That wasn't my intent, as I was actually only mentioning that Apple has a penchant for proprietary connectors, which oftentimes appears to be for marketing purposes only.
AMD Radeon HD 5870 EyeFinity 6 Edition PCIe GPU.
That?s 6 mDP ports. These aren?t old in Macs and Apple gets nary a cent for AMD?s inclusion.
Other technologies that people like to brand as Apple proprietary really aren’t...
I remember people thinking USB was proprietary when Apple jumped in. They missed their Serial and Parallel ports, I guess.
I still encounter people that think the AAC codec is from Apple, not Advanced Audio Coding, the successor to MP3 and “standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 specifications.” Admittedly the quoted part i don’t expect people to know, but I do expect them not to think AAC can only be used by Apple when they work in the computer industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies including AT&T Bell Laboratories, Fraunhofer IIS, Dolby Laboratories, Sony Corporation and Nokia. It was officially declared an international standard by the Moving Picture Experts Group in April 1997.
Solipcism, I'm no going to pretend to have some special insight into Apple planning and marketing, which is why I clearly indicated it was opinion. Anyway, with that said, one of the examples that comes to mind right off is Apple's modification of the industry standard DVI connection a few years back, creating their own proprietary ADC port. At the same time I think they even removed any way of using an existing DVI connector. I'd agree with you that design was certainly an influence. But selling their new cable, available from no one but Apple at the time, for around $140 or so couldn't have hurt the bottom line at all. Granted that eventually other vendors popped up offering those same cables for half the price, or even less. Then there was mini-DVI, which again might have been simply a design decision. But those mini-DVI cables carried a premium price, and with limited initial market for them so little to no 3rd party availability, Apple probably did pretty well with revenue on those. And then there's Apple's data cable for the iPhone. None of Apple's own cables would be considered inexpensive, unlike many of the 3rd party offerings. And tho Apple does have a licensing program that permits outside vendors to sell Apple-compatible cables for a cut of the sales, they're also very aggressive at making sure none of those get sold without Apple's portion assured. It's apparent to me that Apple sees a steady source of revenue from those proprietary connectors.
But you could be absolutely correct that Apple's only consideration when settling on their ports is design. Personally I don't know. But I know what my opinion is.
It certainly can be an attention-getter, can't it? Sorry for not acknowledging your post earlier. I got sidetracked on "real" work and never refreshed the thread before replying earlier.
Thanks. Good info in there. I always thought Firewire was an Apple-initiated interface design, eventually picked up by scanner makers, wide-format printers and the like with high data throughput needs. Now I know better.
Why do I get the feeling Thunderbolt is going to be another Firewire? Everybody's going to go USB3.
Think of Thunderbolt as an external PCI slot and that's why it won't be another firewire. It's a multi-protocol port and by linking it with displayport, it means there's no reason for it to go away unless MiniDP goes away.
USB 3 is useful for the multitude of peripherals available for USB2/3 and as mentioned mainly hard drives but in real-world tests, it falls short of the theoretical peak and will likely come in around 1/3 of Thunderbolt, which sustains full speed in both directions.
USB 3 and TB can and should co-exist. Wired USB may eventually be replaced with wireless USB but some things would be too slow over wireless so Thunderbolt will remain at the very least.
Solipcism, I'm no going to pretend to have some special insight into Apple planning and marketing, which is why I clearly indicated it was opinion. Anyway, with that said, one of the examples that comes to mind right off is Apple's modification of the industry standard DVI connection a few years back, creating their own proprietary ADC port. At the same time I think they even removed any way of using an existing DVI connector. I'd agree with you that design was certainly an influence. But selling their new cable, available from no one but Apple at the time, for around $140 or so couldn't have hurt the bottom line at all. Granted that eventually other vendors popped up offering those same cables for half the price, or even less. Then there was mini-DVI, which again might have been simply a design decision. But those mini-DVI cables carried a premium price, and with limited initial market for them so little to no 3rd party availability, Apple probably did pretty well with revenue on those. And then there's Apple's data cable for the iPhone. None of Apple's own cables would be considered inexpensive, unlike many of the 3rd party offerings. And tho Apple does have a licensing program that permits outside vendors to sell Apple-compatible cables for a cut of the sales, they're also very aggressive at making sure none of those get sold without Apple's portion assured. It's apparent to me that Apple sees a steady source of revenue from those proprietary connectors.
