Personally, I see iMacs with ODDs through 2012 at least. Maybe not 2013, though.
Apple does not sell nor profit from any physical media. Apple DOES, however, sell lots of bits and bytes that optical media competes with.
I think that says that Apple has zero incentive to allow its customers to bypass the MacApp and iTunes stores by buying physical media from third parties.
...Also affecting Thunderbolt adoption is the growing presence of USB 3.0. HP, the world's largest PC maker, has decided to go with USB 3.0 after not finding a "value proposition" with Thunderbolt. Intel has said it will support USB 3.0 alongside Thunderbolt, which is meant to be "complementary," but some PC industry insiders have claimed that Thunderbolt could "greatly affect" adoption of the competing standard.
To say HP doesn't see a "value proposition" in TB doesn't carry much weight - after all, this is the company that almost scrapped their entire company's "value proposition" when they announced the idea of spinning off their PC division.
While I think TB offers great value, I don't think TB will "greatly affect" adoption of USB-3 as a competing standard - this is the "PC" market we're talking about after all. The name of the game is "as cheap as humanly possible, and then a little cheaper." This is the crowd that still puts serial and parallel ports on PCs, 20 years after they've been obsolete. The PC market will gobble up USB-3 (already is) in droves while all the pundits will call it "good enough."
I don't think TB & USB-3 will ever be direct competitors - unlike Firewire vs USB-2, the performance gap won't be soooo narrow. Even in the 1st generation, TB is more than twice as fast as USB-3, and if you count all 4 potential channels (2 channels, bi-directional) then it's already 8 times faster than USB-3. When the next generations of TB start to ship (optical connections) we'll be talking orders of magnitude faster than USB-3.
The USB-3 standard will be relegated to low bandwidth consumer gadgets - more than adequate for those. TB could conceivably become THE standard for everything else - Displays, RAID arrays, Networking, Expansion chassis, Breakout boxes (all in one USB, audio, Ethernet, Firewire, etc. dongles), 2 & 4k resolution HD video cameras & equipment, and all kinds of other high-bandwidth devices.
The USB-3 standard will be relegated to low bandwidth consumer gadgets - more than adequate for those. TB could conceivably become THE standard for everything else - Displays, RAID arrays, Networking, Expansion chassis, Breakout boxes (all in one USB, audio, Ethernet, Firewire, etc. dongles), 2 & 4k resolution HD video cameras & equipment, and all kinds of other high-bandwidth devices.
Apple will never allow USB3 on any of its products. It is already been made obsolete by TB.
To say HP doesn't see a "value proposition" in TB doesn't carry much weight - after all, this is the company that almost scrapped their entire company's "value proposition" when they announced the idea of spinning off their PC division.
While I think TB offers great value, I don't think TB will "greatly affect" adoption of USB-3 as a competing standard - this is the "PC" market we're talking about after all. The name of the game is "as cheap as humanly possible, and then a little cheaper." This is the crowd that still puts serial and parallel ports on PCs, 20 years after they've been obsolete. The PC market will gobble up USB-3 (already is) in droves while all the pundits will call it "good enough."
I don't think TB & USB-3 will ever be direct competitors - unlike Firewire vs USB-2, the performance gap won't be soooo narrow. Even in the 1st generation, TB is more than twice as fast as USB-3, and if you count all 4 potential channels (2 channels, bi-directional) then it's already 8 times faster than USB-3. When the next generations of TB start to ship (optical connections) we'll be talking orders of magnitude faster than USB-3.
The USB-3 standard will be relegated to low bandwidth consumer gadgets - more than adequate for those. TB could conceivably become THE standard for everything else - Displays, RAID arrays, Networking, Expansion chassis, Breakout boxes (all in one USB, audio, Ethernet, Firewire, etc. dongles), 2 & 4k resolution HD video cameras & equipment, and all kinds of other high-bandwidth devices.
I agree. That's the interesting thing about TB - it could change the entire game. There's no longer any need for a large, expandable box. Using TB allows unlimited expansion with virtually no penalty. Someone suggested something like a Mac Mini which could be expanded by linking another unit in series.
Companies need to stop splintering Thunderbolt capabilities in their products just for some artificial sense of "product differentiation". It also doesn't help that Intel is creating several different Thunderbolt controllers with different numbers of lanes, or different numbers of supported monitors. All this does is confuse the market. And many computer manufacturers will simply choose the absolute minimum capabilities just so they can claim to support Thunderbolt. Even Apple does that with their Thunderbolt Display which does not support directly daisy chaining a monitor using a Mini Displayport adapter, even though Thunderbolt is supposed to carry a Displayport signal.
