Teardown of Apple's new & long Thunderbolt 4 Pro Cable highlights why it's so expensive

AppleInsider

A new video takes a look inside Apple's newly introduced Thunderbolt 4 Pro cable and gives viewers a look at the premium components that went into its design.

Image Credit: ChargerLAB

When Apple introduced the Mac Studio and Studio Display in March, they quietly launched a new Thunderbolt 4 Pro Cable. The new cable, priced at $129 for the 1.8-meter length, is capable of up to 40Gb/s data transfer and allows for charging up to 100W.

A new teardown video by ChargerLAB highlights the premium materials and construction that went into making the cable.

The cable is a coaxial cable that features 19 wires. Six of the wires are tinned copper wires that supply power. In addition, two wires enable USB 2.0 transmission, making the cable backward compatible with Thunderbolt 3, USB 3, and USB2. Many of the wires are plated with silver as well as copper.

The connectors themselves also feature premium parts contained in a durable brass housing. Each connector also features 24 gold-plated pins.

Inside the connector is an Intel chip used for signal reconstruction and reducing signal jitter. The outside of the cable is encased in a waterproof and dustproof braided exterior, increasing the cable's durability.

ChargerLAB notes that the cable performs very well but is likely not useful for standard customers who would fare just as well with a cheaper alternative. Functional 1.8M Thunderbolt 4 cables can be found for as low as $40, albeit minus some of Apple's design and material touches.

However, for creatives working with large amounts of data, ChargerLAB states it may be the best option currently available.

Currently, Apple sells the 1.8-meter Thunderbolt 4 Pro Cable for $129. A 3-meter version will be released at a later date with a price tag of $159.

Read on AppleInsider

timmillea

There is probably more computing power in one of Apple's cable or PSUs than powered the Apollo mission to the Moon :-) 

rezwits

Along the same lines as above, but a yeah guys, it's getting kind of ridiculous out there!  A cable "End" with probably more processing power than Macintosh LC II?!? from the 1990s!!

Sucks that people bitch so hard about the price of things, but now days, it's not just willy nilly get one to have one, you better NEED IT...

hackintoisier

Anyone know if this expensive cable enables a m1-based Mac to directly connect to an m1-based iPad Pro? Cheaper thunderbolt 3/4 or USB4 cables result in a failed connection between the two Apple devices. 

mikethemartian

The Intel JHL7040 costs $4.50 on Mouser without any quantity discount. The Infineon Cypress CYPDC1186 appears to be listed as obsolete.

lotech

I’ve been trying a few options from Ali and had relative success. Using a Jeyi TB3 enclosure I speed tested a 980 pcie 4 (7000MB/s) SSD at easily saturated to TB3 bus to 2800MB/s using cheap cables. The Apple cable performed identically. 
That said there have been reviews on some cables of them working fine but not getting full speed 40GB/s so don’t buy 10 and think any will be fine. Buy a couple and test then buy more. The last order got me TB4 cables for $US16 and are nice braided ones. 

melgross

People have gotten so used to cheap cables that last 15 years, or so, that they’ve forgotten just how expensive they used to be. My last Adaptec SCSI cable cost $168 a long time ago. In today’s dollars it would be almost twice that. And we didn’t complain because we knew that’s what they would cost.

people today complain about everything.

mikethemartian

melgross said:

People have gotten so used to cheap cables that last 15 years, or so, that they’ve forgotten just how expensive they used to be. My last Adaptec SCSI cable cost $168 a long time ago. In today’s dollars it would be almost twice that. And we didn’t complain because we knew that’s what they would cost.

people today complain about everything.

For a high frequency RF lab you can pay thousands of dollars to get a pair of phase matched cables.

entropys

Its too complicated and expensive to be anything other than a niche cable for particular purposes. It should not be a standard port for the masses.
The rest of the world uses USBc to do most of this, including daisy chaining displays with display port.

humbug1873

The most scary sentence in that whole article " for creatives working with large amounts of data, ChargerLAB states it may be the best option currently available."
Why is that an acceptable outcome?
When I buy a cable that is supposed to allow for Thunderbolt 4, it should follow the specifications and deliver the expected throughput. If not it's mis-labelled and essentially fraud. We need to stop accepting faulty cables and sue the fraudsters.

crowley

humbug1873 said:

The most scary sentence in that whole article " for creatives working with large amounts of data, ChargerLAB states it may be the best option currently available."
Why is that an acceptable outcome?
When I buy a cable that is supposed to allow for Thunderbolt 4, it should follow the specifications and deliver the expected throughput. If not it's mis-labelled and essentially fraud. We need to stop accepting faulty cables and sue the fraudsters.

As I read it, the comment is referencing cables that use cheaper materials, not cables with faults.

crowley

entropys said:

Its too complicated and expensive to be anything other than a niche cable for particular purposes. It should not be a standard port for the masses.
The rest of the world uses USBc to do most of this, including daisy chaining displays with display port.

You mean USB3/4.  USB-C is the connector.

MplsP

melgross said:

People have gotten so used to cheap cables that last 15 years, or so, that they’ve forgotten just how expensive they used to be. My last Adaptec SCSI cable cost $168 a long time ago. In today’s dollars it would be almost twice that. And we didn’t complain because we knew that’s what they would cost.

people today complain about everything.