But you could be absolutely correct that Apple's only consideration when settling on their ports is design. Personally I don't know. But I know what my opinion is.
Apple has done some silly things with their port interfaces, but your original comment elluded to Apple’s purpose was to get you to buy expensive cables, which simply doesn’t make sense.
Take a look at regular DVI. That is huge!
That’s the reason mini-DVI and then later Micro-DVI for the MBA was designed. Now take a look at Monoprice.
They have plenty of inexpensive cables and adapters using mini-DVI on the cheap. If what you’re saying is true then where are the threatening letters from lawyers to remove these products?
I can’t find your $140 cable, but the only one it could refer to is the dual-link DVI-D. That isn’t cheap to make as it’s not just an adapter (I.e.: changing of some pins and port interface) but a changing of the signaling before being pushed between devices. Here are some examples:
What do you see? You should notice that you can’t take the cost of a convertor and assume that it’s some outrageous and erroneous “Apple tax.” You should also notice they all have access to USB because they need to be powered. Thunderbolt resolves all that by being a single port with multiple protocols and more power than USB. We might even be able to get eSATA drives working on these if the power requirements are low enough. Surely some very fast connections for 2.5” HDDs will be coming.
The only faults I have with Apple on ports is that they weren’t not future-forward enough to allow the FW400 port work with the FW800 port, as well the high per port fees that help cause the downfall of FW adoption. They did make FW800 singling backwards compatible to FW400, but you still need an adapter. They also were able to use FW800 port for FW1600/3200, though they seem unlikely to see the light of day. I also take issue with Apple not foreseeing the future need of micro-DVI when they invented mini-DVI.
PS: I hope they can add optical LightPeak to the center of a MagSafe connector for the simplest cable docking solution. I hope they remove Ethernet and FW800 in the next MBPs and put in at least one more ThunderBolt port, and spread the remaining ports along the back of the side edge, like in the MBAs.
Why do I get the feeling Thunderbolt is going to be another Firewire? Everybody's going to go USB3.
That because the enemy of "great" is "good enough"...and most thin-margin PC clone makers are loathe to put "great" insider their shitty, $500 plastic laptops. OTOH, if Intel bakes Thunderbolt support into each Ivy Bridge chipset, then the costs of adding TB are absorbed into the cost of the chipset. That's no guarantee that they'll actually add TB support. They might add it as a line-item in "higher margin" model.
The $149 price is correct. Sorry I was going by my less-than-failsafe memory. I do recall my art director at the time being livid over the price of the cable.
The $149 price is correct. Sorry I was going by my less-than-failsafe memory. I do recall my art director at the time being livid over the price of the cable.
1) That?s a Belkin product.
2) That is a less commonly needed product for connecting back into a 27? iMac to use it?s monitor as your display for a Blu-ray player, PS3, etc.
3) People need to understand what they are buying. If you buy a new machine that uses a new port interface and you have an old display you?re likely going to have to buy an adapter, or in what I assume was your art director?s case, a convertor.
That because the enemy of "great" is "good enough"...and most thin-margin PC clone makers are loathe to put "great" insider their shitty, $500 plastic laptops. OTOH, if Intel bakes Thunderbolt support into each Ivy Bridge chipset, then the costs of adding TB are absorbed into the cost of the chipset. That's no guarantee that they'll actually add TB support. They might add it as a line-item in "higher margin" model.
The only light I see here is Apple and Intel working together, along with the royalty free port interface of MDP already being used by Dell, HP, AMD and Nvidia. If Apple gets Thunderbolt support into iDevices we may see ?PC? support it at the lower-end (though maybe not at $500) in order to gain some more sales.
USB 3.0 is the same size port as USB 1 and 2. USB 3.0, just like 2.0 was, is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 (and 1.0), so the same port can work for both.
Unlike the change from USB 1.0 to USB 2.0, USB 3.0 brings actual physical differences to the connectors. The flat USB Type A plug (that goes into the computer) looks the same, but inside is an extra set of connectors; the edge of the plug is colored blue to indicate that it's USB 3.0.
On the other end of the cable, the Type B plug (that goes into the USB device) actually looks different -- it has an extra set of connectors, so it looks a bit like a USB plug that's been crimped a little ways down one end. There's also a new Micro Type B plug that has all its connectors laid out horizontally.
The USB 3.0 plug has an extra set of connectors.
