Why do they still make ipod shuffles?

[Shaw]

I believe Apple stuck with FireWire as the sole interface for a couple generations beyond that, which almost counts (or counted, back then) as Mac exclusivity.

If Apple had priced FireWire more reasonably from the outset things might've turned out a little differently there.

The IEEE 1394 standard is not exclusively Apple property, other major hardware companies such as Sony and Texas Instruments were involved in its development.

The second generation iPod was PC compatible. It shipped with Music Match Jukebox as there was no version of iTunes for PCs at the time.

And Dell was one of the major sellers of those iPods.

Yeah, and they all shot themselves in the foot. It's likely that USB would've come out on top regardless, but the initially exorbitant licensing fees for FireWire relative to USB certainly didn't encourage third parties to adopt it.

Well, maybe a history lesson is in order here... as most people seem to make this stuff up as they go along.

Why did Apple make the iPod? Because other MP3 makers weren't supporting Macs. Think about it, if Macs were given equal footing by other music players originally, Apple wouldn't have entered the market to begin with.

Why did Apple use FireWire on the iPod? It was one of the standard interfaces on most Macs at the time (2001), and was significantly faster than USB 1.1. USB 2.0 (which is about the same speed as FireWire 400) was only released as a standard in 2000 and Apple didn't ship any Macs with USB 2.0 until 2003 (all of which were the first generation of Macs not to support booting into Mac OS 9).

People should also remember that USB is why Intel gives Apple processors at better prices than other PC makers (without having to display the Intel Inside logo). Apple is why USB is so popular today. Intel released USB only to have PC makers and Microsoft basically snub it. USB took off as an interface after Apple announced that their new iMac computers would only include USB for connecting peripherals. Between that announcement and the iMacs release tons of printers, scanners, and other devices popped up on the market.

As I recall, Microsoft rushed out a special version of Windows 95 for USB, but it was Windows 98 that was the first version to come with built in support. Windows NT 4.0 wouldn't get USB support from Microsoft, so those users had to wait for Windows 2000 to get built in support for USB. And all of that support was for USB 1.x.

USB 2.0 adoption was fast... but not as fast as some people's poor memories would seem to recall. And FireWire was around for 5 years prior to USB 2.0, so hardware makers wanting a fast connection didn't have USB 2.0 as an option during that time (which was when Apple started including FireWire on their systems).




Unless... were you not aware that there is a (massive) difference between the connection speeds of USB 1.x and USB 2.0?

 

[Hermiod]

^Indeed, Windows XP prior to Service Pack 1 didn't even properly support USB2.0. You had to have drivers from your motherboard or USB2.0 card provider.

 

[Rii]

Why did Apple make the iPod? Because other MP3 makers weren't supporting Macs. Think about it, if Macs were given equal footing by other music players originally, Apple wouldn't have entered the market to begin with.

All this time I'd been under the impression that Apple was a corporation, and here I discover it's a philanthropy. Will wonders never cease?

Why did Apple use FireWire on the iPod? It was one of the standard interfaces on most Macs at the time (2001), and was significantly faster than USB 1.1.

Which is as irrelevant as it is correct. Nobody's questioning the wisdom of employing FireWire on the first generation iPod. The point is that FireWire as the sole interface became a sticking point for Apple when they moved to support Windows systems as most PCs didn't have them.

Apple is why USB is so popular today.

Bullshit. All standards take years to filter through the PC world, USB was no different. Apple's adoption of USB accelerated a trend, that's all. You want to give Apple credit for PCI-E too?

 

[Hermiod]

All this time I'd been under the impression that Apple was a corporation, and here I discover it's a philanthropy. Will wonders never cease?

This is nothing to do with "philanthropy". Apple have a history of developing their own products to suit Mac users when the Windows equivalents aren't available.

 

[Shaw]

Will wonders never cease?

Not as long as you keep posting.

Which is as irrelevant as it is correct. Nobody's questioning the wisdom of employing FireWire on the first generation iPod. The point is that FireWire as the sole interface became a sticking point for Apple when they moved to support Windows systems as most PCs didn't have them.

Windows users wanted iPods. Windows users attempted to hack original iPods to get them to work with Windows. This wasn't a hard sell.

Apple didn't take over the music player market by twisting people's arms to make them buy Apple products... Windows users wanted what Mac users had because it was better than all the rest. If Windows users hadn't bought those first Windows compatible iPods, Apple would have most likely drop the venture.

So where is this sticking point? Are you saying that Apple could have dominated this market even faster than it did?

I'm getting the feeling that your argument here is with history.

Bullshit. All standards take years to filter through the PC world, USB was no different...

Not in your mind though... as you thought that Apple should have been using USB 2.0 before it had filtered through anywhere.

I would also point out that iPods were bootable devices in the Mac world back then... you could install the Mac OS on a FireWire iPod and boot a Mac from it. I knew a number of other consultants who used their iPods as a diagnostic tool for systems they were servicing (in addition to playing music).

Apple's adoption of USB accelerated a trend, that's all.

It was enough to convince Intel to court Apple for years after with the promise of Apple being given preferential treatment even though they would most likely never be Intel's biggest customer.

But you can, again, argue all you want with history here... but without a better command of the facts, you'll end up on the losing end of that argument.

Cry me a river...

 

[Rii]

Apple didn't take over the music player market by twisting people's arms to make them buy Apple products...

So where is this sticking point? Are you saying that Apple could have dominated this market even faster than it did?

There are some fundamental difficulties associated with selling products to consumers who can't use them. Apple could have supported Mac and Windows platforms from the outset, and if they had the iPod would likely have incorporated USB support from the outset. FireWire maintains many advantages over USB to this day, yet Apple no longer uses their own interface standard on their flagship product, for the simple reason that it's not nearly so ubiquitous as USB.

Bullshit. All standards take years to filter through the PC world, USB was no different...

Not in your mind though... as you thought that Apple should have been using USB 2.0 before it had filtered through anywhere.

Really? Perhaps you'll care to link the post in question?

It was enough to convince Intel to court Apple for years after with the promise of Apple being given preferential treatment even though they would most likely never be Intel's biggest customer.

I think you'll find it was the potential to earn billions of dollars in revenue through selling processors that encouraged Intel to court Apple, not a desire to fellate them for deigning to support USB.

 

[Shaw]

There are some fundamental difficulties associated with selling products to consumers who can't use them. Apple could have supported Mac and Windows platforms from the outset, and if they had the iPod would likely have incorporated USB support from the outset. FireWire maintains many advantages over USB to this day, yet Apple no longer uses their own interface standard on their flagship product, for the simple reason that it's not nearly so ubiquitous as USB.

Apple's customers for the original iPod were Mac users... so there were no difficulties associated with it. Windows support was an after thought back then, mainly because Windows users wanting iPods... so there were no difficulties associated with that either.

What you are suggesting was that Apple should have redesigned the product to address a small part of their market back then. USB 2.0 was not ubiquitous and USB 1.x didn't meet the design requirements, most Macs had FireWire and Windows users weren't the target audience (they had tons of other great MP3 players... right?). More to the point (not that you'll understand any of this), Macs didn't start coming with USB 2.0 until early 2003 and I doubt many PCs were shipping with it either that early.

So... your bright idea was to go with USB 2.0 support (as USB 1.x wouldn't work) from the outset even though it wasn't shipping on any systems and wasn't yet supported on either Macs or Windows based systems at the time the iPod was released. If you don't see what is wrong there, I don't think there is any way to explain it to you.

But as has been pointed out, FireWire isn't Apple's... it was an interface that served a purpose when nothing else would. But something else does now, so are you suggesting that Apple should continue to use something just because they had an earlier association with it's development?

I'm guessing you aren't very tech savvy.

Really? Perhaps you'll care to link the post in question?

"Yeah, and they all shot themselves in the foot. It's likely that USB would've come out on top regardless, but the initially exorbitant licensing fees for FireWire relative to USB certainly didn't encourage third parties to adopt it."​

Did you get that? You know, I think that bares repeating!

"Yeah, and they all shot themselves in the foot. It's likely that USB would've come out on top regardless, but the initially exorbitant licensing fees for FireWire relative to USB certainly didn't encourage third parties to adopt it."​

Ring a bell?

