[opendtv] Re: The tragedy of FireWire: Collaborative tech torpedoed by corporations
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 03:04:57 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
And exactly what was it that you did to help build the "desktop video"
industry Bert?
I can't understand how you can write so voluminously, only to respond to the
fact that your points were factually wrong, Craig. Adding a bunch of irrelevant
words won't hide anything. We have two items: where the article placed the
blame and about USB-C. Once again: the Ars Technica article placed most of the
blame on the demise of FireWire on Apple. It's obvious if you bothered to read
the article. I even went to the trouble of quoting it. So, here we are for the
third time.
The article placed both blame and kudos on Apple for the role it
played in the development and evolution of FireWire.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/06/the-rise-and-fall-of-firewire-the-standard-everyone-couldnt-quite-agree-on/
I didn't invent what the article said, Craig. This is something you do
*incessantly*. If you disagree with the article, then say so. But don't INVENT
what you want the article to say.
First reason for blame, because Apple cancelled the project for a time. Second
reason, overpricing, to the point where Intel bailed and **never looked back**.
And then more, lack of explicit support. On the attempt to include FireWire as
part of IEEE 802, "Teener tried to persuade the 1394 Trade Association to shift
FireWire to Ethernet/IEEE 802 technology, since Apple-which had bought his
struggling company-wanted it to be capable of longer-distance networking. 'The
silence was deafening,' he told Ars. 'They didn't want to go there.' Teener
believes this is because nobody was 'willing to step out and get uncomfortable'
without secretive Apple's explicit backing."
The article is very clear. Thing is, and what seem incapable of understanding,
**I couldn't care much less**. I'm just telling you what the article says. The
other thing is, I was personally involved in multiple such "holy wars," and
always found the zealots to be truly strange. Most of them, professional
meeting attenders who didn't seem to get any perspective on the technologies,
i.e. comprehend alternatives. Most of the arguments they made were completely
overtaken by events. The usual evolution is, the simplest technology is easiest
to upgrade, so it ultimately wins. Not the fanciest. Best not to get all
Religious True Believer about these things.
NO BERT. They are NOT merging into one. For some reason YOU cannot
grasp what "superset" means.
This is what I mean by lacking perspective, Craig. First off, even with USB
2.0, USB was no longer hampered by the strict master/slave architecture. Either
device could take on either role. So here's how this will play out.
USB-C devices negotiate. If they both have Thunderbolt 3 capability, they can
use it. If they have DisplayPort, they can use that. If they have USB 3.1,
which they all must, they can use that. The lowest common denominator between
the devices gets enabled. That's what it means when it says: "Thunderbolt 3 is
a superset solution which includes USB 3.1 (10Gbps), and adds 40Gbps
Thunderbolt and DisplayPort 1.2 from a single USB-C port."
The more expensive implementations will include the greater feature set. So,
USB 3.1 will be improved as USB has always done, to the point that the USB-C
connector will be supporting bit rates most likely well beyond 40 Gb/s, and any
mention of BOTH Thunderbolt AND DisplayPort will be just for the history books.
Computers will continue to have HDMI for some time, but soon enough, what's the
point? USB 3.0 was **already** designed to support displays, migrating up from
USB's beginnings as keyboard, mouse, and printer interface. USB-C just more so.
The fact that bit rates go up and up is hardly new news, Craig.
(But, of course, trust Apple to come up with another incompatible interface,
before this happens. It's *always* been thus.)
You should fight your urge to be a zealot. That's how you go down the spiral of
consistently being wrong.
END OF THREAD.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: