Docks take up too much space on the desktop. If the display had SD readers, USB, firewire, etc. then the keyboard and mouse can be wireless on the desktop. Connect power and thunderbolt and you are now at your workstation at your desk. Let the display be the dock if you want wired devices.
If a simple knock of your machine could detach your monitor, speakers, external drives, etc. that would be annoying.
it is easy enough to integrate a latch into the MagSafe design though-- still take advantage of magnetic mating, but add a sliding cover or something.
As everyone here understands... For ThunderBolt to succeed it needs to be more standardized and ultimately the only option. Anything short of that is going to be a mess. The optical interface really needs to come sooner rather than later to become a consumer hit with power integrated.
it is easy enough to integrate a latch into the MagSafe design though-- still take advantage of magnetic mating, but add a sliding cover or something.
An optional lock that can ignored on most devices, but for docking station cables it latch securely with a button on the cable. Shouldn't be too hard, if Apple were to go down that route.
Quote:
As everyone here understands... For ThunderBolt to succeed it needs to be more standardized and ultimately the only option. Anything short of that is going to be a mess. The optical interface really needs to come sooner rather than later to become a consumer hit with power integrated.
We'll see how Thunderbolt is doing at this upcoming CES. I expect more peripherals, but I wouldn't take a lack of mDP/Thunderbolt in "PCs' as a sign that it's failing. Remember it's only been 'on' Macs for less than year, and we didn't even know it was going to be a cooper connection integrated with mDP port interface until it was released.
As for adoption, that will come when Apple can get a small enough TB controller chip into iDevices. At that point I think it'll be like USB2.0, back when Apple offered Firewire and USB syncing options with their iPods, yet most PCs still were using the USB1.0 for syncing which was just awful compared to the speed (and power transfer) of Firewire. Get it on 200 million iDevices in a year and you'l get PC makers wanting to add Thunderbolt support.
As for adoption, that will come when Apple can get a small enough TB controller chip into iDevices. At that point I think it'll be like USB2.0, back when Apple offered Firewire and USB syncing options with their iPods, yet most PCs still were using the USB1.0 for syncing which was just awful compared to the speed (and power transfer) of Firewire. Get it on 200 million iDevices in a year and you'l get PC makers wanting to add Thunderbolt support.
They would need to very greatly improve the speed of storage transfer on the iDevices to make a TB iDevice a worthwhile addition. I don't have a 4s, but everything before that, USB cable was nowhere nearly the weakest link, it was the slow speed of the flash chips.
They would need to very greatly improve the speed of storage transfer on the iDevices to make a TB iDevice a worthwhile addition. I don't have a 4s, but everything before that, USB cable was nowhere nearly the weakest link, it was the slow speed of the flash chips.
I think the NAND in the iPhone 4S are about 160Mbits per second, which is well about the current USB2.0 transfer speeds so it could be faster due to lower latencies than current offerings with room to grow due for many generation, but it would also allow for potentially faster recharging when connected to a primary device.
Is Apple's optical connector SPDIF? If so, why not just use a cheaper, but just as good, twisted pair of copper wires?
SPDIF optical strikes me as an expensive gee whiz technology that offers no advantages.
1) It would be silly to offer a single, unified connector and have the only data be digital audio. I assume t was designed with optical LightPeak/Thunderbolt in mind for a universal dock connector.
2) Given the amount of power being supplied to MagSafe I doubt that such a tiny twisted pair would fair well around those electric fields, which is why optical data would in the center of a power cord makes sense.
2) Given the amount of power being supplied to MagSafe I doubt that such a tiny twisted pair would fair well around those electric fields, which is why optical data would in the center of a power cord makes sense.
RF rejection is the only advantage. I once ran long cords from the DVD player to the receiver, and I got hum through the coax. I switched to optical and it was OK.
I think that you are right - if they want to run PCM and AC through the same connector, then they are forced to use optical.
RF rejection is the only advantage. I once ran long cords from the DVD player to the receiver, and I got hum through the coax. I switched to optical and it was OK.
I think that you are right - if they want to run PCM and AC through the same connector, then they are forced to use optical.
There is also a potential capacity of data transfer advantage of Thunderbolt over optical. But remember that image is only from a patent they submitted on 30-SEPT-2008. For comparison LightPeak wasn't demoed by Intel until 2009, at least not to the world at large.
Who knows if or when Apple plans to unleash such an option. Having a MagSafe and fairly secure Thunderbolt port that doesn't pop off easily is a pretty good option. On top that Apple tends to keep their display setups for a very long time? perhaps too long. If this comes to fruition we might have to wait for HiDPI displays are standard and after this MBP refresh has run its course.
Thanks for those links, I second your recommendation. The first one in particular was very revealing when Steve Jobs talks about managers. How many here have suffered at the hands of managers who insist on 'managing' when leaving well alone is the best option. Management as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. The cult of management, a curse of the modern age.
I hear ya! And to hear a young Steve Jobs voice these principles back in the early 80s is pretty amazing. Steve has been quite consistent over the years, matured, but fundamentally the same smart guy. Makes you wonder how Apple's executives could have handled his exile from Apple so badly. Like his teachers, I think they didn't know what to do with the guy.
I hear ya! And to hear a young Steve Jobs voice these principles back in the early 80s is pretty amazing. Steve has been quite consistent over the years, matured, but fundamentally the same smart guy. Makes you wonder how Apple's executives could have handled his exile from Apple so badly. Like his teachers, I think they didn't know what to do with the guy.
In that first link Jobs notes the number of employees at IBM being 350k and Apple being 6,000. As Apple most recent 10-K "As of September 24, 2011, the Company had approximately 60,400 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,900 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors." Only 10x as many despite the growth in every area of the company otherwise. For comparison, IBM has added more about 75k employees since the mid-80s.
So Intel is looking for a 40% share of the market, with Apple as their exclusive client, Intel has already a 100% market share
Cheers !
My understanding of Intel helping back the ultrabook product category is to keep ARM out of low-power notebooks. While that's not exactly a big deal today, once quad-core Cortex-A15s arrive with Windows 8 running on ARM Intel's position will start to look threatened.
Can someone explain to me which is faster and easier to hook-up? How can one say Apple's implementation is simpler? Again, this connector is to STANDARDIZE docking for all ultrabooks. How is this proprietary if it's meant as an industry standard? I suppose USB 2.0 is a proprietary standard? Or how about HTML5 that Apple is in love with?
Basically, if PC vendors don't use Apple's "standard" TB connector, then it's proprietary. Yet, if they adopt Apple's TB connector, then they're simply clueless copy cats milking on the R&D of Apple with no innovation whatsoever. It's hard to be fair with this double-standard.
Apple's TB:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB connector (10W max)
2. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in MagSafe connector (for power)
Intel's proposed standard:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB and power connector all-in-one
With Intel's standard connector, the power that's available can be as much as the standard allows. The standard can easily require that the minimum power is 100W. The devices will ONLY require as much power as it's needed to function. As a result, you're not burning 100W constantly. Also remember that the TB can only supply 10W maximum. Typically, you don't want to run anything at maximum rating although there's usually a derating already by the manufacture.
Can someone explain to me which is faster and easier to hook-up? How can one say Apple's implementation is simpler? Again, this connector is to STANDARDIZE docking for all ultrabooks. How is this proprietary if it's meant as an industry standard? I suppose USB 2.0 is a proprietary standard? Or how about HTML5 that Apple is in love with?
Basically, if PC vendors don't use Apple's "standard" TB connector, then it's proprietary. Yet, if they adopt Apple's TB connector, then they're simply clueless copy cats milking on the R&D of Apple with no innovation whatsoever. It's hard to be fair with this double-standard.
Apple's TB:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB connector (10W max)
2. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in MagSafe connector (for power)
Intel's proposed standard:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB and power connector all-in-one
With Intel's standard connector, the power that's available can be as much as the standard allows. The standard can easily require that the minimum power is 100W. The devices will ONLY require as much power as it's needed to function. As a result, you're not burning 100W constantly. Also remember that the TB can only supply 10W maximum. Typically, you don't want to run anything at maximum rating although there's usually a derating already by the manufacture.
You're asking a lot of different questions and I don't think they all make sense. Standardization isnt referring to simply being common within a particular class of computer within a type of computer, it's referring to standards bodies. HTML and USB have standards bodies. The mini-DisplayPort port interface used for Thunderbolt is a standard that anyone can use, royalty free. USB is a standard that can add for a fee.
Intel is rumored to have sought to add TB to USB port interface and was shot down by the USB-IF. Note Intel's creation of USB. They sought other options which Apple clearly supported. What Apple doesn't support is the licensing of their proprietary MagSafe connector, which is unfortunate but that's there call, so to create a unified system for struggling notebook vendors Intel is creating a unified solution. Not all standards are common and not all common systems are considered standars.
They did the same thing for the ultrabook design template. I bet both come with a stipulation that you must use Intel chips. They have a right to protect their business don't they?
As for your comment about one cable with a huge connector or Apple's single cable with two connectors I don't think Intel has some big advantage is utility.
In that first link Jobs notes the number of employees at IBM being 350k and Apple being 6,000. As Apple most recent 10-K "As of September 24, 2011, the Company had approximately 60,400 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,900 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors." Only 10x as many despite the growth in every area of the company otherwise. For comparison, IBM has added more about 75k employees since the mid-80s.
Apples and oranges. IBM and Apple operate in entirely different markets. IBM employ huge numbers of consultants to other companies and many teams developing application-specific custom software for third parties.
At the time of that interview, IBM and Apple were in direct competition in the personal computer market, but even then IBM operated in many more markets than did Apple. That alone makes the comparison unfair; I very much doubt the PC group at IBM would at that time have been much larger than Apple's.
Nowadays, IBM serve an entirely separate set of clients, and are not directly competing with Apple, anywhere. They're actually quite good chums, it would seem.
Apples and oranges. IBM and Apple operate in entirely different markets. IBM employ huge numbers of consultants to other companies and many teams developing application-specific custom software for third parties.
At the time of that interview, IBM and Apple were in direct competition in the personal computer market, but even then IBM operated in many more markets than did Apple. That alone makes the comparison unfair; I very much doubt the PC group at IBM would at that time have been much larger than Apple's.
Nowadays, IBM serve an entirely separate set of clients, and are not directly competing with Apple, anywhere. They're actually quite good chums, it would seem.
.tsooJ
It's not apples and oranges when the two values being compared are exactly the same: time and growth. Custom software, direct competition, and good chums are all pointless.
Can someone explain to me which is faster and easier to hook-up? How can one say Apple's implementation is simpler? Again, this connector is to STANDARDIZE docking for all ultrabooks. How is this proprietary if it's meant as an industry standard? I suppose USB 2.0 is a proprietary standard? Or how about HTML5 that Apple is in love with?
Basically, if PC vendors don't use Apple's "standard" TB connector, then it's proprietary. Yet, if they adopt Apple's TB connector, then they're simply clueless copy cats milking on the R&D of Apple with no innovation whatsoever. It's hard to be fair with this double-standard.
I don't see that at all. Thunderbolt is available to the entire industry. The only complaining I've seen is about companies that create unnecessary variants of it, I think Sony is trying to run it over a USB connector.
Quote:
Apple's TB:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB connector (10W max)
2. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in MagSafe connector (for power)
Magsafe pretty much orients itself.
Quote:
Intel's proposed standard:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB and power connector all-in-one
There's nothing in the story that says it's a connection for delivering power to the computer: "a mini DisplayPort connector, HDMI via DP++, a D-sub connector via USB, a built in USB controller that will connect to USB ports and audio, eSATA via a PCI Express based SATA controller and just about anything else you can think of that needs PCI Express connectivity.". All that is unnecessary, as a Thunderbolt-based hub can bridge out to give you all that connectivity without a separate connector joined at the hip. Some of that may need wall power, but if you're replacing the dock, then you're probably where you can get wall power.
Will there be a standardized physical dock like the first two images on this story? A mechanical dock is a bad idea if that's what they're really doing, because you're limiting yourself to only one class of devices, and you have this needlessly large and probably heavy dock on the desk. If it's just a connector to a hub, then that means that these potentially useful hubs would be prevented from being used on desktop computers, which have their own power feed already.
Quote:
With Intel's standard connector, the power that's available can be as much as the standard allows. The standard can easily require that the minimum power is 100W. The devices will ONLY require as much power as it's needed to function. As a result, you're not burning 100W constantly. Also remember that the TB can only supply 10W maximum. Typically, you don't want to run anything at maximum rating although there's usually a derating already by the manufacture.
I don't know what you're saying here. TB "docks" - hubs and other devices often be powered by the wall. TB probably can handle loads better than a USB port, because there is more power available to it. A notebook computer probably isn't going to be able to operate on 10 watts.
Fits in two directions and the magnet pretty much aligns itself when you get it close enough. What I don't understand is why other companies haven't adopted the magnetic power cable. I can't imagine Apple having a patent that protects more than their design. Magnetic power cables have been around for decades.
Comments
If a simple knock of your machine could detach your monitor, speakers, external drives, etc. that would be annoying.
it is easy enough to integrate a latch into the MagSafe design though-- still take advantage of magnetic mating, but add a sliding cover or something.
