or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's new Thunderbolt cable sports internal firmware, chips
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new Thunderbolt cable sports internal firmware, chips

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
A teardown of Apple's just-released $49 Thunderbolt cable has revealed an "active cable" with transceiver chips on each end.

iFixit took apart the new cable on Wednesday and discovered two Gennum GN2033 Thunderbolt Cable Transceiver chips, other much smaller chips and "tons of little resistors" tucked into the metal connector.

The teardown experts were prompted by a tip from ArsTechnica, who had been told by a support technician for storage maker Promise that Apple's Thunderbolt cable is a "smart cable" with internal firmware.

Apple released the Thunderbolt cable on Tuesday, alongside the first compatible peripherals--external RAID systems from Promise, which range in price from $999 to $1,999. Early tests of the Promise systems have revealed blazing fast write speeds of up to 700MB/s, as much as 21 times faster than FireWire and USB 2.0.

Gennum's website describes its transceiver chips as a requirement for the cables due to "the unprecedented speed of the new Thunderbolt technology places unique demands on the physical transmission media. The GN2033 provides the sophisticated signal boosting and detection functions required to transfer high-speed data without errors across inexpensive Thunderbolt copper cables."

Gennum's GN2033 Thunderbolt Cable Transceiver | Source:iFixit

Sources within the telecom industry told ArsTechnica that active cables are usually used at data rates in excess of 5Gbps. Chips at either end are calibrated to the attenuation and dispersion properties of the wire in order to "greatly [improve] the signal-to-noise ratio."

Intel has also reportedly chosen to use active cabling for "future optical-based iterations of Thunderbolt," the report's source added. Though passive optical cabling is more common, active optical cables could allow fiber optics to be coupled with electrical cabling for power transmission. Additionally, "current electrical ports can be forward compatible with future optical cables" if active cabling is used, said the source.

Teardown of Apple's $49 Thunderbolt Cable | Source:iFixit

On the more consumer end, LaCie has promised a Thunderbolt solid-state drive is coming this summer. A recent demo of the drive reached read speeds of 827.2MB/s.

Intel and Apple worked together to develop the specification, with Intel providing its "Light Peak" technology and Apple offering its Mini DisplayPort standard. Thunderbolt drives two separate 10Gbps links, one for displays and one for PCI-Express devices, and could reach speeds of up to 100Gbps when the cables transition from copper to optical.



Similar to Apple's experience with its in-house developed FireWire standard, the company has a fine line to walk in making Thunderbolt a unique value-add for Macs while still driving widespread adoption of the standard to ensure a large enough market for a range of third-party peripherals. Currently, the Mac maker is the only supplier of Thunderbolt cables.

Earlier this week, Sony announced a new VAIO Z laptop that implements a proprietary version of Thunderbolt. The electronics giant pulled a similar maneuver with its custom version of FireWire, called i.Link.
post #2 of 43
Nice! Imagine: 2012 "Please plug in your Thunderbolt cable for a firmware update." ... "Thanks! Your cable is now up to spec with a new max speed of 20GBps on each channel! Enjoy!"
Life is complex: it's a combination of real and imaginary components.
Reply
Life is complex: it's a combination of real and imaginary components.
Reply
post #3 of 43
Wow ..now I actually feel like $50 is a steal.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #4 of 43
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
post #5 of 43
Had the same thoughts regarding USB3 & storage.
post #6 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.

You realize this is the first cable ever made, right? USB cables were expensive in 1997, too.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #7 of 43
Monoprice will charge less than a third of what Apple is charging.

BTW, I recall buying an HP that had USB on it when most people hadn't heard of USB
and there were no peripherals for it. It will come and it will be affordable.

That HP motherboard failed - warranty center wanted to replace it with a MB that did not have USB - said nobody needed it and it would be years before anyone did. I insisted on the USB which they then had to special order.

It sure was nice not having to connect my game controllers to sound cards anymore and messing with device manager conflicts.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...

The important part to realize here is the "difference" between SCSI and Firewire as opposed to eSATA, USB and now Thunderbolt.