As a result, you won't be able to fit a USB 3.0 cable into a USB 2.0 device. However, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices -- and cables -- into your current computer; you just won't get the speed advantage.
As he stated, it?s backwards-compatible with USB2.0 signaling and port interface. No adapter required for USB-A.
Quote:
It has the circuitry for USB 2.0 and 3.0 transfers inside and can use either, depending on what's plugged in.
[?]
The flat USB Type A plug (that goes into the computer) looks the same, but inside is an extra set of connectors; the edge of the plug is colored blue to indicate that it's USB 3.0.
[?]
As a result, you won't be able to fit a USB 3.0 cable into a USB 2.0 device. However, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices -- and cables -- into your current computer; you just won't get the speed advantage.
Cables are not terribly profitable, especially when the cabling and connector technology are brand new. It takes massive volumes to make the price suitable for a commodity interface. Some high-density SCSI cables are still more than $100 each. Cable and connector prices for certain standards, including mDP, are currently subsidized in hopes that popularity will grow.
Intel has many reasons for promoting Thunderbolt. Consider that AMD and any other competitors are at a disadvantage when supporting such a link directly from the chipset. Thunderbolt and Light Peak raise the barrier to entry much more than USB 3.0. Meanwhile, Apple, as a key collaborator, gains more than a svelte design and a head start on the technology. They earnestly want every vendor to use Thunderbolt.
The current implementation of Thunderbolt is not suitable for "hub and spoke" configurations; PCIe lanes can't be easily shared. It's more a matter of protocol than electrical attributes like termination. However, you're very likely to see monitors with internal Thunderbolt breakouts to all manner of special-purpose, slower or legacy ports, and even a few with DisplayPort passthrough.
Apple, for quite some time, has been a key innovator and early technology implementor. Most of you in the industry will agree that a few key organizations (or even people) are creatively responsible for the bulk of today's technology. The vast majority do little more than mimic and posture.
What I find disheartening is the number of self-professed "enlightened" souls who blindly attempt to smother what they have not conceived.
1) Apple recently was granted a patent for a hybrid display port USB 3 connector. I don't think Apple see this as an either or situation
2) The first products coming out for Thunderbolt are SSD raid drives that are frighteningly fast. And HUGELY expensive. It's clear the early users of Thnuderbolt are going to be serious video and 3d types, not your average Joe who needs a new external hard drive on Windows Vista desktop. USB is familiar to people, they'll know its the thing you use to connect your stuff to a computer. Most people don't know a huge amount about the technical stuff. Clueless people are a big market (way bigger than geeks!). Cheap and cheerful drive makers (and other acccessories) are going to go USB 3 IMO because its familiar and the cheap end of the PC market will go that way. So depending on how big the demand at the high end for Thunderbolt will be, that will determine if it will outlive USB 3 or succumb to it.
3) Thunderbolt is significantly faster on a tickbox comparison approach but AFAIK thunderbolt also has less latency and thus its everyday "real" speed is closer to its theoretical speed than USB 3 real speeds are to its theoretical limit.
4) I read that its possible to make a USB3 to Thunderbolt adaptor.
Quote:
Third-party vendors will sell adapters, available sometime this spring, that let you connect USB, FireWire 400, and FireWire 800 devices to Thunderbolt ports.
While it certainly makes sense for Intel to support both, I just can't see that USB 3.0 has any value. Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices <snip>. The ONLY thing that could save USB 3 from a device manufacturer's perspective is if a USB 3 device would work when connected to an older computer with a USB 2.0 port, but I don't think that will work.
Both your points are invalid.
USB 3.0 is everywhere in the external hard drive market. Companies that previously supported FireWire have mostly dropped it in favour of USB 3.
USB 3.0 devices operate just fine connected to USB 2.0 ports. My Mac Mini boots from a USB 3.0 external drive case.
Finally I'm going to guess that implementing USB 3.0 will be cheaper than Thunderbolt.
Thus manufacturers have 3 good reasons to make USB 3.0 devices.
2) The first products coming out for Thunderbolt are SSD raid drives that are frighteningly fast. And HUGELY expensive.
The "HUGE" expense is due to the SSD drives that are included. I'm curious to see the cost of Thunderbolt drive enclosures that are sold with no drives included.
Quote:
4) I read that its possible to make a USB3 to Thunderbolt adaptor.
You still need OS support to properly recognize the USB3 bus. Without system level support, it will either be seen as USB2, or not recognized at all.
