BTW the only things left to them in my opinion are:
There are plenty of potential big products out there. That's not the problem. The problem for Apple is the law of big numbers. There are a relatively small number of products with enough market to move the needle once you are Apple's size.
1.) Live Television
Tough nut to crack like you said but I would have said the same thing about music a few years ago. I'd give Apple as good a chance as anyone. The market is big enough but it's unclear where the business opportunity lies. Lots of entrenched players and a byzantine market structure.
2.) Replacing the iPod Mini with a watch that syncs to your iPhone.
I think you are on the right track but the opportunity is bigger if you think of it more broadly. Think device and sensor integration. Right now devices do a rather poor job of talking to each other, even Apple devices. For instance I should have access to all my files, data, music, settings, preferences, video, address book, etc on each and every Apple device I own. It should be completely seamless. Right now it's still too spotty and device dependent. The market opportunity for that is huge for Apple and it keeps people in their ecosystem.
3.) Pull a M$ and try to merge there desktop class and tablet class together.
This is already happening to some degree and logically it makes some sense. I think MS did a hack job of it but they did establish that the concept is feasible. Apple has already started to make iOS and MacOS overlap and Google is doing the same thing with Android. It doesn't necessarily have to be a single code base but the code bases should work smoothly together if they can't be merged. Frankly I think laptops and tablets are going to converge much like PDAs and cell phones over the next few years. Right now they are separated due to the state of the art in technology but those barriers will disappear largely in a few years. Not sure how it will play out but it will be interesting to watch.
4.) Virtual Reality
I presume you are thinking of something like Occulus. I've worked in my day job with immersive VR tech and I just don't see a big enough business opportunity there to get super excited if I were a company the size of Apple. Games has some market potential (overestimated I think but some) but what else? Most uses are pretty niche. However I do see a huge opportunity in augmented reality and geolocation which isn't all that far removed in a lot of ways.
Other potential big opportunities? 1) Automotive systems are a big opportunity and car companies aren't very good at the sorts of products Apple makes. 2) Payment systems are a huge opportunity. I could see smartphones making inroads into some of what we use credit cards for now. 3) Location based services - a lot of the money in smartphones is probably going to be here. Big fight with Google on the horizon here. 4) Buying other companies - Apple has a TON of cash. They could easily buy their way into markets.
By that logic, FibreChannel and Ethernet also were for the same purpose as USB and FireWire.
FibreChannel and Ethernet are pretty narrowly purposed towards networking. In theory they could be competitors to USB and Firewire and Thunderbolt but in practice they generally are not. You can do things like drive a monitor over Ethernet but people rarely do so. Similarly you can connect to a network over USB or Firewire or Thunderbolt but in practice people rarely do. Thunderbolt on the other hand is being aimed at video and storage much like Firewire is/was. USB overlaps with those use cases fairly heavily. Virtually everyone has USB storage and USB monitors have become a thing. I have a USB monitor I use fairly often and it works great.
FireWire 400 still kicks USB 2.0 ass when it comes to sustained transfers rates.
Which matters not one tiny bit to most users. The few who need the modest advantages of an old version of USB over an older version of Firewire have it available to them. The number of use cases affected is pretty much the very definition of niche.
You cannot run video and Ethernet simultaneously over USB.
Then I must be pulling off a miracle because I'm doing EXACTLY that as I type this. I have a USB 3 docking station that runs gigabit ethernet, drives two 1080p monitors and handles my keyboard, mouse and an external hard drive. All through a single USB connection. Works great and the bandwidth has not ever been a problem for anything I've needed to do. I could do the same thing using Thunderbolt but it would cost me a LOT more money to do it plus I'd still need USB for the mouse and keyboard.
Again, USB and TB overlap in functionality but are not direct competitors.
They overlap rather heavily in functionality though Thunderbolt is technically far more appropriate for video. Video is the main current source of distinction between the two. For most other uses (storage etc) the differences matter far less to most people. However the latest incarnations (3.0 & 3.1) of USB are fast enough that they can do video too for the most common use cases out there. Thunderbolt is technically better but there is a strong chance that won't matter any more than it did for Firewire. Anywhere USB and Thunderbolt compete I don't think Thunderbolt will fare well even though most of us would probably prefer it.
You mean like audio engineers, DJs, musicians, et al?
Yes. That is the very definition of niche. We're talking about a tiny fraction of a single percent of users who would ever care about the amount of latency in a sound card. Hell, the number who even know what the word latency means is probably in the low single digits.
USB has a crapload of overhead that makes it cheap to produce
Which 99.9% of users do not care about at all so long as their device works. Only engineers and geeks like (I presume) you and me give a shit about the overhead. It simply does not matter as long as it works. To use an analogy, sending a file via email entails a vast amount of overhead compared with FTP. Nobody cares. They send the file via email because it works and costs them less (in time mostly). Same here. Almost nobody cares how much overhead USB has. They care whether their data gets from point A to point B when they need it there.
The problem is that even many slashdotters think they were for the same purpose when they were not. For many years both existed because FW was the better technology for Pros
They were for transporting data and/or power ergo both USB and Firewire were for the same purpose. The use cases for each overlap heavily - so much so that there is effectively little difference for all but a few users. Firewire was used for some niche purposes (video and ipods mostly) because USB initially wasn't fast enough. Once USB 2.0 came around 99% of the use cases where Firewire held a meaningful advantage evaporated. It only continued to be used because it has enough of an installed base in video cameras that a small number continued to bother. Even Apple eventually dropped Firewire for their i-devices in favor of USB.