With SCSI you had a technology created by a consortium that that expensive because there was significant intelligence in the controller. Ditto for Firewire.

The thing that kept SCSI and Firewire expensive where they that were never integrated into mainstream boards.

Now compare this to

eSATA - External SATA is just taking a standard SATA bus and hardening it enough to survive outside the case. SATA was already an integrated items on millions of mainboards.

USB - same thing...integrated into mainstream mainboards and the costs go down.

So what makes Thunderbolt different than SCSI or Firewire.

A. It's an Intel technology which means it's going to hit mainstream mainboards
B. It leverages existing PCI Express technology that is already proven (a la SATA tech)

So while Thunderbolt "feels" like older technologies that didn't catch on a deeper look into who and what are behind the format yields significant differences. Differences that will make Thunderbolt more of a mainstream product than SCSI or Firewire could dream of.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The important part to realize here is the "difference" between
..... Differences that will make Thunderbolt more of a mainstream product than SCSI or Firewire could dream of.

True. Once Intel integrated them into their next motherboard revision, it will get mainstream. Also significant, so far only devices are external devices for enterprises hence RAID solutions. That's why they are not cheap. I know tweeter gives you instant reply etc. but just bide on this one. Soon every Macs will have these which means it won't feel and cost like early adopters penalty.
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

So while Thunderbolt "feels" like older technologies that didn't catch on a deeper look into who and what are behind the format yields significant differences. Differences that will make Thunderbolt more of a mainstream product than SCSI or Firewire could dream of.

Still, the integration into main boards doesn't help that there's a lot more technology required in the cable and on the peripheral end. Also, USB was built into main boards long before it actually got any traction, the low price of the host connector wasn't enough, it required a considerable kick start elsewhere.

Another issue is this is the first try at a consumer connection that requires electronic circuitry in the cable. Being a complicated and high spec cable and protocol, it seems like it's going to take considerable time to establish itself.

I'm hopeful, but it pays to limit one's enthusiasm on a new technology, it will take time to get sorted out.
post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You realize this is the first cable ever made, right? USB cables were expensive in 1997, too.

Hell, a 6' USB 2 cable from BestBuy costs $25 right now.

Sure you can get them for far less online, but $50 for the first cable from Apple, including the extra silicon, doesn't sound bad at all, considering USB 3 cables are probably going to be going for near that at places like BestBuy, at least at first.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #12 of 43
Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...

So presumably could by a 30m 'optical' thunderbolt cable someday and plug it into the same connector as used by the 2m copper cable.
post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Still, the integration into main boards doesn't help that there's a lot more technology required in the cable and on the peripheral end. Also, USB was built into main boards long before it actually got any traction, the low price of the host connector wasn't enough, it required a considerable kick start elsewhere.

Another issue is this is the first try at a consumer connection that requires electronic circuitry in the cable. Being a complicated and high spec cable and protocol, it seems like it's going to take considerable time to establish itself.

I'm hopeful, but it pays to limit one's enthusiasm on a new technology, it will take time to get sorted out.

It's not going to be cheap overnight but it'll get there. It's too flexible being based on PCI Express there's not a whole of of software expertise that's going to be required but it "is" an intelligent connection so it's never going to be USB cheap (which is good because USB just uses your CPU for most read/write tasks)

Intel has confirmed that Ivy Bridge in 2012 won't have integrated Thunderbolt . 2013 is a good bet (I added that last part)
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510 View Post

Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...

So presumably could by a 30m 'optical' thunderbolt cable someday and plug it into the same connector as used by the 2m copper cable.

Smart move on Apple's part. I initially thought that going with copper now would cause all kinds of headaches in the future. But if the current ports will truly be forward compatible this will let them get the technology out now at price that can compete with USB3 and allow them to defer the optical technology until a time dictated by the market.
post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510 View Post

Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...

So presumably could by a 30m 'optical' thunderbolt cable someday and plug it into the same connector as used by the 2m copper cable.