Comments
That wasn't my intent, as I was actually only mentioning that Apple has a penchant for proprietary connectors, which oftentimes appears to be for marketing purposes only.
AMD Radeon HD 5870 EyeFinity 6 Edition PCIe GPU.That?s 6 mDP ports. These aren?t old in Macs and Apple gets nary a cent for AMD?s inclusion.
Other technologies that people like to brand as Apple proprietary really aren’t...
I remember people thinking USB was proprietary when Apple jumped in. They missed their Serial and Parallel ports, I guess.
I still encounter people that think the AAC codec is from Apple, not Advanced Audio Coding, the successor to MP3 and “standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 specifications.” Admittedly the quoted part i don’t expect people to know, but I do expect them not to think AAC can only be used by Apple when they work in the computer industry.
AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies including AT&T Bell Laboratories, Fraunhofer IIS, Dolby Laboratories, Sony Corporation and Nokia. It was officially declared an international standard by the Moving Picture Experts Group in April 1997.
But you could be absolutely correct that Apple's only consideration when settling on their ports is design. Personally I don't know. But I know what my opinion is.
Believe it or not some of the world runs on 9600 baud still.
OMG!! And I've been using 300 baud all this time on my BBS! Guess I'll have to upgrade my dial-up connection.
I remember people thinking USB was proprietary when Apple jumped in. They missed their Serial and Parallel ports, I guess.
Nah! While I miss a good Centronics port as much as the next person - time, and technology marches on...
With today's technology, we have the SCSI set of cables, adapters and terminators -- a real man's interface!
I always say if the cable doesn't weigh more than the connected devices (combined) -- it ain't worth having!
OMG!! And I've been using 300 baud all this time on my BBS! Guess I'll have to upgrade my dial-up connection.
Bagman -- Are you running a BBS?
Hyperbole much?
Actually. . . Yes
It certainly can be an attention-getter, can't it? Sorry for not acknowledging your post earlier. I got sidetracked on "real" work and never refreshed the thread before replying earlier.
Thanks. Good info in there. I always thought Firewire was an Apple-initiated interface design, eventually picked up by scanner makers, wide-format printers and the like with high data throughput needs. Now I know better.
'preciate it.
Why do I get the feeling Thunderbolt is going to be another Firewire? Everybody's going to go USB3.
Think of Thunderbolt as an external PCI slot and that's why it won't be another firewire. It's a multi-protocol port and by linking it with displayport, it means there's no reason for it to go away unless MiniDP goes away.
USB 3 is useful for the multitude of peripherals available for USB2/3 and as mentioned mainly hard drives but in real-world tests, it falls short of the theoretical peak and will likely come in around 1/3 of Thunderbolt, which sustains full speed in both directions.
USB 3 and TB can and should co-exist. Wired USB may eventually be replaced with wireless USB but some things would be too slow over wireless so Thunderbolt will remain at the very least.
Solipcism, I'm no going to pretend to have some special insight into Apple planning and marketing, which is why I clearly indicated it was opinion. Anyway, with that said, one of the examples that comes to mind right off is Apple's modification of the industry standard DVI connection a few years back, creating their own proprietary ADC port. At the same time I think they even removed any way of using an existing DVI connector. I'd agree with you that design was certainly an influence. But selling their new cable, available from no one but Apple at the time, for around $140 or so couldn't have hurt the bottom line at all. Granted that eventually other vendors popped up offering those same cables for half the price, or even less. Then there was mini-DVI, which again might have been simply a design decision. But those mini-DVI cables carried a premium price, and with limited initial market for them so little to no 3rd party availability, Apple probably did pretty well with revenue on those. And then there's Apple's data cable for the iPhone. None of Apple's own cables would be considered inexpensive, unlike many of the 3rd party offerings. And tho Apple does have a licensing program that permits outside vendors to sell Apple-compatible cables for a cut of the sales, they're also very aggressive at making sure none of those get sold without Apple's portion assured. It's apparent to me that Apple sees a steady source of revenue from those proprietary connectors.
But you could be absolutely correct that Apple's only consideration when settling on their ports is design. Personally I don't know. But I know what my opinion is.
Apple has done some silly things with their port interfaces, but your original comment elluded to Apple’s purpose was to get you to buy expensive cables, which simply doesn’t make sense.
