That is we would want the fast syncing capability for sure. However the big draw would be the ability to use all of those great TB devices coing out. So in this case your iPhone could hook up to and drive a display port display along with the other integrated devices like Ethernet and a USB/keyboard port.
It actually appears that Apple is looking in this direction. As iOS devices become more powerful there will be few compromises in driving such hardware. Think about an iPhone that effectively drives a screen in iPad emulation mode. All of a sudden your iPhone not only works with iPhone sized apps but it works also with iPad apps. It gets even more interesting when you consider high resolution iPad apps.
The only thing I worry about is MagSafe tech. One would have to be careful with ripping out that connection.
TB should also provide for a lot more in the way of dongles for iOS devices, especially if iPad can act as the source on the bus. We could see an explosion in interfaces for the connector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
You might get your wish. Thunderbolt is a strategic technology for Apple. If Apple switch from USB to Thunderbolt for wired syncing, it will provide further motivation for iOS device owners to replace their PeeCees with Macs. Those without Thunderbolt-equipped computers would still be able to use slow wireless syncing.
First off you might not want to saturate the bus with data transfers. On the other hand if you are syncing you want the transfers to go as fast as possible. TB allows for this and will be fast enough into the future at least for a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
The USB 2 micro USB connector is limited compared to the 30 pin connector, but what about USB 3? I think there was also a rumor of magsafe-like connectors a while back, these two go hand in hand. But I'd still prefer something I don't need to keep unique cables and accessories for.
The 30 pin connector has a lot more going in and out than just USB.
The issue with TB cables is real, no doubt there. However I don't see Apple going TB only any time soon. They have already patented a dock connector that maintains USB capability.
Quote:
re:thunderbolt, meh, none of these devices has fast enough NAND to saturate USB 2 and won't for a while, let alone USB 3 if they finally switch to that after Ivy Bridge macs are out. I guess it could charge them as fast as a 10W power plug, but you would not see crazy transfer speeds just by changing the connection.
Don't forget USB demands a lot from the processor which is significant on iOS devices.
Frankly I'd like to see Apple add a connector, probably the micro USB standard, for power/recharge. Like you a standard port is desired that would allow for easy connection to all the USB based recharging sources. This should be doable without stressing the design of the iOS devices. The goal is recharge anywhere, be it at home, in the car or out hiking. Ideally the port would remain active while other devices are plugged into the dock. That way high drain dock devices wont impact the battery as much if you are hooked up to an alternative power source.
Yeah, I don't know where people keep getting this idea that faster connection = faster transfer, the NAND in these devices only reads and writes at 15MB/s as an upper limit, its not the same high performance stuff in SSDs. That doesn't even saturate USB 2.0, which limits external hard drives to 40MB/s.
It doesn't really matter what today's devices do. Rather it is an issue of what the future holds for these devices. They really don't even need to go to high performance devices to impact transfer speeds as many an SSD simply makes use of multiple NAND modules to speed up transfers. In any event I fully expect to see faster secondary storage in future iOS devices. It is inevitable that speeds will increase in one way or another.
In any event the point is you don't implement a long term standard based on the past but rather what you see as happening in the future. So any TB containing dock connector would need to be viable for at least another ten years. In any event I suspect that it will be fairly easy to exceed 40 MB/s flash subsystems in the very near future on iOS devices. So going beyond USB 2 makes perfect sense.
People are going to through a fit about how Apple changed it to get us to upgrade all our stuff but the truth is they've used the same connector since April 2003 with the 3rd iPod release. That's 9 years for the same 30-pin Dock Connector. If a new, smaller connector will usher in another decade of portable devices then I'm all for it.
Frankly the only thing they really have to address is the speed of the USB connection which is too slow these days. It would be extremely nice to have all the flexibility that TB implies on some of those pins.
I wouldn't mind a new connector at all, and happily buy new accessories. Would be great if the plug was round and could be plugged in just like a headphone jack. With the current connectors like (micro/mini) USB you always need to check if you are 'holding it wrong'
I hate to say this, but Apple will NOT go with strictly Micro USB for the following reasons:
1. Micro USB is strictly a data transfer and charging interface. Apple uses the 30-pin iPod dock connector for a tremendously amount of functionality, including video out from iPod touch/iPhone/iPad.
2. Micro USB is not exactly a paragon of durability, from reports I've read of issues with Micro USB connector jacks on cellphone chargers.
3. Apple in theory could combine Micro USB with USB 3.0 for fast enough data transfers to even do video output through the connection, but that means Apple would have to add USB 3.0 functionality to the USB port on the MacBook Air/Pro, iMac and Mac Pro machines, or provide an adapter for USB 3.0 connection through the Thunderbolt port--and Apple is very reluctant to provide such adapter.
In short, what we'll see from Apple is essentially a reduced physical size version of the current iPod dock connector, which will make its debut on the iPhone 5, 5G iPod touch, and 7G iPod nano due in September 2012.
In short, what we'll see from Apple is essentially a reduced physical size version of the current iPod dock connector, which will make its debut on the iPhone 5, 5G iPod touch, and 7G iPod nano due in September 2012.
The iPhone 5 is already out.
Also, you're saying this as though it's fact. ALSO, what sense would there be in not putting it on the iPad 3?
Yes TB is important but let it be able to master the bus.
That is we would want the fast syncing capability for sure. However the big draw would be the ability to use all of those great TB devices coing out. So in this case your iPhone could hook up to and drive a display port display along with the other integrated devices like Ethernet and a USB/keyboard port.
Good point.
Now that Wifi syncing is supported, I never connect my iOS devices to my laptop anymore, so I think it's safe to drop the USB syncing capability.
Now that Wifi syncing is supported, I never connect my iOS devices to my laptop anymore, so I think it's safe to drop the USB syncing capability.
You not using WiFi for syncing doesn't mean that nearly everyone uses this method or even use WiFi at home. It'll be years before WiFi syncing is so common that Apple can drop it.
And just wait until you get a new iDevice. You'll be glad that you don't have to sync 64 or 128GB over WiFi before you can use your new iDevice.
You not using WiFi for syncing doesn't mean that nearly everyone uses this method or even use WiFi at home. It'll be years before WiFi syncing is so common that Apple can drop it.
And just wait until you get a new iDevice. You'll be glad that you don't have to sync 64 or 128GB over WiFi before you can use your new iDevice.
I buy a new iPhone and a new iPad every year. I want Apple to replace the current connector with one supporting Thunderbolt because now syncing a new 64GB device (whether by Wifi or the current wired connector) is so slow that I let it run overnight.
You not using WiFi for syncing doesn't mean that nearly everyone uses this method or even use WiFi at home. It'll be years before WiFi syncing is so common that Apple can drop it.
And just wait until you get a new iDevice. You'll be glad that you don't have to sync 64 or 128GB over WiFi before you can use your new iDevice.
I agree. Fully understand why Apple added the WiFi sync option, but for entire movies or large, well, anything the cable still wins. I only tried out the WiFi sync option to see if it would be easier after they dropped the requirement to have your iDevice plugged in. Before I didn't see the WiFi sync option as beneficial since it had to be plugged in anyway, just not to your Mac but a power outlet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
I buy a new iPhone and a new iPad every year. I want Apple to replace the current connector with one supporting Thunderbolt because now syncing a new 64GB device (whether by Wifi or the current wired connector) is so slow that I let it run overnight.
Overnight? Filling it to the max takes that long? Not on my end; are you on Windows? Would that be different? I thought USB was a little faster on Windows than on a Mac.
I buy a new iPhone and a new iPad every year. I want Apple to replace the current connector with one supporting Thunderbolt because now syncing a new 64GB device (whether by Wifi or the current wired connector) is so slow that I let it run overnight.
The weak link isn't the connector yet, it's the flash chips Apple uses.
Overnight? Filling it to the max takes that long? Not on my end; are you on Windows? Would that be different? I thought USB was a little faster on Windows than on a Mac.
Of course I don't use MS Windows. I didn't write that it takes all night. It takes long enough that I'm not willing to wait for it, so I let it run at night. Overnight is long enough, whether using the cable or Wifi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The weak link isn't the connector yet, it's the flash chips Apple uses.
Is the current connector faster than USB 2.0? I'm skeptical that USB 2.0 can keep up with the flash chips.
Is the current connector faster than USB 2.0? I'm skeptical that USB 2.0 can keep up with the flash chips.
Not all flash chips are equal. I clocked the data transfer on my iDevices, and I've never approached the practical data transfer speed limit of USB 2.0. One of them transferred at about WiFi G's practical speed (20 megabits/s), making a faster connection pointless.
You might be thinking of SSDs as well, those things use banks of chips in multiples of eight in parallel to boost the speed. iDevices use one or two chips. Flash memory's strength is on random access as well, saving large files largely forgoes that advantage.