Again they don't have the same purpose and this isn't a standards battle
It most certainly is a standards battle. Both are cables that transport data and/or power and mostly to the same devices for the same purposes. The technical differences between them are irrelevant from a user's perspective so long as they work. I'm typing this on a laptop that is driving two 1080p monitors, a docking station, a keyboard, a trackball, gig-ethernet all from a single USB 3.0 cable. The only extra power required is for the monitors, dock and the laptop which Thunderbolt can't supply either. Only a tiny number of people actually need the extra capabilities of Thunderbolt for their actual real-world use.
You are focused too closely on the technology and not on the actual function it serves. Data is data and power is power and users don't care how or which cable gets it from point A to point B. They do care whether it works and how much it costs. As long as USB can accomplish the same tasks at a lower cost (which generally it can) then Thunderbolt isn't going to expand beyond a small niche no matter how much better it is technologically. USB has WAY too large an installed base to go away and the advantages of Thunderbolt (which are very real) are to date insufficient to displace USB significantly.
TB however has the advantage of being a universal laptop connector so can be used by consumers too.
USB effectively serves the purpose of "universal laptop connector" well enough for most people. I see no credible argument that Thunderbolt is going to displace it from that role. Even Apple - the biggest supporter of Thunderbolt by far - includes USB on all their computers so it's not like USB is going to go away. If USB gets fast enough, most of the use cases for Thunderbolt that currently exist independent of USB will vanish like a fart in the wind.
If I want low latency high quality audio card, I'm not plugging it into USB.
You and the 5 other people that care about that.
They're two different use cases.
Yeah see, they really aren't. You're not thinking of the problem in the abstract. They both transport some amount of data and/or power from point A to point B. How mechanically it gets there is something that the user generally doesn't care about and shouldn't have to. Yes there are some advantages to each one for certain use cases but most of the functionality overlaps heavily. Most people are eventually going to go with the more widely accepted standard and that is USB.
Thunderbolt is likely to remain a niche just like Firewire and SCSI before it. Great technologies that will lose the standards battle to a cheaper good enough technology.
I do the same thing with a USB 3 cable. I drive two monitors, an external hard drive, keyboard, trackball, a USB 3 hub and gig-ethernet. Could do a printer too. All by plugging in one USB 3 cable. My laptop has USB 3 and doesn't have Thunderbolt.
Thunderbolt is external PCIe. Don't knock it until you realize how useful it can be.
Technologically Thunderbolt is great. Problem is that only Apple supports it in any meaningful way and USB 3+ is generally good enough for most people.
No they are not. They overlap in functionality but they are not the same.
Same argument was made for USB vs Firewire and we know how that turned out. Firewire was objectively better in a lot of ways but USB won because it was cheaper and good enough. Nobody except Apple supports Thunderbolt really so even if USB 3/3.1 is flawed I think it is going to win that standards battle.
Yes it does support uncompressed video but how well it does so far does not seem as though it is as good as TB.
Doesn't have to be "as good as" it just needs to be good enough. USB is a great example of a "good enough" technology. It's not perfect but it generally gets the job done and everyone has it.
For most consumers, USB 3.1 will be fine for most applications. For professionals, they are likely to get TB devices for their needs.
In the short run you are probably correct. In the long run I think Thunderbolt is likely to be a niche standard like Firewire.
Pretty good? I could go with that. But it could be better: 1) Should be able to carry more power 2) The connectors still suck, especially the mini/micro versions - doubly so for the USB 3 micro.
1) Power and data do not belong on the same connector or cable.
Bullshit they don't. Power and data should be on the same cable unless there is a compelling technical reason for them not to be. A big part of the appeal of USB is specifically because it can carry both data and power over the same cable. Why on earth would I want a separate power connector if I don't have to have one?
2) Extra pins cost more up front, but make backward compatibility less of a pain down the road.
Extra pins are not usually the problem when it comes to making a serial connection faster. Your point is valid but universally so.
Even as shitty and useless as it started out, USB has put all of these to shame.
USB carries both power and data on the same cable and recent versions have more pins than the original. Want to try that argument again when you have set your double standards for Apple vs everyone else aside?
I don't know how or where this "grow or die" idea began, but it's just plain wrong.
It's not grow or die. It's grow or lose investors. If I own a company (I'm a shareholder) and want a return on my investment the only way for that to occur is for the company to grow. In fact it has to grow faster than the rate of inflation or I will be losing money. The company has to engage in profitable activities sufficient to generate a return for investors. If the future value of risk adjusted cash flows is lower than another potential investment then the company will lose investors because they will put their money into the other investment.
You can't have infinite growth within a finite market.
I've never seen a company experience infinite growth or anything close so that's kind of a meaningless statement. You can however have substantial growth rates for a long time both for a company and for a market. There are companies that have grown by 10%+ per year on average for decades.
You are completely ignoring the most important question. Can methanol be produced without consuming more energy than it creates, particularly with regard to fossil fuels, once all inputs are accounted for? I've seen no credible evidence that this is possible with any existing or near term likely technology. I'd be happy to be wrong but so far I see methanol fuel production as merely a less stupid version of ethanol fuel production. Same fundamental issues exist. It still is a carbon based fuel with the pollution issues that implies, it still is a net energy loss and it still results in larger net pollution once all inputs are accounted for. If it helps here and there with specific problem then great, but I'm not exactly going to get excited about it.
No, they don't. Not if you do it right.
Cute how you think there is this vast amount of "wasted" land that we can raise crops on without any work or energy consumption at all with no detrimental environmental effects. Look, I think methanol is underutilized too but I see no evidence that it is anywhere near as easy or efficient to use as you make it out to be at scale. Furthermore while it is cleaner than coal or oil on its own, it still pollutes in much the same way as fossil fuels. At best it mitigates the problem but it doesn't make it go away.