As everyone here understands... For ThunderBolt to succeed it needs to be more standardized and ultimately the only option. Anything short of that is going to be a mess. The optical interface really needs to come sooner rather than later to become a consumer hit with power integrated.
it is easy enough to integrate a latch into the MagSafe design though-- still take advantage of magnetic mating, but add a sliding cover or something.
An optional lock that can ignored on most devices, but for docking station cables it latch securely with a button on the cable. Shouldn't be too hard, if Apple were to go down that route.
As everyone here understands... For ThunderBolt to succeed it needs to be more standardized and ultimately the only option. Anything short of that is going to be a mess. The optical interface really needs to come sooner rather than later to become a consumer hit with power integrated.
We'll see how Thunderbolt is doing at this upcoming CES. I expect more peripherals, but I wouldn't take a lack of mDP/Thunderbolt in "PCs' as a sign that it's failing. Remember it's only been 'on' Macs for less than year, and we didn't even know it was going to be a cooper connection integrated with mDP port interface until it was released.
As for adoption, that will come when Apple can get a small enough TB controller chip into iDevices. At that point I think it'll be like USB2.0, back when Apple offered Firewire and USB syncing options with their iPods, yet most PCs still were using the USB1.0 for syncing which was just awful compared to the speed (and power transfer) of Firewire. Get it on 200 million iDevices in a year and you'l get PC makers wanting to add Thunderbolt support.
edit: Asus and Acer have already committed to supporting Thunderbolt. We'll see if that holds up at CES in January: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Thu...ort,13444.html
PS: How fast are your transfer speeds: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/dat...dna,14089.html
As for adoption, that will come when Apple can get a small enough TB controller chip into iDevices. At that point I think it'll be like USB2.0, back when Apple offered Firewire and USB syncing options with their iPods, yet most PCs still were using the USB1.0 for syncing which was just awful compared to the speed (and power transfer) of Firewire. Get it on 200 million iDevices in a year and you'l get PC makers wanting to add Thunderbolt support.
They would need to very greatly improve the speed of storage transfer on the iDevices to make a TB iDevice a worthwhile addition. I don't have a 4s, but everything before that, USB cable was nowhere nearly the weakest link, it was the slow speed of the flash chips.
It's the one drawback I see to Apple's patent of a MagSafe plug with the optical data cable in the center.
Is Apple's optical connector IEC 60958 type II? If so, why not just use a cheaper, but just as good, coax copper wires?
SPDIF optical strikes me as an expensive gee whiz technology that offers no advantages.
They would need to very greatly improve the speed of storage transfer on the iDevices to make a TB iDevice a worthwhile addition. I don't have a 4s, but everything before that, USB cable was nowhere nearly the weakest link, it was the slow speed of the flash chips.
I think the NAND in the iPhone 4S are about 160Mbits per second, which is well about the current USB2.0 transfer speeds so it could be faster due to lower latencies than current offerings with room to grow due for many generation, but it would also allow for potentially faster recharging when connected to a primary device.
Is Apple's optical connector SPDIF? If so, why not just use a cheaper, but just as good, twisted pair of copper wires?
SPDIF optical strikes me as an expensive gee whiz technology that offers no advantages.
1) It would be silly to offer a single, unified connector and have the only data be digital audio. I assume t was designed with optical LightPeak/Thunderbolt in mind for a universal dock connector.
2) Given the amount of power being supplied to MagSafe I doubt that such a tiny twisted pair would fair well around those electric fields, which is why optical data would in the center of a power cord makes sense.
1)
2) Given the amount of power being supplied to MagSafe I doubt that such a tiny twisted pair would fair well around those electric fields, which is why optical data would in the center of a power cord makes sense.
RF rejection is the only advantage. I once ran long cords from the DVD player to the receiver, and I got hum through the coax. I switched to optical and it was OK.
I think that you are right - if they want to run PCM and AC through the same connector, then they are forced to use optical.
RF rejection is the only advantage. I once ran long cords from the DVD player to the receiver, and I got hum through the coax. I switched to optical and it was OK.
I think that you are right - if they want to run PCM and AC through the same connector, then they are forced to use optical.
There is also a potential capacity of data transfer advantage of Thunderbolt over optical. But remember that image is only from a patent they submitted on 30-SEPT-2008. For comparison LightPeak wasn't demoed by Intel until 2009, at least not to the world at large.
