I'd be surprised if they do thunderbolt in the same connector or even a separate considering the cost in the guts and the cable. I'd guess USB 3.0 support if that's destined on their MB refreshes. With wireless sync and cloud sync being the flavor of late, I'm connecting almost never.
I want you to know I had the perfect response for you here, but Safari crashed just as I was about to push send.
In a nut shell I agree, the new SoC will be focused on supporting retina and improving support for existing standards.
... Apple in the past has hurt people with iPod connector changes ....
What are you talking about?
The original shipped with Firewire and Apple quickly changed to USB and a 30 pin connector. It's been the same since at least 2003 and even the old firewire iPods can still be plugged into most of today's Mac's.
Of course they're going to keep using the Dock Connector. There is no other connector on the market that can do what the Dock Connector can do and that includes Thunderbolt.
The Dock Connector displays video at pretty much all resolutions from iPad 2+. It contains USB for charging and data transfer. It is slimline. Thunderbolt wouldn't make anything smaller it will make it bigger as the port is twice the height.
I love the Dock Connector. It's simple, compatible with a wide variety of devices, multi-function, and thin. Complain all you will but I see no reason whatsoever for Apple to incorporate Thunderbolt when there is no real valid technical reason to do so.
The original shipped with Firewire and Apple quickly changed to USB and a 30 pin connector. It's been the same since at least 2003 and even the old firewire iPods can still be plugged into most of today's Mac's.
There was one change when the video iPods came out. The pins changed on the later iPod videos because they did higher quality video. However that was one change and has stayed the same ever since.
I see no reason whatsoever for Apple to incorporate Thunderbolt when there is no real valid technical reason to do so.
1. iOS device backups that now take a few minutes would be just about instantaneous. iOS device backups which now take an hour or more would complete in less than a minute.
2. It would help drive the adoption of Thunderbolt, which is a strategic technology for Apple.
3. It would give owners of iOS device another reason to choose Mac rather than PeeCee when they replace their computer.
Thunderbolt wouldn't make anything smaller it will make it bigger as the port is twice the height.
You've completely misunderstood. Apple would be adding Thunderbolt pins to the Dock Connector, not replacing it with a Thunderbolt port.
Speaking of pins, whatever became of the old FireWire pins? Were they ever repurposed or do they remain unused? Because if the latter, hello, Thunderbolt opportunity!
You've completely misunderstood. Apple would be adding Thunderbolt pins to the Dock Connector, not replacing it with a Thunderbolt port.
Speaking of pins, whatever became of the old FireWire pins? Were they ever repurposed or do they remain unused? Because if the latter, hello, Thunderbolt opportunity!
What would the other side of that 30-pin dock cable w/ integrated Thunderbolt look like? Traditional display port look + USB split to draw 10W?
2048x1536 is highly unlikely. 1600x1200 is more likely but I won't be surprised if it only had 1400x1050. You need to think for a moment what GPU can push that many pixels and still power efficient to get +10hr battery life. Even an increase to 1280x960 is substantial, people hold the iPad at a further distance than the iPhone.
The first iPhone was a a fairly higher PPI. Most displays at the time didn't come close to it. By the 2nd iPhone they were starting to catch up but the iPhone still had an advantage. By the 3rd iPhone that advantage was completely gone yet they still maintained the 480x320 display. They bettered many things about the display but not the resolution.
With the 4th iPhone they made it double resolution blowing away the competition then and even today (subpixel counting is a joke). They waited because this makes the most sense to them. While we knew they had access to the right GPU for this display (because the iPad pushes more pixels on the same GPU) we didn't know about the battery life. Turns out they worked it out.
I think 2012 could very likely be the year they release the Retina Display iPad, but if all tehe tech is not ready I don't think it's likely they will release a 1600x1200 or something else that isn't representing a 4:1 pixel change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Needs to be double.
