Thunderbolt still a 'niche' due to Intel licensing requirements

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    USB doubling in speed means half the speed of Thunderbolt.

    But that's USB in total compared to Thunderbolt in one direction. Then there is still real world v. theoretical speeds that could affect the performance significantly. Based on how TB works I'm guessing the real world speed is close to the theoretical then USB at 10Gbps is.
  • Reply 22 of 55
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Right, except it is the sole licensor of the product as it controls the spec. Thus, they arbitrarily set pricing as they see fit.

    And they've already set the price at $0.00. So what is up with all the whining about price?

    If you want to build a computer that doesn't have any proprietary technology in it, you're going to have a very hard time. In fact, it would be impossible. With Intel offering the license for free, any complaint about the price is insane.
  • Reply 23 of 55

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    And they've already set the price at $0.00. So what is up with all the whining about price?



    If you want to build a computer that doesn't have any proprietary technology in it, you're going to have a very hard time. In fact, it would be impossible. With Intel offering the license for free, any complaint about the price is insane.




    Yes, yes, yes. But...Intel is the only supplier of controllers, which is fine, because they own the tech.


     


    (I'm really not involved in any feeling either way - I just did a little research to find out about Thunderbolt licenses. I don't care if the price is high or low or zero.)

  • Reply 24 of 55
    I actually think this is a strategic move against Apple's early reason of the tech, they want to position it with other vendors so they've been holding it back until now.

    They've obviously been trying to one-up Apple with the 'ultrabook' image, even going to the lengths of 'implying' they came up with the form factor/standard prior to Apple's Macbook Air.

    I'm honestly not sure why they feel this way. Intel's business model has not really focused in direct consumer market products before..
  • Reply 25 of 55
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    Right, except it is the sole licensor of the product as it controls the spec. Thus, they arbitrarily set pricing as they see fit.

    They will still want to see it adopted so I expect they'll aim for fair pricing. This article hinted at $20 per device:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-lightpeak-thunderbolt-acer-asus,14370.html

    "Initially, Thunderbolt carried a cost of more than $20 per device and is prohibitively expensive for most computer systems."

    That could just be the controller cost. The PC has to have a controller, then a cable with two microchips and a Thunderbolt controller in the device and then the license and certification fees on top.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57452782-92/can-intels-thunderbolt-go-mainstream-with-help-from-apple-and-acer/

    "Chen estimated that Intel's Thunderbolt chips cost about $35 for a PC and $20 to $25 for devices that attach to it."

    If it was $20 for the device controller + $20 for the cable + $20 license per device + $x for the license, that goes some way to explaining the premium. It only seems to be a $50 premium now though. Choose the 3TB USB3 Lacie vs TB+USB3 model and it's just a $50 difference:

    http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10554
    http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10600

    I like that they have a stricter certification as it should mean you don't get people flooding the market with poor quality devices although that hasn't quite been the case so far. Reviews haven't been too positive for Seagate's TB adaptor and Apple's Thunderbolt display had issues.

    Intel is due to bring the Redwood Ridge TB controller in Q2 so maybe it'll be a bit cheaper:

    http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/29997-intel-prepares-two-new-thunderbolts-in-2013?tmpl=component&print=1

    You can bet this certification process is what's holding back external GPUs. AMD and NVidia obviously won't touch it. Thankfully 3rd parties are picking it up and they have plug-and-play dedicated GPU working:


    [VIDEO]


    TB will always be a niche but you can't do this sort of thing with USB 3 so it's a very useful connector.
  • Reply 26 of 55


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    You said:

    Just how is that not about price? And in what sense could you possibly have meant that statement other than the fees that Intel charges for licensing the technology?


     



     


    I imagine you've never used the word price to describe anything but money.






    It really is amazing how you're so quick to say something silly and then when you're proven wrong, you completely change your story, claim you were misquoted, or dance around in any of another dozen ways in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.



     


    Once again, I apologize. Less earnestly this time.

  • Reply 27 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Marvin wrote: »
    TB will always be a niche but you can't do this sort of thing with USB 3 so it's a very useful connector.

    I could see it becoming fairly common if Intel positions it correctly. If they could drop the cost considerably and add TB to the chipset I can imagine having a mDP connector on any decent notebook. The first will happen over time but I'm not sure if the 2nd part is feasible.
  • Reply 28 of 55
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    You said "price" and then you mentioned a $1 per port license fee for Firewire.

