# Firewire (DishWire) and VividLogic press release



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

"Our search for highly interoperable software that provides multi-device, multi-vendor interoperability based on open standards led us to VividLogic" said Tom Taylor, Vice President of Engineering, EchoStar. "By working with VividLogic, we were able to quickly integrate a mature software stack with a proven track record and open APIs into our STB platform. EchoStar would like to provide HDTV content to as many television sets as possible, which is why we plan to support both 1394 and DVI, two primary developing standards in the industry." 

Mark, whatever happened to this sentiment? Has it changed. If so, don't you think that E* should state it as publically as the statement above?


----------



## TVBob (Dec 19, 2003)

comet48 said:


> "EchoStar would like to provide HDTV content to as many television sets as possible, which is why we plan to support both 1394 and DVI, two primary developing standards in the industry."


Good find comet48. The full text is here: http://www.vividlogic.com/news/jun2402.html in the VividLogic press release dated June 24, 2002.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Wonder what he meant by quickly?


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

VividLogic selected to provide IEEE 1394 for Scientific-Atlanta High-Definition Digital Cable Set-Top Boxes

And Here comes the competition.

http://www.vividlogic.com/news/SA_Final_0918.pdf


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

comet - that's the first I've heard of that press release, but I wasn't keeping up with the firewire issue until recently. I'll try to get an answer, but most of the people "in the know" are on vacation this week for the holidays, so it will probably be delayed getting answered.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Thanks Mark


----------



## gonzo (Dec 22, 2003)

comet, thanks for digging up that release. That was the primary one on which I based the purchase of my Firewire-only Mits TV last year. Clearly it states one the intent to provide Firewire for the purpose of delivering copy-protected content to displays...not just using it for archival to DVHS, etc.

Let's hope that there's some validity to the "rumor" Mark mentioned, and that this doesn't turn into a case where the marketing got ahead of itself to the detriment of us trusting folks who made significant purchase decisions based on these comments.

If E*s goal is truly "...to provide HDTV content to as many television sets as possible, which is why we plan to support both 1394 and DVI...", I find it hard to believe that they would simply not support *ALL* Firewire-only Mitsubishi HD sets prior to this year, as well as the long list of other sets previously provided by TVBob (which I should mention is not exhaustive):

http://www.1394ta.org/About/products/consumer_products.html#Televisions

Just doesn't sound like a smart business decision...!


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Mark Lamutt said:


> comet - that's the first I've heard of that press release, but I wasn't keeping up with the firewire issue until recently. I'll try to get an answer, but most of the people "in the know" are on vacation this week for the holidays, so it will probably be delayed getting answered.


Mark,
Anything on this yet?
Thanks


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I haven't heard anything yet, but the people that would be able to give an answer won't be back in the office until next Monday, so I didn't really expect to hear anything yet.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Anything yet mark?


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I haven't heard back yet. I'll try a couple of different people tomorrow...


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Mark and others- Please look at the date of that article- Please, all of you need to understand that statements made back then were based on what was happening back then. At that time 1394 for monitor use was at it's peak. 6 months later in CES 2003 the word was that 1394 was dead and the standard would be DVI. 6 months after that a new standard, HDMI was being said to be the newest and latest upcoming standard. At CES this year HDMI was just beginning to find its way into the many monitors being made. Unfortunately 1394 and DVI are not directly backward compatible while DVI and HDMI are. While it was probably wrong to design the 921 without 1394 output, nevertheless it was; and to go back in and rebuild the 921 output section to include 1394 would not be a very good business move. 
ASk yourself this- How much would you pay for a special module to connect to the 921 to be able to use 1394 output with your medium resolution MItsubishi monitor? Lets assume that there is no difference in the observed PQ between component and 1394. How much would you pay?
Some people were said to pay over $1000 for the PM to get 1394 on their Mits. Would you pay $1000 for a PM 1394 for the 921 too? 

Why don't you run a poll- Find out how many own 1394 monitors. Find out how many would buy a module for the 921( if it were possible) to get monitor output in 1394 if it cost $1000, Cost $500, Cost $100? We may be dealing with a very small number that does not justify the development cost of the module.

PS- consider that the 169Time for record only is $1000 due to very small numbers of buyers that have to pay for the development and hard costs.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

How many would pay to hook the 921 to a recording device, for high definition which is one of the more important uses of the 1394 connector in displays? Why have a digital recorder to hard drive, without the capability to export full resolution for recording? So now your tv is obsolete because IT doesn't have 1394? Sounds like a design flaw.