I agree. That's the interesting thing about TB - it could change the entire game. There's no longer any need for a large, expandable box. Using TB allows unlimited expansion with virtually no penalty. Someone suggested something like a Mac Mini which could be expanded by linking another unit in series.
Interesting that the same people who praise iMacs for all in one simplicity and minimum cable clutter are now telling people to use Mac Minis and string together a bunch of external boxes and all the extra cables.
Interesting that the same people who praise iMacs for all in one simplicity and minimum cable clutter are now telling people to use Mac Minis and string together a bunch of external boxes and all the extra cables.
It doesn't make any sense anyway to connect minis together with TB. It is not like it is the same as having multiple cpus onboard. You would have two discreet machines with two copies of the OS and two independent bus architectures, two sets of memory, cache, etc.
Linked or load balanced servers usually require IP protocol over ethernet. I have not heard of using IP protocol over TB so it may not even be possible in that sense.
Interesting that the same people who praise iMacs for all in one simplicity and minimum cable clutter are now telling people to use Mac Minis and string together a bunch of external boxes and all the extra cables.
Interesting that the people who insist that they are the arbiters of what others should do can't even tolerate any ideas for new ways of doing things.
The concept makes sense for some applications. Imagine a mini-like box with video, CPU, RAM, and hard disk. Then you add optional items. Need more storage? Stack on a RAID box. Need more IO? Stack on a Ethernet box with half a dozen Ethernet ports. Need more CPU power? Add a box with only a CPU and RAM. And so on. The system could be a God-send for small businesses. No need to buy a massive server when starting out. Get a Mini and then expand it as you go - without having to mess around with moving all of your data and software to a new system later.
One of the reasons USB devices are so cheap is the SoC like embeddable controllers.
USB cables are so cheap (and don't require chips in them) because the data rates are that much slower!
If USB 4 was released with similar speeds as Thunderbolt, you would see similar requirements for $50 cables because you are hitting the laws of physics, not the laws of marketing
Comments
I wonder if the 2012 refresh of the Mac line would replace the USB ports with USB3giving us both the new hi-speed ports.
Hmmm.....Apple makes money from licensing ThunderBolt to third party accessory makers. Apple makes zero money from USB3.
My guess: No USB3 on any Apple products where TB could be used.
Personally, I see iMacs with ODDs through 2012 at least. Maybe not 2013, though.
Apple does not sell nor profit from any physical media. Apple DOES, however, sell lots of bits and bytes that optical media competes with.
I think that says that Apple has zero incentive to allow its customers to bypass the MacApp and iTunes stores by buying physical media from third parties.
TB will remain expensive far longer than most of us would like. They also need to do something about the $50 cable for $100 peripherals.
With regular computers getting TB ports, the market will expand by 20 times the current size.
There will be mainstream manufacturers who will make TB accessories. Prices will drop quickly.
It would be ironic if PC's get thunderbolt before Mac Pro's do.
It would be more ironic for a company like Apple to waste resources on a dead-end product line.
Look for third parties to make expansion cards instead.
...Also affecting Thunderbolt adoption is the growing presence of USB 3.0. HP, the world's largest PC maker, has decided to go with USB 3.0 after not finding a "value proposition" with Thunderbolt. Intel has said it will support USB 3.0 alongside Thunderbolt, which is meant to be "complementary," but some PC industry insiders have claimed that Thunderbolt could "greatly affect" adoption of the competing standard.
To say HP doesn't see a "value proposition" in TB doesn't carry much weight - after all, this is the company that almost scrapped their entire company's "value proposition" when they announced the idea of spinning off their PC division.
While I think TB offers great value, I don't think TB will "greatly affect" adoption of USB-3 as a competing standard - this is the "PC" market we're talking about after all. The name of the game is "as cheap as humanly possible, and then a little cheaper." This is the crowd that still puts serial and parallel ports on PCs, 20 years after they've been obsolete. The PC market will gobble up USB-3 (already is) in droves while all the pundits will call it "good enough."
I don't think TB & USB-3 will ever be direct competitors - unlike Firewire vs USB-2, the performance gap won't be soooo narrow. Even in the 1st generation, TB is more than twice as fast as USB-3, and if you count all 4 potential channels (2 channels, bi-directional) then it's already 8 times faster than USB-3. When the next generations of TB start to ship (optical connections) we'll be talking orders of magnitude faster than USB-3.
