Firewire vs USB: Apple demanded royalties

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by FreedomChooser, May 3, 2005.

  1. This is for the fool that castigated Intel for bringing in USB as
    competition to Firewire

    Apple Computer hold patents in Firewire technology and trademarked the
    word FireWire

    USB took off as an alternative partly because Apple and other
    patentors demanded per user royalty fees, also FW hardware is more
    expensive
     
    FreedomChooser, May 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. FreedomChooser

    David Preece Guest

    Wasn't me, but it's an astounding troll.
    Yes. Everyone else has to call it ieee1394, or think of another name.
    Sony call it iLink, Apple calls it Firewire. Big deal. That you think
    it's "real" name is Firewire just goes to show how effective Apple's
    marketing has been.

    And I'm sure they do hold patents in Firewire. You may find that nVidia
    have patents in 3d rendering, or that Sony hold patents in CD-Rom
    technology.
    USB took off because Intel wanted more of the share.

    That being said, I do actually think USB and Firewire live in different
    parts of the market: Firewire supports all sorts of flash stuff, like
    guaranteed bandwidth channels, true peer-peer operation and DMA. USB
    supports none of those, partially as a result is cheaper to build
    (particularly USB hubs which are very much simpler than Firewire hubs),
    and is also crap.

    USB's exactly what you want when you connect a mouse, keyboard, scanner,
    mobile phone, daft USB light, big fat control knob to turn the volume up
    and down on your MP3 player - that sort of thing. Low bandwidth
    applications where simplicity and low cost are the key. But USB2? Hard
    drives over USB? Come on. You can put a big engine in a Holden, but it's
    still a Holden.

    Dave
     
    David Preece, May 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. FreedomChooser

    whoisthis Guest

    Yep, usb was ideal for what it was originally designed for, slow
    preipherals, it is not the best solution for high speed devices.
    And the problem with this being ???
    WRONG.
     
    whoisthis, May 3, 2005
    #3
  4. The royalty was as much as USD1 per port to begin with, but that was
    very quickly dropped under pressure
    <http://news.com.com/FireWire+poised+to+become+ubiquitous/2100-1040_3-272
    147.html>

    The FireWire trademark was made available to the 1394 Trade Association
    a long time ago
    <http://news.com.com/Whats+in+a+name+For+FireWire,+plenty/2100-1040_3-9
    28089.html>.

    The original USB 1.x was never designed to compete with FireWire. Intel
    brought out USB 2.0 mostly because it could, I think. It's certainly
    very popular, but it never stands up to a head-to-head performance
    comparison, even with old FireWire 400.

    By the way, did you know that Apple won an Emmy award for FireWire in
    2001?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 3, 2005
    #4
  5. FreedomChooser

    shannon Guest

    Whats special about that ?
    They give awards like that out for stuff like fancy light bulbs and
    telecine machines, about twenty of them each year.
    http://www.emmyonline.tv/docs/Engineering Winners (ALL).pdf
     
    shannon, May 3, 2005
    #5
  6. FreedomChooser

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    USB took off because Intel wanted more of the share.[/QUOTE]

    USB took off when and because Apple made a hit machine that had nothing
    but USB. It was languishing for several years before that, going
    nowhere fast.

    USB is an excellent higher speed replacement for Apple Desktop Bus
    (which is 9600 bps serial). Firewire is a cheaper and faster
    replacement for SCSI.

    Ok, so most PCs never had those, or anything equivilent to them (or
    LocalTalk, for that matter), but that's their loss.
     
    Bruce Hoult, May 3, 2005
    #6
  7. FreedomChooser

    shannon Guest

    USB took off when and because Apple made a hit machine that had nothing
    but USB. It was languishing for several years before that, going
    nowhere fast.

    USB is an excellent higher speed replacement for Apple Desktop Bus
    (which is 9600 bps serial). Firewire is a cheaper and faster
    replacement for SCSI.

    Ok, so most PCs never had those, or anything equivilent to them (or
    LocalTalk, for that matter), but that's their loss.[/QUOTE]

    You'ld think that those Macintoshes would have taken over by now.
    Whats the holdup ?
     
    shannon, May 3, 2005
    #7
  8. FreedomChooser

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    That's a very interesting question. In the early 80's IBM adopted one
    strategy, Apple a quite different one.

    Apple spent years creating a tightly-integrated computer with synergy
    between the various parts, large amounts of highly complex, highly
    optomized, hand-written copyrighted library code in ROM, and their own
    operating system. IBM spent months creating a system from off-the-shelf
    parts, put in a bare minimum amount of quite badly-written code in ROM,
    and licensed an operating system from Microsoft.

    Other companies easily copied IBM's hardware, and when IBM started suing
    people (including e.g. Exzel here in NZ) for copyright infringement
    people had little trouble doing clean-room reimplementations of IBM's
    ROM. But nobody was able to figure out a way to legally copy the
    Macintosh.

    The result? Today Apple sells a fewer PCs than IBM does but Apple is
    (with Dell) one of only two computer companies making a profit by
    selling PCs.

    IBM may have made the right decisions for Bill Gates, but it sure looks
    as if it was Apple that made the better decisions for themselves.

    Oh, and by the way, Apple is now back up to being the #5 PC vendor,
    edging out Toshiba last quarter and looking quite likely at their
    current growth rate to overtake Gateway pretty soon and maybe IBM as
    well.
     