It only makes sense. If the circuitry was on the motherboard, the optical interface would most certainly fail over time due to constant plugging, unplugging and being susceptible to dirt. By placing the transceivers in the cable and eventually integrating the optical components internally, and sealed, it really creates a durable environment. Me like a lot. Makes perfect sense.
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

(which is good because USB just uses your CPU for most read/write tasks)

I've seen this repeated a lot, but let's be honest here, is that actually a noticeable problem? The CPU usage has always been negligible at best whenever I check.
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510 View Post

Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...

Maybe because your assumption doesn't necessarily follow in the way you think it does. Also, there was a paltry amount of useful information available. I've never seen such a comment made by Apple reps or engineers.

A transceiver in the optical cable would have been required to make it work without an optical connector, optical connectors probably would have been prohibitively expensive and unreliable for consumer devices that get connected and disconnected a lot. Until yesterday, I've never seen anyone mention anything about the electrical cable requiring a transceiver built into it. It is usually the case that electrical transceivers were in the device, not the cable.

I am somewhat frustrated that there's very little in between the sparse press releases and blog posts and the dense data sheets and developers notes. I always feel like I fall in between them, I don't really care to know enough to know how to build them, but I want to know more than what's readily available too.
post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I've seen this repeated a lot, but let's be honest here, is that actually a noticeable problem? The CPU usage has always been negligible at best whenever I check.

All things being considered i'd rather my CPU handle applications and UI and lead the read/write stuff to a smarter controller.

Where I've noticed it is in connecting a broadband device to my computer via USB vs Ethernet. The USB always had a bit of a lag. I don't know if it was poor drivers or what but the difference was there.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

All things being considered i'd rather my CPU handle applications and UI and lead the read/write stuff to a smarter controller.

Where I've noticed it is in connecting a broadband device to my computer via USB vs Ethernet. The USB always had a bit of a lag. I don't know if it was poor drivers or what but the difference was there.

I would say there are too many variables at play in that example to blame the connector protocol. It may be a factor, but nailing it down looks pretty hard.

When the CPU usage doesn't even make a blip at full speed and doesn't perceptually alter the rest of the computer's performance, it's really hard to justify using CPU usage as knock against the USB protocol.
post #20 of 43
I think TB will have a harder time gaining traction, because you'll need a whole new motherboard to support it.

USB or FW support could be added with a PCI card, Expresscard...this is useless because I don't plan on upgrading my computer (PC) for another 3-4 years, and I'm dubious with my Mac (3.5 year old Mini), because I'm not sure where Apple is going with the Mini, or that I even want a new one.

As for firmware in cables, it reminds me of something out of the pages of Bluray ("you must update your cable's firmware before a connection can be established...").

Eventually, it could catch on, when everyone buys a new computer, but ports come and go, see FW (for most consumers), and it took ages for USB to get established.
post #21 of 43
One aspect of this new Thunderbolt [TB] cable/connector, at least from the images posted, is that the plug end itself is rather long. Of course, because it has circuit board and chips it must be larger than a typical plug.

But my concern is that the plug will now exert a non-trivial amount of torque or leverage or up/down stressing onto the TB socket motherboard connector.
Not just when plugged in or removed, but from general cable movement where the weight of the cable or shifting of devices may start to cause either loose signal connection and/or wear and tear on the TB socket's attachment to the motherboard.

That's been a concern of mine with my Mini's video adapter to my DVI monitor cable, so I've been glad to have the adapter which uses a short cable length between plugs. I have worked on a number of computers (mostly notebook/laptop) that have had connector ports fail because of physical wear and tear on the socket.
(and I remember the 'old days' where most every connector --vga,serial,parallel,etc-- had two little screws to hold them onto the computer socket. For both PCs and Macs.)

I am hoping that the Apple mobo designers are making the socket connection especially resilient and strong to take care of the issues related to the inevitable extra stress.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

It only makes sense. If the circuitry was on the motherboard, the optical interface would most certainly fail over time due to constant plugging, unplugging and being susceptible to dirt. ...

