Good point and good questions. I too would be curious if PC Express is power hungry/volume using/heat generating.
If not, if it could be incorporated into a phone sized device (or at least iPad sized device) without undue consequences, then I'm persuaded that Apple would probably have started work on this a while back.
Then the question is, would they bring this out to its own port or just incorporate it into the dock connector (I seem to recall the dock connector has some unused pins)? Apple has seemed very keen on keeping the dock connector as the one and only I/O on their iOS devices (outside of the headphone port). And, how soon?
Being able to sync your iPad to your late model Mac in seconds would be a great selling point, but it's not compelling until Apple has sold a lot more Macs with Thunderbolt on board. And outside of that, what does the format bring to iOS devices? Not using external drives, not wiring up printers or scanners, no video cameras or DSLRs with the connector for the time being, likely not a lot for a while.
So if this does come to iOS, I would expect next year at the earliest, when there's some actual ecosystem to take advantage of. And I wouldn't rule out Apple selling a dock connector to Thunderbolt dongle even then, because they just seem to roll that way.
As to usage of Thunderbolt on the iPad, syncing would be way down on my list.
I'd like to see the iPad as a co-peripheral to a Mac -- the iPad is an I/O peripheral to the Mac and the Mac (and connected peripherals) is an I/O peripheral to the iPad.
I attempted to describe this in a prior post (below), I am specifically thinking of Macs and iPads used for the coming Final Cut Studio. This could be so compelling that it would sell Macs, iPads and FCS -- whatever it takes to get the "jaw-dropping" capability.
... Not to mention any 3rd-party Mac app like CAD or Photo editing that uses a graphic tablet and/or would benefit from a multitouch control surface.
Just imagine, you sit down at your Mac/iPad workstation, do some Photo editing, CAD, or Video editing. Then you drag and drop the finished product to the iPad. You grab the iPad and walk into your living room, or the client's office and AirPlay the results to the HDTV.... WOW!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I think that, at the Mar 2 iPad 2 event, we'll see the iPad being demoed:
-- with an iPad app as a visual control surface for an app running on a Mac
-- with an iPad app as a graphics tablet input device for an app running on a Mac
-- dragging and dropping content between between the iPad and a Mac (both ways)
-- as an external display for an app running on the Mac (the iPad is a peripheral display)
-- as a source of information displayed on the Mac (the Mac is the peripheral) Not
I suspect that:
-- every Mac and iDevice will include Thunderbolt support in the next upgrade.
-- the next release Pro apps will include support for the iPad as above.
-- iLife and iWork will have full iPod/Mac implementations
-- and iLife and iWork can act as stand-alones or as described above.
The dividing line between desktop and mobile blurs -- depending on how the devices are used.
Atrix, had the right idea -- they just didn't think it through properly (who wants a "Scarecrow/Tin Man" computer?}
I am skeptical about them putting Thunderbolt on the iPad. For the simple reason of practicality. The majority of iPad buyers are either PC users or have an existing Mac. None of these people will use this port anytime soon. In fact, it's possible that they might not use this port during the lifetime of their iDevice (or until the very end of it). So most users would be stuck with a port that takes up space but does nothing. Or compels you to use adpators, which would annoy most people. I am willing to bet that most users would rather have a USB connection which lets them plug in their iDevice to any computer than a Thunderbolt connection which they would have little opportunity to use.
Apple has foresight to be sure. But I don't think they'd try to piss off their customers. Moreover, it's one thing to tack on another port on a desktop or a laptop. It's another matter to use a rare connection standard on one of two connection ports on a mobile device (in Apple's case, both not common).
In a year or two though....completely different story.
I am skeptical about them putting Thunderbolt on the iPad. For the simple reason of practicality. The majority of iPad buyers are either PC users or have an existing Mac. None of these people will use this port anytime soon. In fact, it's possible that they might not use this port during the lifetime of their iDevice (or until the very end of it). So most users would be stuck with a port that takes up space but does nothing. Or compels you to use adpators, which would annoy most people. I am willing to bet that most users would rather have a USB connection which lets them plug in their iDevice to any computer than a Thunderbolt connection which they would have little opportunity to use.
Apple has foresight to be sure. But I don't think they'd try to piss off their customers. Moreover, it's one thing to tack on another port on a desktop or a laptop. It's another matter to use a rare connection standard on one of two connection ports on a mobile device (in Apple's case, both not common).
