It only makes sense. If the circuitry was on the motherboard, the optical interface would most certainly fail over time due to constant plugging, unplugging and being susceptible to dirt. ...
Ha that's funny, as if mechanical contacts are not susceptible to failure from repeated use and dirty/oxidized contacts!
Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...
So presumably could by a 30m 'optical' thunderbolt cable someday and plug it into the same connector as used by the 2m copper cable.
It was Intel which talked about optical cables with integrated transceivers. But why integrate the optical transceivers into the cable instead of making them separate? For example, Fibre Channel supports both copper and optical cable. Copper cable plugs directly into the Fibre Channel port. To use optical cable with Fibre Channel, you plug a transceiver into the port and then plug the optical cable into the transceiver.
Why didn't they just make an adapter cable like they did with stuff plugged into the mini-DP connector? Is it because you need one at each end of the cable? Seems a bit silly to pay so much for what is ultimately a rather short cable when you could just buy adapters once and then get a cheap cable for whatever length you need.
Why didn't they just make an adapter cable like they did with stuff plugged into the mini-DP connector? Is it because you need one at each end of the cable? Seems a bit silly to pay so much for what is ultimately a rather short cable when you could just buy adapters once and then get a cheap cable for whatever length you need.
because the electronics are tuned to the cable length and characteristics and they are needed at each end. These are similar to active Twinax 10G Ethernet cables used by Cisco and the like for cheap switch interconnections - expect cheap in Cisco's world is hundreds of $$$ not $50
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
You realize you are talking about a 4 TB RAID system for a $1000? That is an incredible value with Thunderbolt.
What's really interesting about including a firmware on the cable is that it has the capability to be signed.
Think you're going to use some non apple generic cable? Nothing stops Apple from putting signed firmwares on these cables and making sure all its macs only use Apple cables.
What's really interesting about including a firmware on the cable is that it has the capability to be signed.
Think you're going to use some non apple generic cable? Nothing stops Apple from putting signed firmwares on these cables and making sure all its macs only use Apple cables.
That's taking it a little far.
The signed firmware exists to prevent cables that aren't actually up to the LightPeak/Thunderbolt spec.
The signed firmware exists to prevent cables that aren't actually up to the LightPeak/Thunderbolt spec.
Like Sony's. Shoot them in the foot.
You make it sound as if Apple is altruistic...Apple and Sony are brothers from the same mother, I wouldn't necessarily put it past Apple not to do something like that, look at everything they sell that requires and additional port adapter (only $29...). If they can get some extra coin out of some cables, I think they would be more than happy.
I personally have no problem with Sony using a USB port for TB, as it's a lot more practical than mini-DP, which still requires an adapter to use it with anything else.
I certainly have some more respect for the price of this cable now, however, regarding the design, I share the same concern as another poster, about the strain on this longer and beefier connector. Was thinking it would have been nice if the circuitry could have been located in the center of the cable, with very small low-profile connecters at the ends.
Would also love to see Apple start releasing some of their cable/adapter stuff in black.
So how devices do own that use mini-DP? Do you even own any? In the real world, people use USB for most external device connections, but I'm sure you haven't used USB in years.
USB is ubiquitous, but it took a while to get there, although it can be added/expanded with add-on cards; TB requires an entirely new motherboard (read: a new Mac).
If you don't use an adapter with TB, it won't anything other than a specific display port or a small connection cable.
I do applaud Apple for being an early adopter to this new technology, and I am very hopeful that it takes off. The expansion of PCI express into an external format is an exciting concept. However, history tells us it will not take off until it is a fixture in the Windows world.
I do not applaud Sony's decision to use an alternate connector. This will only serve to hamper acceptance, if incompatible connector styles are used.
That said, I still found myself frowning at the lack of an eSATA port on the 15" MBP when it was released this spring. eSATA is really mainstream, found on nearly all external drives, and pretty disappointing that it is not supported on any Mac. My solution was a 17" MBP with an eSATA adapter card, something the current 15" cannot take. I bought the 17" ONLY because of the expressCard port. I would have bought the 15 if it had the ExpressCard port or eSATA. USB2 is too slow, I already own a set of eSATA drives, and I am not paying the premium for FireWire anymore.
Eventually, I expect a port expansion box to appear on the market, providing all these ports via TB. That will FINALLY give us the equivalent to a docking station for our MBPs. First box to market should contain FireWire, USB3, eSATA, DisplayPort. It may be a good idea to include an ExpressCard slot, to provide for less mainstream ports. That box would be VERY useful for MBA with TB users. But, if it is $500 for the box, count me out.
So how many (I assume) devices do you (I assume) own that use USB? In the real world, people use PS/2 or ADB for most external device connections, but I'm sure you haven't used PS/2 or ADB in years.
PS/2 or ADB are ubiquitous, but it took a while to get there, although it can be added/expanded with add-on cards; USB requires an entirely new motherboard (read: a new Mac).