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

DonLandis said:


> While it was probably wrong to design the 921 without 1394 output, nevertheless it was


But, the 921 already has a 1394 (firewire/Dishwire) output. They just need software drivers for any devices they plan to support (and a settling of the copy protection fears).


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

_"But, the 921 already has a 1394 (firewire/Dishwire) output."_

This has been covered before, hundreds of times. Dishwire output is hardware specific to the VCR dump of hard drive content. IT has no way of containing the OSD info and this goes beyond some Ross Perot simpleton's solution like "fix it" with a driver.

Adding a different driver to my minivan does not turn it into an H2 Hummer.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> Mark and others- Please look at the date of that article- Please, all of you need to understand that statements made back then were based on what was happening back then. At that time 1394 for monitor use was at it's peak. 6 months later in CES 2003 the word was that 1394 was dead and the standard would be DVI. 6 months after that a new standard, HDMI was being said to be the newest and latest upcoming standard. At CES this year HDMI was just beginning to find its way into the many monitors being made. Unfortunately 1394 and DVI are not directly backward compatible while DVI and HDMI are. While it was probably wrong to design the 921 without 1394 output, nevertheless it was; and to go back in and rebuild the 921 output section to include 1394 would not be a very good business move.
> ASk yourself this- How much would you pay for a special module to connect to the 921 to be able to use 1394 output with your medium resolution MItsubishi monitor? Lets assume that there is no difference in the observed PQ between component and 1394. How much would you pay?
> Some people were said to pay over $1000 for the PM to get 1394 on their Mits. Would you pay $1000 for a PM 1394 for the 921 too?
> 
> ...


HAVI is not just about connecting to a monitor. It's a protocol that allows you to network your entire AV equipment. e.g. you can have a HAVi compatible disk somewhere on the network and record to it from any recording (921 for instance) device on the network. It also enables you to connect your devices daisy chained, one cable in, one out, nstead of the miriad of cables we need today. 
Check out www.havi.org.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

What's HAVi have to do with this 921 application of dishwire for hard drive dump to DVHS VCR? Are you assuminmg that the 921 is HAVi compliant? I have not heard that. I always was told it was a special application with a special purpose.

edit- I posted a poll to see what the numbers really are:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=22418


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2004)

Don Landis is absolutely correct on this. FireWire (as a DTV interface) is totally dead; the FCC doesn't want it, content providers (i.e. Hollywood and the broadcast industry) hate it and the CE industry doesn't give a rats a** about it now that DVI/HDCP and HDMI have been settled upon as the "solution". Mits, several years ago, picked 1394 to build their architechture around, gambling that 1394 would become "the" interface between source and display. Nothing wrong with what they did, they just picked the wrong horse to bet on. 

This is a classic example of the perils of trying design and engineer something while the "standards and requirements" battle is still raging; you run the risk of leaving your customers out in the cold. As Don points out, the whole DTV landscape was different when DISH made their statments about FireWire support. Now that the FCC has "settled" things with some of their recent mandates, you will see very few people (CE-wise, that is) putting FireWire ports on their gear. 

Brian


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Brian-

True true true, but 1394 is still the ONLY way to transfer HDTV content in MPEG2 from source to DVHS VCR. Later on, I see USB2.0 giving it a run for the money when something like WM9 gets a foothold on media but they have a lot of ground to cover especially with a USB 2.0 answer to 5C on 1394. For monitors it's out but for recording to DVHS its still the only way.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> What's HAVi have to do with this 921 application of dishwire for hard drive dump to DVHS VCR? Are you assuminmg that the 921 is HAVi compliant? I have not heard that. I always was told it was a special application with a special purpose.
> 
> edit- I posted a poll to see what the numbers really are:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=22418


Don,
Check this link.
http://www.vividlogic.com/news/jun2402.html


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

_"Don,
Check this link.
http://www.vividlogic.com/news/jun2402.html"_

"LITTLETON, Colo., June 24, 2002"
Do you understand the significance of this date? It is in the opening line of your link in case you didn't catch it. The article is old and obsolete reference. It is a document of history now.

