Intel's grip on Thunderbolt keeps accessories off the market

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 54
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    runbuh wrote: »
    Did you even read Soli's comment about next year's Falcon Ridge chipset? Like you said, there's barely anything out there and he wants us to wait for next year's chipset. I was talking about the Macs we buy today not being able to use the new speed and functionality of the new chipset.

    1) Did you ever read what I wrote? My comment about Falcon Ridge was regarding the speed at which TB is moving in relation to USB, it had nothing to do with TB not being viable now with 20Gb/s combined, protocol independence and being a great solution for those that have a Mac notebook that want a simple solution to an external monitor.

    2) Again, why the **** would you think that a chipset not available until next year would be a solution for Macs today? This isn't something you just plug into a PC. It's built into the fucking board.
  • Reply 22 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    I don't have any sources for you but the idea is that since you can't really relate generalised R&D costs to a specific product, that the companies are basically just spit-balling a large amount of money that they hope to claw back.  For instance, they might have R&D costs for years for many projects that lead to no specific products, and then the one time they have a product to sell, they try and recoup all those losses by inflating the cost of the one product that's selling.  There are no controls, nobody watching, and no set rules on how to recoup such R&D "losses" therefore, capitalism being what it is, there is nothing to stop some company from claiming that there is a 40% R&D recoup on some product basically forever.

    I don't know if there need to be controls for that. If manufacturers price themselves out of the market, that's on them. I think this technology roll-out was poorly managed, but I don't think the expensing is significant part of the problem, assuming it is a problem.
  • Reply 23 of 54
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    These price points are keeping some smaller manufacturers from entering the Thunderbolt device segment, leaving it largely to established players.


     


    Smells like collusion with Monster Cable.


    Just sayin'.

  • Reply 24 of 54
    bdkennedy1 wrote: »
    Thunderbolt is a failure just like Firewire. The accessories are too expensive. USB3 is all I care about now.

    FireWire was de facto standard on DV and HDV camcorders. It was also standard on early iPods, back in the day when USB was choking on 12Mbps.
  • Reply 25 of 54
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,752member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by runbuh View Post





    Did you even read Soli's comment about next year's Falcon Ridge chipset? Like you said, there's barely anything out there and he wants us to wait for next year's chipset. I was talking about the Macs we buy today not being able to use the new speed and functionality of the new chipset.




    <* would answer but my IQ would drop *>

     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) Did you ever read what I wrote? My comment about Falcon Ridge was regarding the speed at which TB is moving in relation to USB, it had nothing to do with TB not being viable now with 20Gb/s combined, protocol independence and being a great solution for those that have a Mac notebook that want a simple solution to an external monitor.



    2) Again, why the **** would you think that a chipset not available until next year would be a solution for Macs today? This isn't something you just plug into a PC. It's built into the fucking board.




    Solips... just let it go.  Me no theenk he can kuhmpyoot.  :)

  • Reply 26 of 54
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    1) Did you ever read what I wrote? My comment about Falcon Ridge was regarding the speed at which TB is moving in relation to USB, it had nothing to do with TB not being viable now with 20Gb/s combined, protocol independence and being a great solution for those that have a Mac notebook that want a simple solution to an external monitor.

    2) Again, why the **** would you think that a chipset not available until next year would be a solution for Macs today? This isn't something you just plug into a PC. It's built into the fucking board.

    I thought this discussion was related to the article, but you are branching into the technical superiority of a chipset coming out next year. In what way is that relevant to the article? Will the new chipset help drive widespread production and adoption of Thunderbolt peripherals?
  • Reply 27 of 54
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    sflocal wrote: »
    Solips... just let it go.  Me no theenk he can kuhmpyoot.  :)

    Yeah, no idea what going on with him.
  • Reply 28 of 54
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,065member


    Thunderbolt has a bright development roadmap with improvements that will take its already superior performance way ahead.


     


    But that's for the future, doesn't really help with vendor adoption for the present, and doesn't offer much to the user who buys a current Mac.


     


    Does that cover both viewpoints?  No need for arguments here, you're both on the same page, just one of you is a little further down.

  • Reply 29 of 54
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    crowley wrote: »
    ... and doesn't offer much to the user who buys a current Mac.

    WTF?! If having a Mac notebook and an Apple display that doesn't offer you much then what the hell are your expectations? They're certainly not realistic if you don't think that's a better solution than what was available in years past.
  • Reply 30 of 54
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    WTF?! If having a Mac notebook and an Apple display that doesn't offer you much then what the hell are your expectations?


     


    It's Crowley; ignore him.

  • Reply 31 of 54
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post



    Licensing the silicon IP rights would be a bad idea. What's needed here is simply lower licensing fees and chip prices.



    Since intel is doing poorly lately, I would suspect that what's happening here is that they are pricing the chips so as to recoup what they feel is their "investment" in developing the technology. Basically keeping the price high to make their books look good and to pay for research that probably isn't even related at all.



    R&D costs however are the biggest boondoggle that ever existed and can easily be quoted to be anything from nothing at all to 90% of the cost of the chip. Most modern thinking on this says that R&D costs should actually *never* be added into product cost but rather absorbed by the company as basic operating costs.


    "absorbed by the company as basic operating costs." ---> and if that's never adde to prouct cost, it is paid for by... whom?


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post





    Funny, this guy thinks he knows what's going on.



    Thunderbolt on my MBA alongside my LED monitor is an awesome combo. Target-mode via Thunderbolt can't be matched, and better things to come.