Actually it doesn't need to double. It's best to double to make the developer and user transitions as easy and smooth as possible. And there has been no need to increase the iPhone/Touch and iPad resolutions past their original until there has been sufficient cost reduction, power usage reduction/power storage advancements, and ability to create sufficient supply before it's time even has the competition has creeped past with slightly higher PPI displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
The 30 pin dock is annoying. They need to release a magsafe-data-connector.
No way! The 30-pin connector needs to be secure, not something made to pop out. Remember the iPod Nano, Touch, iPhone, and iPad are handheld devices not notebooks usually sitting fairly stationary when in use. A connector that constantly pops off doesn't make sense. Imagine an iPod Nano accessory for running that no longer has a way to connect an accessory except for some weak magnet. Not good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov
As in?
He point is clear. As in making the resolution double in each direction so that there are 4x as many pixels. This makes it easy for the system to scale a single pixel into 4 pixels thereby not suffering any user interface interface issues for apps that haven't yet been updated to take advantage of Retina Display in the iPad.
Of course they're going to keep using the Dock Connector. There is no other connector on the market that can do what the Dock Connector can do and that includes Thunderbolt.
The Dock Connector displays video at pretty much all resolutions from iPad 2+. It contains USB for charging and data transfer. It is slimline. Thunderbolt wouldn't make anything smaller it will make it bigger as the port is twice the height.
I love the Dock Connector. It's simple, compatible with a wide variety of devices, multi-function, and thin. Complain all you will but I see no reason whatsoever for Apple to incorporate Thunderbolt when there is no real valid technical reason to do so.
You called it. Some people just want change for the sake of change. How about "Well, Android devices are getting such and such, so why doesn't Apple do it that way?" I've heard that time and time again how Apple is falling behind this or that. Then once Apple makes a change, it will be "Why did Apple go and make that change because all my peripherals are now obsolete." You just can't please everyone. The current dock connector works well for me and I sure don't see any major reason to ask for a change. Transfer speeds? They're fast enough for me and the largest iPod I have is 160 GB, but I usually am just synching to add content, so I don't have to move GBs at any one time.
Of course they're going to keep using the Dock Connector. There is no other connector on the market that can do what the Dock Connector can do and that includes Thunderbolt.
Note that Apple has kept the same port interface for 8.5 years. That's a long time for this business. Hard to belittle a company for using a proprietary connector when they have used it for so very long and across all compatible devices.
As for changing it, if they were going to do that I would have thought the original iPad would have been the best time to introduce any new connector that was smaller and shorter. They didn't so I suspect they will keep it until they are forced to eschew it for something better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
What would the other side of that 30-pin dock cable w/ integrated Thunderbolt look like? Traditional display port look + USB split to draw 10W?
I think it would look the same. We're only talking about using the fossilized pinouts for the extinct FW ports. We're not even talking about all the pins needed for TB because we're not talking about the same level of TB speed and versatility, just faster data and more power than USB. They will have to include a TB controller and we still have the issue of NAND only being about 20MB/s but I think that will change and we'll likely get less latency than USB so the end result would be faster data and faster changing than from USB without changing the port interface.
I think it would look the same. We're only talking about using the fossilized pinouts for the extinct FW ports. We're not even talking about all the pins needed for TB because we're not talking about the same level of TB speed and versatility, just faster data and more power than USB. They will have to include a TB controller and we still have the issue of NAND only being about 20MB/s but I think that will change and we'll likely get less latency than USB so the end result would be faster data and faster changing than from USB without changing the port interface.
I was thinking the side that plugs into the Mac/PC would have to get power from somewhere and also have a fallback option for hosts that don't have TB. All this sounds pretty expensive and when I think of the abuse my iPod/iPhone/iPad cables take, it's a big jump from $29.99 to $59.99.
Edit: All that said, i can't out-think Apple's innovation. If they can figure out a way to do it, I'm all for trying.
I was thinking the side that plugs into the Mac/PC would have to get power from somewhere and also have a fallback option for hosts that don't have TB. All this sounds pretty expensive and when I think of the abuse my iPod/iPhone/iPad cables take, it's a big jump from $29.99 to $59.99.