Ha that's funny, as if mechanical contacts are not susceptible to failure from repeated use and dirty/oxidized contacts!
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510 View Post

Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...

So presumably could by a 30m 'optical' thunderbolt cable someday and plug it into the same connector as used by the 2m copper cable.

It was Intel which talked about optical cables with integrated transceivers. But why integrate the optical transceivers into the cable instead of making them separate? For example, Fibre Channel supports both copper and optical cable. Copper cable plugs directly into the Fibre Channel port. To use optical cable with Fibre Channel, you plug a transceiver into the port and then plug the optical cable into the transceiver.
post #24 of 43
Why didn't they just make an adapter cable like they did with stuff plugged into the mini-DP connector? Is it because you need one at each end of the cable? Seems a bit silly to pay so much for what is ultimately a rather short cable when you could just buy adapters once and then get a cheap cable for whatever length you need.
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasakka View Post

Why didn't they just make an adapter cable like they did with stuff plugged into the mini-DP connector? Is it because you need one at each end of the cable? Seems a bit silly to pay so much for what is ultimately a rather short cable when you could just buy adapters once and then get a cheap cable for whatever length you need.

because the electronics are tuned to the cable length and characteristics and they are needed at each end. These are similar to active Twinax 10G Ethernet cables used by Cisco and the like for cheap switch interconnections - expect cheap in Cisco's world is hundreds of $$$ not $50
post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...

You realize you are talking about a 4 TB RAID system for a $1000? That is an incredible value with Thunderbolt.
post #27 of 43
The speed will save enough time to pay for the difference in cost in very short span. $50 for a cable? Nothing if I can have extra time each day.

Trying to decide between the 4TB and 8TB models...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #28 of 43
What's really interesting about including a firmware on the cable is that it has the capability to be signed.

Think you're going to use some non apple generic cable? Nothing stops Apple from putting signed firmwares on these cables and making sure all its macs only use Apple cables.
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruckerz View Post

What's really interesting about including a firmware on the cable is that it has the capability to be signed.

Think you're going to use some non apple generic cable? Nothing stops Apple from putting signed firmwares on these cables and making sure all its macs only use Apple cables.

That's taking it a little far.

The signed firmware exists to prevent cables that aren't actually up to the LightPeak/Thunderbolt spec.

Like Sony's. Shoot them in the foot.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That's taking it a little far.

The signed firmware exists to prevent cables that aren't actually up to the LightPeak/Thunderbolt spec.

Like Sony's. Shoot them in the foot.

You make it sound as if Apple is altruistic...Apple and Sony are brothers from the same mother, I wouldn't necessarily put it past Apple not to do something like that, look at everything they sell that requires and additional port adapter (only $29...). If they can get some extra coin out of some cables, I think they would be more than happy.

I personally have no problem with Sony using a USB port for TB, as it's a lot more practical than mini-DP, which still requires an adapter to use it with anything else.
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

look at everything they sell that requires and additional port adapter

Nothing they sell requires an adapter to work with anything else they sell. Adapters are for outside-ecosystem stuff.

Quote:
I personally have no problem with Sony using a USB port for TB

Except that it isn't LightPeak or Thunderbolt at all because of it.

Quote:
as it's a lot more practical than USB, which still requires an adapter to use it with anything else.

That's you in 1997.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #32 of 43
I certainly have some more respect for the price of this cable now, however, regarding the design, I share the same concern as another poster, about the strain on this longer and beefier connector. Was thinking it would have been nice if the circuitry could have been located in the center of the cable, with very small low-profile connecters at the ends.

Would also love to see Apple start releasing some of their cable/adapter stuff in black.
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


That's you in 1997.

So how devices do own that use mini-DP? Do you even own any? In the real world, people use USB for most external device connections, but I'm sure you haven't used USB in years.

USB is ubiquitous, but it took a while to get there, although it can be added/expanded with add-on cards; TB requires an entirely new motherboard (read: a new Mac).