Comments
Wait, wait, wait, you're telling me this isn't safe?
Gave us a safer backyard, at least.
Perfectly safe, if you exceed the breakdown voltage of air! Oh, you might want to wear a shield to protect your nads and a triangle on your head.
Perfectly safe, if you exceed the breakdown voltage of air! Oh, you might want to wear a shield to protect your nads and a triangle on your head.
Don't worry guys, I got this. We're learning ALL about inductive charging now!
It actually appears that Apple is looking in this direction. As iOS devices become more powerful there will be few compromises in driving such hardware. Think about an iPhone that effectively drives a screen in iPad emulation mode. All of a sudden your iPhone not only works with iPhone sized apps but it works also with iPad apps. It gets even more interesting when you consider high resolution iPad apps.
The only thing I worry about is MagSafe tech. One would have to be careful with ripping out that connection.
TB should also provide for a lot more in the way of dongles for iOS devices, especially if iPad can act as the source on the bus. We could see an explosion in interfaces for the connector.
You might get your wish. Thunderbolt is a strategic technology for Apple. If Apple switch from USB to Thunderbolt for wired syncing, it will provide further motivation for iOS device owners to replace their PeeCees with Macs. Those without Thunderbolt-equipped computers would still be able to use slow wireless syncing.
The USB 2 micro USB connector is limited compared to the 30 pin connector, but what about USB 3? I think there was also a rumor of magsafe-like connectors a while back, these two go hand in hand. But I'd still prefer something I don't need to keep unique cables and accessories for.
The 30 pin connector has a lot more going in and out than just USB.
The issue with TB cables is real, no doubt there. However I don't see Apple going TB only any time soon. They have already patented a dock connector that maintains USB capability.
re:thunderbolt, meh, none of these devices has fast enough NAND to saturate USB 2 and won't for a while, let alone USB 3 if they finally switch to that after Ivy Bridge macs are out. I guess it could charge them as fast as a 10W power plug, but you would not see crazy transfer speeds just by changing the connection.
Don't forget USB demands a lot from the processor which is significant on iOS devices.
Frankly I'd like to see Apple add a connector, probably the micro USB standard, for power/recharge. Like you a standard port is desired that would allow for easy connection to all the USB based recharging sources. This should be doable without stressing the design of the iOS devices. The goal is recharge anywhere, be it at home, in the car or out hiking. Ideally the port would remain active while other devices are plugged into the dock. That way high drain dock devices wont impact the battery as much if you are hooked up to an alternative power source.
Yeah, I don't know where people keep getting this idea that faster connection = faster transfer, the NAND in these devices only reads and writes at 15MB/s as an upper limit, its not the same high performance stuff in SSDs. That doesn't even saturate USB 2.0, which limits external hard drives to 40MB/s.
It doesn't really matter what today's devices do. Rather it is an issue of what the future holds for these devices. They really don't even need to go to high performance devices to impact transfer speeds as many an SSD simply makes use of multiple NAND modules to speed up transfers. In any event I fully expect to see faster secondary storage in future iOS devices. It is inevitable that speeds will increase in one way or another.
In any event the point is you don't implement a long term standard based on the past but rather what you see as happening in the future. So any TB containing dock connector would need to be viable for at least another ten years. In any event I suspect that it will be fairly easy to exceed 40 MB/s flash subsystems in the very near future on iOS devices. So going beyond USB 2 makes perfect sense.
Wait, wait, wait, you're telling me this isn't safe?
Gave us a safer backyard, at least.
There can be only one
People are going to through a fit about how Apple changed it to get us to upgrade all our stuff but the truth is they've used the same connector since April 2003 with the 3rd iPod release. That's 9 years for the same 30-pin Dock Connector. If a new, smaller connector will usher in another decade of portable devices then I'm all for it.
Frankly the only thing they really have to address is the speed of the USB connection which is too slow these days. It would be extremely nice to have all the flexibility that TB implies on some of those pins.
Please apple, magsafe us!!!!
It's too tall. Unless you mean a new MagSafe/Thunderbolt connector like those recent Apple patents?
1. Micro USB is strictly a data transfer and charging interface. Apple uses the 30-pin iPod dock connector for a tremendously amount of functionality, including video out from iPod touch/iPhone/iPad.
2. Micro USB is not exactly a paragon of durability, from reports I've read of issues with Micro USB connector jacks on cellphone chargers.