Half of all human-edible food produced today is wasted
Which is a problem but one that alcohol fuel production isn't going to solve or improve.
Second, it has NOTHING to do with soil quality.
If you read what I wrote I said that soil quality was a minor factor. (Though I disagree that soil quality is completely unimportant)
Yeah, except for all those ethanol plants which could easily be converted to methanol production.
Great. Even if we converted them all today (which isn't easy or cheap), now you are up to 14 billion gallons and the electricity needed to run the biorefineries mostly comes from fossil fuels, especially coal. Furthermore starch derived ethanol is a very different process than cellulose derived ethanol. Plants can be converted but it's not nearly as trivial as you make it sound. Obviously we CAN create production capacity but I see little evidence so far that we should.
Methanol can be made from perennial crops which can be harvested economically with little to no inputs.
Perennial crops still need water, pest control, harvesting, tending, processing, and some amount of fertilizing, ALL of which require oil and other petroleum products. Methanol would likely be a big improvement on ethanol but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of eliminating the need for oil inputs and it's not even clear if it would get the need for such inputs below the energy output of the methanol produced. I don't have any problem with using methanol as a fuel source (at least no more than any fossil fuel) but so far the thermodynamics and economics of it just don't seem to make any sense other than as a supplemental or byproduct source of bio-fuel. Replace oil? Not going to happen.
Without tillage, such crops can be raised on lands which are currently considered marginal or unusable for conventional row-cropping. So methanol (unlike ethanol) would not compete with food crops at all.
It might help a bit at the edges but there are reasons we don't use those locations beyond just the soil quality. Difficult landscapes, poor irrigation, remote locations, etc. And if there is money to be had, it will compete with food crops to some degree. The only question is how much.
It already is produced at industrial scale. It's one of the most common "industrial" chemicals on the market. Unfortunately, a good chunk is currently produced from natural gas
A "good chunk"? Try the vast majority. There is essentially no industrial scale bioreactor on anything close to the scale relevant here. Right now the total capacity for methanol production in the US is 2.6 billion gallons annually, most of which is made from natural gas. Compare that with the 133 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in 2012. That doesn't even count diesel and other fuel products from oil.
PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different, applications written for one would, generally, not work on the other.
They are both computers and the functions they serve are no different at all That's like saying a PC and a Mac are fundamentally different because their software was incompatible. The mere fact that software written at the time for one wouldn't work on the other could not be less important. What is important is the job they did. PCs gradually took over all the jobs we once used mini-computers for and the companies that built to those products went away. DEC was bought by Compaq, etc. Companies that come late to the party on the new technology often (though not always) have a hard time catching up. Intel underestimated the growth of mobile chips and now is scrambling to catch up to ARM and it isn't clear if they will succeed. And if Intel is having a hard time I can't see AMD having an easier time of it.
When low end tablets become more powerful: AMD has the products to just slot in and take advantage.
Several flaws with that reasoning. 1) Other companies have competing products already and AMD would have to provide a compelling reason to switch from their competitors who already are in place. Displacing an existing customer relationship is difficult at the best of times. 2) AMD products generally do not have any significant and lasting technological advantage over their competitors. 3) AMD is not the lowest cost producer (that would be Intel) and really cannot compete effectively on price. Intel can easily undercut them on price at almost any time and still make money doing it. 4) What is good enough now will not be good enough in a year and AMD's competitors products will improve in the mean time. Waiting for the market to come to them is a VERY dangerous strategy.
No, AMD is not locking itself out of this market.
There is a very good chance that they are. Given their sadly pathetic track record I'd inclined to be doubtful of their chances until shown evidence to the contrary. AMD has mostly made good products but they generally always seem to be a step behind the curve
The low end tablet market is sewn up by those selling ARM. So why should AMD compete ?
Because low end products have a way of supplanting high end products in time. PCs replaced most mini-computers even though initially they were inferior products. When was the last time you used a mini-computer? If AMD only competes at the high end of the market they run the risk of being slowly crushed as ARM chips become more capable over time. Intel recognizes this threat and is attempting to address it directly instead of pretending it doesn't exists. Even if they do stay at the high end of the market, it's unclear what if any advantage they have that will allow them to remain a product of choice there. Intel and others are perfectly capable of producing high end products too and Intel has a cost advantage over AMD as well.
Stuff like this is a big part of why AMD has remained something of an also-ran all these years.
Biodiesel or green diesel from waste fats are pure benefit, as are biofuels from algae.
Most biodiesel is essentially a by-product. It's a nice way to reduce waste and arguably worth doing but let's not pretend that there is enough to go around to really make a big dent in oil consumption overall. And NOTHING is "pure benefit". There are drawbacks to everything. Diesel isn't the cleanest burning fuel available and it has all the problems you get from any form of fossil fuel when it comes to pollution. Good? Yes. "Pure benefit"? Not remotely.
There is close to no industrial scale production of biofuels from algae so their benefit can hardly be objectively measured at this point.
Unfortunately, the best of them (Butanol) is being suppressed by BP and DuPont until such a time as they can control it completely.
Ahh, conspiracy theory rears its ugly head. Perhaps you might consider that using plant derived alcohols as fuel on a vast scale might simply be economically stupid? It's a lot more likely explanation.
There are better feedstocks than corn, for reasons of both environmental impact and efficiency, which also don't drive up food prices in international and domestic markets.