If you don't use an adapter with TB, it won't anything other than a specific display port or a small connection cable.
post #34 of 43
I do applaud Apple for being an early adopter to this new technology, and I am very hopeful that it takes off. The expansion of PCI express into an external format is an exciting concept. However, history tells us it will not take off until it is a fixture in the Windows world.
I do not applaud Sony's decision to use an alternate connector. This will only serve to hamper acceptance, if incompatible connector styles are used.

That said, I still found myself frowning at the lack of an eSATA port on the 15" MBP when it was released this spring. eSATA is really mainstream, found on nearly all external drives, and pretty disappointing that it is not supported on any Mac. My solution was a 17" MBP with an eSATA adapter card, something the current 15" cannot take. I bought the 17" ONLY because of the expressCard port. I would have bought the 15 if it had the ExpressCard port or eSATA. USB2 is too slow, I already own a set of eSATA drives, and I am not paying the premium for FireWire anymore.

Eventually, I expect a port expansion box to appear on the market, providing all these ports via TB. That will FINALLY give us the equivalent to a docking station for our MBPs. First box to market should contain FireWire, USB3, eSATA, DisplayPort. It may be a good idea to include an ExpressCard slot, to provide for less mainstream ports. That box would be VERY useful for MBA with TB users. But, if it is $500 for the box, count me out.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

So how many (I assume) devices do you (I assume) own that use USB? In the real world, people use PS/2 or ADB for most external device connections, but I'm sure you haven't used PS/2 or ADB in years.

PS/2 or ADB are ubiquitous, but it took a while to get there, although it can be added/expanded with add-on cards; USB requires an entirely new motherboard (read: a new Mac).

If you don't use an adapter with USB, it won't connect to (I ASSUME...) anything other than a specific USB peripheral or a small connection cable.

You. In 1997. You keep missing the point. So I'll keep time-shifting your posts until you get it.

Also, your last paragraph is wrong. Thunderbolt peripherals exist, just like USB peripherals did at launch.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Still, the integration into main boards doesn't help that there's a lot more technology required in the cable and on the peripheral end. Also, USB was built into main boards long before it actually got any traction, the low price of the host connector wasn't enough, it required a considerable kick start elsewhere.

Another issue is this is the first try at a consumer connection that requires electronic circuitry in the cable. Being a complicated and high spec cable and protocol, it seems like it's going to take considerable time to establish itself.

I'm hopeful, but it pays to limit one's enthusiasm on a new technology, it will take time to get sorted out.

Often times here on this forum we tend to loose sight of what mainstream really means. Many here think the technology is amazingly useful but for the mainstream, they are completely satisfied with the current USB 8 GB flash drives. So yes, it stands a chance of becoming a mainstream i/o port but with the added circuitry and cost, it might be a tough sell to the 'real' mainstream.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...

Are you planning on using TB for any professional devices? It's expensive if you only care about having a fast external hard drive, but if you are looking for a way to interface fiber channel, encoders, or basically any PCI-X device you can possibly imaging to your laptop then that is where TB comes in.

The true power of TB will come as Docking systems begin appearing. Theoretically it should be possible to bring back an old Apple idea of having a special Dock system that expands processor & memory, turning your MacBook Pro into a super powerful Desktop.

If all you really want though is USB3 or eSATA, I'm sure they will make adapters for that.
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...

You will soon see a TB cable that has USB/eSATA in the other end...or a little adapter box. Problem solved.
post #39 of 43
I think Apple learned from their mistakes. It's why they gave the tech to Intel to develop. They knew if Intel adoped it, the industry would follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...

The cost of bleeding edge technology is always high at first. This part should not be a surprise to anyone. Hopefully they have a plan, that they have learned from the old protocols and managed to lay a roadmap for marching the costs down.

This certainly is a very high end use for Thunderbolt. Keep in mind that $1000 is competitive in price to other small RAID boxes of the same capacity but have a much slower connection. In that perspective, the cost of the cable is incidental.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's new Thunderbolt cable sports internal firmware, chips