I'm not following. I'm picturing the same setup of the ol' iPods with USB and FW controllers in the device. You had two different cables to use, both with the same 30-pin connector, but the other end of the cable was either USB or FW400.
I wouldn't expect any new device to come with the TB and USB 30-pin cables in the box, just the USB cable. I'd expect that if you wanted the extra speed in syncing and power that Apple would sell you that cable or perhaps let you do a swap at the time of purchase.
I'm not following. I'm picturing the same setup of the ol' iPods with USB and FW controllers in the device. You had two different cables to use, both with the same 30-pin connector, but the other end of the cable was either USB or FW400.
I wouldn't expect any new device to come with the TB and USB 30-pin cables in the box, just the USB cable. I'd expect that if you wanted the extra speed in syncing and power that Apple would sell you that cable or perhaps let you do a swap at the time of purchase.
Firewire and USB carried power for use by hubs or the device. I didn't think TB does that. With just the TB to 30-pin, it could sync but not charge and sync.
Firewire and USB carried power for use by hubs or the device. I didn't think TB does that. With just the TB to 30-pin, it could sync but not charge and sync.
TB carries more power than USB but less than FW. USB typically has 5W on most machines but I think Apple's can do 10W but I think this was out of spec. Thunderbolt does 10W by design. FW can apparently push up to 60W but 10-20W was more common.
TB carries more power than USB but less than FW. USB typically has 5W on most machines but I think Apple's can do 10W but I think this was out of spec. Thunderbolt does 10W by design. FW can apparently push up to 60W but 10-20W was more common.
Firewire and USB carried power for use by hubs or the device. I didn't think TB does that. With just the TB to 30-pin, it could sync but not charge and sync.
Comments
I'd be surprised if they do thunderbolt in the same connector or even a separate considering the cost in the guts and the cable. I'd guess USB 3.0 support if that's destined on their MB refreshes. With wireless sync and cloud sync being the flavor of late, I'm connecting almost never.
I want you to know I had the perfect response for you here, but Safari crashed just as I was about to push send.
In a nut shell I agree, the new SoC will be focused on supporting retina and improving support for existing standards.
... Apple in the past has hurt people with iPod connector changes ....
What are you talking about?
The original shipped with Firewire and Apple quickly changed to USB and a 30 pin connector. It's been the same since at least 2003 and even the old firewire iPods can still be plugged into most of today's Mac's.
The Dock Connector displays video at pretty much all resolutions from iPad 2+. It contains USB for charging and data transfer. It is slimline. Thunderbolt wouldn't make anything smaller it will make it bigger as the port is twice the height.
I love the Dock Connector. It's simple, compatible with a wide variety of devices, multi-function, and thin. Complain all you will but I see no reason whatsoever for Apple to incorporate Thunderbolt when there is no real valid technical reason to do so.
What are you talking about?
The original shipped with Firewire and Apple quickly changed to USB and a 30 pin connector. It's been the same since at least 2003 and even the old firewire iPods can still be plugged into most of today's Mac's.
There was one change when the video iPods came out. The pins changed on the later iPod videos because they did higher quality video. However that was one change and has stayed the same ever since.
I see no reason whatsoever for Apple to incorporate Thunderbolt when there is no real valid technical reason to do so.
1. iOS device backups that now take a few minutes would be just about instantaneous. iOS device backups which now take an hour or more would complete in less than a minute.
2. It would help drive the adoption of Thunderbolt, which is a strategic technology for Apple.
3. It would give owners of iOS device another reason to choose Mac rather than PeeCee when they replace their computer.
Thunderbolt wouldn't make anything smaller it will make it bigger as the port is twice the height.
You've completely misunderstood. Apple would be adding Thunderbolt pins to the Dock Connector, not replacing it with a Thunderbolt port.
Speaking of pins, whatever became of the old FireWire pins? Were they ever repurposed or do they remain unused? Because if the latter, hello, Thunderbolt opportunity!
You've completely misunderstood. Apple would be adding Thunderbolt pins to the Dock Connector, not replacing it with a Thunderbolt port.