The USB-3 standard will be relegated to low bandwidth consumer gadgets - more than adequate for those. TB could conceivably become THE standard for everything else - Displays, RAID arrays, Networking, Expansion chassis, Breakout boxes (all in one USB, audio, Ethernet, Firewire, etc. dongles), 2 & 4k resolution HD video cameras & equipment, and all kinds of other high-bandwidth devices.
The USB-3 standard will be relegated to low bandwidth consumer gadgets - more than adequate for those. TB could conceivably become THE standard for everything else - Displays, RAID arrays, Networking, Expansion chassis, Breakout boxes (all in one USB, audio, Ethernet, Firewire, etc. dongles), 2 & 4k resolution HD video cameras & equipment, and all kinds of other high-bandwidth devices.
Apple will never allow USB3 on any of its products. It is already been made obsolete by TB.
To say HP doesn't see a "value proposition" in TB doesn't carry much weight - after all, this is the company that almost scrapped their entire company's "value proposition" when they announced the idea of spinning off their PC division.
While I think TB offers great value, I don't think TB will "greatly affect" adoption of USB-3 as a competing standard - this is the "PC" market we're talking about after all. The name of the game is "as cheap as humanly possible, and then a little cheaper." This is the crowd that still puts serial and parallel ports on PCs, 20 years after they've been obsolete. The PC market will gobble up USB-3 (already is) in droves while all the pundits will call it "good enough."
I don't think TB & USB-3 will ever be direct competitors - unlike Firewire vs USB-2, the performance gap won't be soooo narrow. Even in the 1st generation, TB is more than twice as fast as USB-3, and if you count all 4 potential channels (2 channels, bi-directional) then it's already 8 times faster than USB-3. When the next generations of TB start to ship (optical connections) we'll be talking orders of magnitude faster than USB-3.
The USB-3 standard will be relegated to low bandwidth consumer gadgets - more than adequate for those. TB could conceivably become THE standard for everything else - Displays, RAID arrays, Networking, Expansion chassis, Breakout boxes (all in one USB, audio, Ethernet, Firewire, etc. dongles), 2 & 4k resolution HD video cameras & equipment, and all kinds of other high-bandwidth devices.
I agree. That's the interesting thing about TB - it could change the entire game. There's no longer any need for a large, expandable box. Using TB allows unlimited expansion with virtually no penalty. Someone suggested something like a Mac Mini which could be expanded by linking another unit in series.
I agree. That's the interesting thing about TB - it could change the entire game. There's no longer any need for a large, expandable box. Using TB allows unlimited expansion with virtually no penalty. Someone suggested something like a Mac Mini which could be expanded by linking another unit in series.
Interesting that the same people who praise iMacs for all in one simplicity and minimum cable clutter are now telling people to use Mac Minis and string together a bunch of external boxes and all the extra cables.
Interesting that the same people who praise iMacs for all in one simplicity and minimum cable clutter are now telling people to use Mac Minis and string together a bunch of external boxes and all the extra cables.
It doesn't make any sense anyway to connect minis together with TB. It is not like it is the same as having multiple cpus onboard. You would have two discreet machines with two copies of the OS and two independent bus architectures, two sets of memory, cache, etc.
Linked or load balanced servers usually require IP protocol over ethernet. I have not heard of using IP protocol over TB so it may not even be possible in that sense.
Interesting that the same people who praise iMacs for all in one simplicity and minimum cable clutter are now telling people to use Mac Minis and string together a bunch of external boxes and all the extra cables.
Interesting that the people who insist that they are the arbiters of what others should do can't even tolerate any ideas for new ways of doing things.
The concept makes sense for some applications. Imagine a mini-like box with video, CPU, RAM, and hard disk. Then you add optional items. Need more storage? Stack on a RAID box. Need more IO? Stack on a Ethernet box with half a dozen Ethernet ports. Need more CPU power? Add a box with only a CPU and RAM. And so on. The system could be a God-send for small businesses. No need to buy a massive server when starting out. Get a Mini and then expand it as you go - without having to mess around with moving all of your data and software to a new system later.
One of the reasons USB devices are so cheap is the SoC like embeddable controllers.
USB cables are so cheap (and don't require chips in them) because the data rates are that much slower!
If USB 4 was released with similar speeds as Thunderbolt, you would see similar requirements for $50 cables because you are hitting the laws of physics, not the laws of marketing