In a year or two though....completely different story.
The iPad could come with a cable that's Thunderbolt at one end and USB at the other...
But, I'd be willing to bet that if Apple includes an iPad Thunderbolt port, and allows external devices (cameras, thumb derive, etc.) to be connected -- 3rd-party manufacturers would stumble over themselves supplying Thunderbolt cables to their devices.
Apple is estimated to sell 40 million iPads in 2011 (I believe it will be over 60 million). But. let's take the 40 number -- that would mean maybe 30 million iPad 2s with Thunderbolt -- that's a pretty good size target market! Not to mention other new iDevices.
I am skeptical about them putting Thunderbolt on the iPad. For the simple reason of practicality. The majority of iPad buyers are either PC users or have an existing Mac. None of these people will use this port anytime soon. In fact, it's possible that they might not use this port during the lifetime of their iDevice (or until the very end of it). So most users would be stuck with a port that takes up space but does nothing. Or compels you to use adpators, which would annoy most people. I am willing to bet that most users would rather have a USB connection which lets them plug in their iDevice to any computer than a Thunderbolt connection which they would have little opportunity to use.
Apple has foresight to be sure. But I don't think they'd try to piss off their customers. Moreover, it's one thing to tack on another port on a desktop or a laptop. It's another matter to use a rare connection standard on one of two connection ports on a mobile device (in Apple's case, both not common).
In a year or two though....completely different story.
I don't see how adding a port would annoy users. Adding a port at this point wouldn't be about mass adoption, it would be about demoing capabilities.
You say the port would be useless to most, but many people have an HD TV at home and could benefit from mini DisplayPort through a simple mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. iOS devices not even supporting 720p video out is a bit of a short coming right now (in before AirPlay comments).
I don't see how adding a port would annoy users. Adding a port at this point wouldn't be about mass adoption, it would be about demoing capabilities.
You say the port would be useless to most, but many people have an HD TV at home and could benefit from mini DisplayPort through a simple mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. iOS devices not even supporting 720p video out is a bit of a short coming right now (in before AirPlay comments).
I agree with this!
I was going to add the following as an edit to my prior post:
1) I don't follow the PC hardware -- but I think most PCs and laptops have the requisite PCI interface slot in their motherboards. If true, many existing PCs could, with a Thunderbolt adapter, take immediate advantage of the technology -- Apple's advantage is that the adapter will be built-in to all Macs (next refreash).
2) If there are apps running on PCs that could benefit from an iPad co-peripheral (as I described earlier) then these would be great targets for sales of software, hardware, connectors and iPads..
In my history with computers I have had the privilege to experience, first hand, several revolutions -- where the capability was so compelling that it was the only way to go. Cost was not an issue -- the results were not practical any other way!
Apple ][ and VisiCalc -- a $79 program that sold many $3,000 plus computers to run it.
Mac and the LaserWriter -- a $10,000 plus package that created the Desktop Publishing industry.
I believe the joining of the iPad with the Mac (or PC) is another one of these revolutions.
I believe the AutoCads, the PhotoShops and, yes, the Final Cuts have seen what loosely-connected iPads and computers can do... and understand the potential of more tightly joining them as co-peripherals.
That's just the creatives -- haven't even considered the enterprise, educational, medical, defense and gaming potential of co-joined computing.
Me? I love everything. Why would you assume there was a complaint embedded in that comment?
After re-reading my post, it's obvious to me that the fact that the first 4 posters were all complaining about the story, and the time of day for me was later in the PM (when my blood sugar gets down to the "bitchy" level) .... I let that dictate the tone of my reply to you. I was wrong for that and you have my apology.
Specs sometimes lie. Even though USB 2.0 is supposed to be rated at 480 and the original Firewire is rated at a lower 400, the Firewire beats the USB 2.0 in real life usage, such as when using external drives. Firewire (400) has better sustained throughput and is faster than USB 2.0.
In addition, every packet on USB requires processing by the CPU, impacting your overall system performance the more you send data. Firewire controllers are able to handle the transaction without host CPU involvement, freeing more processing for your applications. This also means that realtime transfers (synchronous data) is really synchronous - no dropped frames in your video. The synchronous data in USB is just mostly synchronous.