Who knows if or when Apple plans to unleash such an option. Having a MagSafe and fairly secure Thunderbolt port that doesn't pop off easily is a pretty good option. On top that Apple tends to keep their display setups for a very long time? perhaps too long. If this comes to fruition we might have to wait for HiDPI displays are standard and after this MBP refresh has run its course.
Thanks for those links, I second your recommendation. The first one in particular was very revealing when Steve Jobs talks about managers. How many here have suffered at the hands of managers who insist on 'managing' when leaving well alone is the best option. Management as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. The cult of management, a curse of the modern age.
I hear ya! And to hear a young Steve Jobs voice these principles back in the early 80s is pretty amazing. Steve has been quite consistent over the years, matured, but fundamentally the same smart guy. Makes you wonder how Apple's executives could have handled his exile from Apple so badly. Like his teachers, I think they didn't know what to do with the guy.
I hear ya! And to hear a young Steve Jobs voice these principles back in the early 80s is pretty amazing. Steve has been quite consistent over the years, matured, but fundamentally the same smart guy. Makes you wonder how Apple's executives could have handled his exile from Apple so badly. Like his teachers, I think they didn't know what to do with the guy.
In that first link Jobs notes the number of employees at IBM being 350k and Apple being 6,000. As Apple most recent 10-K "As of September 24, 2011, the Company had approximately 60,400 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,900 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors." Only 10x as many despite the growth in every area of the company otherwise. For comparison, IBM has added more about 75k employees since the mid-80s.
Cheers !
So Intel is looking for a 40% share of the market, with Apple as their exclusive client, Intel has already a 100% market share
Cheers !
My understanding of Intel helping back the ultrabook product category is to keep ARM out of low-power notebooks. While that's not exactly a big deal today, once quad-core Cortex-A15s arrive with Windows 8 running on ARM Intel's position will start to look threatened.
Is Apple's optical connector IEC 60958 type II? If so, why not just use a cheaper, but just as good, coax copper wires?
Because coax copper is not just as good. One builds a new connector for the future, not for today, and fiberoptic cable allows for future growth.
-Allen
Basically, if PC vendors don't use Apple's "standard" TB connector, then it's proprietary. Yet, if they adopt Apple's TB connector, then they're simply clueless copy cats milking on the R&D of Apple with no innovation whatsoever. It's hard to be fair with this double-standard.
Apple's TB:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB connector (10W max)
2. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in MagSafe connector (for power)
Intel's proposed standard:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB and power connector all-in-one
With Intel's standard connector, the power that's available can be as much as the standard allows. The standard can easily require that the minimum power is 100W. The devices will ONLY require as much power as it's needed to function. As a result, you're not burning 100W constantly. Also remember that the TB can only supply 10W maximum. Typically, you don't want to run anything at maximum rating although there's usually a derating already by the manufacture.
Can someone explain to me which is faster and easier to hook-up? How can one say Apple's implementation is simpler? Again, this connector is to STANDARDIZE docking for all ultrabooks. How is this proprietary if it's meant as an industry standard? I suppose USB 2.0 is a proprietary standard? Or how about HTML5 that Apple is in love with?
Basically, if PC vendors don't use Apple's "standard" TB connector, then it's proprietary. Yet, if they adopt Apple's TB connector, then they're simply clueless copy cats milking on the R&D of Apple with no innovation whatsoever. It's hard to be fair with this double-standard.
Apple's TB:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB connector (10W max)
2. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in MagSafe connector (for power)
Intel's proposed standard:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB and power connector all-in-one
With Intel's standard connector, the power that's available can be as much as the standard allows. The standard can easily require that the minimum power is 100W. The devices will ONLY require as much power as it's needed to function. As a result, you're not burning 100W constantly. Also remember that the TB can only supply 10W maximum. Typically, you don't want to run anything at maximum rating although there's usually a derating already by the manufacture.
You're asking a lot of different questions and I don't think they all make sense. Standardization isnt referring to simply being common within a particular class of computer within a type of computer, it's referring to standards bodies. HTML and USB have standards bodies. The mini-DisplayPort port interface used for Thunderbolt is a standard that anyone can use, royalty free. USB is a standard that can add for a fee.
Intel is rumored to have sought to add TB to USB port interface and was shot down by the USB-IF. Note Intel's creation of USB. They sought other options which Apple clearly supported. What Apple doesn't support is the licensing of their proprietary MagSafe connector, which is unfortunate but that's there call, so to create a unified system for struggling notebook vendors Intel is creating a unified solution. Not all standards are common and not all common systems are considered standars.
