Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't know anything about technology or hardware in terms of development, but why is it so much easier to make a USB with a dock connector end than a firewire cord with a dock connector on the other end? Is that just not possible, or is it more so that Apple just doesn't feel the need to create that?

They do. When the 1st dock connection iPods came out, they had FW and USB support and they came with a 6-pin FW plug on one end and dock connection on the other. They just took out the Firewire chipset controller inside the iPod to reduce the size and cost. I still have a 40GB iPod, pre-clickwheel that has the 4 touch sensitive button in a row above the wheel and they light up red. Either that or the first of the clickwheel iPods is the last generation to have Firewire.

A large majority of iPod users are also PC users. A lot of modern PCs especially Windows Laptops do not even have a firewire port.

And if they do they usually have a 4-pin FW port that doesn't supply power.
 
Unless you copy BIG multimedia files to your iPod, I find having a IEEE-1394 port on the iPod to be not that useful. With my 3G iPod nano, I've been able to copy full TV episodes in the 400-500 MB size range to my player reasonably fast through the USB 2.0 port.
 
LOL - that would be a 1st Gen iPod with a whopping 5G hard drive. You can even use a standard Firewire cable.

Those aren't mac only anymore, with the updaters any ipod can be formatted for windows use and back again, I just was doing this to an original 5gb one yesterday.
 
Little known fact is that Firewire can charge iPods during transfer, whereas USB will actually drain iPods during transfers. The USB spec only allows for 2 watts of power, as opposed to firewire's 45 watts [Though Apple typically caps their laptops to 7-8 watts to save power].

Depending on the size of your iPod, its possible to use up a whole charge cycle, even have it die during USB transfers [Remember lithium batteries can only be charged a couple of hundred times before they stop holding a charge]


Just pointing out that speed isn't the only issue.
 
Apple originally used FW because they sold to their own (Mac users), and we all had firewire.

Let's not forget that Apple refused to implement USB 2.0 until late 2003 across its lines. So, at the time of the original iPod introduction—USB 2.0 wasn't standard on the Mac platform.

It's funny. Apple all but saved USB 1.x by creating the original iMac in 1998. The iMac forced PC manufacturers to adopt USB 1.x at that time. USB had been available since 1995.

Yet, Apple refused to support USB 2.0 because they felt it would kill Firewire.
 
It won't be till 2012 till [usb 3] gets fully supported by anything. I'd still rather have FireWire there is a new one coming too. FireWire 3200.

Apple was the first manufacturer to really use USB on their hardware, and since Apple appears to no longer be pushing firewire technology then there's no reason to think that apple won't add USB 3 to their macs and ipods as soon as it's available.
 
Apple was the first manufacturer to really use USB on their hardware, and since Apple appears to no longer be pushing firewire technology then there's no reason to think that apple won't add USB 3 to their macs and ipods as soon as it's available.

Maybe they don't push it but they still put it on their Macs I wish they would at least fix the burst problem with USB. Then maybe it would be decent on long Transfers.
 
Apple refused to support USB 2.0 because they felt it would kill Firewire.

Not far from the reality. The only reason I have opted for firewire hard drives over USB in the past is because I have a PB with USB 1.1, and the reason I will opt for it in the future is because: I have FW 800 on my iMac, which is faster than USB 2.0 (and the USB ports get used up so quick with printers and scanners, etc.)

While the FW is one step ahead on Macs it will continue to be useful (also it is useful for historical reasons if you are using one new and one older Mac), but USB peripherals will always be cheaper making the temptation for larger drives at lower prices hard to resist.
 
Sending 20,000 tracks over to my 160GB classic was a bit of a drag :eek:
Fortunately, it's something you don't have to do that often.

I updated some of the music on my old 60GB photo over FireWire a few weeks ago, it was way,way faster than the classic :(
 
Firewire also charges the iPod when the computer is sleeping. Good luck with USB. To be fair, FW will charge newer iPods too. Also, older computers do not have USB2 - good luck with newer iPods. There are many places one could imagine sticking their cables into, but sadly, the USB1 port is not one of them.
 
firewire>*

I think apple ditched it for simplicity's sake, every computer has usb these days but allot of pc's don't have firewire.
 
I love the fact that my 3rd Gen iPod has firewire, and I'd love to see it back. However with the PC industry not really supporting the true capabilities, and Apple wanting to sell iPods to a much broader market meant USB was the way to go. Too bad really, I'd like to see at least FW400 capability when I get my iPhone / iPod Touch.
 
I do not have a firewire port on my computer so I don't miss it. USB 2.0 is quite fast but I don't object to bringing the functionality back as long as I don't have to pay extra or compromise features for it.
 
I don't understand what the big fuss is about. It's not like every time you plug in an iPod, it updates every one of your gazillion songs. You do that at first, but after the transfer is never so large.

Plus, why anybody absolutely needs so many songs on an iPod is a bit of a mystery. My library is about 80 gigs, but I'm perfectly content with an 8-gig Touch, that is usually only half-full. That's still several days worth of music.

Sure, Firewire on my 3G was quite nice, and it would be great if it were included, but if removing it cuts down size and cost, I'm happy to wait a bit.

What Wifi enabled iPods should really have is Wifi syncing.
 
I still use Firewire to sync my 4G iPod - it's great. Of course, back in the day that iPod was invented, Apple was promoting its own FireWire over USB and Firewire easily trumps USB 1.1.

Brief history

1) USB 1.1 invented and slow by today's standards but faster than anything before it.
2) Firewire invented partly by Apple and much faster.
3) iPod invented so naturally uses Firewire
4) However, most PCs don't have Firewire so Apple has to use USB2.0 for iPod also.
5) Having stubbornly refused to put USB2.0 in its computers because of the threat to Firewire, Apple finally gives in in September 2003, just when I bought my original computer.
6) Gradually, Apple realises it can make more profit per iPod by dropping one of the connectors. But which one?
7) Firewire is obviously better in terms of sustained rate and Apple would obviously prefer to keep it, but most PCs still don't have it as standard so they drop Firewire off the iPod.

I sometimes wonder if Apple has given up on Firewire, as even now iMovie doesn't require a Firewire camcorder. And I'm sure we'll soon see iChat opened up to USB cameras. And most people now have USB2.0 Macs.

But I still choose Firewire wherever I can - I love my Firewire external HD and, like I said before, I still use it on my iPod b/w... :)
 
I want to buy a 60GB 4th Gen iPod This one does have FireWire doesn't it?

According to this page, the 60GB 4G iPod you're looking at should support firewire for syncing/charging. Just make sure that the model number matches before you buy it. The above site also has information on all other iPods, it's pretty cool stuff.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.