Comments
Good point and good questions. I too would be curious if PC Express is power hungry/volume using/heat generating.
If not, if it could be incorporated into a phone sized device (or at least iPad sized device) without undue consequences, then I'm persuaded that Apple would probably have started work on this a while back.
Then the question is, would they bring this out to its own port or just incorporate it into the dock connector (I seem to recall the dock connector has some unused pins)? Apple has seemed very keen on keeping the dock connector as the one and only I/O on their iOS devices (outside of the headphone port). And, how soon?
Being able to sync your iPad to your late model Mac in seconds would be a great selling point, but it's not compelling until Apple has sold a lot more Macs with Thunderbolt on board. And outside of that, what does the format bring to iOS devices? Not using external drives, not wiring up printers or scanners, no video cameras or DSLRs with the connector for the time being, likely not a lot for a while.
So if this does come to iOS, I would expect next year at the earliest, when there's some actual ecosystem to take advantage of. And I wouldn't rule out Apple selling a dock connector to Thunderbolt dongle even then, because they just seem to roll that way.
Here are the pinouts:
http://pinouts.ru/CellularPhones-A-N...r_pinout.shtml
As to usage of Thunderbolt on the iPad, syncing would be way down on my list.
I'd like to see the iPad as a co-peripheral to a Mac -- the iPad is an I/O peripheral to the Mac and the Mac (and connected peripherals) is an I/O peripheral to the iPad.
I attempted to describe this in a prior post (below), I am specifically thinking of Macs and iPads used for the coming Final Cut Studio. This could be so compelling that it would sell Macs, iPads and FCS -- whatever it takes to get the "jaw-dropping" capability.
... Not to mention any 3rd-party Mac app like CAD or Photo editing that uses a graphic tablet and/or would benefit from a multitouch control surface.
Just imagine, you sit down at your Mac/iPad workstation, do some Photo editing, CAD, or Video editing. Then you drag and drop the finished product to the iPad. You grab the iPad and walk into your living room, or the client's office and AirPlay the results to the HDTV.... WOW!
I think that, at the Mar 2 iPad 2 event, we'll see the iPad being demoed:
-- with an iPad app as a visual control surface for an app running on a Mac
-- with an iPad app as a graphics tablet input device for an app running on a Mac
-- dragging and dropping content between between the iPad and a Mac (both ways)
-- as an external display for an app running on the Mac (the iPad is a peripheral display)
-- as a source of information displayed on the Mac (the Mac is the peripheral) Not
I suspect that:
-- every Mac and iDevice will include Thunderbolt support in the next upgrade.
-- the next release Pro apps will include support for the iPad as above.
-- iLife and iWork will have full iPod/Mac implementations
-- and iLife and iWork can act as stand-alones or as described above.
The dividing line between desktop and mobile blurs -- depending on how the devices are used.
Atrix, had the right idea -- they just didn't think it through properly (who wants a "Scarecrow/Tin Man" computer?}
Apple has foresight to be sure. But I don't think they'd try to piss off their customers. Moreover, it's one thing to tack on another port on a desktop or a laptop. It's another matter to use a rare connection standard on one of two connection ports on a mobile device (in Apple's case, both not common).
In a year or two though....completely different story.
I am skeptical about them putting Thunderbolt on the iPad. For the simple reason of practicality. The majority of iPad buyers are either PC users or have an existing Mac. None of these people will use this port anytime soon. In fact, it's possible that they might not use this port during the lifetime of their iDevice (or until the very end of it). So most users would be stuck with a port that takes up space but does nothing. Or compels you to use adpators, which would annoy most people. I am willing to bet that most users would rather have a USB connection which lets them plug in their iDevice to any computer than a Thunderbolt connection which they would have little opportunity to use.
Apple has foresight to be sure. But I don't think they'd try to piss off their customers. Moreover, it's one thing to tack on another port on a desktop or a laptop. It's another matter to use a rare connection standard on one of two connection ports on a mobile device (in Apple's case, both not common).
In a year or two though....completely different story.
The iPad could come with a cable that's Thunderbolt at one end and USB at the other...
But, I'd be willing to bet that if Apple includes an iPad Thunderbolt port, and allows external devices (cameras, thumb derive, etc.) to be connected -- 3rd-party manufacturers would stumble over themselves supplying Thunderbolt cables to their devices.