They did the same thing for the ultrabook design template. I bet both come with a stipulation that you must use Intel chips. They have a right to protect their business don't they?
As for your comment about one cable with a huge connector or Apple's single cable with two connectors I don't think Intel has some big advantage is utility.
In that first link Jobs notes the number of employees at IBM being 350k and Apple being 6,000. As Apple most recent 10-K "As of September 24, 2011, the Company had approximately 60,400 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,900 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors." Only 10x as many despite the growth in every area of the company otherwise. For comparison, IBM has added more about 75k employees since the mid-80s.
Apples and oranges. IBM and Apple operate in entirely different markets. IBM employ huge numbers of consultants to other companies and many teams developing application-specific custom software for third parties.
At the time of that interview, IBM and Apple were in direct competition in the personal computer market, but even then IBM operated in many more markets than did Apple. That alone makes the comparison unfair; I very much doubt the PC group at IBM would at that time have been much larger than Apple's.
Nowadays, IBM serve an entirely separate set of clients, and are not directly competing with Apple, anywhere. They're actually quite good chums, it would seem.
.tsooJ
Apples and oranges. IBM and Apple operate in entirely different markets. IBM employ huge numbers of consultants to other companies and many teams developing application-specific custom software for third parties.
At the time of that interview, IBM and Apple were in direct competition in the personal computer market, but even then IBM operated in many more markets than did Apple. That alone makes the comparison unfair; I very much doubt the PC group at IBM would at that time have been much larger than Apple's.
Nowadays, IBM serve an entirely separate set of clients, and are not directly competing with Apple, anywhere. They're actually quite good chums, it would seem.
.tsooJ
It's not apples and oranges when the two values being compared are exactly the same: time and growth. Custom software, direct competition, and good chums are all pointless.
Can someone explain to me which is faster and easier to hook-up? How can one say Apple's implementation is simpler? Again, this connector is to STANDARDIZE docking for all ultrabooks. How is this proprietary if it's meant as an industry standard? I suppose USB 2.0 is a proprietary standard? Or how about HTML5 that Apple is in love with?
Basically, if PC vendors don't use Apple's "standard" TB connector, then it's proprietary. Yet, if they adopt Apple's TB connector, then they're simply clueless copy cats milking on the R&D of Apple with no innovation whatsoever. It's hard to be fair with this double-standard.
I don't see that at all. Thunderbolt is available to the entire industry. The only complaining I've seen is about companies that create unnecessary variants of it, I think Sony is trying to run it over a USB connector.
Apple's TB:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB connector (10W max)
2. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in MagSafe connector (for power)
Magsafe pretty much orients itself.
Intel's proposed standard:
1. Make sure the orientation is correct, plug in TB and power connector all-in-one
There's nothing in the story that says it's a connection for delivering power to the computer: "a mini DisplayPort connector, HDMI via DP++, a D-sub connector via USB, a built in USB controller that will connect to USB ports and audio, eSATA via a PCI Express based SATA controller and just about anything else you can think of that needs PCI Express connectivity.". All that is unnecessary, as a Thunderbolt-based hub can bridge out to give you all that connectivity without a separate connector joined at the hip. Some of that may need wall power, but if you're replacing the dock, then you're probably where you can get wall power.
Will there be a standardized physical dock like the first two images on this story? A mechanical dock is a bad idea if that's what they're really doing, because you're limiting yourself to only one class of devices, and you have this needlessly large and probably heavy dock on the desk. If it's just a connector to a hub, then that means that these potentially useful hubs would be prevented from being used on desktop computers, which have their own power feed already.
With Intel's standard connector, the power that's available can be as much as the standard allows. The standard can easily require that the minimum power is 100W. The devices will ONLY require as much power as it's needed to function. As a result, you're not burning 100W constantly. Also remember that the TB can only supply 10W maximum. Typically, you don't want to run anything at maximum rating although there's usually a derating already by the manufacture.
I don't know what you're saying here. TB "docks" - hubs and other devices often be powered by the wall. TB probably can handle loads better than a USB port, because there is more power available to it. A notebook computer probably isn't going to be able to operate on 10 watts.
Magsafe pretty much orients itself.
Fits in two directions and the magnet pretty much aligns itself when you get it close enough. What I don't understand is why other companies haven't adopted the magnetic power cable. I can't imagine Apple having a patent that protects more than their design. Magnetic power cables have been around for decades.