If you don't use an adapter with USB, it won't connect to (I ASSUME...) anything other than a specific USB peripheral or a small connection cable.
You. In 1997. You keep missing the point. So I'll keep time-shifting your posts until you get it.
Also, your last paragraph is wrong. Thunderbolt peripherals exist, just like USB peripherals did at launch.
Still, the integration into main boards doesn't help that there's a lot more technology required in the cable and on the peripheral end. Also, USB was built into main boards long before it actually got any traction, the low price of the host connector wasn't enough, it required a considerable kick start elsewhere.
Another issue is this is the first try at a consumer connection that requires electronic circuitry in the cable. Being a complicated and high spec cable and protocol, it seems like it's going to take considerable time to establish itself.
I'm hopeful, but it pays to limit one's enthusiasm on a new technology, it will take time to get sorted out.
Often times here on this forum we tend to loose sight of what mainstream really means. Many here think the technology is amazingly useful but for the mainstream, they are completely satisfied with the current USB 8 GB flash drives. So yes, it stands a chance of becoming a mainstream i/o port but with the added circuitry and cost, it might be a tough sell to the 'real' mainstream.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
Are you planning on using TB for any professional devices? It's expensive if you only care about having a fast external hard drive, but if you are looking for a way to interface fiber channel, encoders, or basically any PCI-X device you can possibly imaging to your laptop then that is where TB comes in.
The true power of TB will come as Docking systems begin appearing. Theoretically it should be possible to bring back an old Apple idea of having a special Dock system that expands processor & memory, turning your MacBook Pro into a super powerful Desktop.
If all you really want though is USB3 or eSATA, I'm sure they will make adapters for that.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
You will soon see a TB cable that has USB/eSATA in the other end...or a little adapter box. Problem solved.
I think Apple learned from their mistakes. It's why they gave the tech to Intel to develop. They knew if Intel adoped it, the industry would follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
The cost of bleeding edge technology is always high at first. This part should not be a surprise to anyone. Hopefully they have a plan, that they have learned from the old protocols and managed to lay a roadmap for marching the costs down.
This certainly is a very high end use for Thunderbolt. Keep in mind that $1000 is competitive in price to other small RAID boxes of the same capacity but have a much slower connection. In that perspective, the cost of the cable is incidental.
Comments
It only makes sense. If the circuitry was on the motherboard, the optical interface would most certainly fail over time due to constant plugging, unplugging and being susceptible to dirt. ...
Ha that's funny, as if mechanical contacts are not susceptible to failure from repeated use and dirty/oxidized contacts!
Why is this surprising people? I thought Apple said that these copper cables would eventually be replaced by fiber cables using the same connector because the transceivers would be in the cable...
So presumably could by a 30m 'optical' thunderbolt cable someday and plug it into the same connector as used by the 2m copper cable.
It was Intel which talked about optical cables with integrated transceivers. But why integrate the optical transceivers into the cable instead of making them separate? For example, Fibre Channel supports both copper and optical cable. Copper cable plugs directly into the Fibre Channel port. To use optical cable with Fibre Channel, you plug a transceiver into the port and then plug the optical cable into the transceiver.
Why didn't they just make an adapter cable like they did with stuff plugged into the mini-DP connector? Is it because you need one at each end of the cable? Seems a bit silly to pay so much for what is ultimately a rather short cable when you could just buy adapters once and then get a cheap cable for whatever length you need.
because the electronics are tuned to the cable length and characteristics and they are needed at each end. These are similar to active Twinax 10G Ethernet cables used by Cisco and the like for cheap switch interconnections - expect cheap in Cisco's world is hundreds of $$$ not $50
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
You realize you are talking about a 4 TB RAID system for a $1000? That is an incredible value with Thunderbolt.
Trying to decide between the 4TB and 8TB models...
Think you're going to use some non apple generic cable? Nothing stops Apple from putting signed firmwares on these cables and making sure all its macs only use Apple cables.
What's really interesting about including a firmware on the cable is that it has the capability to be signed.
Think you're going to use some non apple generic cable? Nothing stops Apple from putting signed firmwares on these cables and making sure all its macs only use Apple cables.
That's taking it a little far.
The signed firmware exists to prevent cables that aren't actually up to the LightPeak/Thunderbolt spec.
Like Sony's. Shoot them in the foot.
That's taking it a little far.
The signed firmware exists to prevent cables that aren't actually up to the LightPeak/Thunderbolt spec.
Like Sony's. Shoot them in the foot.
You make it sound as if Apple is altruistic...Apple and Sony are brothers from the same mother, I wouldn't necessarily put it past Apple not to do something like that, look at everything they sell that requires and additional port adapter (only $29...). If they can get some extra coin out of some cables, I think they would be more than happy.