According to the poll so far, there is very little REAL concern over this issue. Seems to me a poll taken today proves that 1394 is only an issue for a couple of vocal people who are bitter at selecting a monitor that became quickly obsolete. I think most people are smart enough to realize that 1394 will offer no significant advantage over component in their monitor's display. All early adopters have been there so we do feel your pain but the fact is, 1394 monitor support is history, Get over it.
FWIW- the last major investment I made in a technology that never went anywhere was EISA bus hardware in a computer. There are those who spent a bundle on SDI DVD player and DVI is the new form for that too. obsolescence will always be a fact of life in cutting edge technology.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Don,
Again, this is not about connecting your monitor to a 921. This is about networking your AV components. If you can't see the value of this, then I am not going to try to convince you. Do you see some other way of doing this? Perhaps I am not missing the point.
I don't have any investment in equipment now that requires firewire, except for camcorder and pc. 
I for one have been holding off spending a lot of money upgrading my system until I can see how I am going to network it together. It isn't there yet. Perhaps we have to wait on Microsoft, because these other turkeys haven't yet managed to get their act together.
Also, I don't see this adding to the cost od the system. If fact I see it reducing cost and increasing reliability. I believe that reliability is inversally proportional to the number of connectors, of which there will be two.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Comet48-

Thanks for your further explanation- I see you don't have any real life experiennce with 1394 networking. I do!

There is a specific limitation here that you may be overlooking. 1394 networking is not what you may be imagining. Most people will think that a home media network means that you can do peer to peer between rooms in your house. Then they read about 1394 "networking" and apply this technology much in the same way. Surprise! 1394 networking is best suited to connecting devices within your equipment rack, not between rooms. I tried to serve up media files between my two edit suites and the distance was just too great to work properly. Too much latency. If you are interested in this type of topology check out the VOOM proposal which uses a more suited topology for room to room , peer to peer, media network.

http://www.bestoftheweb.tv/VOOMhs.wmv (A windows Media 9 file and if your connect speed is marginal, right click on the link and save the file to your drive. You will need wm9 player / codec)

Consequently, considering the topology limitations of 1394, it is best restricted to use in a phisically local area such as an equipment rack. Most have expressed a desire to use 1394 for the purpose of monitor connection. Other have wished for connection to FW hard drive. This FW hard drive application should work with no problems save for software support but the Monitor use is limited with the 921 due to hardware design. I support a software design to allow the 921's dishwire to offload to other devices besides DVHS.

OK- For local equipment rack connectivity, yes, no doubt this is the way of the future, ie single connection. I have seen several suggestions for system interconnects. The most exciting to me is IP and DHCP addressing. The best part of this is the system does not have incompatibilities like 1394. 1394 has a legacy of many incompatibilities right now. It will work but many of the devices now, today, require lots of plugging and unplugging to get different systems to work properly. In my edit suite the OHCI system works very well as a 1394 network within the rack of computers and hard drives and DVCAM VCR's. Distance caused issues in the network between edit suites. In the HT I use 169Time firewire and DVHS VCR's, 3 of them. Some don't talk to others and there is a physical connection conflict that requires you to be swapping cables. Consequently, what seems to once ignorant imagination as something simpler, becomes a nightmare of issues and exceptions to deal with in practice. Maybe had HAVi become the only way to execute 1394 things would be different but it didn't catch on so now 1394 is a mess and is best implemented in isolated special applications, not networking.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Don,
Thanks for the response. From my point of view, the beauty of HAVi, if implemented, is that there is a process that each vendor has to go through to ensure compatibility. On top of that there is a protocal defined for each of the AV devices. I think that the transport mechanism, 1394, IP or wireless is less important, and in fact like you I see places for all three.
Currently I plug my satellite feed into an ATI9700 all in wonder, process it with windows media server into a 2 mbit stream, then send it via 802.11b to a laptop connected to an infocus X1. Picture quality is good but limited by the WM9 encoder quality. 

I want E* and the other manufacturers to implement HAVi, as there is nothing else out there, to my knowledge, that allows for the implementation of a network encompassing our entire AV set of equipment. 

E* in their press announcement, 18 months ago, said that they were going to do it. I have yet to hear anything contrary to this. If they have changed their position, then how about a press release retracting their previous position.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I finally got a response to this today, comet48 from Dave Kummer. Here it is:



Dave Kummer said:


> For now only the DVHS is being worked. If/when other devices come out that become popular we will evaluate putting support in for them. We need to make sure that we do not run afoul of the studios related to encryption and Digital Rights Management on these devices.


----------



## comet48 (Dec 18, 2003)

Thanks Mark. Really disappointing response. Perhaps he can issue a press announcement with the same fanfare as his press announcement of his intention to support HAVi. 
What about the 211. Is that still a product, or another figment of Charlies imagination?
If you have his email address, I would like it.
Thanks for your effort.


----------