I think you'll find it was the potential to earn billions of dollars in revenue through selling processors that encouraged Intel to court Apple, not a desire to fellate them for deigning to support USB.

Not really... See, I work closely with Apple (have since 1998) and was aware of the overtures that Intel had been making to Apple during that period. Apple represents a showcase for Intel technologies above and beyond processors.

You are aware that Intel makes more than processors... right?

As you pointed out, all standards take years to filter through the PC world. Why? Because hardware makers aren't going to adopt technology not supported by Windows and Microsoft isn't going to add support for technology not being used on PCs. Apple, making both the hardware and operating system, can implement new technologies when ever they want.

That is all most likely over your head... but to those who know this industry and the players involved, that made perfect sense. You seem totally out of the loop (on a great many things), so until you can hold up your end of the discussion, I'll just let you keep spitting into the wind.

 

[Rii]

What you are suggesting was that Apple should have redesigned the product to address a small part of their market back then.

It was a small part of the market because Apple made it so. Once they realised they had a large potential userbase outside the Mac world, things changed. This transition could've been accelerated, to the benefit of Apple, by including Windows support (and, by extension, USB) from the outset.

I'm not suggesting that Apple should've done anything. If you'll notice this conversation started with the observation that, like the Sansa with which it was being compared, the iPod used to have limited platform support also. The zealous response you've brought to this offhand observation is certainly in line with what I've come to expect from those "closely associated" with Apple, though.

USB 2.0 was not ubiquitous and USB 1.x didn't meet the design requirements, most Macs had FireWire and Windows users weren't the target audience (they had tons of other great MP3 players... right?). More to the point (not that you'll understand any of this), Macs didn't start coming with USB 2.0 until early 2003 and I doubt many PCs were shipping with it either that early.

So... your bright idea was to go with USB 2.0 support (as USB 1.x wouldn't work) from the outset even though it wasn't shipping on any systems and wasn't yet supported on either Macs or Windows based systems at the time the iPod was released. If you don't see what is wrong there, I don't think there is any way to explain it to you.

Of course USB 1.1 would've worked. As you say, there were many DAPs on the market at the time the iPod was released, which interface do you suppose they were using? RS-232 Serial?

Furthermore, USB support doesn't, as you imply, translate to a lack of FireWire support. It's obviously feasible to implement both as Apple later did it.

so are you suggesting that Apple should continue to use something just because they had an earlier association with it's development?

Earlier association with its development? Apple profits from FireWire to this day, they have a vested interest in encouraging its use.

No, I'm suggesting that Apple's abandonment of FireWire indicates that there are factors beyond mere performance involved as FireWire is still the superior interface. FireWire as the sole interface was problematic from the moment Apple decided to venture outside the Mac world.

Really? Perhaps you'll care to link the post in question?

....
Did you get that? You know, I think that bares repeating!
Ring a bell?

It rings a bell. It's a total non-sequitur in this context, of course, but the bell is ringing.

You are aware that Intel makes more than processors... right?

True, Intel does push a whole bunch of other products and technology standards the success of which is not at all reliant on Apple's adoption thereof.

As you pointed out, all standards take years to filter through the PC world. Why? Because hardware makers aren't going to adopt technology not supported by Windows and Microsoft isn't going to add support for technology not being used on PCs. Apple, making both the hardware and operating system, can implement new technologies when ever they want.

That is all most likely over your head...

Actually you just reiterated what I said a few posts back, with additional wank.

 

[Shaw]

...

Please correct the historical and factual errors in your post if you wish to continue this discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Rii]

...

Please correct the historical and factual errors in your post if you wish to continue this discussion.
Thanks.

Yeah, sorry about that, I was forced to mangle part of your post as the formatting didn't play nice with the quote function.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

Rii, I don't want to quote all that stuff but you say that USB 1.1 would have worked - that is incorrect - design wise apple did NOT want to release a player that loaded one album in an hour. Watch on youtube, the ipod intoduction...the speed is one of the main factors they concentrated on.

Also, when Shaw says that Apple putting USB on the iMac was pretty much the reason it took off (practically overnight) when all kinds of peripherals suddenly had a new market - that is a fact. That is something that has been known for years - it is not this guy's opinion.