True, most people don’t realize all that’s in the cable. Of course there’s this 1m HDMI cable at best buy for $400 that they try to claim will improve the quality of the digital error-corrected signal….

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/audioquest-vodka-34-4k-ultra-hd-hdmi-cable-black-blue/1267691.p?skuId=1267691

cornchip

MplsP said:

melgross said:

People have gotten so used to cheap cables that last 15 years, or so, that they’ve forgotten just how expensive they used to be. My last Adaptec SCSI cable cost $168 a long time ago. In today’s dollars it would be almost twice that. And we didn’t complain because we knew that’s what they would cost.

people today complain about everything.

True, most people don’t realize all that’s in the cable. Of course there’s this 1m HDMI cable at best buy for $400 that they try to claim will improve the quality of the digital error-corrected signal….

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/audioquest-vodka-34-4k-ultra-hd-hdmi-cable-black-blue/1267691.p?skuId=1267691

Sheezz! 

killroy

MplsP said:

melgross said:

People have gotten so used to cheap cables that last 15 years, or so, that they’ve forgotten just how expensive they used to be. My last Adaptec SCSI cable cost $168 a long time ago. In today’s dollars it would be almost twice that. And we didn’t complain because we knew that’s what they would cost.

people today complain about everything.

True, most people don’t realize all that’s in the cable. Of course there’s this 1m HDMI cable at best buy for $400 that they try to claim will improve the quality of the digital error-corrected signal….

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/audioquest-vodka-34-4k-ultra-hd-hdmi-cable-black-blue/1267691.p?skuId=1267691

And this For 164 feet.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1577012-REG/optical_cables_by_corning_cor_aoc_ccu6jpn050m20_thunderbolt_3_usb_c_optical.html

I would not trust any cable with the name Vodka. You can get 40 foot HDMI fiber cable for $100.00.

MplsP

killroy said:

MplsP said:

melgross said:

People have gotten so used to cheap cables that last 15 years, or so, that they’ve forgotten just how expensive they used to be. My last Adaptec SCSI cable cost $168 a long time ago. In today’s dollars it would be almost twice that. And we didn’t complain because we knew that’s what they would cost.

people today complain about everything.

True, most people don’t realize all that’s in the cable. Of course there’s this 1m HDMI cable at best buy for $400 that they try to claim will improve the quality of the digital error-corrected signal….

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/audioquest-vodka-34-4k-ultra-hd-hdmi-cable-black-blue/1267691.p?skuId=1267691

And this For 164 feet.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1577012-REG/optical_cables_by_corning_cor_aoc_ccu6jpn050m20_thunderbolt_3_usb_c_optical.html

I would not trust any cable with the name Vodka. You can get 40 foot HDMI fiber cable for $100.00.

Yes, that's expensive, but a 164' cable is significantly different from a 1m cable. They actually had some other HDMI cables for over $4000. They were certified for 10k signals, so it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.

Several years ago I read an article that compared 'high end' HDMI cables and compared them to cheap cables. The bottom line is that for a digital, error corrected signal the cable will either work or it won't and if it works there's no difference in the picture quality. IIRC, they purchased a bunch of cables for less than $20 from Monoprice and they all performed just as well as cables costing hundreds of dollars. (I just checked and Monoprice has a 10ft/3m 8k certified HDMI cable for $12. Of course it doesn't say 'vodka' on it...

sbdude

I'm loving all the comments along the lines of "things cost more these days" and "people are just used to cheap cables". What's completely lacking in this article is "What's the actual cost of materials?" And you'll probably find it's less than $20. That's always cause for consternation.

And having more computing power than a 16 MHz 68k processor isn't saying much.

docno42

humbug1873 said:

The most scary sentence in that whole article " for creatives working with large amounts of data, ChargerLAB states it may be the best option currently available."
Why is that an acceptable outcome?
When I buy a cable that is supposed to allow for Thunderbolt 4, it should follow the specifications and deliver the expected throughput. If not it's mis-labelled and essentially fraud. We need to stop accepting faulty cables and sue the fraudsters.

lol - just look at all the people whining about price in this thread. That’s why cheaper alternatives exist. 

Transferring data at high speed is complicated and requires precision engineering, which adds to costs.  

melgross

sbdude said:

I'm loving all the comments along the lines of "things cost more these days" and "people are just used to cheap cables". What's completely lacking in this article is "What's the actual cost of materials?" And you'll probably find it's less than $20. That's always cause for consternation.

And having more computing power than a 16 MHz 68k processor isn't saying much.

The cost of materials in this cable is higher than you would imagine. There are custom chips inside that likely can’t be used for anything else. That’s just part of it. People not involved in manufacturing have some strange idea that the cost of materials and parts make the price of the product. They don’t. They’re only about one third of the price. The rest is R&D, manufacturing, warrantee costs, the costs to pay the staff of the company, the building rental or building costs. Costs of machinery, taxes on everything that not directly used in manufacturing, mowing the lawn, changing lightbulbs, shipping, marketing and a myriad of other costs associated with running a company.

it’s amazingly naive to think that the cost of parts has more than a passing relationship with product pricing. I was a manufacturer years ago, and I can say that it’s vastly more complex than you can imagine.