Take a look at regular DVI. That is huge!That’s the reason mini-DVI and then later Micro-DVI for the MBA was designed. Now take a look at Monoprice.They have plenty of inexpensive cables and adapters using mini-DVI on the cheap. If what you’re saying is true then where are the threatening letters from lawyers to remove these products?
I can’t find your $140 cable, but the only one it could refer to is the dual-link DVI-D. That isn’t cheap to make as it’s not just an adapter (I.e.: changing of some pins and port interface) but a changing of the signaling before being pushed between devices. Here are some examples:
- Monoprice: Mini DisplayPort + USB to Dual-Link DVI Adapter — $66.70
- Apple: Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter — $99.00
- Belkin: AV360 HDMI-to-Mini DisplayPort Converter — $149.95
- Atlona: Dual Link DVI to Mini Display Port Converter — $199.00
What do you see? You should notice that you can’t take the cost of a convertor and assume that it’s some outrageous and erroneous “Apple tax.” You should also notice they all have access to USB because they need to be powered. Thunderbolt resolves all that by being a single port with multiple protocols and more power than USB. We might even be able to get eSATA drives working on these if the power requirements are low enough. Surely some very fast connections for 2.5” HDDs will be coming.The only faults I have with Apple on ports is that they weren’t not future-forward enough to allow the FW400 port work with the FW800 port, as well the high per port fees that help cause the downfall of FW adoption. They did make FW800 singling backwards compatible to FW400, but you still need an adapter. They also were able to use FW800 port for FW1600/3200, though they seem unlikely to see the light of day. I also take issue with Apple not foreseeing the future need of micro-DVI when they invented mini-DVI.
PS: I hope they can add optical LightPeak to the center of a MagSafe connector for the simplest cable docking solution. I hope they remove Ethernet and FW800 in the next MBPs and put in at least one more ThunderBolt port, and spread the remaining ports along the back of the side edge, like in the MBAs.
Why do I get the feeling Thunderbolt is going to be another Firewire? Everybody's going to go USB3.
That because the enemy of "great" is "good enough"...and most thin-margin PC clone makers are loathe to put "great" insider their shitty, $500 plastic laptops. OTOH, if Intel bakes Thunderbolt support into each Ivy Bridge chipset, then the costs of adding TB are absorbed into the cost of the chipset. That's no guarantee that they'll actually add TB support. They might add it as a line-item in "higher margin" model.
The $149 price is correct. Sorry I was going by my less-than-failsafe memory. I do recall my art director at the time being livid over the price of the cable.
1) That?s a Belkin product.
2) That is a less commonly needed product for connecting back into a 27? iMac to use it?s monitor as your display for a Blu-ray player, PS3, etc.
3) People need to understand what they are buying. If you buy a new machine that uses a new port interface and you have an old display you?re likely going to have to buy an adapter, or in what I assume was your art director?s case, a convertor.
That because the enemy of "great" is "good enough"...and most thin-margin PC clone makers are loathe to put "great" insider their shitty, $500 plastic laptops. OTOH, if Intel bakes Thunderbolt support into each Ivy Bridge chipset, then the costs of adding TB are absorbed into the cost of the chipset. That's no guarantee that they'll actually add TB support. They might add it as a line-item in "higher margin" model.
The only light I see here is Apple and Intel working together, along with the royalty free port interface of MDP already being used by Dell, HP, AMD and Nvidia. If Apple gets Thunderbolt support into iDevices we may see ?PC? support it at the lower-end (though maybe not at $500) in order to gain some more sales.
An adapter?
USB 3.0 is the same size port as USB 1 and 2. USB 3.0, just like 2.0 was, is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 (and 1.0), so the same port can work for both.
Explain this:
What's new in USB 3.0?
Unlike the change from USB 1.0 to USB 2.0, USB 3.0 brings actual physical differences to the connectors. The flat USB Type A plug (that goes into the computer) looks the same, but inside is an extra set of connectors; the edge of the plug is colored blue to indicate that it's USB 3.0.
On the other end of the cable, the Type B plug (that goes into the USB device) actually looks different -- it has an extra set of connectors, so it looks a bit like a USB plug that's been crimped a little ways down one end. There's also a new Micro Type B plug that has all its connectors laid out horizontally.
The USB 3.0 plug has an extra set of connectors.
As a result, you won't be able to fit a USB 3.0 cable into a USB 2.0 device. However, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices -- and cables -- into your current computer; you just won't get the speed advantage.
Brian Nadel, "USB 3.0: The New Speed Limit," ComputerWorld, March 2, 2010.