They still require arable land, oil, fertilizer, transport, tending, harvesting, refining and more. I've not seen any biofuel based on planting and harvesting crops that shows credible evidence of being more efficient than simply refining the oil directly. It sounds like a good idea (plants = green, right?) but once you account for the entire system it simply makes things more complicated and sometimes more polluting with no actual improvement at the end of the day. Sure there are plenty of better feedstocks than corn but at the end of the day that isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is establishing how oil->alcohol->fuel is more efficient and/or less polluting than oil->fuel directly. Any data that doesn't address that question is a waste of money, brains, oil and time.
Methanol would be a much better choice, since it can be made from any biomass, not just starch or sugar.
That does not the same thing as saying you can create a net energy increase from methanol or that once all factors are accounted for that it is less polluting than just refining oil directly. Modern agriculture essentially converts oil into crops - both from fertilizers (which are oil derived) as well as transport and planting/tending/harvesting. With ethanol/methanol you are converting the crops back into oil products. For that to make sense you have to establish that there is somehow a net usable energy gain and/or that it is net less polluting from the oil-alcohol-fuel cycle than the oil-fuel cycle. I've seen no credible evidence that the oil-alcohol-fuel process is in any way more efficient or less polluting on a net basis than just refining the oil directly to fuel.
Such a requirement would change the market. With millions of cars able to use it, gas station owners would start selling methanol on one or two pumps. This would effectively break the current monopoly that petroleum has on transportation fuel.
How do you think methanol would be produced at industrial scale? Farming at industrial scales requires oil and lots of it. It not only would not break the cycle there is a very strong potential it would make it less efficient and more polluting than it already is AND it would tie up arable land for fuel instead of food.
I think using ethanol is basically retarded. We're using fossil fuels to do a bunch of farming to produce a bunch of fossil fuels with lower energy density than the ones that went into the farming and doing so basically as a subsidy to corn farmers. Stupid policy.
That said:
1: HFCS. Enough said.
Which has exactly what to do with ethanol? HFCS is a function of price supports and import restrictions for sugar. HFCS is cheaper as a result. Take away the price supports and the need for HFCS will drop. All of this has precisely nothing to do with ethanol policy aside from the fact that corn growers benefit from both products.
I wish there were concrete figures if using for ethanol takes food out of hungry people's mouths.
Ethanol production isn't at such a level that it causes starvation. There is no lack of reasonably priced food in the USA (see obesity crisis) though in some cases there is a distribution problem.
Food prices sure jumped when ethanol was mandated in the US in gasoline.
Citation please. I oppose the use of ethanol as a mandated fuel but I've seen no evidence this has occurred. It's certainly *possible* but that's not the same thing.
3: Ethanol does a number on small engines.
Only engines that weren't designed for ethanol. Again, our ethanol is a dumb thing to use as a fuel for the most part but that doesn't mean it cannot be used without damaging a properly designed engine. It's old engines that weren't designed with ethanol in mind that are the problem. It's like dumping a small amount of diesel into a gasoline engine. Might run but it's not good for it.
Once. The first time, The Supreme court elected him 5-4.
He got plenty of votes from plenty of people outside of Texas. And the people RE-ELECTED him and there was no debate on that one. While I think that was a huge mistake, obviously enough people liked him well enough that he got to spend 8 years in the white house.
So by this time next year a couple thousand of those 4 million will be dead.
"Couple thousand"? By your own numbers we should expect around 360 murders (48/100,000*750,000), most of which will not occur anywhere near where most people actually go. Tens of thousands work downtown and Ford Field, Comerica Park, Joe Louis Arena, Detroit Institute of Art, Cobo Hall, Wayne State University, several casinos and quite a few other attractions are downtown. Few people ever have a problem. Get a clue.
There's a lot more to avoid in Detroit than the snow.
Why would I want to avoid either Detroit or the snow? Literally millions of people go to Detroit every year without any incident whatsoever. Most of Detroit City is no more dangerous than any other major metro area in the US. An most people DON'T LIVE IN DETROIT CITY.
Plus I like to ski and skate. Why would I avoid the snow?
I know what the weather is like, the last year that we lived there the first week in February the temperature never got above 10 below, and six months later the first week in August never got below 97 (even at night).
Wow. One week of cold and one week of hot. However did you manage to survive? [/sarcasm]
I'm sure that's true if you're counting traditional engineering fields, meaning not including software engineers. I'm not sure it would still be true if you included software
Not as much software as some other places but that is changing FAST. Cars are getting a lot of software these days and so is the equipment used to make them. Plus a lot of software companies have a presence in the area including Google and some other big names. University of Michigan produces a lot of pretty good software talent and places like Ann Arbor are great places to start tech ventures.
Software is just a small, though important, part of technology. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook hardly comprise the entirety of the technology universe.
I take it the executives of these companies will be living somewhere the weather is livable and the food is decent.
The weather in Michigan is tremendous unless you are a complete wuss about a little snow. If you actually like to go outside the weather is terrific, particularly if you like boating. Never more than 80 miles from one of the Great Lakes anywhere in Michigan. In the summer I never been anyplace with better weather. Detroit Metro has about 4 million residents who think you are a big old wuss.
Furthermore there are terrific food establishments and markets in the Detroit Metro area. Roast, Zingermans, Eastern Market and lots lots more. There are high quality grocery stores and farmers markets everywhere. The fresh produce is tremendous.
Wanted: People who are smart enough to work in tech, but dumb enough to live in an unsafe place.
Wanted: People who are smart enough to work in tech AND smart enough to actually get facts before making stupid public statements.
Seriously, few people actually live in Detroit City and that isn't where most of the jobs are - most live outside and it's perfectly safe most places. I'm pretty sure there are neighborhoods in San Francisco and Boston and Austin that the tech workers avoid. No different in Detroit.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW the only things left to them in my opinion are:
There are plenty of potential big products out there. That's not the problem. The problem for Apple is the law of big numbers. There are a relatively small number of products with enough market to move the needle once you are Apple's size.