    Maybe you should try using it before trashing it. When USB3 is outdated, TB will still be there, using the same port and be more future-proof than USB. USB in itself is necessary, but TB will always be one-level above it. It's not CPU intensive like USB is. Of course, you already knew that right?


    Yeah, very true. Apple is known to never outdate anything and always provide technologies they provided at one point. They also always do what they said they would (hi, Open Facetime...). Oh, wait.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    I don't have any sources for you but the idea is that since you can't really relate generalised R&D costs to a specific product, that the companies are basically just spit-balling a large amount of money that they hope to claw back.  For instance, they might have R&D costs for years for many projects that lead to no specific products, and then the one time they have a product to sell, they try and recoup all those losses by inflating the cost of the one product that's selling.  There are no controls, nobody watching, and no set rules on how to recoup such R&D "losses" therefore, capitalism being what it is, there is nothing to stop some company from claiming that there is a 40% R&D recoup on some product basically forever.  



     


    It's not how you price a product, you know? You price a product based on "how much can I at most demand". Or you're not doing a good job :D


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post


    This is, indeed, what held FireWire back. It might be too late to fix it by now, too; Apple eventually let go of some of its grip on FireWire and made it more attractive to peripheral makers, but by that time USB 2.0 had come out and was "good enough." Now, USB 3.0 is out and is "good enough," and Thunderbolt doesn't even have the depth of support that FireWire had in its early days. Thunderbolt is, sadly, probably DOA at this point.


     


    It's so frustrating to see people repeat the mistakes of the past.





    Ah, we Internet Experts. Why don't we make a corporation together, surely we'll buy Apple and Google and Intel by the end of the week!

  • Reply 32 of 54
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,065member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    WTF?! If having a Mac notebook and an Apple display that doesn't offer you much then what the hell are your expectations? They're certainly not realistic if you don't think that's a better solution than what was available in years past.
    You misunderstand me. Future improvements to the Thunderbolt protocol do not offer much to people looking to buy a Mac in the here and now. A promise of 40Gbps throughput in a future chipset offers no advantage in and of itself to a Mac on the shelf today.

    And with that I withdraw. I tried to play peacemaker, but it seems like peace is not on the agenda in this place right now.
  • Reply 33 of 54
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    Thunderbolt is a failure just like Firewire. The accessories are too expensive. USB3 is all I care about now.



     


     


    You weren't using Macs in the late '90s or 2000's right up until a few years ago then.  Firewire is/was a great success for the length of it's run, which was not insignificant.   And still works great on Macs without USB3, which number many in use.

  • Reply 34 of 54
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member
    So basically, intel is doing to Thunderbolt what Apple is doing to Lightening.
  • Reply 35 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    crowley wrote: »
    You misunderstand me. Future improvements to the Thunderbolt protocol do not offer much to people looking to buy a Mac in the here and now. A promise of 40Gbps throughput in a future chipset offers no advantage in and of itself to a Mac on the shelf today.

    And with that I withdraw. I tried to play peacemaker, but it seems like peace is not on the agenda in this place right now.

    It does matter, in that what you buy today should still be usable years from now, given backward compatibility. If Intel wasn't developing the next version, then that would be a warning sign that the connector is going away. Faster devices should work with slower versions of the connector too.

    cash907 wrote: »
    So basically, intel is doing to Thunderbolt what Apple is doing to Lightening.

    I'm sure there's a greater variety of Lightning connector devices than TB.
  • Reply 36 of 54
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cash907 wrote: »
    So basically, intel is doing to Thunderbolt what Apple is doing to Lightening.

    You have to be Teckstud. :no:

    jeffdm wrote: »
    I'm sure there's a greater variety of Lightning connector devices than TB.

    That appears to be axiomatically wrong. There is the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Even if you break that up between model numbers you still have all the different PC models and vendors as well as all the peripheral options, and that's without considering monitors with Display Port inputs in them. It's not nearly as diverse as USB but it was never going to be as USB can be used by flash drives, keyboard and mice, which is something TB was never going to address.
  • Reply 37 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    That appears to be axiomatically wrong. There is the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Even if you break that up between model numbers you still have all the different PC models and vendors as well as all the peripheral options, and that's without considering monitors with Display Port inputs in them. It's not nearly as diverse as USB but it was never going to be as USB can be used by flash drives, keyboard and mice, which is something TB was never going to address.

    I meant accessories. Even so, I bet there are a lot more Lightening iOS devices are sold than Macs.
  • Reply 38 of 54
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    Accessories?

    I'm not sure what you mean. I tend to use the term peripherals to define electronics that are attached to a personal computer but accessory (or even attachment) isn't incorrect.
  • Reply 39 of 54
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,065member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    It does matter, in that what you buy today should still be usable years from now, given backward compatibility. If Intel wasn't developing the next version, then that would be a warning sign that the connector is going away. Faster devices should work with slower versions of the connector too.
    That's true enough, but it's hardly an advantage that Thunderbolt has over USB3. Even if Thunderbolt's installed base and variety of peripherals explodes it's hard to imagine USB going away in the short to medium term.
  • Reply 40 of 54
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    crowley wrote: »
    That's true enough, but it's hardly an advantage that Thunderbolt has over USB3. Even if Thunderbolt's installed base and variety of peripherals explodes it's hard to imagine USB going away in the short to medium term.

    Why would you imagine it at all? Are you under the erroneous presumption that Intel is trying to replace USB, which it includes in their chipsets, with Thunderbolt?
Sign In or Register to comment.