Why didn't 1394 take root?

Question

Iron

The question is, of course, more theoretical than practical. Even more interesting is the question. So why didn't it become an alternative to ethernet, because the concepts embodied in it were originally aimed at this? In the Wiki and in general - very little is written, maybe there is something to read?

Is it possible to make a network at the physical level, between computers, or rather a full-fledged one, on this basis, I would make a project.

Answer 1

Well, as far as I remember, Apple itself buried it with all sorts of license troubles and scored on its support.
It's all googling.
And it was seen as a replacement not for Ethernet, but for USB.

Answer 2

Expensive because.
Well, 1394 is not for public networks, but for connecting devices. And from this point of view, ethernet is even cheaper than even usb, which became the main competitor of 1394, and with the release of usb 2.0 replaced it completely,
1394 is still there, but in hi-end

Answer 3

The high cost did not allow him to become a universal solution. And so it turned out that the serious use of 1394 was in camcorders (camcorders) of the mini-DV format, then mini-DV became obsolete and with it 1394 became unnecessary, because new camcorders wrote on media with a file system, and for transferring USB files simpler, more convenient (due to versatility) and cheaper.
1394 was never a competitor to ethernet, although 1394 network functions were supported, they remained unclaimed.