ACCESS.bus, developed by ACCESS Co., Ltd., was a short-lived attempt to create a low-cost, low-power alternative to USB in the late 1990s, primarily for connecting peripherals like keyboards and mice. Leveraging the already established I²C protocol, it aimed for simplicity and minimal hardware requirements. Despite backing from major Japanese manufacturers and some limited adoption in devices like digital cameras and PDAs, ACCESS.bus ultimately failed to gain significant traction against the rapidly growing dominance of USB, fading into obscurity by the early 2000s. Its failure was largely due to USB's broader industry support, superior performance for higher-bandwidth devices, and its eventual standardization and adoption across diverse platforms.
The article "ACCESS.bus: The Forgotten USB Competitor" delves into the intriguing history of a now-obsolete peripheral connection standard known as ACCESS.bus, developed by a consortium led by Access Co., Ltd. The piece meticulously details how ACCESS.bus, despite possessing some arguably advantageous features compared to the ultimately ubiquitous USB, faded into technological obscurity. Emerging in the late 1990s, a period of intense competition in the realm of computer peripheral connectivity, ACCESS.bus aimed to provide a straightforward and efficient interface primarily for connecting low-bandwidth devices like keyboards, mice, and joysticks to personal computers.
The author emphasizes the technical underpinnings of ACCESS.bus, explaining its reliance on the established I²C (Inter-Integrated Circuit) protocol as a foundation. This choice offered simplicity and low cost of implementation, making it appealing to manufacturers. Furthermore, the article highlights the bus's inherent support for multi-drop connections, allowing multiple devices to be daisy-chained together on a single cable, a feature absent in early USB iterations. This potentially simplified cable management and reduced port usage, addressing a common frustration with burgeoning desktop peripherals.
Despite these apparent advantages, ACCESS.bus ultimately failed to gain significant market traction. The article attributes this failure to a confluence of factors. Crucially, the arrival and rapid adoption of USB, backed by industry giants like Intel and Microsoft, created an insurmountable competitive hurdle. USB’s wider industry support translated into broader device compatibility and driver availability, making it the preferred choice for both consumers and manufacturers. Furthermore, while ACCESS.bus excelled in low-bandwidth applications, its limitations in terms of power delivery and data transfer speed became increasingly apparent as peripherals evolved. The growing demand for higher bandwidth devices like printers and scanners further exposed the shortcomings of ACCESS.bus.
The article portrays ACCESS.bus as a technologically sound solution that ultimately fell victim to the dynamics of market competition and evolving technological demands. While briefly embraced by some manufacturers, particularly in the Japanese market, its limited adoption and eventual disappearance serve as a case study in how technical merit alone is not always sufficient to guarantee success in the fast-paced world of consumer electronics. The piece concludes by lamenting the lost potential of ACCESS.bus, suggesting that its multi-drop capabilities and inherent simplicity could have offered a valuable alternative in certain niche applications, even in the present day. The author's tone suggests a degree of nostalgic appreciation for this forgotten technology, highlighting its place as an interesting footnote in the history of computing.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43236370
Several Hacker News commenters discussed ACCESS.bus's technical merits compared to USB. Some argued that while ACCESS.bus offered advantages like cheaper connectors and isochronous data transfer crucial for audio, its downfall was due to poorer marketing and industry support compared to the Intel-backed USB. Others pointed out that ACCESS.bus's use of a 7-bit addressing scheme limited it to 127 devices, a significant constraint compared to USB's much larger capacity. The conversation also touched upon the complexity of ACCESS.bus drivers and its apparent susceptibility to noise, alongside its prevalence in specific niches like high-end audio equipment in Japan. A few commenters reminisced about using ACCESS.bus devices and noted the lack of readily available information about the technology today, contributing to its "forgotten" status.
The Hacker News post titled "ACCESS.bus: The Forgotten USB Competitor" generated several comments discussing the article about the now-obsolete ACCESS.bus. Many of the comments revolve around personal experiences and technical details related to the technology.
One commenter notes their surprise at learning ACCESS.bus wasn't simply a Japanese standard, having only encountered it on Sharp Zaurus devices. They express fondness for the connector, describing it as "robust" and "satisfyingly chunky." This sentiment regarding the physical connector is echoed by another commenter who recalls liking the connector more than mini-USB.
Several commenters discuss the prevalence of ACCESS.bus in specific devices. Multiple users mention seeing it on Casio digital cameras and Sharp organizers. One individual recalls encountering it on a GPS device. Another commenter notes that while it was seemingly ubiquitous in Japan for a period, they'd never seen it used on anything else, reinforcing the perception of it as a primarily Japanese standard.
The technical aspects of ACCESS.bus are also discussed. One commenter correctly points out that the article misrepresents the bus as being half-duplex, when in fact, it's a full-duplex standard capable of simultaneous send and receive. This correction leads to a brief discussion about the implications of half-duplex versus full-duplex communication.
Another technical point raised is the bus's relatively low speed compared to USB, with one comment suggesting this limitation contributed to its eventual downfall.
A few comments touch on the broader context of competing standards in the technology industry, with one commenter reminiscing about the "connector hell" of the late 90s and early 2000s before USB achieved dominance. Another comment laments the lack of a single, unified connector standard even today, despite USB's widespread adoption.
Finally, some comments express general appreciation for the article and the opportunity to learn about a piece of forgotten technology history. One user remarks on the cyclical nature of technology, noting how older standards sometimes reappear in modified forms.