What Gareth had done in his article was to play the “devil’s advocate”. You know tongue-in-cheek.

I my weblog I have also addressed some of the unfounded concerns that individuals had regarding the need to upgrade their computer to support USB 2.0 and the fact that Apple made this decision based on the fact that there are more Windows users using the iPod®

I just got a replacement hard drive and put it in my FireWire enclosure. I could neither erase nor partition it using Disk Utility. I put it in my combo FireWire/USB2.0 enclosure and the story was the same with FireWire, but IT WORKED WITH USB2.0!!!

I don’t know why this happened, but it sure suggests that Apple is trying to move people to USB2.0.

Really? I can’t say I’ve ever tried so I have no experience either way, but if a PC can boot from USB, then why can’t a Mac? Seems slightly surprising, although it would be painfully slow.

Ah yes, and Target Disk Mode. How I love thee, who have saved me on so many an occasion. :P Good point.

Gareth

I don’t think Apple will replace FireWire 400 with 800, or at least not for a very long time (certainly not as soon as the Intel switch), because, as you may be aware, the connectors are different. Unlike with USB, where both USB 1.0 and USB 2 use the same connector, for FireWire 800, a different connector has been adopted. So you can’t just plug your old hard disks and scanners in.

It’s probably not too much hassle, and it’s not like FireWire ports take up an enormous amount of space on either the back or the front of the machine, so I can see FireWire 400 hanging around for quite a while, being joined, gradually, by FireWire 800 on all models.

Gareth

Plus there is always the “lets get them to by a new computer” mentality at apple.

I bought my second mac just so I could get the original iPod (to replace my rio, which I was using with SoundJam). I had a 266 imac at the time which only had usb. Man, to think they went from where they were then to where they are now!

My point wasn’t just for reasons of space, but also cost. As I said, the cost of the iPod has been dramatically reduced in the past couple of years, and sacrifices have been made. At the end of the day, I see little point in sticking a FireWire bus on the end of a 1.5″ hard disk – it just doesn’t have the throughput.

Now if there were a really “premium” iPod – say, er, the PowerPod, if that didn’t sound so lame – then perhaps that would use FireWire, etc. It’s also plausible that any video iPod will incorporate FireWire, because once you start talking about 700 MB files, the time difference becomes more significant.

The only case that one could really make for FireWire in iPods these days is to allow users of older Macs (such as myself) to enjoy high speed transfers to and from the devices. But given that we are a fast-dwindling minority, I wouldn’t expect them to devote much time/money/attention to this.

Gareth

I still differ from you that firewire will be expunged from the ipod line, since the nano’s lack of firewire can equally be attributed to mitigating reasons of tight space, as to wanting to rid the ipod line of it. Therefore I don’t think the nano constitutes reliable evidence of your viewpoint.

Surely it would disappoint a whole lot more ipod users to remove firewire compatibility from the premium ipod line? In my view, that would be an unwise strategy, and for what gain?

Now I see the issue.

I never suggested that Apple was trying to kill FireWire. You will, of course, point to the line where I say “Apple is trying to kill FireWire” and add that I said just that.

The italics – and the conversational follow on, being “Right. Yes. That’s it.” – were intended to convey sarcasm. In Britain, when a statement is so ridiculous it is unbelievable, it can be stated (and perhaps italicised to make the underlying intent clear) and readers will understand that the opposite is meant. This is – I must say – the first time I have fallen afoul of this little cultural sticking point. That said, I steadfastly refuse to use fake HTML quotes to make the intent clear (à la Slashdot, perhaps).

To clarify, I do indeed mean that Apple is only intending removing FireWire on iPods (it remains only on the full-size iPod now). The first iPod was FireWire only, as it was a premium device, which transferred data at premium speeds using Apple’s premium interface. Plus, USB 1 would have been far too slow for a 5GB device.

I’m pretty sure that Jobs doesn’t want FireWire dead – the rumoured Asteroid XLR breakout box for GarageBand was to connect via FireWire, and, as I illustrated above, FireWire is indispensible in Apple’s traditional strongholds, being music, movies and graphic design.

A lesson learned for those on both sides of the Pond, I think. :D

Gareth

The contradiction is in suggesting that apple is both trying to kill firewire, and that there are good cost/space/cost-space reasons for cutting it from the nano. I don’t think you supply sufficient evidence that jobs wants firewire dead – a point which seems to contradict the fact that all your now-legacy macs were firewire-enabled, suggesting apple is and always has been enthusiastic regarding firewire.

Perhaps you mean that apple is trying to kill firewire on ipods? Why? Wasn’t the first ipod firewire-only? Aren’t all but the single most most space-tight ipod firewire enabled, and in that case isn’t there good reason for it not to be?

What I’m saying is that the iPod is a consumer-oriented product, so doesn’t need FireWire, but that this need not mean its death. Reason: it will always have a place in the professional market, where it has replaced SCSI for external connectivity.