Slashdot Mirror
Why Thunderbolt Is Dead In the Water
adeelarshad82 writes "In the same way that Apple championed FireWire for the replacement of parallel SCSI, Thunderbolt is meant as the next big thing in video and audio peripheral interfaces. Plus, it's Apple's move to beat USB 3.0. However, Thunderbolt is off to a slow start, for a number of reasons — from cost to the technology's features in comparison to USB 3.0 — which is why it may be dead in the water."
New technology is expensive and uncommon a couple months after release. News at 11.
The title and the summary seem to be in disagreement. How do i know which to trust?
Let's not turn all the world into a pro wrestling match...
Apple built Thunderbolt with Intel, not against them. If it was only about fighting USB, they wouldn't team up.
It seems these days any new technology which Slashdot takes a dislike to goes on to enjoy huge success. Take for example the iPad, Facebook, Twitter... I am almost tempted to predict that Thunderbolt will be a huge success :)
The article reads like a big Apple bash, even though Thunderbolt is Intel's tech. The points about cost are probably valid but the whole thing comes off as a big unsourced bitchfest.
Actually, it comes from Intel, and is the former LightPeak they've been showing off for the past few years. Apple is simply the first OEM to pick it up in their hardware.
But this is Intel tech, not Apple.
No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.
A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.
I'm not really seeing how it's like LightPeak at all, given that they've ditched the optical connection altogether.
Well, it used to be called Light Peak, and it's an Intel technology that Apple is championing. It's all Intel. It's basically DisplayPort plus x2 PCIe.
The Thunderbolt name is actually trademarked by Intel, so they're probably going to promote it heavily.
And Intel is promoting it heavily - the Intel chipsets all have Thunderbolt controllers built in. Whereas, if you wanted USB 3.0, the manufacturer will have to throw in a separate chip and supporting components for that - USB 3.0 isn't coming to Intel chipsets until next year.
This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.
As for dead in the water - it's hard to tell. A lot of manufacturers have thrown their hats into the ring of Thunderbolt accessories - hard drives, capture carts, etc. It can provide up to 10W of power (4x USB, but short of FireWire power), plus with daisy chaining and the like.
The best answer is that it's really to replace FireWire moreso than supplant USB 3.0. FW3200 is pretty much dead.
Intel did. Intel designed and developed the tech, and Apple just came to them and said "Hey, here's some ideas for the final implementation, and we'd like to put it in our devices soon." It is an Intel technology, and one in development for quite awhile.
It is targeted at something of a different market from USB3. It is more expensive for devices to implement, and less secure, since it is really just an external PCIe port. However that means full DMA, low latency and so on.
They are complimentary technologies.
No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.
A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.
That is a bad analogy. The 3.5mm jack is easy to use because there is no wrong way to plug it in. Now the USB connector on the other hand is crap because a lot of people probably have to make two or three tries before then can plug something in. It is a really poor design which is only marginally better than those stupid PS/2 keyboard/mouse ports.
Now the Thunderbolt connector, on the other hand, has just one right way that you can try to even plug it in. It is easy to see which side is up.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You just spent 3 sentences telling people why anyone who argues differently from you is wrong, yet you provided not a single reason. The only fact you provided is easily disproven:
Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.
Most certainly not! I see 29 USB 3.0 motherboards less than $100 at newegg.. The $500 HTPC I bought this year has 2 USB 3.0 ports, as does my 8 month old laptop. By next year even the low-end will have it because manufacturers will have unloaded their USB 2.0 chipset boards.
This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.
TFA says the hardware is ~$90, compared to ~$3 for USB, so I don't think this is correct.
Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards
Newegg says you're wrong.
yes, about two years ago. Thunderbolt is EXACTLY like LightPeak, as they are the same thing. LightPeak was the project codename, Thunderbolt is the formal product name.
No, Thunderbolt is an offshoot of LightPeak. LightPeak actually used light (fiber), Thunderbolt is LightPeak over copper with some other differences. Thunderbolt was created because fiber switching is way to expensive for consumer use.
The USB logo goes "up", Brainiac.
Neither of my Flash drives have a USB logo on them. I've no idea about my other USB devices.
In any case, even if that was true it's a piss-poor substitute for a properly designed connector.
Did I miss where Ivy Bridge came out a year early? All Intel chipsets are scheduled to have Thunderbolt controllers in them, beginning with Ivy Bridge. In 2012. It will also have USB 3.0 built into the chipset. That means it's at least a year too early to say much about the potential for Thunderbolt.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.
Neither one of which has taken the world by storm... Frankly we don't really need a replacement for either of those. They're fine but niche. There is more to having a successful interface than transfer rates. Cost to manufacture, legacy hardware compatibility, current equipment needs, licensing terms, customer demand and more all play a role. The opportunity for Thunderbolt is if it can combine the video (usually VGA/DVI/HDMI) and peripheral ports (usually USB) into a single interface. USB replaces several types of cables but it isn't quite capable enough to replace dedicated video cables. It's not clear that USB3 will be fast enough either. If Thunderbolt is cheap enough to manufacture and has a performance advantage that lets people further reduce the number of different cables they need, then it will have a chance.
