.

The story of Burrell Smith leaving Apple comes to mind at this point. Burrell, the electronic savant behind the design of the original Mac, wanted to quit Apple but every time he attempted to leave Steve would convince him to stay. Finally, Burrell concocted a surefire scheme to leave Apple. He would walk into Steve’s office, release the hound (so to speak), and urinate atop Steve’s desk. Thus, Burrell felt, he would be assured of getting his release from Apple. Unfortunately, one of the greatest moments in the history of urination never took place. Steve had heard of Burrell’s plan and when he walked into Steve’s office Steve said “Are you gonna do it? Are you really gonna do it?” I’d like to ask that same question of Apple: “Are you gonna do it? Are you really gonna do it?” Thing is, the question really isn’t necessary, I’m pretty sure Mac users will end up being the desk in this situation.

Comments

  • Since one of the only reasons I have a Mac is video work and since I’m absolutely dependent on Firewire for my work, then I think it’s safe to say that Apple would be losing at least one customer by making this kind of move.  Which is too bad considering it doesn’t leave me with very attractive alternatives.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Dec 13, 2005 Posts: 2220
  • Quote: The FireWire standard may not be as prevalent as USB but it certainly popular enough to be sustained.
    Response: Uh, says who? Firewire is going downhill fast. Most of the new stuff (hard discs, etc.) available with Firewire ports also has USB 2.0, and the reverse is definitely not true.

    Quote: There are plenty of people who use iBooks for iMovie and those people depend on the FireWire port.
    Response: Again, all the new video cams have USB 2.0 and Firewire, or they have USB 2.0 only.

    Quote: At the end of the day, one suspects, the likely exclusion of FireWire will cause a lot of consternation among Mac users but will go largely unnoticed in the end. The entire affair will be just another example of Apple telling the faithful how great a feature is, getting them dependent on said flower of technology, and then doing an about face and expecting the user to foot the bill. Apple might be well served to remember that these things build ill will over time, especially among people who have been faithful to the Mac for years.
    Response: Another whine about how Apple owes it to me to support whatever features I want, no matter the reality on the ground.

    Now, some of the responses make a lot more sense: the bootability of FW is a real issue, unlike the ones raised in the original article. So, no, I don’t think Apple is going to abandon FW, though it may be relagated to a lesser role, with new Macs coming with several USB ports and only one FW. Time will tell.

    ray.gos had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 8
  • I think the iPod lost the firewire because the iPod is popular. A lot of Windows users had one, and never used firewire. I bet Apple sells more iPods to PC users than Mac.

    I don’t think Firewire will be discontinued anytime soon.

    shrimpdesign had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 16
  • Response: Again, all the new video cams have USB 2.0 and Firewire, or they have USB 2.0 only.

    I went to amazon, typed in, “camcorder” and clicked on the first result: Firewire and no USB 2.0.

    I will agree external hard drives are coming out with USB 2.0 but not video cameras. In fact I’m yet to see a video camera with USB 2.0 as it’s main connection.

    Luke Mildenhall-Ward had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 299
  • Ben Hall provided a link to some comparisons of USB2 and FW. The results reflect my own anecdotal experience. For those who haven’t looked the figures, on a PowerBook, averaged for read and write, they put FW400 about 103% faster than USB2 and FW800 some 220% faster than USB2

    (They did note though that USB2 runs some 50% faster on Windows PCs.)

    As I said before, FW won’t be killed off by Apple or anyone, until there is something better to replace it.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 1209
  • Camcorders have firewire or firewire and USB.  Firewire is for video.  USB is for stills.  Firewire for getting stuff off tape.  USB for getting stuff out of the flash memory.

    The new HD cameras use firewire.

    Cameras that are USB only tend to use non-standard formats that don’t play well in quicktime (and in turn iMovie), anyway, and are best avoided.

    Hywel had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 51
  • ...all of which is why I believe firewire will become the preserve of pro lines only.

    Benji had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 927
  • Ben Hall, thanks for the link to data on difference of write and read speed between USB 2.0 and FW 400 & 800.

    SirGeorge53 had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 27
  • The iPod lost FW because most customers were PC users who didn’t have USB.

    Firewire itself can’t die until there’s a suitable replacement. Professionals aren’t going to take a bakward step from FW800 to USB2. Even if Apple dropped it from PowerMacs, the pros would still buy FW cards for them.

    Just because in consumer-land USB2 is preferred to FW, doesn’t mean that’s ever going to happen in pro-user-land.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 1209
  • Ben Hall...all of which is why I believe firewire will become the preserve of pro lines only.

    I don’t think so… it’s not just pro’s who buy camcorders.

    Luke Mildenhall-Ward had this to say on Dec 15, 2005 Posts: 299
  • A couple hardware-knowledge-limited observations:

    eSATA seems to be a viable alternative to FireWire and USB2 for external storage devices.  But I’m not aware of any protocol seriously competing with FW offering anything comparable to isosynchronous data transfers that A/V and other devices currently benefit from (or even require?).

    That’s all I can think of to contribute to this topic that doesn’t seem redundantly obvious by now.

    sjk had this to say on Dec 15, 2005 Posts: 112
  • Neither Apple Insider nor Think Secret have reported this. Today’s latest report by Think Secret <a >on Intel iBooks</a>, yet again makes no mention of them being FW-less.

    This “rumor” we must remember was started by an “analyst” prognosticating on what he thought might happen. For some reason this got blown up by many sites to be as reliable as a genuine insider rumor.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 1209
  • It wasn’t quite presented as a prognostication. The revelant quote is as follows:
    “Now I’m hearing that FireWire is gone completely from the new Intel iBooks that are coming next month, but its loss should come as a surprise to no one, given Apple’s moves of late. A little birdy told me that the new Intel PowerBooks will lose FireWire 400 completely and retain only one FireWire 800 port as a concession to video professionals.”
    - J. O’grady via ZDnet

    I hope Apple doesn’t drop FireWire or that the outcry because of the rumor will sway them (it is just a rumor) but I could see it happening.

    Chris Seibold had this to say on Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 354
  • But who is O’grady? And why haven’t Apple Insider’s and Think Secret’s little birdies reported the same?

    Chris Howard had this to say on Dec 20, 2005 Posts: 1209
  • Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2
You need log in, or register, in order to comment