1.) Live Television
Tough nut to crack like you said but I would have said the same thing about music a few years ago. I'd give Apple as good a chance as anyone. The market is big enough but it's unclear where the business opportunity lies. Lots of entrenched players and a byzantine market structure.
2.) Replacing the iPod Mini with a watch that syncs to your iPhone.
I think you are on the right track but the opportunity is bigger if you think of it more broadly. Think device and sensor integration. Right now devices do a rather poor job of talking to each other, even Apple devices. For instance I should have access to all my files, data, music, settings, preferences, video, address book, etc on each and every Apple device I own. It should be completely seamless. Right now it's still too spotty and device dependent. The market opportunity for that is huge for Apple and it keeps people in their ecosystem.
3.) Pull a M$ and try to merge there desktop class and tablet class together.
This is already happening to some degree and logically it makes some sense. I think MS did a hack job of it but they did establish that the concept is feasible. Apple has already started to make iOS and MacOS overlap and Google is doing the same thing with Android. It doesn't necessarily have to be a single code base but the code bases should work smoothly together if they can't be merged. Frankly I think laptops and tablets are going to converge much like PDAs and cell phones over the next few years. Right now they are separated due to the state of the art in technology but those barriers will disappear largely in a few years. Not sure how it will play out but it will be interesting to watch.
4.) Virtual Reality
I presume you are thinking of something like Occulus. I've worked in my day job with immersive VR tech and I just don't see a big enough business opportunity there to get super excited if I were a company the size of Apple. Games has some market potential (overestimated I think but some) but what else? Most uses are pretty niche. However I do see a huge opportunity in augmented reality and geolocation which isn't all that far removed in a lot of ways.
Other potential big opportunities?
1) Automotive systems are a big opportunity and car companies aren't very good at the sorts of products Apple makes.
2) Payment systems are a huge opportunity. I could see smartphones making inroads into some of what we use credit cards for now.
3) Location based services - a lot of the money in smartphones is probably going to be here. Big fight with Google on the horizon here.
4) Buying other companies - Apple has a TON of cash. They could easily buy their way into markets.
By that logic, FibreChannel and Ethernet also were for the same purpose as USB and FireWire.
FibreChannel and Ethernet are pretty narrowly purposed towards networking. In theory they could be competitors to USB and Firewire and Thunderbolt but in practice they generally are not. You can do things like drive a monitor over Ethernet but people rarely do so. Similarly you can connect to a network over USB or Firewire or Thunderbolt but in practice people rarely do. Thunderbolt on the other hand is being aimed at video and storage much like Firewire is/was. USB overlaps with those use cases fairly heavily. Virtually everyone has USB storage and USB monitors have become a thing. I have a USB monitor I use fairly often and it works great.
FireWire 400 still kicks USB 2.0 ass when it comes to sustained transfers rates.
Which matters not one tiny bit to most users. The few who need the modest advantages of an old version of USB over an older version of Firewire have it available to them. The number of use cases affected is pretty much the very definition of niche.
You cannot run video and Ethernet simultaneously over USB.
Then I must be pulling off a miracle because I'm doing EXACTLY that as I type this. I have a USB 3 docking station that runs gigabit ethernet, drives two 1080p monitors and handles my keyboard, mouse and an external hard drive. All through a single USB connection. Works great and the bandwidth has not ever been a problem for anything I've needed to do. I could do the same thing using Thunderbolt but it would cost me a LOT more money to do it plus I'd still need USB for the mouse and keyboard.
Again, USB and TB overlap in functionality but are not direct competitors.
They overlap rather heavily in functionality though Thunderbolt is technically far more appropriate for video. Video is the main current source of distinction between the two. For most other uses (storage etc) the differences matter far less to most people. However the latest incarnations (3.0 & 3.1) of USB are fast enough that they can do video too for the most common use cases out there. Thunderbolt is technically better but there is a strong chance that won't matter any more than it did for Firewire. Anywhere USB and Thunderbolt compete I don't think Thunderbolt will fare well even though most of us would probably prefer it.
You mean like audio engineers, DJs, musicians, et al?
Yes. That is the very definition of niche. We're talking about a tiny fraction of a single percent of users who would ever care about the amount of latency in a sound card. Hell, the number who even know what the word latency means is probably in the low single digits.
USB has a crapload of overhead that makes it cheap to produce
Which 99.9% of users do not care about at all so long as their device works. Only engineers and geeks like (I presume) you and me give a shit about the overhead. It simply does not matter as long as it works. To use an analogy, sending a file via email entails a vast amount of overhead compared with FTP. Nobody cares. They send the file via email because it works and costs them less (in time mostly). Same here. Almost nobody cares how much overhead USB has. They care whether their data gets from point A to point B when they need it there.
The problem is that even many slashdotters think they were for the same purpose when they were not. For many years both existed because FW was the better technology for Pros
They were for transporting data and/or power ergo both USB and Firewire were for the same purpose. The use cases for each overlap heavily - so much so that there is effectively little difference for all but a few users. Firewire was used for some niche purposes (video and ipods mostly) because USB initially wasn't fast enough. Once USB 2.0 came around 99% of the use cases where Firewire held a meaningful advantage evaporated. It only continued to be used because it has enough of an installed base in video cameras that a small number continued to bother. Even Apple eventually dropped Firewire for their i-devices in favor of USB.