What is wanted is something that is fast, cheap, compatible, reliable, easy to configure and minimizes the number of different cables we need. Frankly most PCs should ideally have no more than two cable types - one high power cable to power the device (when needed) and one type of data cable that can also handle low voltage DC power needs. Nothing wrong with using specialized cables for specific performance needs but that doesn't apply to most of us most of the time. I don't really care if the data cable is USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt or something else entirely but there is a lot to be gained by standardizing on a suitable general purpose data cable. USB comes closest to this ideal right now. (Yes Firewire could do the job but it's too expensive and lost that battle with USB long ago) Perhaps Thunderbolt will take it the next step. Only time will tell.
Early digital cameras were low resolution so speed did matter. I think they had like 1 MB of memory and worked through a serial cable, at least for the Dyson and Apple Quicktake. By 2000 we had cameras supassing 3 megapixels, with 4 megapixels storage in raw format. This did require speed, so the Nikon D1, For example, did use a firewire port. I recall using the USB 1.0 port for my first MP3 player. It took so long to transfer the music. For $300 I think they could have included firewire. As mentioned, devices that transfered more information, like hard drives and scanners, did move from SCSI to USB. I don't know that there were no still cameras that used SCSI, but probably not consumer ones.
What is interesting about this discussion is that though USB 3.0 is not widely implemented, no one says it is dead. The latest and greatest cameras do not seem to have USB 3.0. The base laptops sold by HP and Dell do not seem to have USB 3.0. This technology has been out for a year and I do not see it widely deployed, even though everyone says it is cheap and easy to do so. I can imagine a time when when medium format digital becomes affordable that there may be many digital backs that user Thunderbolt for tethered operation. Right now such backs seem to include USB 3.0 and firewire.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
That's called being too incompetent to operate a regular blanket
No sig for the moment.
Portable HDDs are supposed to be portable. Part of portability is working on multiple platforms. Until Intel gets their PC release in line it's only going to be used by those who know they'll only ever want their data on a Mac.
The target market for the first batch of TB peripherals is going to be Mac-using video pros, who are gagging for something better than FireWire800 and are frustrated by the removal of the Express card slot from all but the 17" MacBook Pro. So far there are kick-ass RAID arrays, Fibre Channel adapters, Pro video digitisers and extra Ethernet/Firewire ports. There is one "portable" HD (TB only) but it looks pretty high end (2 SSDs in a RAID) and its one of those big aluminium bricks from Lacie, not what I'd choose for a "portable" drive.
Long term, you can already get external drives with multiple interfaces (I have one with USB2, FW800 and eSATA) so there may be TB+USB3 drive in the future.
However, the interesting possibility of TB is that its fast enough to use multi-protocol adaptors without taking a hit: there are already Firewire800 and Ethernet adapters in the pipeline (presumably in demand from Macbook users who've run out of ports) - hopefully things like eSATA and USB3 will follow. In that case, I'd go for an eSATA interface and go for an eSATA + USB external HD or one of those "drop in a bare disk" adapters.
The other potential use for TB is multi-interface "docking stations" or destop hubs - one TB cable and your laptop is connected to a desktop full of hardware including the monitor, hard drive, network etc. Your peripherals might still use "legacy" interfaces but they'll plug into the hub rather than the laptop.
The current (reassuringly expensive) Apple Cinema Display has a USB hub, USB sound card, USB webcam - and consequently needs you to plug in a USB lead as well as Displayport - it will be interesting to see if the next version can do all this (or maybe more) via Thunderbolt.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
This is OK by me, if Apple will stick with LightPeak/Thunderbolt for at least as long as they've stuck with FireWire. I don't want to buy a bunch of devices that are obsolete in 2-3 years, but I can still use my FireWire 400 drives from 10 years ago, along with my FireWire 800 drives from this year. Who cares if Thunderbolt doesn't wipe USB3 off the face of the earth? It's cool, it' works well, and as long as it isn't forcefully obsoleted, I will be happy with it for years to come.
I'd say Apple won't care; the port will be seen as a useful feature that is unique to Macs (or at least most heavily used in Macs). Intel probably doesn't mind if Thunderbolt stays a Mac niche thing either, as they are making money off Thunderbolt and USB3 both. No matter which way the hardware makers go, Intel is making sales and/or collecting royalties.
So what's the big deal here? Does every new connector type have to become a universal standard to be considered a success? If you want a drive that will work on Mac/Win/Linux, get USB.
:q!
All Intel chipsets are scheduled to have Thunderbolt controllers in them, beginning with Ivy Bridge.
Do you have a source for that claim? anandtech say "Though some rumors reported Panther Point would include support for Thunderbolt, there is absolutely nothing in the current roadmap to suggest its presence in the 7-series chipsets"
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/14/intel-announces-usb-3-0-in-ivy-bridge-and-will-support-thunder/
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.