I personally have no problem with Sony using a USB port for TB, as it's a lot more practical than mini-DP, which still requires an adapter to use it with anything else.
look at everything they sell that requires and additional port adapter
Nothing they sell requires an adapter to work with anything else they sell. Adapters are for outside-ecosystem stuff.
I personally have no problem with Sony using a USB port for TB
Except that it isn't LightPeak or Thunderbolt at all because of it.
as it's a lot more practical than USB, which still requires an adapter to use it with anything else.
That's you in 1997.
Would also love to see Apple start releasing some of their cable/adapter stuff in black.
That's you in 1997.
So how devices do own that use mini-DP? Do you even own any? In the real world, people use USB for most external device connections, but I'm sure you haven't used USB in years.
USB is ubiquitous, but it took a while to get there, although it can be added/expanded with add-on cards; TB requires an entirely new motherboard (read: a new Mac).
If you don't use an adapter with TB, it won't anything other than a specific display port or a small connection cable.
I do not applaud Sony's decision to use an alternate connector. This will only serve to hamper acceptance, if incompatible connector styles are used.
That said, I still found myself frowning at the lack of an eSATA port on the 15" MBP when it was released this spring. eSATA is really mainstream, found on nearly all external drives, and pretty disappointing that it is not supported on any Mac. My solution was a 17" MBP with an eSATA adapter card, something the current 15" cannot take. I bought the 17" ONLY because of the expressCard port. I would have bought the 15 if it had the ExpressCard port or eSATA. USB2 is too slow, I already own a set of eSATA drives, and I am not paying the premium for FireWire anymore.
Eventually, I expect a port expansion box to appear on the market, providing all these ports via TB. That will FINALLY give us the equivalent to a docking station for our MBPs. First box to market should contain FireWire, USB3, eSATA, DisplayPort. It may be a good idea to include an ExpressCard slot, to provide for less mainstream ports. That box would be VERY useful for MBA with TB users. But, if it is $500 for the box, count me out.
So how many (I assume) devices do you (I assume) own that use USB? In the real world, people use PS/2 or ADB for most external device connections, but I'm sure you haven't used PS/2 or ADB in years.
PS/2 or ADB are ubiquitous, but it took a while to get there, although it can be added/expanded with add-on cards; USB requires an entirely new motherboard (read: a new Mac).
If you don't use an adapter with USB, it won't connect to (I ASSUME...) anything other than a specific USB peripheral or a small connection cable.
You. In 1997. You keep missing the point. So I'll keep time-shifting your posts until you get it.
Also, your last paragraph is wrong. Thunderbolt peripherals exist, just like USB peripherals did at launch.
Still, the integration into main boards doesn't help that there's a lot more technology required in the cable and on the peripheral end. Also, USB was built into main boards long before it actually got any traction, the low price of the host connector wasn't enough, it required a considerable kick start elsewhere.
Another issue is this is the first try at a consumer connection that requires electronic circuitry in the cable. Being a complicated and high spec cable and protocol, it seems like it's going to take considerable time to establish itself.
I'm hopeful, but it pays to limit one's enthusiasm on a new technology, it will take time to get sorted out.
Often times here on this forum we tend to loose sight of what mainstream really means. Many here think the technology is amazingly useful but for the mainstream, they are completely satisfied with the current USB 8 GB flash drives. So yes, it stands a chance of becoming a mainstream i/o port but with the added circuitry and cost, it might be a tough sell to the 'real' mainstream.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
Are you planning on using TB for any professional devices? It's expensive if you only care about having a fast external hard drive, but if you are looking for a way to interface fiber channel, encoders, or basically any PCI-X device you can possibly imaging to your laptop then that is where TB comes in.
The true power of TB will come as Docking systems begin appearing. Theoretically it should be possible to bring back an old Apple idea of having a special Dock system that expands processor & memory, turning your MacBook Pro into a super powerful Desktop.
If all you really want though is USB3 or eSATA, I'm sure they will make adapters for that.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
You will soon see a TB cable that has USB/eSATA in the other end...or a little adapter box. Problem solved.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
I hope I am wrong, but I fear a repeat of SCSI and FireWire, where cost held back adoption, which in turn kept the cost high. For many people, USB3 is going to be fast enough, without costing $1000 for peripherals and $50 for a cable.
I was excited when TB was released, and pulled the trigger on a new MBP. That was months ago, and we are only now seeing anything of TB, and too much for my wallet. I find myself wishing my MBP came with eSATA and USB3...
The cost of bleeding edge technology is always high at first. This part should not be a surprise to anyone. Hopefully they have a plan, that they have learned from the old protocols and managed to lay a roadmap for marching the costs down.
This certainly is a very high end use for Thunderbolt. Keep in mind that $1000 is competitive in price to other small RAID boxes of the same capacity but have a much slower connection. In that perspective, the cost of the cable is incidental.
I think the best chance Thunderbolt has to succeed is if SSDs get too fast for USB 3.