    Bruce Hoult, May 3, 2005
    #8
  9. FreedomChooser

    whoisthis Guest

    You'ld think that those Macintoshes would have taken over by now.
    Whats the holdup ?[/QUOTE]

    You would think there would be more Holdens than Lada's too, but there
    you go.
     
    whoisthis, May 3, 2005
    #9
  10. FreedomChooser

    Shane Guest

    You would think there would be more Holdens than Lada's too, but there
    you go.[/QUOTE]

    did you not watch topgear the weekend before last?
    the monaro was voted the best of three
    the other two cars were a yank tank and a jag that looked horrid
    with endorsements like that I almost sold the ford

    --

    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    "Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat"
    -- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987
     
    Shane, May 3, 2005
    #10
  11. FreedomChooser

    shannon Guest

    But why isn't Apple in the position of Microsoft ?
     
    shannon, May 3, 2005
    #11
  12. FreedomChooser

    Chris Hope Guest

    Because Bill Gates was extremely clever and got an agreement with IBM
    that he could license MS-DOS to anyone. So when the other manufacturers
    started making IBM compatible clones MS was able to license the
    software to them. Because there were multiple vendors shipping IBM
    compatible machines there was competition and the price of hardware was
    driven down. As PC sales rose, MS made money from every single one sold
    because it was sold with MS-DOS.

    Apple, on the other hand, had their proprietary hardware and software
    system and wouldn't license it out (they did actually do so at some
    later stage but IIRC they then later bought out all the companies they
    had licensed their technology to). So they were essentially one vendor
    among many.

    Another difference between the two is that MS is essentially a software
    provider only, and Apple is essentially a hardware vendor and needs to
    sell hardware units to sell their software. MS has no such restriction,
    and it's extremely profitable to sell bulk loads of software.

    One thing that's quite interesting is that MS makes considerable amounts
    of money from a high percentage of OSX machines sold because so many
    OSX users end up buying MS Office. I've heard some suggestions that MS
    actually makes more money from Apple desktop machines than Apple does.
    Whether or not this is true I don't know.
     
    Chris Hope, May 3, 2005
    #12
  13. USB took off when and because Apple made a hit machine that had nothing
    but USB. It was languishing for several years before that, going
    nowhere fast.[/QUOTE]

    And if you want proof, consider that so many of those early USB devices
    came in translucent blue cases and other bright colours, not plain
    beige. It was clear they were designed to look good next to the
    colourful iMacs, not the plain boxes running Windows 98 (which came out
    the same year, and was the first version of Windows to properly support
    USB).
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, May 4, 2005
    #13
  14. I'm not so sure about that. Last I looked, sales of Mac Office had been
    declining for years.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2005
    #14
  15. This may be true as far as it goes, but an increasing proportion of the
    hardware market is now going to PC components, not complete PCs. That
    is, white boxes, bare-bones machines and so on. For instance, I bought
    my last Mac over 3 years ago. The last machine I bought (last year) was
    a Shuttle. You probably won't find Shuttle in your top 10 list of PC
    makers, but I have no doubt it's a very profitable company nonetheless.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, May 4, 2005
    #15
  16. FreedomChooser

    Chris Hope Guest

    You may well be right there - what I'd heard was more anecdotal than
    anything. Are there m/any Office alternatives to Mac Office though? I
    know you can run OpenOffice but from comments many people have made, it
    appears to be not well liked because it doesn't look and feel like an
    Apple application (eg has own menu as opposed to the global menu bar,
    doesn't use Apple skin) and the OOo developers don't seem to be too
    interested in making it like this. If I were them I'd think it would be
    a good thing to do to encourage greater market share and acceptance of
    it. Imagine if almost all OSX users were using OOo.
     
    Chris Hope, May 4, 2005
    #16
  17. FreedomChooser

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    That's true, and reinforces my point that IBM's decisions in the early
    80's were a disaster for them and good for others such as Microsoft and
    Intel.

    I bought a Mac for my GF three years ago. The last Mac I bought for
    myself was 6 1/2 years ago (but ask again in a week or three...). The
    last machine I bought (in May last year) was an Asus motherboard for an
    AMD CPU. Personally I regard Asus to be much mroe of a "trusted name
    brand" than Dell or HP when I want to buy lots of reliable processing
    power for cheap.
     
    Bruce Hoult, May 4, 2005
    #17
  18. It appears that OpenOffice 2.0 will be a normal Mac program on Macs,
    according to a newsletter OO emailed me a few days ago. If they have
    done it right, that should be the end of Word on the Mac.
     
    Stephen Worthington, May 4, 2005
    #18
  19. Um ... looking like over a billion dollars in profits this year kind of
    future?

    Apple may have a smaller market share at the moment than in previous
    times (though their marketshare went up 25% in the last year), but
    they're selling as many computers as they ever did, and they are making
    money doing it. It's mostly that the market as a whole has grown, and
    largely into area that Apple simply isn't interested in competing in
    e.g. cash registers[/QUOTE]

    Yep. In some of their speciality areas, they have a larger share.

    I think what the OP is saying is that they are "too small" and should just
    give up. That said, I wouldn't mind a little of that billion dollars you
    were talking about :)



    Bruce


    -------------------------------------
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
    - George Bernard Shaw
    Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 4, 2005
    #19
  20. But what does that mean for Apple, though? The Macintosh has managed to
    claw its way back to 2% market share, but what kind of future is there
    in making Macs, really?
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, May 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.