Again they don't have the same purpose and this isn't a standards battle
It most certainly is a standards battle. Both are cables that transport data and/or power and mostly to the same devices for the same purposes. The technical differences between them are irrelevant from a user's perspective so long as they work. I'm typing this on a laptop that is driving two 1080p monitors, a docking station, a keyboard, a trackball, gig-ethernet all from a single USB 3.0 cable. The only extra power required is for the monitors, dock and the laptop which Thunderbolt can't supply either. Only a tiny number of people actually need the extra capabilities of Thunderbolt for their actual real-world use.
You are focused too closely on the technology and not on the actual function it serves. Data is data and power is power and users don't care how or which cable gets it from point A to point B. They do care whether it works and how much it costs. As long as USB can accomplish the same tasks at a lower cost (which generally it can) then Thunderbolt isn't going to expand beyond a small niche no matter how much better it is technologically. USB has WAY too large an installed base to go away and the advantages of Thunderbolt (which are very real) are to date insufficient to displace USB significantly.
TB however has the advantage of being a universal laptop connector so can be used by consumers too.
USB effectively serves the purpose of "universal laptop connector" well enough for most people. I see no credible argument that Thunderbolt is going to displace it from that role. Even Apple - the biggest supporter of Thunderbolt by far - includes USB on all their computers so it's not like USB is going to go away. If USB gets fast enough, most of the use cases for Thunderbolt that currently exist independent of USB will vanish like a fart in the wind.
If I want low latency high quality audio card, I'm not plugging it into USB.
You and the 5 other people that care about that.
They're two different use cases.
Yeah see, they really aren't. You're not thinking of the problem in the abstract. They both transport some amount of data and/or power from point A to point B. How mechanically it gets there is something that the user generally doesn't care about and shouldn't have to. Yes there are some advantages to each one for certain use cases but most of the functionality overlaps heavily. Most people are eventually going to go with the more widely accepted standard and that is USB.
Thunderbolt is likely to remain a niche just like Firewire and SCSI before it. Great technologies that will lose the standards battle to a cheaper good enough technology.
I do the same thing with a USB 3 cable. I drive two monitors, an external hard drive, keyboard, trackball, a USB 3 hub and gig-ethernet. Could do a printer too. All by plugging in one USB 3 cable. My laptop has USB 3 and doesn't have Thunderbolt.
Thunderbolt is external PCIe. Don't knock it until you realize how useful it can be.
Technologically Thunderbolt is great. Problem is that only Apple supports it in any meaningful way and USB 3+ is generally good enough for most people.
No they are not. They overlap in functionality but they are not the same.
Same argument was made for USB vs Firewire and we know how that turned out. Firewire was objectively better in a lot of ways but USB won because it was cheaper and good enough. Nobody except Apple supports Thunderbolt really so even if USB 3/3.1 is flawed I think it is going to win that standards battle.
Yes it does support uncompressed video but how well it does so far does not seem as though it is as good as TB.
Doesn't have to be "as good as" it just needs to be good enough. USB is a great example of a "good enough" technology. It's not perfect but it generally gets the job done and everyone has it.
For most consumers, USB 3.1 will be fine for most applications. For professionals, they are likely to get TB devices for their needs.
In the short run you are probably correct. In the long run I think Thunderbolt is likely to be a niche standard like Firewire.
That said USB3 is pretty good.
Pretty good? I could go with that. But it could be better:
1) Should be able to carry more power
2) The connectors still suck, especially the mini/micro versions - doubly so for the USB 3 micro.
1) Power and data do not belong on the same connector or cable.
Bullshit they don't. Power and data should be on the same cable unless there is a compelling technical reason for them not to be. A big part of the appeal of USB is specifically because it can carry both data and power over the same cable. Why on earth would I want a separate power connector if I don't have to have one?
2) Extra pins cost more up front, but make backward compatibility less of a pain down the road.
Extra pins are not usually the problem when it comes to making a serial connection faster. Your point is valid but universally so.
Even as shitty and useless as it started out, USB has put all of these to shame.
USB carries both power and data on the same cable and recent versions have more pins than the original. Want to try that argument again when you have set your double standards for Apple vs everyone else aside?
I don't know how or where this "grow or die" idea began, but it's just plain wrong.
It's not grow or die. It's grow or lose investors. If I own a company (I'm a shareholder) and want a return on my investment the only way for that to occur is for the company to grow. In fact it has to grow faster than the rate of inflation or I will be losing money. The company has to engage in profitable activities sufficient to generate a return for investors. If the future value of risk adjusted cash flows is lower than another potential investment then the company will lose investors because they will put their money into the other investment.
You can't have infinite growth within a finite market.
I've never seen a company experience infinite growth or anything close so that's kind of a meaningless statement. You can however have substantial growth rates for a long time both for a company and for a market. There are companies that have grown by 10%+ per year on average for decades.
You are completely ignoring the most important question. Can methanol be produced without consuming more energy than it creates, particularly with regard to fossil fuels, once all inputs are accounted for? I've seen no credible evidence that this is possible with any existing or near term likely technology. I'd be happy to be wrong but so far I see methanol fuel production as merely a less stupid version of ethanol fuel production. Same fundamental issues exist. It still is a carbon based fuel with the pollution issues that implies, it still is a net energy loss and it still results in larger net pollution once all inputs are accounted for. If it helps here and there with specific problem then great, but I'm not exactly going to get excited about it.
No, they don't. Not if you do it right.
Cute how you think there is this vast amount of "wasted" land that we can raise crops on without any work or energy consumption at all with no detrimental environmental effects. Look, I think methanol is underutilized too but I see no evidence that it is anywhere near as easy or efficient to use as you make it out to be at scale. Furthermore while it is cleaner than coal or oil on its own, it still pollutes in much the same way as fossil fuels. At best it mitigates the problem but it doesn't make it go away.