3. Apple in theory could combine Micro USB with USB 3.0 for fast enough data transfers to even do video output through the connection, but that means Apple would have to add USB 3.0 functionality to the USB port on the MacBook Air/Pro, iMac and Mac Pro machines, or provide an adapter for USB 3.0 connection through the Thunderbolt port--and Apple is very reluctant to provide such adapter.
In short, what we'll see from Apple is essentially a reduced physical size version of the current iPod dock connector, which will make its debut on the iPhone 5, 5G iPod touch, and 7G iPod nano due in September 2012.
In short, what we'll see from Apple is essentially a reduced physical size version of the current iPod dock connector, which will make its debut on the iPhone 5, 5G iPod touch, and 7G iPod nano due in September 2012.
The iPhone 5 is already out.
Also, you're saying this as though it's fact. ALSO, what sense would there be in not putting it on the iPad 3?
Yes TB is important but let it be able to master the bus.
That is we would want the fast syncing capability for sure. However the big draw would be the ability to use all of those great TB devices coing out. So in this case your iPhone could hook up to and drive a display port display along with the other integrated devices like Ethernet and a USB/keyboard port.
Good point.
Now that Wifi syncing is supported, I never connect my iOS devices to my laptop anymore, so I think it's safe to drop the USB syncing capability.
Good point.
Now that Wifi syncing is supported, I never connect my iOS devices to my laptop anymore, so I think it's safe to drop the USB syncing capability.
You not using WiFi for syncing doesn't mean that nearly everyone uses this method or even use WiFi at home. It'll be years before WiFi syncing is so common that Apple can drop it.
And just wait until you get a new iDevice. You'll be glad that you don't have to sync 64 or 128GB over WiFi before you can use your new iDevice.
You not using WiFi for syncing doesn't mean that nearly everyone uses this method or even use WiFi at home. It'll be years before WiFi syncing is so common that Apple can drop it.
And just wait until you get a new iDevice. You'll be glad that you don't have to sync 64 or 128GB over WiFi before you can use your new iDevice.
I buy a new iPhone and a new iPad every year. I want Apple to replace the current connector with one supporting Thunderbolt because now syncing a new 64GB device (whether by Wifi or the current wired connector) is so slow that I let it run overnight.
You not using WiFi for syncing doesn't mean that nearly everyone uses this method or even use WiFi at home. It'll be years before WiFi syncing is so common that Apple can drop it.
And just wait until you get a new iDevice. You'll be glad that you don't have to sync 64 or 128GB over WiFi before you can use your new iDevice.
I agree. Fully understand why Apple added the WiFi sync option, but for entire movies or large, well, anything the cable still wins. I only tried out the WiFi sync option to see if it would be easier after they dropped the requirement to have your iDevice plugged in. Before I didn't see the WiFi sync option as beneficial since it had to be plugged in anyway, just not to your Mac but a power outlet.
I buy a new iPhone and a new iPad every year. I want Apple to replace the current connector with one supporting Thunderbolt because now syncing a new 64GB device (whether by Wifi or the current wired connector) is so slow that I let it run overnight.
Overnight? Filling it to the max takes that long? Not on my end; are you on Windows? Would that be different? I thought USB was a little faster on Windows than on a Mac.
I buy a new iPhone and a new iPad every year. I want Apple to replace the current connector with one supporting Thunderbolt because now syncing a new 64GB device (whether by Wifi or the current wired connector) is so slow that I let it run overnight.
The weak link isn't the connector yet, it's the flash chips Apple uses.
Overnight? Filling it to the max takes that long? Not on my end; are you on Windows? Would that be different? I thought USB was a little faster on Windows than on a Mac.
Of course I don't use MS Windows. I didn't write that it takes all night. It takes long enough that I'm not willing to wait for it, so I let it run at night. Overnight is long enough, whether using the cable or Wifi.
The weak link isn't the connector yet, it's the flash chips Apple uses.
Is the current connector faster than USB 2.0? I'm skeptical that USB 2.0 can keep up with the flash chips.
Is the current connector faster than USB 2.0? I'm skeptical that USB 2.0 can keep up with the flash chips.
Not all flash chips are equal. I clocked the data transfer on my iDevices, and I've never approached the practical data transfer speed limit of USB 2.0. One of them transferred at about WiFi G's practical speed (20 megabits/s), making a faster connection pointless.
You might be thinking of SSDs as well, those things use banks of chips in multiples of eight in parallel to boost the speed. iDevices use one or two chips. Flash memory's strength is on random access as well, saving large files largely forgoes that advantage.