    Do you really think people are dense enough to believe that you meant anything but money?
  • Reply 29 of 55


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    You said "price" and then you mentioned a $1 per port license fee for Firewire.


     


    Third and last time: Yes, I apologize that the context made it sound that way. I should have used a different word; I should have written it differently. I did not mean money.






    Do you really think people are dense enough to believe that you meant anything but money?



     


    Yes, seeing as I did.

  • Reply 30 of 55
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


     


    Right, except it is the sole licensor of the product as it controls the spec. Thus, they arbitrarily set pricing as they see fit.



     


    Sort of like Apple and their Lightning connectors, huh?

  • Reply 31 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Sort of like Apple and their Lightning connectors, huh?

    And? All companies that license something set their own prices. Would you rather Apple didn't license their tech so that you only had to buy Apple's cables?
  • Reply 32 of 55
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Third and last time: Yes, I apologize that the context made it sound that way. I should have used a different word; I should have written it differently. I did not mean money.

    Right.
    Also cut the licensing price. People whined about $1 per port for FireWire; imagine how they'd feel about this.

    That obviously has nothing to do with money. /s
  • Reply 33 of 55
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member


    Perhaps Intel are feeling a bit insecure about the ability of various vendors to bring TB products to market which do not cause problems such as those encountered in a variety of USB 3 devices.


     


    The bottom line is still the cost. Until Intel gets the cost down, TB will not see wide adoption. They can either bring the price down to encourage its adoption or open it up to just about everyone and hope it generates the volume to get the price down. Frankly, it is not all that unusual for a manufacturer to price a product based upon a calculated long run average cost for an expected minimum volume rather than sticking with a price based on short run costs at a low volume which discourage purchase of the product because of price considerations. 


     


    TB is a promising technology, but tech history is littered with footnotes about promising technologies that never succeeded in the market. 

  • Reply 34 of 55

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Notice also that FireWire is the only port professional cameras would consider using, so your "fall by the wayside" is nonsense.



     


    Maybe 5-10 years ago. They are all USB now.

  • Reply 35 of 55


    Originally Posted by Dueces View Post

    Maybe 5-10 years ago. They are all USB now.


     


    Not by a long shot, no.

  • Reply 36 of 55
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member


    MSI are reportedly developing an TB external chassis with graphics card of their own design and manufacture. I can't find the reference to it just now, but there were some videos posted which were encouraging. The current TB ("TB I") can rather easily be saturated if using a graphics card and some external storage device, but TB II should be better in that regard.

  • Reply 37 of 55


    It may share the fate of Firewire if Apple is stubborn. Dead regardless how good. I suspect it is not as much cost as unfriendly process.

  • Reply 38 of 55
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Not by a long shot, no.

    Are you in the business? Do you use them? What i do know is, if it's in deck mode, it's bad because the cameras I know downconvert to HDV, and that can be a pretty serious degradation, going from 50Mbps (or higher) AVC to 25Mpbs MPEG2. It also transfers in linear time, you'll do faster pulling the media and directly ingesting the media at 10x the speed. Maybe you know more than I do, or have used a broader range of newer devices than I.
  • Reply 39 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    It may share the fate of Firewire if Apple is stubborn. Dead regardless how good. I suspect it is not as much cost as unfriendly process.

    If Apple is stubborn? What does Apple have to do with it that would cause the adoption not to happen? The only additive I see is Intel using the mDP port created by Apple but that port interface if free to use. Not a single penny for the licensing.
  • Reply 40 of 55


    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

    Are you in the business? Do you use them? What i do know is, if it's in deck mode, it's bad because the cameras I know downconvert to HDV, and that can be a pretty serious degradation, going from 50Mbps (or higher) AVC to 25Mpbs MPEG2. It also transfers in linear time, you'll do faster pulling the media and directly ingesting the media at 10x the speed. Maybe you know more than I do, or have used a broader range of newer devices than I.


     


    Not in the business, but I've certainly used professional cameras in the last… three years, I suppose. You're about right on the money there. The last ones I used were Sony-made, and of course they had their proprietary SXS (or whatever it's called) cards, but drawing the content off of those involved a simple accessory that itself terminated in a FireWire port, connecting to the iMacs they had. And of course there was one right on the camera itself. 

Sign In or Register to comment.