Half of all human-edible food produced today is wasted
Which is a problem but one that alcohol fuel production isn't going to solve or improve.
Second, it has NOTHING to do with soil quality.
If you read what I wrote I said that soil quality was a minor factor. (Though I disagree that soil quality is completely unimportant)
Yeah, except for all those ethanol plants which could easily be converted to methanol production.
Great. Even if we converted them all today (which isn't easy or cheap), now you are up to 14 billion gallons and the electricity needed to run the biorefineries mostly comes from fossil fuels, especially coal. Furthermore starch derived ethanol is a very different process than cellulose derived ethanol. Plants can be converted but it's not nearly as trivial as you make it sound. Obviously we CAN create production capacity but I see little evidence so far that we should.
Methanol can be made from perennial crops which can be harvested economically with little to no inputs.
Perennial crops still need water, pest control, harvesting, tending, processing, and some amount of fertilizing, ALL of which require oil and other petroleum products. Methanol would likely be a big improvement on ethanol but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of eliminating the need for oil inputs and it's not even clear if it would get the need for such inputs below the energy output of the methanol produced. I don't have any problem with using methanol as a fuel source (at least no more than any fossil fuel) but so far the thermodynamics and economics of it just don't seem to make any sense other than as a supplemental or byproduct source of bio-fuel. Replace oil? Not going to happen.
Without tillage, such crops can be raised on lands which are currently considered marginal or unusable for conventional row-cropping. So methanol (unlike ethanol) would not compete with food crops at all.
It might help a bit at the edges but there are reasons we don't use those locations beyond just the soil quality. Difficult landscapes, poor irrigation, remote locations, etc. And if there is money to be had, it will compete with food crops to some degree. The only question is how much.
It already is produced at industrial scale. It's one of the most common "industrial" chemicals on the market. Unfortunately, a good chunk is currently produced from natural gas
A "good chunk"? Try the vast majority. There is essentially no industrial scale bioreactor on anything close to the scale relevant here. Right now the total capacity for methanol production in the US is 2.6 billion gallons annually, most of which is made from natural gas. Compare that with the 133 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in 2012. That doesn't even count diesel and other fuel products from oil.
PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different, applications written for one would, generally, not work on the other.
They are both computers and the functions they serve are no different at all That's like saying a PC and a Mac are fundamentally different because their software was incompatible. The mere fact that software written at the time for one wouldn't work on the other could not be less important. What is important is the job they did. PCs gradually took over all the jobs we once used mini-computers for and the companies that built to those products went away. DEC was bought by Compaq, etc. Companies that come late to the party on the new technology often (though not always) have a hard time catching up. Intel underestimated the growth of mobile chips and now is scrambling to catch up to ARM and it isn't clear if they will succeed. And if Intel is having a hard time I can't see AMD having an easier time of it.
When low end tablets become more powerful: AMD has the products to just slot in and take advantage.
Several flaws with that reasoning. 1) Other companies have competing products already and AMD would have to provide a compelling reason to switch from their competitors who already are in place. Displacing an existing customer relationship is difficult at the best of times. 2) AMD products generally do not have any significant and lasting technological advantage over their competitors. 3) AMD is not the lowest cost producer (that would be Intel) and really cannot compete effectively on price. Intel can easily undercut them on price at almost any time and still make money doing it. 4) What is good enough now will not be good enough in a year and AMD's competitors products will improve in the mean time. Waiting for the market to come to them is a VERY dangerous strategy.
No, AMD is not locking itself out of this market.
There is a very good chance that they are. Given their sadly pathetic track record I'd inclined to be doubtful of their chances until shown evidence to the contrary. AMD has mostly made good products but they generally always seem to be a step behind the curve
The low end tablet market is sewn up by those selling ARM. So why should AMD compete ?
Because low end products have a way of supplanting high end products in time. PCs replaced most mini-computers even though initially they were inferior products. When was the last time you used a mini-computer? If AMD only competes at the high end of the market they run the risk of being slowly crushed as ARM chips become more capable over time. Intel recognizes this threat and is attempting to address it directly instead of pretending it doesn't exists. Even if they do stay at the high end of the market, it's unclear what if any advantage they have that will allow them to remain a product of choice there. Intel and others are perfectly capable of producing high end products too and Intel has a cost advantage over AMD as well.
Stuff like this is a big part of why AMD has remained something of an also-ran all these years.
Biodiesel or green diesel from waste fats are pure benefit, as are biofuels from algae.
Most biodiesel is essentially a by-product. It's a nice way to reduce waste and arguably worth doing but let's not pretend that there is enough to go around to really make a big dent in oil consumption overall. And NOTHING is "pure benefit". There are drawbacks to everything. Diesel isn't the cleanest burning fuel available and it has all the problems you get from any form of fossil fuel when it comes to pollution. Good? Yes. "Pure benefit"? Not remotely.
There is close to no industrial scale production of biofuels from algae so their benefit can hardly be objectively measured at this point.
Unfortunately, the best of them (Butanol) is being suppressed by BP and DuPont until such a time as they can control it completely.
Ahh, conspiracy theory rears its ugly head. Perhaps you might consider that using plant derived alcohols as fuel on a vast scale might simply be economically stupid? It's a lot more likely explanation.
There are better feedstocks than corn, for reasons of both environmental impact and efficiency, which also don't drive up food prices in international and domestic markets.
They still require arable land, oil, fertilizer, transport, tending, harvesting, refining and more. I've not seen any biofuel based on planting and harvesting crops that shows credible evidence of being more efficient than simply refining the oil directly. It sounds like a good idea (plants = green, right?) but once you account for the entire system it simply makes things more complicated and sometimes more polluting with no actual improvement at the end of the day. Sure there are plenty of better feedstocks than corn but at the end of the day that isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is establishing how oil->alcohol->fuel is more efficient and/or less polluting than oil->fuel directly. Any data that doesn't address that question is a waste of money, brains, oil and time.