Speaking of pins, whatever became of the old FireWire pins? Were they ever repurposed or do they remain unused? Because if the latter, hello, Thunderbolt opportunity!
What would the other side of that 30-pin dock cable w/ integrated Thunderbolt look like? Traditional display port look + USB split to draw 10W?
2048x1536 is highly unlikely. 1600x1200 is more likely but I won't be surprised if it only had 1400x1050. You need to think for a moment what GPU can push that many pixels and still power efficient to get +10hr battery life. Even an increase to 1280x960 is substantial, people hold the iPad at a further distance than the iPhone.
The first iPhone was a a fairly higher PPI. Most displays at the time didn't come close to it. By the 2nd iPhone they were starting to catch up but the iPhone still had an advantage. By the 3rd iPhone that advantage was completely gone yet they still maintained the 480x320 display. They bettered many things about the display but not the resolution.
With the 4th iPhone they made it double resolution blowing away the competition then and even today (subpixel counting is a joke). They waited because this makes the most sense to them. While we knew they had access to the right GPU for this display (because the iPad pushes more pixels on the same GPU) we didn't know about the battery life. Turns out they worked it out.
I think 2012 could very likely be the year they release the Retina Display iPad, but if all tehe tech is not ready I don't think it's likely they will release a 1600x1200 or something else that isn't representing a 4:1 pixel change.
Needs to be double.
Actually it doesn't need to double. It's best to double to make the developer and user transitions as easy and smooth as possible. And there has been no need to increase the iPhone/Touch and iPad resolutions past their original until there has been sufficient cost reduction, power usage reduction/power storage advancements, and ability to create sufficient supply before it's time even has the competition has creeped past with slightly higher PPI displays.
The 30 pin dock is annoying. They need to release a magsafe-data-connector.
No way! The 30-pin connector needs to be secure, not something made to pop out. Remember the iPod Nano, Touch, iPhone, and iPad are handheld devices not notebooks usually sitting fairly stationary when in use. A connector that constantly pops off doesn't make sense. Imagine an iPod Nano accessory for running that no longer has a way to connect an accessory except for some weak magnet. Not good!
As in?
He point is clear. As in making the resolution double in each direction so that there are 4x as many pixels. This makes it easy for the system to scale a single pixel into 4 pixels thereby not suffering any user interface interface issues for apps that haven't yet been updated to take advantage of Retina Display in the iPad.
Of course they're going to keep using the Dock Connector. There is no other connector on the market that can do what the Dock Connector can do and that includes Thunderbolt.
The Dock Connector displays video at pretty much all resolutions from iPad 2+. It contains USB for charging and data transfer. It is slimline. Thunderbolt wouldn't make anything smaller it will make it bigger as the port is twice the height.
I love the Dock Connector. It's simple, compatible with a wide variety of devices, multi-function, and thin. Complain all you will but I see no reason whatsoever for Apple to incorporate Thunderbolt when there is no real valid technical reason to do so.
You called it. Some people just want change for the sake of change. How about "Well, Android devices are getting such and such, so why doesn't Apple do it that way?" I've heard that time and time again how Apple is falling behind this or that. Then once Apple makes a change, it will be "Why did Apple go and make that change because all my peripherals are now obsolete." You just can't please everyone. The current dock connector works well for me and I sure don't see any major reason to ask for a change. Transfer speeds? They're fast enough for me and the largest iPod I have is 160 GB, but I usually am just synching to add content, so I don't have to move GBs at any one time.
What would the other side of that 30-pin dock cable w/ integrated Thunderbolt look like? Traditional display port look + USB split to draw 10W?
Yeah, I figure it would be a Thunderbolt+USB split (like the old FireWire+USB Dock Connector cables), eventually dropping the USB entirely.
Of course they're going to keep using the Dock Connector. There is no other connector on the market that can do what the Dock Connector can do and that includes Thunderbolt.
Note that Apple has kept the same port interface for 8.5 years. That's a long time for this business. Hard to belittle a company for using a proprietary connector when they have used it for so very long and across all compatible devices.