Apple is estimated to sell 40 million iPads in 2011 (I believe it will be over 60 million). But. let's take the 40 number -- that would mean maybe 30 million iPad 2s with Thunderbolt -- that's a pretty good size target market! Not to mention other new iDevices.
I am skeptical about them putting Thunderbolt on the iPad. For the simple reason of practicality. The majority of iPad buyers are either PC users or have an existing Mac. None of these people will use this port anytime soon. In fact, it's possible that they might not use this port during the lifetime of their iDevice (or until the very end of it). So most users would be stuck with a port that takes up space but does nothing. Or compels you to use adpators, which would annoy most people. I am willing to bet that most users would rather have a USB connection which lets them plug in their iDevice to any computer than a Thunderbolt connection which they would have little opportunity to use.
Apple has foresight to be sure. But I don't think they'd try to piss off their customers. Moreover, it's one thing to tack on another port on a desktop or a laptop. It's another matter to use a rare connection standard on one of two connection ports on a mobile device (in Apple's case, both not common).
In a year or two though....completely different story.
I don't see how adding a port would annoy users. Adding a port at this point wouldn't be about mass adoption, it would be about demoing capabilities.
You say the port would be useless to most, but many people have an HD TV at home and could benefit from mini DisplayPort through a simple mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. iOS devices not even supporting 720p video out is a bit of a short coming right now (in before AirPlay comments).
I don't see how adding a port would annoy users. Adding a port at this point wouldn't be about mass adoption, it would be about demoing capabilities.
You say the port would be useless to most, but many people have an HD TV at home and could benefit from mini DisplayPort through a simple mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. iOS devices not even supporting 720p video out is a bit of a short coming right now (in before AirPlay comments).
I agree with this!
I was going to add the following as an edit to my prior post:
1) I don't follow the PC hardware -- but I think most PCs and laptops have the requisite PCI interface slot in their motherboards. If true, many existing PCs could, with a Thunderbolt adapter, take immediate advantage of the technology -- Apple's advantage is that the adapter will be built-in to all Macs (next refreash).
2) If there are apps running on PCs that could benefit from an iPad co-peripheral (as I described earlier) then these would be great targets for sales of software, hardware, connectors and iPads..
In my history with computers I have had the privilege to experience, first hand, several revolutions -- where the capability was so compelling that it was the only way to go. Cost was not an issue -- the results were not practical any other way!
Apple ][ and VisiCalc -- a $79 program that sold many $3,000 plus computers to run it.
Mac and the LaserWriter -- a $10,000 plus package that created the Desktop Publishing industry.
I believe the joining of the iPad with the Mac (or PC) is another one of these revolutions.
I believe the AutoCads, the PhotoShops and, yes, the Final Cuts have seen what loosely-connected iPads and computers can do... and understand the potential of more tightly joining them as co-peripherals.
That's just the creatives -- haven't even considered the enterprise, educational, medical, defense and gaming potential of co-joined computing.
It will take a year for Dell to find used Thunderbolt parts to put into their machines.
best post this week
9
Me? I love everything. Why would you assume there was a complaint embedded in that comment?
After re-reading my post, it's obvious to me that the fact that the first 4 posters were all complaining about the story, and the time of day for me was later in the PM (when my blood sugar gets down to the "bitchy" level) .... I let that dictate the tone of my reply to you. I was wrong for that and you have my apology.
Nothing about exclusivity.
Nothing about Apple blocking anything.
Just everybody else sitting on his fat ass waiting to see if this is successful and then decide to join.
You blame the wrong company!
Why do you not READ the article?
We did.
Nothing about exclusivity.
It was edited.
Nothing about Apple blocking anything.
It was edited.
You blame the wrong company!
You blame the wrong posters.
Me too, Firewire is far better than USB 2.
Specs sometimes lie. Even though USB 2.0 is supposed to be rated at 480 and the original Firewire is rated at a lower 400, the Firewire beats the USB 2.0 in real life usage, such as when using external drives. Firewire (400) has better sustained throughput and is faster than USB 2.0.
In addition, every packet on USB requires processing by the CPU, impacting your overall system performance the more you send data. Firewire controllers are able to handle the transaction without host CPU involvement, freeing more processing for your applications. This also means that realtime transfers (synchronous data) is really synchronous - no dropped frames in your video. The synchronous data in USB is just mostly synchronous.