Methanol would be a much better choice, since it can be made from any biomass, not just starch or sugar.
That does not the same thing as saying you can create a net energy increase from methanol or that once all factors are accounted for that it is less polluting than just refining oil directly. Modern agriculture essentially converts oil into crops - both from fertilizers (which are oil derived) as well as transport and planting/tending/harvesting. With ethanol/methanol you are converting the crops back into oil products. For that to make sense you have to establish that there is somehow a net usable energy gain and/or that it is net less polluting from the oil-alcohol-fuel cycle than the oil-fuel cycle. I've seen no credible evidence that the oil-alcohol-fuel process is in any way more efficient or less polluting on a net basis than just refining the oil directly to fuel.
Such a requirement would change the market. With millions of cars able to use it, gas station owners would start selling methanol on one or two pumps. This would effectively break the current monopoly that petroleum has on transportation fuel.
How do you think methanol would be produced at industrial scale? Farming at industrial scales requires oil and lots of it. It not only would not break the cycle there is a very strong potential it would make it less efficient and more polluting than it already is AND it would tie up arable land for fuel instead of food.
I think using ethanol is basically retarded. We're using fossil fuels to do a bunch of farming to produce a bunch of fossil fuels with lower energy density than the ones that went into the farming and doing so basically as a subsidy to corn farmers. Stupid policy.
That said:
1: HFCS. Enough said.
Which has exactly what to do with ethanol? HFCS is a function of price supports and import restrictions for sugar. HFCS is cheaper as a result. Take away the price supports and the need for HFCS will drop. All of this has precisely nothing to do with ethanol policy aside from the fact that corn growers benefit from both products.
I wish there were concrete figures if using for ethanol takes food out of hungry people's mouths.
Ethanol production isn't at such a level that it causes starvation. There is no lack of reasonably priced food in the USA (see obesity crisis) though in some cases there is a distribution problem.
Food prices sure jumped when ethanol was mandated in the US in gasoline.
Citation please. I oppose the use of ethanol as a mandated fuel but I've seen no evidence this has occurred. It's certainly *possible* but that's not the same thing.
3: Ethanol does a number on small engines.
Only engines that weren't designed for ethanol. Again, our ethanol is a dumb thing to use as a fuel for the most part but that doesn't mean it cannot be used without damaging a properly designed engine. It's old engines that weren't designed with ethanol in mind that are the problem. It's like dumping a small amount of diesel into a gasoline engine. Might run but it's not good for it.
Once. The first time, The Supreme court elected him 5-4.
He got plenty of votes from plenty of people outside of Texas. And the people RE-ELECTED him and there was no debate on that one. While I think that was a huge mistake, obviously enough people liked him well enough that he got to spend 8 years in the white house.
So by this time next year a couple thousand of those 4 million will be dead.
"Couple thousand"? By your own numbers we should expect around 360 murders (48/100,000*750,000), most of which will not occur anywhere near where most people actually go. Tens of thousands work downtown and Ford Field, Comerica Park, Joe Louis Arena, Detroit Institute of Art, Cobo Hall, Wayne State University, several casinos and quite a few other attractions are downtown. Few people ever have a problem. Get a clue.
There's a lot more to avoid in Detroit than the snow.
Why would I want to avoid either Detroit or the snow? Literally millions of people go to Detroit every year without any incident whatsoever. Most of Detroit City is no more dangerous than any other major metro area in the US. An most people DON'T LIVE IN DETROIT CITY.
Plus I like to ski and skate. Why would I avoid the snow?
I know what the weather is like, the last year that we lived there the first week in February the temperature never got above 10 below, and six months later the first week in August never got below 97 (even at night).
Wow. One week of cold and one week of hot. However did you manage to survive? [/sarcasm]
Wuss.
I'm sure that's true if you're counting traditional engineering fields, meaning not including software engineers. I'm not sure it would still be true if you included software
Not as much software as some other places but that is changing FAST. Cars are getting a lot of software these days and so is the equipment used to make them. Plus a lot of software companies have a presence in the area including Google and some other big names. University of Michigan produces a lot of pretty good software talent and places like Ann Arbor are great places to start tech ventures.
Software is just a small, though important, part of technology. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook hardly comprise the entirety of the technology universe.
It may not be as bad outside the city, but in my experience, it was nearly so.
Bullshit. Where did you live? Oakland, McComb an Washtenaw counties are all very nice places to live.
I take it the executives of these companies will be living somewhere the weather is livable and the food is decent.
The weather in Michigan is tremendous unless you are a complete wuss about a little snow. If you actually like to go outside the weather is terrific, particularly if you like boating. Never more than 80 miles from one of the Great Lakes anywhere in Michigan. In the summer I never been anyplace with better weather. Detroit Metro has about 4 million residents who think you are a big old wuss.
Furthermore there are terrific food establishments and markets in the Detroit Metro area. Roast, Zingermans, Eastern Market and lots lots more. There are high quality grocery stores and farmers markets everywhere. The fresh produce is tremendous.
Wanted: People who are smart enough to work in tech, but dumb enough to live in an unsafe place.
Wanted: People who are smart enough to work in tech AND smart enough to actually get facts before making stupid public statements.
Seriously, few people actually live in Detroit City and that isn't where most of the jobs are - most live outside and it's perfectly safe most places. I'm pretty sure there are neighborhoods in San Francisco and Boston and Austin that the tech workers avoid. No different in Detroit.