As for changing it, if they were going to do that I would have thought the original iPad would have been the best time to introduce any new connector that was smaller and shorter. They didn't so I suspect they will keep it until they are forced to eschew it for something better.
What would the other side of that 30-pin dock cable w/ integrated Thunderbolt look like? Traditional display port look + USB split to draw 10W?
I think it would look the same. We're only talking about using the fossilized pinouts for the extinct FW ports. We're not even talking about all the pins needed for TB because we're not talking about the same level of TB speed and versatility, just faster data and more power than USB. They will have to include a TB controller and we still have the issue of NAND only being about 20MB/s but I think that will change and we'll likely get less latency than USB so the end result would be faster data and faster changing than from USB without changing the port interface.
I think it would look the same. We're only talking about using the fossilized pinouts for the extinct FW ports. We're not even talking about all the pins needed for TB because we're not talking about the same level of TB speed and versatility, just faster data and more power than USB. They will have to include a TB controller and we still have the issue of NAND only being about 20MB/s but I think that will change and we'll likely get less latency than USB so the end result would be faster data and faster changing than from USB without changing the port interface.
I was thinking the side that plugs into the Mac/PC would have to get power from somewhere and also have a fallback option for hosts that don't have TB. All this sounds pretty expensive and when I think of the abuse my iPod/iPhone/iPad cables take, it's a big jump from $29.99 to $59.99.
Edit: All that said, i can't out-think Apple's innovation. If they can figure out a way to do it, I'm all for trying.
I was thinking the side that plugs into the Mac/PC would have to get power from somewhere and also have a fallback option for hosts that don't have TB. All this sounds pretty expensive and when I think of the abuse my iPod/iPhone/iPad cables take, it's a big jump from $29.99 to $59.99.
I'm not following. I'm picturing the same setup of the ol' iPods with USB and FW controllers in the device. You had two different cables to use, both with the same 30-pin connector, but the other end of the cable was either USB or FW400.
I wouldn't expect any new device to come with the TB and USB 30-pin cables in the box, just the USB cable. I'd expect that if you wanted the extra speed in syncing and power that Apple would sell you that cable or perhaps let you do a swap at the time of purchase.
NO. REALLY. They're going to keep using that port? How shocking.
I don't think this precludes the inclusion of Thunderbolt pins for it, however.
Using both would be good, but for those of us with recent iMac or Mac hardware purchases, Thunderbolt-only would be a dealbreaker.
I'm not following. I'm picturing the same setup of the ol' iPods with USB and FW controllers in the device. You had two different cables to use, both with the same 30-pin connector, but the other end of the cable was either USB or FW400.
I wouldn't expect any new device to come with the TB and USB 30-pin cables in the box, just the USB cable. I'd expect that if you wanted the extra speed in syncing and power that Apple would sell you that cable or perhaps let you do a swap at the time of purchase.
Firewire and USB carried power for use by hubs or the device. I didn't think TB does that. With just the TB to 30-pin, it could sync but not charge and sync.
Firewire and USB carried power for use by hubs or the device. I didn't think TB does that. With just the TB to 30-pin, it could sync but not charge and sync.
TB carries more power than USB but less than FW. USB typically has 5W on most machines but I think Apple's can do 10W but I think this was out of spec. Thunderbolt does 10W by design. FW can apparently push up to 60W but 10-20W was more common.
TB carries more power than USB but less than FW. USB typically has 5W on most machines but I think Apple's can do 10W but I think this was out of spec. Thunderbolt does 10W by design. FW can apparently push up to 60W but 10-20W was more common.
Got it. Thanks!
Firewire and USB carried power for use by hubs or the device. I didn't think TB does that. With just the TB to 30-pin, it could sync but not charge and sync.
? Thunderbolt carries power?
… Thunderbolt carries power…
Yeah, Sol set me straight. I must been thinking that carried over from lightpeak but no good reason for thinking it.
Using both would be good, but for those of us with recent iMac or Mac hardware purchases, Thunderbolt-only would be a dealbreaker.
Think USB over Thunderbolt.