Explain this:
Brian Nadel, "USB 3.0: The New Speed Limit," ComputerWorld, March 2, 2010.
As he stated, it?s backwards-compatible with USB2.0 signaling and port interface. No adapter required for USB-A.
It has the circuitry for USB 2.0 and 3.0 transfers inside and can use either, depending on what's plugged in.
[?]
The flat USB Type A plug (that goes into the computer) looks the same, but inside is an extra set of connectors; the edge of the plug is colored blue to indicate that it's USB 3.0.
[?]
As a result, you won't be able to fit a USB 3.0 cable into a USB 2.0 device. However, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices -- and cables -- into your current computer; you just won't get the speed advantage.
A few comments:
Cables are not terribly profitable, especially when the cabling and connector technology are brand new. It takes massive volumes to make the price suitable for a commodity interface. Some high-density SCSI cables are still more than $100 each. Cable and connector prices for certain standards, including mDP, are currently subsidized in hopes that popularity will grow.
Intel has many reasons for promoting Thunderbolt. Consider that AMD and any other competitors are at a disadvantage when supporting such a link directly from the chipset. Thunderbolt and Light Peak raise the barrier to entry much more than USB 3.0. Meanwhile, Apple, as a key collaborator, gains more than a svelte design and a head start on the technology. They earnestly want every vendor to use Thunderbolt.
The current implementation of Thunderbolt is not suitable for "hub and spoke" configurations; PCIe lanes can't be easily shared. It's more a matter of protocol than electrical attributes like termination. However, you're very likely to see monitors with internal Thunderbolt breakouts to all manner of special-purpose, slower or legacy ports, and even a few with DisplayPort passthrough.
Apple, for quite some time, has been a key innovator and early technology implementor. Most of you in the industry will agree that a few key organizations (or even people) are creatively responsible for the bulk of today's technology. The vast majority do little more than mimic and posture.
What I find disheartening is the number of self-professed "enlightened" souls who blindly attempt to smother what they have not conceived.
2) The first products coming out for Thunderbolt are SSD raid drives that are frighteningly fast. And HUGELY expensive. It's clear the early users of Thnuderbolt are going to be serious video and 3d types, not your average Joe who needs a new external hard drive on Windows Vista desktop. USB is familiar to people, they'll know its the thing you use to connect your stuff to a computer. Most people don't know a huge amount about the technical stuff. Clueless people are a big market (way bigger than geeks!). Cheap and cheerful drive makers (and other acccessories) are going to go USB 3 IMO because its familiar and the cheap end of the PC market will go that way. So depending on how big the demand at the high end for Thunderbolt will be, that will determine if it will outlive USB 3 or succumb to it.
3) Thunderbolt is significantly faster on a tickbox comparison approach but AFAIK thunderbolt also has less latency and thus its everyday "real" speed is closer to its theoretical speed than USB 3 real speeds are to its theoretical limit.
4) I read that its possible to make a USB3 to Thunderbolt adaptor.
Third-party vendors will sell adapters, available sometime this spring, that let you connect USB, FireWire 400, and FireWire 800 devices to Thunderbolt ports.
Hyperbole much?
The only Apple proprietary connector was the ADC
Also Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI.
While it certainly makes sense for Intel to support both, I just can't see that USB 3.0 has any value. Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices <snip>. The ONLY thing that could save USB 3 from a device manufacturer's perspective is if a USB 3 device would work when connected to an older computer with a USB 2.0 port, but I don't think that will work.
Both your points are invalid.
USB 3.0 is everywhere in the external hard drive market. Companies that previously supported FireWire have mostly dropped it in favour of USB 3.
USB 3.0 devices operate just fine connected to USB 2.0 ports. My Mac Mini boots from a USB 3.0 external drive case.
Finally I'm going to guess that implementing USB 3.0 will be cheaper than Thunderbolt.
Thus manufacturers have 3 good reasons to make USB 3.0 devices.
2) The first products coming out for Thunderbolt are SSD raid drives that are frighteningly fast. And HUGELY expensive.
The "HUGE" expense is due to the SSD drives that are included. I'm curious to see the cost of Thunderbolt drive enclosures that are sold with no drives included.
4) I read that its possible to make a USB3 to Thunderbolt adaptor.
You still need OS support to properly recognize the USB3 bus. Without system level support, it will either be seen as USB2, or not recognized at all.